The Very Reverend Dr. Mark Hodges is kind of the all-American Orthodox priest. Fr. Mark is an archpriest in the OCA in Ohio with a record of service stretching back to 1995. Fr. Mark is a dedicated husband. He has been faithful to his wife for over 36 years. He still refers to her as his “sweetie.” Fr. Mark loves children. He and his wife have eight, including an autistic son the couple adopted at age 5 after he had been abandoned. Fr. Mark is a talented author who has written for LifeSiteNews and other news outlets. He also has skills in radio and has worked as a professor. Fr. Mark is absolutely dedicated to the cause of life. He is secretary to the Lima/Allen County Right to Life Chapter and has previously served on the Ohio Right to Life Education Committee.
In a saner time, Fr. Mark is the kind of man you would least expect to make international news by being suspended for three months from his priestly duties. But sanity appears to have fled the world of the “new normal” and taken reason along for the trip.
Fr. Mark was suspended by his bishop in the OCA Diocese of the Midwest for attending the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, D.C. on January 6th. He was spotted by a snitch church member in a video that was shared on social media. The snitch church member alerted Archbishop Paul that Fr. Mark had been at the rally in his Orthodox cassock. The rally, of course, was a perfectly legal expression of free speech protected by the First Amendment. Fr. Mark, in an article at LIfeSiteNews, explained his reason for being at the rally:
“The rally was advertised as an entirely peaceful protest for election transparency,” said Hodges. “To me and to nearly everyone I talked to at the rally, it wasn’t about Trump versus Biden, or Left versus Right, but about free and fair elections.”
It is quite common for Orthodox clergy, and the Church herself, to stand up for moral principles, even if they have been co-opted by politicians for their own ends. Fr. Mark’s concern that the 2020 election was neither free nor fair is hardly extremist. Polling indicates that 46% of all voters believe that fraud took place in the last presidential election. For Trump voters, that figure stands at 77%. That means that well over 50 million Americans (and possibly many millions more) agree with Fr. Mark’s concern that our electoral system has failed. That is a stunning number of people to have lost confidence in a system that relies on the consent of the governed to even function.
This situation cannot be rectified by merely dismissing the claims of fraud or by suppressing them. Trump voters are often derided as “deplorables” by the American elites who despise them. Deplorable or not, leaving that many millions of American citizens alienated from the political process threatens the very fabric of this nation. Given the stakes involved, a fair-minded observer can easily understand Fr. Mark’s desire to speak up for justice and accountability.
Fr. Mark did not take part in any illegal activity in Washington. No one even claims he did. In fact, when Fr. Mark encountered the trouble on Capitol Hill, he followed the way of Christ and tried to bring peace instead of conflict. In the same LifeSiteNews article, Fr. Mark explains his reaction to the small number of troublemakers at the Capitol:
“I went up to the police who were in riot gear, shushed one of the yellers and he shut up,” said Hodges. “I thanked the police for protecting the people of Washington, D.C., and for showing restraint.”
“I also apologized for the handful of screaming young men not showing restraint or self-control,” he added.
Hodges soon left the Capitol grounds as the bellicosity of troublemakers in the crowd escalated and mayhem ensued.
Fr. Mark never entered the Capitol Building, never participated in any violence, attempted to calm those causing trouble, expressed his thanks to the police, was at the rally for a legitimate reason, and left without breaking any laws or bringing any disrepute onto his priesthood. Please move along, there really is nothing to see here.
So when the “church member” reported Fr. Mark to the Archbishop, a short phone call should have ensued, after which this should have all been forgotten. Only that is not what happened. Archbishop Paul (Gassios) suspended Fr. Mark and suggested in a letter to the priest that he was “guilty by association.”
Is that our new standard for clergy? Even if you are innocent of any wrongdoing, merely being around evil doers is sufficient for you to be “guilty by association?”
What if we apply that standard to Archbishop Paul? On Facebook, the Archbishop keeps some strange company. One of his “Orthodox” FB friends is very active on Twitter under the handle “Theo.” She is a lesbian who identifies as transgender and attends a parish under Archbishop Paul. She openly tells those critical of her on Twitter to go ahead and inform her bishop about her queerness – as he already knows all about her and has said nothing. She is being communed openly, and proudly, at her local OCA parish under her chosen male name. Some of her Tweets are below.
The Archbishop has met “Theo” in person, so their connection extends beyond just social media. Neither His Eminence nor her parish priest appear to have ever counseled this mentally ill young woman to repent of her sins. She flaunts her queerness openly online and at her parish. Archbishop Paul seems quite “affirming” of this.
