Emmanuel's works are not "churchy" or self-help! (Part 2 - Final)

Hernani Guimarães’ works were written on hypotheses about the material reality of the spiritual world and they are not well build theoretically. Texts like "The Corpuscular Theory of Spirit" and "The Quantum Psi", among others, are highly speculative works with conceptual limitations. This does not mean that Andrade has not made contributions, especially studying reincarnation and mediumship, with good works for the Spiritist Movement (ME). Anyway, Hernani G. Andrade is respected as a Spiritist scholar who sought to study themes forgotten by many confreres, and has a positive image for most Spiritists.

Even the extraordinary Spiritist writer Jose Herculano Pires thought that the physical concept of antimatter could explain the existence of the "semi material" realities of the spiritual world, which consists of a highly questionable position. This hypothesis is emphasized in several of his works. Obviously, we have the greatest respect and admiration for J. Herculano Pires, according to Emmanuel himself at the time, "the greatest contemporary spiritual intelligence" and "the best meter that measured Kardec".

Brazilian Spiritist Federation’sauthors, followers of Roustaing, wrote very weak texts doctrinally, some even considering Roustaing on the same level or above Allan Kardec. Despite such unjustifiable incoherence and fanaticism, many of these authors continue to be respected as hardworking Spiritist workers by many confreres.

The Encoder of Spiritism Allan Kardec himself changed and / or readjusted his opinion on some occasions, such as the question of the existence of the "possession" (see The Book of Mediums and Genesis), among other changes of opinion (mainly emphasized in the "Spiritist Magazine"). And if he had not disincarnated so prematurely, nothing guarantees that he would not have adjusted and / or modified some topic not yet significantly clarified. After all, Spiritism is a Doctrine that evolves as time goes by.

With regard to the fact that there are some passages considered excessively "churchy", i.e., that show excessive marks of the Catholic jargon, we would have to reflect a little more on such topic. In the first place, we must not forget that Catholic expressions such as "angel" and "archangel" and holy titles are also used by Allan Kardec himself. Whether it was for a didactic question considering the historical moment and the target audience, the authors in question may have judged that the majority of the readers still needed previous cultural references to understand the essence of the content. On the other hand, such passages less suitable to the so-called "Spiritist jargon" could also be associated with fixations of mediums, Spirits and even of the publishers and their respective reviewers (which may have been decisive in the alleged "doctrinal errors of Emmanuel", mainly in the works published in the 1930s). Therefore, it is not necessarily possible to attribute to Emmanuel all the errors that eventually occur in his work, especially in the books published in the 1930s, when Chico Xavier was not a national Spiritist leader and probably the editors and reviewers felt more authority to change the originals Chico sent for editorial evaluation for publication. As for Kardec’s texts and all other Spiritist texts, the obscure passages could perfectly well be studied, disagreed and left in the so-called "quarantine". Thus, we would study, quote, and emphasize those Emmanueline texts that we really consider to be of excellent doctrinal quality, which obviously constitutes the overwhelming majority of Emmanuel's legacy.

Disrespect towards Emmanuel

Some comments on Emmanuel show a totally unjustifiable disrespect and also a lack of evaluation of his rich work.

The excessive rigor against Emmanuel - which is usually not used against other authors, who have committed much worse doctrinal errors - by some confreres, even using rude words and totally inappropriate comments, shows a difficulty to discuss ideas, in search of reasoned faith, in a more elegant way. Basically, it is a position of irreverence of the confreres who refuse to acknowledge and, therefore, to accept the contribution of Emmanuel to the evangelical-doctrinal development of the members of the Spiritist movement. Obviously, it is the right of everyone to think and express themselves freely.

However, in the light of Spiritist thinking, such an attitude does not appear to be a proper line of behavior, especially when disrespectful attacks are made.

