Anonymous wrote:This is not a new phenomenon at all, it’s just new to the writers at the New York Times. I grew up in a Russian church and we did attract a lot of handsome young men who were lost souls and were sort of attracted to the authoritarian nature of Orthodoxy. I think they found us through their own reading and search for meaning, since this was before the internet was so prevalent. Pretty entertaining for me as a teen.
Most of them drop off fairly quickly but some stayed and I think had relatively normal lives. This is another thing being I guess enhanced by the internet where these guys can all find each other.
The article made these guys sound like a bunch of incel losers which is probably only about half true. And while I disagree with a lot of practices in the Orthodox Church, it’s generally a pretty wholesome environment and probably healthier for these men than wherever else they would have ended up.
Me again, and I wanted to flag the article for something else- it suggests that Orthodox churches are Conservative as in politically conservative and the reality is a lot more complicated.
For one thing, Orthodox churches have their roots in different countries and different leaders. The Russian church is not the same as the Antiochian church or the Greek Church or the Coptic church or the Armenian church. There are a lot of differences and internal political drama at any given time. In the past, American parishes tended to be aggressively apolitical, as in the leadership historically refused to take political stances on abortion or anything else.
However, because the Antiochian church has its roots in Syria and Palestine, there is obviously a political element there, but it’s usually in the form of sending charity to Palestine and Syria. Some denominations and wayward priests (like the one in the article) also went to the dark side and had leaders who supported Trump, which has been so upsetting to me. But in general they have stayed apolitical.