Talk:Seraphim (Rose)

Category

Do you really think he ought to be in Category:American Saints? He's not been officially canonized by anyone and is still quite recent. —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 13:36, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)

"[H]e is (prematurely) celebrated by some Orthodox Christians as a saint" -- I think he can be considered to be in the category of "American Saints" whether or not he is officially recognized as a saint. As you say, he is recent, so the status of his canonization may change. I hardly think adding him to the orthodoxwiki category will effect his canonization. Apologies if I am mistaken. --magda 14:36, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Yes, quite likely not!  :) I was just wondering. I can't remember where the initial bit about his being celebrated comes from, though, especially it being "in liturgy." I wonder who has the daring to celebrate someone liturgically whom their hierarchy has not yet openly glorified? —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 14:45, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Of course, all saints must be prematurely celebrated as such for the canonization to occur in the first place. Of course, full liturgical glorfiication should only come with episcopal blessing. Fr. John

Homosexuality issue

I'd like to weigh in on the article mentioning that Father Serafim was a homosexual in his youth before converting to Orthodoxy. First of all I'd like to question the sources. There is no mention of this in his biography from Platina. This is not what you think about when you remember Father Serafim! To my mind this is like revealing someone's confession! He overcame so much and is such a wonderful example for us! We who have great reverence for him are pretty upset! No one but God and one's father confessor has a right to information like that..and splashed all over the internet no less!

There is always a balance we have to strike between reporting significant historical facts and the good and useful traditions of hagiography (and of course the line is somewhat blurred since Fr. Seraphim is not canonized). I don't think that the homosexuality passage is something which is required for this article. Its origins are from whatever source the Wikipedia article used (as this is an import). My guess is that it's this article: http://www.pomona.edu/Magazine/PCMSP01/saint.shtml

It's possible that the article draws on sections from the book of his letters published by his niece (who interestingly enough recently showed up on Wikipedia and added edits to the article there).

I would have no problem removing the passage. It may be more difficult to get the folks over at Wikipedia to do so, though. —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 23:29, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I can see why it would scandalize and turn off some, but I know, at least in the circles I inhabit, that this kind of testimony to the possibility for conversion is sorely needed. I really don't think it takes anything away from Fr. Seraphim's greatness, but only adds to it (or rather the manifestation of God's greatness in him). Fr. John

Father, I agree. I read this article the other day, having not heard anything much about him, and was inspired by his victory over this sin. I felt that it added to his testimony to God's grace. The Bible certainly is not shy about letting us know the dark side of many of the Saints. That being said, I understand the initial concern. I don't believe confession should be taken lightly and gossip is never a good thing. The fact of the matter is that now it is public knowledge and I guess should be addressed in some way. --Joe Rodgers 00:16, 30 Jun 2005 (EDT)

This could and should have been dealt with in a single line, similar to the beginning of one of the accounts of the life of St. Vladimir the Enlightener: Concerning his life before his baptism, it is best that we retain a discreet silence. Enough said.

Hi Fr. Greogry,

I would like to hear more about why you think this is the case. It has always seemed to me that we need to be honest about our saints -- their background and struggles. If we too easily place them on a pedestal, we remove their greatest triumph from them (because we fail to see the full glory of their triumph). Besides that, if this news is all over the internet, what good will it do us to hide it? Those from outside could accuse us of whitewashing. Like St. Paul, shouldn't we boast in our weaknesses that God may be glorified?

I don't think it is a scandal that Fr. Seraphim may have had a homosexual relationship befoe he became Orthodox. The article makes it clear that he left this lifestyle behind. There was repentance, acceptable to God, and no hypocrisy on his part.

I wonder if there's a generational difference here, too. It seems that previously homosexuality was something unspeakable. Now, it's being talked about all the time -- flashed over T.V., voted on in polls. Many say there's no real possibility of conversion for homosexuals, and homosexuality becomes for so many the defining aspect of their identity. Fr. Seraphim proves them wrong. What do you think? Thanks, Fr. John

I've de-emphasized the homosexuality material by means of cutting text and adjusting the headers. What do y'all think? —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 15:49, 1 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I think that's good, esp. cutting out the header. Maybe we should've left in whatever citations were there though, no? Fr. John

The quotes didn't really seem to add much to the article, but I'll add in a citation link after the section in question. —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 17:54, 1 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Regarding the different biographies of Fr. Seraphim, and especially his niece's discussion of him homosexuality, see http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/archives/025629.html. Fr. John

It seems this entire issue has been edited out of article completely rather recently - should it be put back in, given the prior discussion about its usefulness? See edit history: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Seraphim_%28Rose%29&diff=prev&oldid=108747 --Gzthompson 10:36, July 16, 2014 (PDT)

I'm restoring the information about homosexuality because of the previous discussion about its usefulness and the apparent decision that it should remain. There was no discussion on the talk page when the change was made indicating that it should be made, nor was there any justification posted for doing so. This is bad! So I'm putting it back. Also, the current version doesn't make any sense! It refers to "Gregerson" without any discussion of who Gregerson is - that material was excised. This is bad! --Gzthompson 19:45, August 29, 2014 (PDT)

uncompromised teachings of the Church?

The article states that Frs. Herman and Seraphim transmitted the uncompromised teachings of the Church on a number of different issues. There are many serious Orthodox writers who disagree with much of what these Fathers wrote on these topics. To maintain the wiki's NPOV standards, I would suggest that this statement be reworded without this assertion.

