There is a group in the Spiritist movement that
advocates a sort of doctrinal study “Strictly Kardec”,
i.e., Spiritism is based only in the work of Allan
Kardec, and nothing else.
The above mentioned position is almost as odd as the
unwise attitude of those who say "everything that speaks
about God is good". The “Strictly Kardec” group seems to
be an "answer", within the Spiritist Movement, to this
last subgroup, which is larger and older, and which has
highly permissive spiritual characteristics, in the best
style "just by talking about the good is enough to mean
that it is good". This subgroup associated to a
"Permissive Spiritualism” usually claims that any
position of doctrinal orientation - more illuminated and
distinguished for its quality - if compared to the one
that has no doctrinal quality, “is lack of charity” with
those who make doctrinal errors.
These are two completely opposite and analyzable
positions.
Let's start with the Highly Permissive Spiritualists.
They state that the Spiritist Center has to divulge and
sell everything that speaks about good, because they
claim that they cannot limit people's freedom. We could
ask: can we really advertise and sell everything?
Including Marcelo Rossi, Nelson Rodrigues and Paulo
Coelho? It would be the case also to ask what
differentiates a Spiritist bookstore from a Spiritualist
bookstore or a common bookstore.
Just like we did with the Spiritist bookstore, we can
question the Spiritist Center. What distinguishes a
Spiritist Center from any Spiritualist group or any
other group, religious or not?
Some might risk answering that it is charity, but this
answer is unsatisfactory because charity is practiced
with various nuances, in various environments that are
not Spiritist. Others would answer: the Gospel, but good
or bad, the Gospel is preached in several Christian
nuclei, which even occurred long before Spiritism
appeared in 1857. It is evident that the Gospel is
present in the Spiritist Doctrine, but only the Gospel,
like charity, cannot fully characterize and
differentiate the Spiritist nucleus from other groups,
even though the Spiritist interpretation of the Gospel
has peculiar characteristics and a greater lucidity in
terms of reasoned faith.
The fact that it is a highly enlightened Doctrine,
regarding alterity and not restricting spiritual
happiness to any segment, does not mean that the
Spiritist Doctrine does not have its own identity from
the conceptual point of view. On the contrary, it is a
doctrinal body extremely coherent and well-constructed,
and it does not accept any idea just because it contains
some positive thinking, self-help, Gospel and/or
Spiritualism (see the wonderful work by our confrere,
Jose Passini, entitled "Spiritist Literature Analysis)”.
At the other end, the subgroup "Strictly Kardec” would
have only the works of Kardec in its bookstore, which
would be at first a "mini-bookstore". In the Spiritist
Centers of this subgroup, only the works of Allan Kardec
could be mentioned.
It is important to emphasize that if it is to read only
one author, then let it be Kardec. Kardec is the first,
the most known, reliable, and recommended Spiritist
author.
From the point of view mentioned in the previous
paragraph, we do respect the confreres who only study
Kardec. However, it is important to note: only studying
Kardec is one thing; only to accept information that is
explicitly in Kardec’s works is another, completely
different! The first position is a worthy choice of the
Spiritist study, while the second point of view means to
completely ignore the evolutionary feature of the
Spiritist Doctrine, which, of course, is clear in Allan
Kardec (see "The Genesis"). Therefore, the second
position goes against it.
To study only Kardec as a matter of priority – to
initially get a better doctrinal base, or because of a
limited time available - is a very reasonable attitude,
provided that this selection, at first wise and logical,
does not turn into rude and crude attacks to other
respectable authors of the Spiritist movement, as we
have seen in some cases. In fact, we need not to go any
further to consider this position as inconceivable in
any person with a minimum of spirituality, regardless of
which religion they follow.
We must, however, mention a paradox found in the
"Strictly Kardec" confreres. Kardec’s second book is
"The Book of Mediums – Evocators Guide". It is the
Codification’s second fundamental work and in it Kardec
tries to explain the mediumistic phenomenon and teach
how to conduct it adequately in the Spiritist context,
i.e., how to practice mediumship for high purposes, in
an efficient manner (i.e., in the manner that is
conventionally called in the Spiritist movement
"mediumship with Jesus"). Now, let us see, if the only
work that serves is that of Kardec and no other work of
any other medium, why did the Master of Lyons teach how
to deal with and work with mediumship? Was it just for
the laying on of hands or only for psychophony in
séances for the treatment of obsessions? Probably not.
In fact, Kardec mentions but does not emphasize the
laying on of hands in his work; moreover, the Master of
Lyon gives a special emphasis to the psychographics or
writing mediumship in “The Book of Mediums”, which does
not occur with psychophony or speaking mediumship.
Kardec, in “The Book of Mediums”, recommends mediumistic
tests concerning psychographics. Therefore, the Master
of Lyon probably expected that the new psychographics
mediums would develop doctrinal aspects after his death,
since he knew he was ill and was aware that he probably
would not live long (in the dialogue with the
disembodied Doctor Demeure in 1865, this is evident ).