Some Spiritist authors claim that Emmanuel shows marks of his Catholic origin in his texts. We do not deny that this is true. However, we consider this a disproportional collection regarding specifically Emmanuel, since such characteristic is common to many Spiritist authors who are not rejected. Strictly speaking, if we make an evaluation in an exempt manner, such a criticism of language could perhaps be applied to the Encoder himself and to the Spirits of the phalanx of the Spirit of Truth. In fact, the work of Allan Kardec maintained the titles of saints and figures of language of the Christian tradition typical of Catholic origin.

Many call Emmanuel, pejoratively, "Jesuit," but seem to forget that great errors of Christianity originated in the thought of St. Augustine, an important Spirit of Codification. They seem not to be bothered by this, nor by the title of "Saint" which remains in the texts of Kardec. Must the messages of St. Augustine - present in Kardec's work - be rejected as the messages of Emmanuel have been for some confreres simply because he was a priest? And the messages of the priest d'Ars, of Lacordaire, Lammenais, and other thinkers working in religious circles (in their respective reincarnations, in which they had such names), present in the Codification also deserve to be disregarded?

It is evident that there is a part of the Spiritist Movement that has a strong "spiritolic" tendency, which demonstrates a "reading" of the Spiritist Doctrine, imbued with an incomplete Catholic untying. However, to attribute this "spiritolic" to the benefactor Emmanuel and his evangelical-doctrinal discussions, besides being an apparent unfairness (or at least a great exaggeration in a simplistic reasoning), ends up hindering the dissemination of messages worthy of doctrinal value. For the most part, Emmanuel's messages present a high moral-intellectual level in their evangelical-doctrinal discussion, which makes many of these criticisms incoherent in the face of our eternal search for reasoned faith.

Emmanuel is subject to criticism, as it happens with any Spiritist author, incarnate or disincarnated. That is, no writer or Spiritist speaker is above any eventual negative evaluations. In fact, good authors and exhibitors are not always able to maintain the same level of excellence in all their works and lectures / seminars, and this can be caused by several reasons. However, the frequent attacks to Emmanuel in the Spiritist Movement - in a kind of "anti-Emmanuel fad"- show a partial view of the respective appraisers.

Was Herculano Pires a kind of doctrinal adversary of Emmanuel?

Many of Emmanuel's critics claim to be backed by Herculano Pires, forgetting that in addition to partners in five books, Herculano told anyone who wanted to hear, "I'm Emmanuel's fan." "I have just published a book in which I fully support the messages of Emmanuel" (referring to the work "Chico Xavier Pede Licenca"). Check out what Herculano said about Emmanuel: here's the link - eis o link

Are we using the same doctrinal rigor in the evaluation of different authors?

Without a greater sincerity both intellectually and from the moral point of view to read the Spiritist Doctrine and the Gospel, we will create a subgroup within the Spiritist movement, supposedly sincere, but very similar to the fundamentalism of those who study the Bible much more oriented by the "Old Testament" than by the "New Testament." This distortion can generate many losses to the Spiritist Movement.

If Emmanuel is read in a churchy manner in some meetings of Spiritist groups, without lucid analysis and comments of doctrinal value, the responsibility of such procedure is of those who act like this and especially of the leaderships that foment such practices. We could never blame Emmanuel for these difficulties.

It is unfortunate that many spend time attacking an author like Emmanuel, when we find several authors very limited evangelical and / or doctrinally being spread by several confreres, including some who fight Emmanuel’s texts. And thus, more and more the Spiritist Movement has been "invaded" by very weak works regarding the Doctrine. This inversion of values, even if unconsciously, has been lowering the average doctrinal level of our Spiritist Movement, restricting it to a condition of religious movement with a level of spiritual discussion of a shocking primacy in the 21st century, after 161 years since the publication of the first edition of The Book of Spirits.

The problems associated with admitting a supposed "infallibility" of the text and the attitudes of the Spirits of Kardec and Emmanuel

In full celebration / reflection on the 150th anniversary of the publication of "Genesis", we observe the controversy that currently prevails in the Spiritist Movement due to the fact that the contents of the aforementioned book may have undergone undue modifications after Allan Kardec's death.

