Not a lecture but something to remember. In Russian Orthodoxy there is
no such a notion as "saint". There is a rich variety of saints
depending on the reason the person was canonized. E.g., there is a
Muchenik (martyr??? no religious dictionary) - a person that suffered much and was murdered
for his faith. A deeper degree is velikomuchenik.
But also, there is a Strastoterpets - a person who
suffered physically & mentally. As I once mentioned, the notion of a
saint depends on what he\she did, not who he\she was. So, Nicolas II
of Russia was canonized as Strastoterpets. He was a (ehcuse my French)
bastardly hopeless ruler, and only the fact his execution was
outstandingly cruel, made the Church accept the idea to make him a
saint. The hierarchs repeated it once and again that Nicolas was not
declared an good\ideal\worthy man, he was just remembered for the sufferings he
came through. Same thing with st. Vladimir the Baptizer & st.
Alexander (don't remember the epithet). They were canonized for what
they did, and are treated apart from their real characters & other
deeds. No offence is made to any Orthodox if that attitude is kept to.
But if the Deed of the saint is shown differently or with different
reasons, some people CAN find offence in it. Though, no Rushdi case in
Orthodox world yet existed.