The friendship between Archbishop Paul and “Theo” is especially interesting since Fr. Mark believes that his suspension was actually the result of LGBT targeting. Two homosexual bloggers with links to the Orthodox Church have led the charge against Fr. Mark. The priest believes his participation in the rally was used as an opportunity to “cancel” him for his support of traditional Orthodox morality. Fr. Mark is active on social media, and characterizes his posts as “pro-life/anti-abortion, and pro-marriage/anti-LGBTQIA+ behaviors, and pro-gender sanity/anti-transgenderism, especially for minors.”
Hmmm… so Fr. Mark attends a rally on the 6th. On January 10th he is attacked on a blog run by a notoriously homosexual, excommunicated former priest who is trying to normalize same-sex relations within the Orthodox Church. On the 12th, Fr. Mark begins a suspension handed down by a reputedly “liberal” Archbishop who openly consorts with “queer” friends. So is all that related in some way…
How is “guilty by association” working out for you at this point, Your Eminence?
Archbishop Paul is not the only bishop that might have a problem with this new standard of guilt. Months before Fr. Mark wore his cassock to Washington, Archbishop Elpidophoros of the Greek Archdiocese proudly marched in a “Black Lives Matter” protest carrying a BLM sign.
“Black Lives Matter” is a Marxist organization whose goals are distinctly anti-Christian. While it does protest for police reform (a very worthy goal), its agenda is much broader. Among the policy positions BLM (as an organization) supports:
- Abortion on demand
- Implementation of Marxist economic policies
- Promotion of homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality
- Disruption of the nuclear family
Though the protest the Archbishop attended was peaceful, BLM and its allies led months of violent rioting that destroyed black neighborhoods and businesses while ending innocent black lives. BLM rioting, which even set fire to parts of downtown DC, was orders of magnitude greater than what happened at the Capitol Building.
In an interview shortly after he marched, His Eminence tried to justify his participation in the BLM protest by appealing to higher moral principles, “I know that some few are worried about some political associations, but, as a Church and as a Church leader, there is a responsibility to speak up and speak out for justice and the rule of law for all people.”
So Fr. Mark attends a protest to support free and fair elections (fundamental to the rule of law in a republic) and gets suspended. Months earlier, an Archbishop had attended a protest sponsored by a violent, anti-Christian Marxist organization in support of justice and the rule of law. The Archbishop got glowing press and speaking gigs at national events. Archbishop Elpidophoros better hope that this “guilty by association” standard never gets evenly applied or he might end up back in Turkey.
Father Mark Hodges appears to be a test case for this new type of “guilt.” The Faithful could very well be witnessing the birth of an “Orthodox cancel culture.” Fr. Mark is a typical, standard-issue American Christian conservative. The kind of person that prior to 2020 would have been considered completely normal. Until very recently, the fact that Father Mark has eight children would have gotten way more attention from the general public than his politics. If Fr. Mark can be “cancelled” on the basis of “guilty by association,” then any of us can.
There is no place for “guilty by association” within the Orthodox Church. We, the Faithful of the Orthodox Church, need to speak out firmly in support of fairness and mercy for Father Mark Hodges.
Please email / contact:
Archbishop Paul
Diocese of the Midwest
5037 W 83rd St
Burbank, IL 60459
Phone: +1 (312) 202-0420
chancery@domoca.org
Please remember to pray for Fr. Mark, and for all our parish priests. In the current “snitch” culture, a thankless and difficult job has become even more so. Each day our comment boards and emails contain stories of priests being disciplined on the basis of snitching by people they should have been able to trust. What priests post on social media, how they vote, their political philosophies, their mask habits, their sermons, the social events they attend – everything they do or say comes under scrutiny like never before.
May the Holy Trinity and the Most Holy Theotokos sustain Father Mark Hodges and all of his brother priests!
Nicholas – member of the Western Rite Vicariate, a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese in America, a COVID refugee from the Greek Archdiocese
Reading this article and then reading the comments convinces me that traditionally minded people, and people who try to live and believe like an Orthodox Christian, have no future in this country except one of persecution, cancelation, and being sidelined to the extreme margins. Incidentally, that us exactly the policy Emperor Julian took with the church.
It is a disgrace at how “tolerant” Orthodox Christians are– they tolerate everything except Orthodoxy. I’m sure they know how to bow correctly and prostrate like a professional cleric. But really, if that is all it is then it is a disgraceful show.