Kadj 06:25, May 13, 2006 (CDT)

Perhaps you have a way that this could be re-stated to maintain NPOV-MCB? --— by Pιsτévο ^{talk complaints} at 07:59, May 13, 2006 (CDT)

above comment by Kadj edited by PADRAEG, reversed by User:Pistevo

It is a generally accepted part of netiquette that one does not misrepresent another person's comments. Possibly because it hasn't been possible before, but a person's comments should never be changed by another person. This action can also be defamatory. If there was a superior way to phrase 'transmitted uncompromised teachings' (etc.) in the article, any given person is invited and asked to do this; a talk page is not the place for editing a genuine editor's work. — edited by Pιsτévο ^{talk complaints} at 01:01, September 9, 2006 (CDT)

Obviously User:PADRAEG agrees with Kadj's comment. It would be helpful to us if he could give some supporting evidence; examples of teachings which differ from historic Orthodoxy. Then this thread would be instructive rather than simply defamatory. Others could respond, and a real conversation could take place. — FrJohn (talk)

Father Seraphim did, to the end of his life, transmit the uncompromised teachings of the Church in the sense that the large majority of "his" works are really just made up of quotes from the saints and from the lives of saints. He really didn't say anything new, especially in the whole 'toll-houses' debate. In fact, most of his critics simply have not read through the book carefully enough, especially those who accuse him falsely of Platonism or Gnosticism. He openly states in the book that his position is based on the amount of available information from the fathers. Anyone who knew Father Seraphim (and MOST of his contemporaries, disciples, friends etc are alive today) knew that his entire purpose in writing was to translate and transmit information from the fathers. In short, the point of this little paragraph is this: there's more than enough evidence to suggest that this article is correct, at least as far as asserting that that was Father Seraphim's GOAL, and most people who have spent any serious amount of time researching Fr. Seraphim will agree that he did, in fact, accomplish that goal. I don't think there's a POV issue here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeraphimX (talk • contribs) .

Whether they are correct or thorough or not, there are enough fairly respectable critics of Fr. Seraphim's writings, especially on the toll houses, that it is not only worth mentioning them, but it is also not proper to label what Fr. Seraphim and Fr. Herman were doing as the "uncompromised teachings of the Church" in an unqualified way. I've moderated the language a bit. —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs (THINK!) 13:50, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

Why the world needs to know the truth on Fr. Seraphim

When I heard that Fr. Seraphim Rose *may* have been a homosexual, I was shocked, but at the same time very much intrigued. For many of us Orthodox Christians, we have come to view Fr. Seraphim as a modern example of the holiness as seen from the desert fathers. Granted there are many who argue and disagree with his theology, I being one of them, but theology aside I think we can all say that he was indeed a holy man, filled with God's grace. I think it is a bad thing that his real life is covered up. I beleive he was a homosexual, and if he really was, then I think that it should be written about. Why? Because as the Orthodox Church grows in numbers, it will ultimately have to face the critical eyes of the modern secular world. One of the most pressing issues facing religion is homosexuality. The Orthodox Church believes that homosexuality is a passion which can be overcome by Christ. We, the Orthodox Church, will need to use concrete examples of holy men (and women) whose homosexual tendencies were curbed by ascetic practice within the Church if we want to A) convince the world that the True Church is the Orthodox Church and B) To help those homosexuals already in the Church (and yes there are many) to be encouraged, inspired, and strengthed by the lives of those like Fr. Seraphim Rose; that homosexuality can be overcome through prayer, fasting, and the sacraments . The Orthodox Church for centuries has used the lives of Her saints to proclaim the Truth of Christ's action in the world, and now in the 21st century we find ourselves in the same position but with just different issues. I hope that one day if Fr. Seraphim is canonized that thourgh his intercession and story of his life many homosexuals will find comfort, hope, and inspiration in their struggle. John Maletis 19:01, August 22, 2006

Thanks, John for these words. That's a nice statement of why I think it's important to include these details here too. — FrJohn (talk)

Hi, I know I have come across this 2 years after your initial discussion but when I read about this priest on various blogs on the intranet (literally only 10 minutes ago) I felt physically ill because I understood that he was an active homosexual whilst being a priest and then glorified by people ... but upon looking him up in Orthodox wiki, reading this discussion I am understanding that he was homosexual prior to his conversion ... I really do think that this topic warrants a small paragraph on the main article, for clearing up the initial scandalismo that a traditional orthodox person, like myself, will go through without knowing that he repented for this and worked through those issues - so that it is clear to us traditionalists reading it and that we dont misunderstand his life ...that he repented and WAS homosexual as opposed to IS homosexual ... Vasiliki 17:41, March 19, 2008 (PDT)

I believe this is covered adequately in the article. There is an appropriate reference link for more information. —magda (talk) 18:09, March 19, 2008 (PDT)

Suggestion .. ?

I suggest the following paragraph;

"While studying under Alan Watts at the American Academy of Asian Studies after graduating from Pomona College in 1956, Eugene discovered the writings of René Guenon. Through Guenon's writings, Eugene was inspired to seek out an authentic, grounded spiritual faith tradition. Gregerson, a practicing Russian Orthodox Christian at the time, introduced Eugene to Orthodoxy. Just as Gregerson was choosing to abandon his Orthodoxy, Eugene was inspired to learn more about the faith. This culminated in Eugene's decision to enter the Church through chrismation in 1962."

....be moved upwards to end the section "Early Life" as opposed to being in the "Orthodoxy" section. This paragraph is really an end paragraph anyways, not an opening one for a new section. Just an idea - I don't want to make any edits without agreement... I've been editing wikipedia articles for years but am brand new to Orthodox Wiki. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeraphimX (talk • contribs) .