Nothing that he has left written, even in the Spiritist
Magazine, presupposes the contrary, i.e., in no text
does Kardec show any sign that Spiritism would be ready
and finished and that only his works should be read and
valued.
On the other hand, we find confreres "forming" mediums
in courses that accept large numbers of students and
making severe restrictions on Chico Xavier, Divaldo
Pereira Franco, Waldo Vieira (here meaning the period
when
Waldo did Spiritist work) and Yvonne do Amaral Pereira.
Are the mediums formed in this manner, perhaps better
than the four mediums mentioned? If they are, we would
like to know their works, mediums which were supposedly
better trained with such procedures, courses and
pedagogical strategies. Since psychographics was the
mediumship most valued by Kardec in “The Book of
Mediums”, we await the supposedly higher messages that
are obtained with such procedures; especially those
coming from groups that underestimate the content
obtained by the mediumship of a Chico Xavier, Divaldo
Pereira Franco, Waldo Vieira, and Yvonne do Amaral
Pereira.
In this scenario, we have two possible situations:
1) These groups do not receive psychic messages superior
to those mediums they despise.
2) These groups may consider that they have mediumistic
messages superior to those of the mentioned mediums.
They are invited, therefore, to publish them so that we
ourselves may also benefit from these contributions.
With all due respect, I find it most unlikely that they
have messages superior to those of the mentioned four
mediums whom they so much despise.
We are not stating that everything that was transmitted
by these four mediums is not subject to criticism and
correction, but, in general, they furnished us with what
we have of the best in the twentieth century mediumship,
unless better judgment.
Then, what do such "Strictly Kardec" groups usually do?
Or they stop the mediumistic meetings (which is a
less-used alternative).
Or they continue their psychic meetings for the laying
on of hands and psychophonics purposes in disobsession
meetings, and go on disrespecting Chico, Divaldo, Yvonne
and Waldo, the greatest Spiritist psychographics mediums
of the twentieth century, without generating results
close to those produced by these mediums, but continuing
to criticize them.
The above attitude, of clear doctrinal incoherence, has
two very negative implications:
a) it makes one suppose that Kardec failed in some way,
because he proposed something so difficult that only he
could efficiently organize it (i.e., the mediumistic
meeting and, mainly, the mediumistic results generating
doctrinal knowledge), and nobody else!
b) it considers all other mediums inferior to them by
promoting a strange mentality that favors bad quality
mediums and authors (from a doctrinal point of view).
Many of these mediums and authors – some of them
“best-sellers” – feel “free” to go on producing very bad
quality works, because in their highly distorted view of
reality, they consider themselves “almost in the same
level” as Chico, Divaldo, Yvonne e Waldo, for they would
be “equally” despised.
Kardec, in his book "What is Spiritism", in the second
Chapter, in item four, explains:
"Spiritism also has apprentices; and whoever wishes to
be clarified must not learn from a single source,
because only by examination and comparison can a
judgment be established" (Allan
Kardec - "What is Spiritism”).
Our conclusion and suggestion is that the subgroup
"Strictly Kardec" should refrain from criticizing Chico,
Divaldo, Yvonne and Waldo so inconsequently, because in
doing so, they commit themselves to the duty of
providing contributions to the Spiritist Literature ,
mediumistic or not, superior to those provided by the
said mediums. However, this objective, as far as we can
see, has not been achieved. Thus, such bitter criticisms
regarding Chico, Divaldo, Yvonne and Waldo demonstrate,
in reality, on the part of these critics that they have
little ability to deal with mediumship in order to
produce messages that generate effective contributions
to the growth of the Spiritist Doctrine and/or the
Spiritist Movement.
Such contradictions denote misunderstanding or at least
the need for greater exchange of information and
experiences in our studies on mediumship in the
Spiritist Movement.
Conclusions
The Spiritist’s ideal position should be to emphasize
the work of Allan Kardec in the first place and
secondly, to value the so-called excellent subsidiary
works. It is up to the conscious Spiritist to study with
depth and perseverance to select the works that are
truly worthy of being considered a complement to the
work of Allan Kardec.
Between the two points of view analyzed in this article
- in our opinion undue - of the subgroups "Strictly
Kardec" and "Permissive Spiritualism", we consider that
the "Strictly Kardec" attitude is the least incoherent.
However, such a position would be, at first, less
inappropriate as long as it does not impact on workers
and mediums who have provided and provide legitimate
contributions to the Spiritist work and since it does
not imply a perception that the Kardec text is a type of
"sacred text”, “infallible”, which would violate one of
the great contributions of Spiritism which is the
"Alliance of Science and Religion" (see "The Gospel
According to Spiritism"), or, in other words, the
threefold doctrinal aspect: Science, Philosophy and
Religion.