I’m in Abp Paul’s diocese. I hesitate to leave because my kids are connected with other kids at church. If Fr. Mark is removed I will likely go to another jurisdiction regardless. But I will cross (or burn) that bridge when I get there.
What I feel certain of is that we are entering a dangerous Era when the church is turning on itself, and families are turning on themselves (people turning in their parents and grandparents for their part in the “insurrection”!). and humanly speaking the future is very dark. They destroyed statues Lst summer but we all know what they really want is to destroy our lives morally, spiritually, and physically any way they can. After all these people want our kids on hormones and mutilated or aborted at jump street. And these left wing types are masquerading as Christians? Orthodox Christians?!!! Lord, Have mercy because these types will certainly have none.
Nicholas and Editorial Staff:
Keep up the “good fight.” I’d like to share some ‘reflections’ on current “cancel culture” and advice-warning from Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
Doxa to Theo, John
‘Live not by lies’ Alexander Solzhenitsyn counseled us – “So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood—of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies—or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.” –Live Not By Lies Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn penned this essay in 1974 and it circulated among Moscow’s intellectuals at the time. It is dated Feb. 12, the same day that secret police broke into his apartment and arrested him. The next day he was exiled to West Germany. The essay is a call to moral courage and serves as light to all who value truth. –Article Introduction [See the full text at the end of this reflection.]
Alexander Solzhenitsyn has become – is –one of my favorite authors. In one of his books, the first volume of Gulag Archipelago, he wrote about how the communists in Russia, who consisted of foreign dissident Jews and a tiny minority of Russian criminals, amoral opportunists, and welfare rabble were able to maintain their grip on all of Russia by keeping the Russian majority, which hated them, too frightened to resist.
Solzhenitsyn writes of the period in 1934 and 1935, when the Jewish commissar Genrikh Yagoda headed the Soviet secret police, and Yagoda’s black vans went out every night in St. Petersburg, known then as Leningrad, to round up “class enemies”: former members of the aristocracy, former civil servants, former businessmen, former teachers and professors and professional people, any Russian — any real Russian — who had graduated from a university. A quarter of the population of the city was arrested and liquidated by Yagoda during this two-year period.
And Solzhenitsyn laments that the citizens of St. Petersburg cowered behind their doors when the black vans pulled up at their apartment houses night after night to arrest their neighbors. If only the decent Russians had fought back, Solzhenitsyn says, if only they had ambushed some of these secret police thugs in the hallways of their apartments with knives and pickaxes and hammers, if only they had spiked the tires of the police vans while the thugs were in the apartments dragging out their victims, they could easily have overwhelmed Yagoda’s forces and forced an end to the mass arrests. But they didn’t fight back, and the arrests and liquidations continued. And so, Solzhenitsyn concludes, because of their cowardice and their selfishness the Russians deserved what the communists did to them.
Perhaps some of you will read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, and then perhaps you will begin to understand the reason why the Russian people fell victim to the tiny communist minority was not just their cowardice but also their unwillingness to take responsibility for the welfare of their families and their neighbors and to stand together as decent Russians against the Soviet leaders and the rabble. And perhaps you will begin to see the parallel between what happened in Russia in the 1930s and what is happening in America now as predicted by Solzhenitsyn’s [and Bl. Fr. Seraphim of Platina] warnings nearly fifty years ago.
Each one of us has to figure out the difference between prudence or reasonable caution on the one hand and cowardice or unreasoning fear on the other hand. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice is. The times we are living in tend to make cowards of us all –me included. We are pressed to make moral compromises every day, and it becomes a habit. For all practical purposes we are living like a conquered people under an enemy occupation government. We adjust our behavior in order to get by without a lot of trouble. We do not act heroically, because heroism is out of fashion. We try to do what is prudent rather than what is heroic.
Or… are we willing to be heroic and “live not by lies” and if required of us, die for Truth and Beauty
Live Not by Lies Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn penned this essay in 1974 and it circulated among Moscow’s intellectuals at the time. It is dated Feb. 12, the same day that secret police broke into his apartment and arrested him. The next day he was exiled to West Germany. The essay is a call to moral courage and serves as light to all who value truth.
At one time we dared not even to whisper. Now we write and read samizdat, and sometimes when we gather in the smoking room at the Science Institute we complain frankly to one another: What kind of tricks are they playing on us, and where are they dragging us? Gratuitous boasting of cosmic achievements while there is poverty and destruction at home. Propping up remote, uncivilized regimes. Fanning up civil war. And we recklessly fostered Mao Tse-tung at our expense—and it will be we who are sent to war against him, and will have to go. Is there any way out? And they put on trial anybody they want and they put sane people in asylums—always they, and we are powerless.