As far as we know, Kardec did not "return" in Spirit to warn the confreres which editions would be reliable and which would not be adequate. If this supposed message was obtained by some medium, it apparently was not widely divulged or it was not recognized as a text with a highly probability of Kardec being its author.

The issues regarding Emmanuel's works, for the most part, are included in the books published in the first edition in the 1930s, when the influence of the medium Chico Xavier on the publishing process was practically insignificant.

If we do not demand from Kardec-Spirit that he returned or is going to return to warn about possible adulterations of his books or even of misleading doctrinal interpretations, why would we be so hard on Emmanuel for faults that were not necessarily in his original texts?

Anyone who wants to reject the author Emmanuel has complete freedom to do so, obviously using his free will and his doctrinal conscience. But do it by studying a significant sampling of the author's books to have a minimum knowledge of the cause. And also take into account the content of Emmanuel's so-called "Message Books," such as those from the so-called "Living Source" series; the expression "Books of Messages", consecrated by use in our movement, usually passes an implied idea of ​​books of lesser doctrinal value. This also induces that such works, really high from the doctrinal point of view, be leveled down with other works disseminated in the Spiritist milieu but that are far below the level of the Emmanuelian discussion.

Besides Kardec, how many Spiritist writers are better than Emmanuel?

If Emmanuel has a short doctrinal level to the point that some contest him, such confreres are invited to mention other works of superior doctrinal value and, if they do not exist, then let them elaborate such works.

Obviously, we are all beginners in the quest for doctrinal knowledge. On the other hand, we already have conditions to critically analyze the works, which is even necessary, in the light of the Spiritist Doctrine. If the defense of the quality of the Emmanueline work is not justified in the opinion of the eventual readers of this text, it would be the case to make a comparative study in terms of content, originality, comprehensiveness, moral values, evangelical information, etc. with other works of the type, considered as excellent within the Spiritist Movement (ME). Are they really better than Emmanuel’s texts?

It would be worth if the confreres - who contest the value of Emmanuel's texts – have a second thought, accompanied by a simple proposal. Why do the confreres, who oppose Emmanuel's ideas, not try to write a single book with 180 original articles on evangelical verses, non-repetitive, and that teach the Gospel, the Doctrine and the Inner Reform consistently in a good Portuguese with a quality superior to that of Emmanuel's texts? If they achieve such a feat, in our view unprecedented, they will certainly bring a great contribution to the Spiritist Movement, as they will be contributing to the improvement of our studies and doctrinal deepening. And, on the other hand, if they realize that it is not so easy to write only one book of 180 messages (remembering that Emmanuel has several with this extent) it would perhaps be the case to rethink some critical exaggerations. After all, "the true Spiritist is recognized for his moral transformation and the efforts he undertakes to tame his evil inclinations".

The recognition of the Spiritist Movement to the Books of Emmanuel

In 1999, in a research carried out by Editora Candeia, the ten greatest Spiritist books of the twentieth century were elected by important Spiritist workers. Among these ten books, three are written by Emmanuel: Paulo e Estevao, A Caminho da Luz e Ha Dois Mil Anos. Are these fellow voters in this research completely mislead and doctrinally confused? Obviously, although improbable, this is not impossible. But if this is the case, a broad study of the failings of most of the exponents of our movement would be necessary.

After Allan Kardec, probably no other Spiritist author wrote quantitatively and qualitatively as well about the Gospel in the light of the Spiritist Doctrine as Emmanuel. Therefore, it would be the case to ask: Would all of Emmanuel's opponents reject the religious and Christian character of Spiritism? Or would they consider this religious and Christian aspect less relevant? Or do they read only one religious / Christian work, which would be The Gospel According to Spiritism?

Questions remain for our greater understanding of the threefold doctrinal aspect.

Translation:
Eleni Frangatos - eleni.moreira@uol.com.br