[Note: On 24 September 2003, I received the revised biography of Father Seraphim Rose, one of my patron saints. I am currently reading slowly through the massive, 1100-plus-page volume. I will from time to time post excerpts here that I find relevant, moving or convicting.]
Long before the word "hippie" entered our lexicon, the progressive intellectuals of San Francisco had turned away from the American dream, with its ideals of family and Judeo-Christian religion. They were delving into anything that was different, drawing above all from Eastern religions. In rejecting Western morality and taking only what they wanted from the East, they were free to explore forms of debauchery, degradation, and perversion with what Eugene [N.B.: the future Father Seraphim] would later refer to as "the spirit of lawlessness." . . .
Eugene, too, would follow this philosophy to its logical conclusion. Together with many of his young contemporaries, he entered upon a life of hedonism and sexual immorality. . . .
Compared with what went on in San Francisco bohemian subculture, the acts of nonconformity among Eugene's friends at Pomona [where Eugene earned his undergraduate degree] were quite tame. In some letters to his Pomona friends, Eugene took on the flippant, devil-may-care attitude of a twenty-two-year-old youth experimenting in what before had been barred to him; but this seems to have been just bravado. As he stated in later years, this was the darkest, most miserable period of his life. Forbidden deeds, he said, had disgusted him even at the time he was committing them. They would precipitate long periods of depression afterward. . . .
Many years later, describing the end of his exploration and experimentation outside the will of God, he could only say, "I was in hell. I know what hell is." . . .
This was a hell that Eugene wished on no one. In later life he said that certain sinful realities, which he had known while being in that hell, are best left unmentioned so that they will not be put into the air. . . . [N. B.: It is now known that Eugene was referring, in part, to his homosexual activities and to his alcohol abuse.]
--Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, pp. 55, 57, 59, 61
Posted by Clifton at October 7, 2003 05:56 AM | TrackBackIn later life he said that certain sinful realities, which he had known while being in that hell, are best left unmentioned so that they will not be put into the air. . .
Interesting. Odd implications for my blog. Something to think about.
Posted by: Huw Raphael at October 7, 2003 10:18 AMYes, and it now occurs to me that by providing "clarification" I have violated Fr Seraphim's intent of silence.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at October 7, 2003 12:04 PMNot quite. Otherwise Fr. Seraphim violated his own intent by these very words. You're just repeating the oberservation, not the actual account of the deeds.
I also just ordred this book about 2-3 days ago! I can't wait to dig in, although reading for school will keep me from making much progress I'm afraid...
Posted by: Karl Thienes at October 7, 2003 02:38 PMSomeone here, who rather likes my writing (I note in my humility ;-)) says, "Do you always want to be known for the sins you have confessed?"
Now... St Augustine would note that sometimes it is ok. But he's a saint and I'm not. Fr Seraphim always seems to speek directly to my exerience. Had I known what I know now earlier, I might have disliked him as just another "Ex". But knowing it now is a good thing (I think) as it shows a light on the door out.
So, maybe, this is one of those palces where we can let experience come through if we need it to?
Indeed, even though it is said that the ROCOR bishops dropped him like a hot potato when he was "outed", I think his example would be needed now. Not to say *exactly* what happened and how... but rather that it did happen and God is greater than all that anyway.
Posted by: Huw Raphael at October 7, 2003 05:14 PMIn any case, the information was already available before you mentioned it. It doesn't change anything. Why would it? I've always been told the worst sins are pride and judgement, not sexual sins. It's not so clear either whether he was "oriented" that way or just engaged in certain sins. There could be a difference. Huw talked about this in a blog recently.
I'm not aware of ROCOR dropping Father Seraphim at all. Where did you hear this?
I've read Not of This World three times and just finished the new book. It is quite different in tone and much better in substance. It is one of the first books of Orthodoxy that I read and very inspirational. I love to be "in" the book and hate to come to the end. It's like you're with him and then he's gone, and now what. You have to live it. But who will be a "Father"?
I don't understand what it all matters anyway. I find there is far too much hype over Father Seraphim Rose. He was an educated and pius monk. So what? I think that Americans are so desperate to have a saint, that they are now inventing them. I also think that had Father Seraphim not held a graduate degree, the Orthodox communities would not have given him the time of day, since they favor the rich and educated. People don't make saints. God does! I see a cult forming around Father Seraphim. And it's all a waste of time. He was not a miracle worker. Most of the post-mortem "miracles," are from womens dreams. That should tell you something right there.
Posted by: Euthymius at March 11, 2004 04:03 AMEuthymius! I don't know where your experience of "orthodox communities" comes from, but I assure you that the orthodox believers where I live do not "favor the rich and educated". I have seen much less fawning about the puckered ass of wealth here than in many Evangelical churches, some of which actually teach that if one is not wealthy, then one is not blessed. Visit us in Portland Of The Left Coast, and see for yourself.
Posted by: Scott at March 23, 2004 12:20 PM