Things have almost reached rock bottom. A universal spiritual death has already touched us all, and physical death will soon flare up and consume us both and our children—but as before we still smile in a cowardly way and mumble without tongues tied. But what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength?
We have been so hopelessly dehumanized that for today’s modest ration of food we are willing to abandon all our principles, our souls, and all the efforts of our predecessors and all opportunities for our descendants—but just don’t disturb our fragile existence. We lack staunchness, pride and enthusiasm. We don’t even fear universal nuclear death, and we don’t fear a third world war. We have already taken refuge in the crevices. We just fear acts of civil courage.
We fear only to lag behind the herd and to take a step alone-and suddenly find ourselves without white bread, without heating gas and without a Moscow registration.
We have been indoctrinated in political courses, and in just the same way was fostered the idea to live comfortably, and all will be well for the rest of our lives. You can’t escape your environment and social conditions. Everyday life defines consciousness. What does it have to do with us? We can’t do anything about it?
But we can—everything. But we lie to ourselves for assurance. And it is not they who are to blame for everything—we ourselves, only we. One can object: But actually toy can think anything you like. Gags have been stuffed into our mouths. Nobody wants to listen to us and nobody asks us. How can we force them to listen? It is impossible to change their minds.
It would be natural to vote them out of office—but there are not elections in our country. In the West people know about strikes and protest demonstrations—but we are too oppressed, and it is a horrible prospect for us: How can one suddenly renounce a job and take to the streets? Yet the other fatal paths probed during the past century by our bitter Russian history are, nevertheless, not for us, and truly we don’t need them.
Now that the axes have done their work, when everything which was sown has sprouted anew, we can see that the young and presumptuous people who thought they would make out country just and happy through terror, bloody rebellion and civil war were themselves misled. No thanks, fathers of education! Now we know that infamous methods breed infamous results. Let our hands be clean!
The circle—is it closed? And is there really no way out? And is there only one thing left for us to do, to wait without taking action? Maybe something will happen by itself? It will never happen as long as we daily acknowledge, extol, and strengthen—and do not sever ourselves from the most perceptible of its aspects: Lies.
When violence intrudes into peaceful life, its face glows with self-confidence, as if it were carrying a banner and shouting: “I am violence. Run away, make way for me—I will crush you.” But violence quickly grows old. And it has lost confidence in itself, and in order to maintain a respectable face it summons falsehood as its ally—since violence lays its ponderous paw not every day and not on every shoulder. It demands from us only obedience to lies and daily participation in lies—all loyalty lies in that.
And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.
This opens a breach in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the easiest thing to do for us, but the most devastating for the lies. Because when people renounce lies it simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism.
We do not exhort ourselves. We have not sufficiently matured to march into the squares and shout the truth our loud or to express aloud what we think. It’s not necessary.
It’s dangerous. But let us refuse to say that which we do not think.
This is our path, the easiest and most accessible one, which takes into account out inherent cowardice, already well rooted. And it is much easier—it’s dangerous even to say this—than the sort of civil disobedience which Gandhi advocated.
Our path is to walk away from the gangrenous boundary. If we did not paste together the dead bones and scales of ideology, if we did not sew together the rotting rags, we would be astonished how quickly the lies would be rendered helpless and subside.
That which should be naked would then really appear naked before the whole world.
So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood—of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies—or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.
And from that day onward he:
• Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
• Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
• Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
• Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
• Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
• Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
• Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question. Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
• Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed. Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.
No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.
But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.
And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul—don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general—let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.
Even this path, which is the most modest of all paths of resistance, will not be easy for us. But it is much easier than self-immolation or a hunger strike: The flames will not envelope your body, your eyeballs, will not burst from the heat, and brown bread and clean water will always be available to your family.
A great people of Europe, the Czechoslovaks, whom we betrayed and deceived: Haven’t they shown us how a vulnerable breast can stand up even against tanks if there is a worthy heart within it?
You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is the only one for a soul. Not, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.
So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.
If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. Let us then bow down even more, let us wail, and our brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.
And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:
Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?
Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.
Posted: 2004________________________________________
Copyright © 2001-2016 OrthodoxyToday.org. All rights reserved. Any reproduction of this article is subject to the policy of the individual copyright holder. Follow copyright link for details.
