It appears that I am in the minority regarding Fr. Seraphim's status as a saint. I also know that will not make me popular here. I am concerned with the glorification of anyone that is as controversial as Fr. Seraphim. I also feel the same regarding Blessed Augustine being viewed as a saint. I realize that the issue of Augustine being a saint has been covered before on many Orthodox forums, I don't want to reopen that can of worms.
I have often heard the argument that many other saints, including the Fathers of the Church made controversial statements,or espoused some errors,and that did not preclude them from being considered saints. I don't doubt that, but off the top of my head I cannot think of any major errors or controversy attached to John of Damascus, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Athanasius, Seraphim of Sarov, Gregory Nazianzus, etc.
The problem, as I see it, of official recognition of a person who, in the case of Fr. Seraphim wrote things that many do consider controversial, or, in the case of Augustine, taught things that are undoubtedly un-Orthodox, raises the issue of adding disclaimers when ever discussing them. To future generations of Orthodox believers, a saint is a saint. When I read the writings of say, St. John of Damascus, I do not see disclaimers that "this and this are correct, but on this and this point he was in error".
That individuals are free to venerate any departed person at home is fine, and a non-issue, which is the case now with Fr. Seraphim. I feel that it is better to err on the side of caution when it comes to the Church formally recognizing someone as a saint, if that person is controversial because of their teachings.
Probably no one will agree with me on this, but those are my feelings on the subject. As I have stated before, I believe Fr. Seraphim was a devout and holy man. I also believe the same about Augustine, however, so much of what Augustine taught was wrong that referring to him as a saint is problematic to me. If he is a saint in spite of his numerous errors, than I suppose there are many that we can consider saints. Even many of the OO saints ( not to mention RCC saints) that were/are condemned by many of the EO lived saintly lives and wrote much that is correct. Why not overlook their errors as well and glorify them?