Article link: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/SolhenitsynLies.php
I am going to leave a comment here, but I am NOT going to leave my name. Why, you may ask? Because I am an Orthodox priest. You may call me a coward if you want to. That’s OK with me. I am writing anonymously because I cannot trust my fellow priests OR lay people OR the hierarchs. On a few occasions I have made comments about injustices done to priests by their bishops and was then threatened by my bishop. The priest was guilty of simply speaking the truth. Guilty of speaking the truth about what the Scriptures teach, guilty for asking questions of the bishops about their compromises with sin, their turning a blind-eye to the scandalous behaviors of wealthy, politically connected laypeople who support abortion and gay marriage and family members who live in open homosexual relationships. There are many hundreds of priests who are afraid to speak the truth because if they do their hierarch will suspend them, or remove them from their parish. In other words, deprive them of their livelihood! There are many good and pious priests who are trying to care for their people and protect them from the secularist agenda of the present political administration. Instead of being supported by their bishops they are censured, ridiculed and labeled as bigots, racists, narrow-minded, malcontents, trouble-makers and rabble-rousers. They are labeled and therefore marginalized I am fearful of the very people who I should trust, but I can’t. If liberal-minded laypeople don’t turn in the priests they despise then other priests will “throw them under the bus.” We are becoming like the Orthodox Church in Russia, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, when people would turn in others to the church authorities and political authorities for whatever reasons suited them. We are truly living in the “last days” If not the last days before our Lord’s return, then certainly the last days of our American liberty and republic.
So if anyone e-mails Bishop Paul a Fr. Alexander replies by explaining that Hodges is not suspended for attending the insurrection.
Which means Hodges and his followers are not telling the truth. That they are obfuscating the matter in order to create the illusion is some kind of a hero. When he isn’t.
So – he is suspended for, what exactly?
I am very saddened by this website of anonymous posters who claim to be doing the work of Christ. This website is dangerous to Orthodoxy. It is dangerous to the faithful and those seeking the church. I’m very disturbed by this gossip site touted as “spreading the gospel.” What do you really think your political messaging hidden by an “Orthodox” brand will do for the Church? All I see is a divisive controversial site that has left all Orthodox sensibilities. There’s a reason you hide yourself more than just “cancel culture.” Secrets keep us sick. And the authors of this publication are very very ill. I pray you turn away from posting these hateful, unorthodox articles and seek guidance.
-Presbytera Jessica
Notice that you are not being censored. Nor is anyone else who disagrees with us. Please see our response below that we emailed you:
Greetings Presbytera –
We are certainly sorry to hear that our Orthodox Reflections site makes you sad. We do have some questions, however, to better understand your point of view.
You state that our story on Fr. Mark is abusive to Katarina / Theo. Abusive how? Theo is an out lesbian and transgender who puts her “queerness” on display for the entire world on Twitter and communes under her male name at her parish. In one of her Tweets, she lamented that her weak hands reduce her lesbian “cred.” That was followed up by a Tweet about how liturgy was the previous Sunday. She Tweets about her life, and about her relationship to the Archbishop. Is it because we believe her, and all other transgender people, to be mentally ill? We didn’t make anything up and we did not invade her privacy as her Twitter account is very public. So if you would be so kind as to explain how we were abusive to her, then it would be much appreciated.
You also stated we were abusive to the Archbishop. We are afraid we don;t see that either. A “guilty by association” standard could be used against your husband in the future. It certainly was used against Christ, as you remember. Political winds change, so do governing bishops. If you managed to get a conservative Metropolitan in the GOA, would you want this kind of standard applied to your husband or to you? The point of the article was not to accuse the Archbishop of anything, but to highlight how quickly “guilty by association” could escalate. Your social media friends, the platforms you use, the people you are friendly with IRL – any of that can end up being used against you if mere “association” is evidence of guilt.. We do not support that at all. If the Archbishop has another set of reasons for his actions, then that is all well and good. No one is saying the Archbishop can’t discipline a priest. What is not good is “guilty by association.” That is a standard that should never be used on a cleric, your husband included. And we mean that sincerely for all priests, “left,” “right,” and “center.”
Now, as the article plainly stated and has been stated in other articles on our blog, whether you agree that voter fraud occurred or whether you think it is silly – over 50 million Americans believe it is likely that the election was stolen from Trump. If you read the article, then you are aware of what was said in this regard. This is an impossibly huge number that needs to be addressed. In a previous political era, the Democrats would have graciously set up a bipartisan commission that would have spent the next two – four years studying election security, and procedures. During hearings of the commission, everyone on all sides would be allowed to vent, present evidence, etc. The commission would then issue a set of solemn recommendations, some good and some fluff, and then in a piecemeal fashion they would have been implemented through the legislative process.
Case closed, situation resolved. The fact that the political Left in this country is instead choosing the route of denial, censorship, and insult is a poor choice. Do not continue down that road, please. It leads to bad places. Almost half the likely voters in this country do not deserve such treatment. Follow a process, fix the most egregious problems, then move on. It is called “politics” and the goal in a republic is to use politics to defuse conflict, not exacerbate it.
You say our site is full of gossip and hate. Okay, what would you consider that has been written on the site to be “gossip?” If you can point to something for which no evidence exists, then we will gladly remove it. What do you consider to be “hate?” Who do we “hate?”
Look, we don’t know where your husband serves, but you seem immeasurably out of touch. We get emails and comments daily from people who do not agree with you (and probably your husband and even your Metropolitan) politically, morally, or theologically. These emails and comments thank us for our perspective on these issues. People who disagree with the standard liberal Greek, globalist politics exist. The liberal/elitist/globalist pronouncements coming from the GOA and quite a few other jurisdictions are absolutely not speaking to them. They are by and large social and religious conservatives, and they absolutely exist within Orthodoxy whether you recognize that or not. Many are college educated, but not at elite schools and are frequently only one generation away from blue collar work. Many blue collar workers feel similarly. They are, most likely, not part of your daily existence. Most GOA parishes we have either belonged to or visited tended to be higher income and better educated than the average American. But please be advised, we have personal friends who are GOA priests who absolutely cringe every time Archbishop Elpidophoros speaks. And one of them has contributed to the site….
Our site is not pushing those people away from the Church or from God. Rather, by giving vent to their frustrations we are encouraging them to stick with the Faith. They feel like at least someone is listening and someone is standing up for them. Did you stop and consider that the standard Greek liberal positions are pushing people away as well? Just different people that, unfortunately, you may not want in the Church. How can we bridge that gap?
Notice what you did by encouraging us to take down our site? You immediately went to “cancel.” Our views are unworthy and so deserve to be silenced. You are absolutely right, we are absolutely wrong, and you get to judge that. You would never judge “Theo” for her queerness, but you feel entitled to judge conservative views and call for them to be taken down. That is the default position of what is, most likely, your brand of doctrinal liberalism/globalism. We don’t expect to persuade you of anything, as that is likely impossible. All that we ask is – please at least try to engage in honest debate and critique in which you extend good faith to the other side and at least try to understand what they think and why.
Please ask your husband to pray for us.
In Christ,
The Orthodox Reflections Staff
This is not an Orthodox publication. This is a gossip site dedicated to criticizing the hierarchy and pushing your far-right agenda. I am appalled. You are leading your readers into temptation with your political agenda hidden under an Orthodox brand… it is poison to the Church and to every reader. How dare you use an innocent lay person as a weapon against the Archbishop. This is evil. Your “works” here are causing immeasurable harm. And the fact you hide yourselves proves just how unholy this website is. Secrets keep us sick. And the authors of this site are very ill and should seek healing from the Church, remove yourself from this act of infecting the faithful with your unorthodox views.
You definitely need some psychiatric / psychological evaluations Jessica because you’re not making sense and causing more and more problems for the Orthodox Church.
Anaxios to both your husband and you!!
YES I BELONG TO THE GREEK ORTHODOX ARCHDIOCESE OF AMERICA AND NEITHER YOU NOR YOUR HUSAND THE PRIEST HAVE THE RIGHT SILENCE ME!!!
I’m going to e-mail the bishop to tell he did the right in suspending Hodges and to ignore your e-mails.
Why specifically do you think that suspending Fr. Mark is the right thing to do? What did he do to merit that?
It turns out that he’s not in trouble for attending the insurrection. That this would-be hit piece is deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
So, what are the facts? And why is this a hit piece?
Have you written the Ecumenical Patriarch to recommend the same treatment for Archbishop Elpidophoros? Or are you one of those who believe that Orthodox clergy only have the right to march for the political left and not the right?
Good point, actually.
The sleazy lawyer tactic tactic. Change the subject when things aren’t going well.
This is isn’t about Archbishop Elpidophoros.
Did Archbishop Elpidophoros March with an anti-Christian Marxist organization that rioted in multiple cities, and did you object to that? And if not, why is that not important?
So you’re on Gab and Telegram platforms crawling with Nazis. Color me not shocked that an anonymous blogger would hide on those forums.
Fwiw, numerous people reached out to Hodge’s bishop about his being at that rally AND about his FB page with routinely violated OCA conduct standards regarding clergy on social media.
Hodges was also basically removed from his last parish because of his toxic nature as a pastor.
He’s not being persecuted. He behaved in a manner unbecoming of a priest and has for years. Behaviour has consequences. And this is the consequence of years and years of toxicity shown by Hodges.
It is impossible to script this level of irony. You respond to an article that decries “guilty by association” by specifically applying that standard to us based on the social media sites we use since Parler was closed and Twitter threatened us. Do you not see the irony in that?
If you look through the site, you will note that quite a few authors do sign their complete names. Those are the ones who are proof against “cancel culture.” The others don’t use their full names primarily because, and we get this vibe from you, anyone taking offense is going to hunt down their employers, their med school, their biggest clients (for those of us who are self-employed) and do everything in their power to “cancel.” Our med student that helps out with the site is still on probation because a group of feminists tried to get him expelled. They didn’t like an anti-abortion article he did. It is a sad fact of life in the modern world that to be heard in the public realm means to be anonymous, or to be a leftist. Leftists get promoted, not cancelled. If you disagree with an article, feel free to complain here or on Twitter (if you prefer). We do not censor negative comments.
Now as for NAZIs. Do you really mean that? Do you really think that some millions of your fellow Americans are actually National Socialists? We want to take power, put our rivals in camps, then goosestep around cartelizing the economy while we shred the Constitution? What article on our Website would you consider “NAZI?” Phrases like that are tossed around not to debate, but to stop debate. That is how we got here in the first place. The name calling needs to end, and we need to actually start talking to each other, or really bad things will ensue at some point down the road. If you look at the site, like this article for example: https://orthodoxreflections.com/the-divorce-of-american-conservatism-and-the-national-security-intelligence-state/
You will notice that we are pro-civil liberties and antiwar. Most of us are veterans, by the way, and we reject foreign intervention. If we don’t want to kill innocent foreigners, we certainly don’t want to harm our neighbors. Those are very unusual attitudes for NAZIs don’t you think? And they are very common attitudes for people on every social media site we post articles on. Please stop calling names and actually debate issues. That is how compromises are found and good will generated.
We reached out as well, and got nothing but a “thank you for your concern.” Does anyone have anything they can share? What specifically was it about his FB page that was in violation? And are the social media rules being enforced against leftists? So, for example, if a priest in the diocese pushes remedies to “systemic racism” or is “affirming” – would that priest also be suspended or counseled? Was Fr. Mark warned in advance about social media? Are we looking at a mismatch between a conservative priest and a liberal diocese? If Fr. Mark were, say, in Texas would he still be facing this? These are legitimate questions that need to be addressed to put this to bed.
Do you have any evidence of that?
Define “toxic?” What was he doing that was “toxic?” We had a priest in the local OCA that broke up a marriage by fornicating with a mother of five kids on parish grounds on a regular basis. He was eventually, after a period of penance, restored to the priesthood only the mess up again. Are we talking about that level? What are we really talking about with Fr. Mark? What did he do that was “toxic?” Sure behavior matters, but so do facts. Merely offending someone is not necessarily “toxic.” The person (people) might needed to be offended for their own good. So what are the details as they matter quite a bit.
Why am I not surprised that, in order to attack someone’s character, you felt the need to slander their belonging to the LGBTQ community. Be assured that the active, destructive, and divisive campaign of you and others to eliminate LGBTQ people from the fold of Christ AND your and others’ attempts to monopolize salvation around a small, puritanical community of self-righteous Pharisees will ultimately fail. Because goodness and love always win, and Jesus, who welcomes with open arms Hodges (even in the midst of his fake news campaign) and Theo, will have the final say.
You should also note, before enacting vengeful smear campaign, the full story as to why Hodges was suspended. It didn’t just have to do with his presence in the capital before the riot, but long-standing issues concerning his social media presence as well as his interactions with the community at large.
Everyone who was referenced as homosexual is publicly out. Who were we supposed to have slandered? And, since you support homosexuality – why would you consider that to be slander anyway? Are you acknowledging that being a practicing homosexual is not a source of pride? We also take exception to the concept of such “queer” individuals being a “community.” You can’t build a community around a shared sin. We may as well talk about the “BDSM” community or the “swinger community” or the alcoholic community. See my point? None of those are actual communities, unless perhaps you have a support group for people trying to recover from such addictions. But those wallowing in that sin are not a “community” they are sinners in need of redemption. If you think we insinuated that Archbishop Paul is homosexual, that is not at all the case. The article is against “guilty by association.” We were highlighting how destructive it is to apply that standard, and that it can cut many ways. It is not appropriate.
Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom we are chief. We are not trying to monopolize anything, especially since we aren’t God. We can’t save or condemn anyone. We are not saying or implying anything that is not Orthodox doctrine. Active homosexuality is incompatible with being a communing member of the Orthodox Church. Same applies to a multitude of sins. Unless a homosexual is repentant and is attempting to live a Godly life, it is best not to commune them but rather to call them to repentance. From your comments, we can assume that you believe same-sex activity is compatible with Orthodoxy. It isn’t and never has been. That is not “puritanical” it is simply a fact. We are not fans of Puritans. Much of what is wrong with the country today is absolutely due to their influence and that of their intellectual descendants.
God is love, so your comment is true. And Jesus welcomes the repentant sinner with open arms. Hopefully, Theo will repent. Fr. Mark is in need of repentance the same as the rest of us at all times. Now, as for a “fake news campaign,” do you have any evidence that Fr. Mark is conducting a “fake news” campaign?
Who was smeared? “Guilty by association” is the ultimate smear, and the whole point of the article is to reject that. Archbishop Paul should not use that phrase, we do not need to adopt that concept. Archbishop Paul should not be judged on the basis of his social media friends, nor should Fr. Mark be judged because some morons did things near where he was legally standing. What about his social media presence and what about his interactions with the community? Are we essentially dealing with a conservative priest who is mismatched in a liberal area of the country and a liberal diocese? In other words, does the attempt to cancel him predate the march and it was really nothing more than (as implied in the article) the opportunity that was seized? If you want to elaborate on your comments, would love to hear what you have to say.
Fr. Hodges is a poor and deluded man who simply fell victim to propaganda and joined a protest whose explicit goal was to overturn the election. This is why it is dangerous to associate yourself with extremist fringe be e beliefs such as those espoused by Donald Trump. As a priest he should have known that truth ab facts are not up for “majority vote” and he shouldn’t have fallen in with violent extremists. This is sad but there are worse things that can happen to a man. He followed a lie and we must “live not by lies”
If Fr Mark is deluded, then he is joined by over 50 million other Americans. Which is a point forcefully made in the article. At this point, almost half the voting-age public does not believe our system of elections is free and fair. Now if that is delusion, then it is remarkably widespread and needs to be dealt with in a bi-partisan manner. Calling it a delusion, ignoring it, or suppressing it will not work to heal the political divide. Such tactics deepen the rift and result in a much greater long term problem. We don’t understand the term “fringe” in relation to around 74 million plus people who voted for Donald Trump. “Fringe” in what regard? Are using terms like that actually helping the debate? Trump’s primary political appeal was a form of populism. His issues predated him and will survive his presidency. At one time in our history, winning an election this narrowly would have resulted in the Democratic Party seeking to “co-opt” as many of his issues as possible so as to set up for the next election. What is happening now is unprecedented. All the issues are being ignored, defamed, and the people who hold those opinions attacked. Not a good way to go forward. As for facts, there are a couple of graphics about half-way down this article that encapsulate how statistically shocking it is that Biden won legitimately: https://orthodoxreflections.com/conservatives-remember-what-can-happen-when-you-lose/
It is not impossible, of course, but those who are asking for investigations are doing so in good faith. At one point in our history, a commission would have been set up and it would have recommended compromise voting reforms that would have quelled the issue and gotten us back on track. The fact that it is practically impossible for this to occur right now is a serious issue.
OCA should cancel it’s name. A few suggestions for a new name: Orthodox Church of Communism, Church of 51 shades, Orthodox Church of evil (“who is not with Me is against Me”).
What’s *your* contact information? Nothing like blogging under semi-anonymity and raising up a crowd against the bishop. Speaking of which, who is *your* bishop? How does *he* feel about you rabble rousing and pretending to be pious by doing so?
Well, you had no problem contacting us. We are also available on Gab, Twitter, and Telegram. Nicholas signed the article with his jurisdiction, so you know his bishop. Feel free to contact him. We used to publish our full names, but that was before our medical student contributor almost got tossed out of his school because he offended some feminists who wanted him cancelled. Cancel culture is a thing, but as you are aware, no one is calling for Archbishop Paul to be cancelled, nor could we if we wanted to. Asking him to be fair and merciful is hardly a mob action. As you noticed, we published your comment. We have no problem with criticism. Feel free to write a response, we will run it as an article. We abhor censorship. As for pious, Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom we are chief.
Pedro, please identify the person who wrote the slanderous allegations against Fr. Hodges. I would like to know for transparency purposes.