Reincarnation is a phenomenon of the law of nature and one of its characteristics is the progress of the Spirit. However, the more one lives in a reincarnation, the tendency is for the Spirit to become stubborn in points that it would need to improve, cool down, progress, but that seem stronger than the effort to purge, once and for all, what holds it to the proud past. We are all subject to this. Some more than others.

But what does it matter? That is the question: the struggles, own fights, difficulties and unpleasantness only matter to the individual himself. No one else is given the right, let alone the freedom to condemn, or to point out "facts" as if they were delegates, representatives of the Divine Law, philosophical or doctrinal authorities to say that someone, especially some leading exponent, has done the Spiritist movement a disservice. When it comes to a personal opinion, it would be fair to make it clear, in a text, whatever text it is, that it is a personal opinion and not an insufficient and dangerous deduction regarding someone's work.

The leading exponents were notable, mainly for the work developed in spiritual and social assistance, inside and outside the Spiritist house, elaboration and translation of books and, as a result, in the dissemination of Spiritism. They did what they were able to do and did it very well. Their works are not measured by quantity, but by quality, if that were not the case, ordinary writers, dressed up as intellectuals, would rise up to champions of the truth, as if they were the last cookie in the package. And they are not.

Bezerra de Menezes is a leading exponent. Exponent does not mean perfect, infallible, but someone whose work deserved the help of superior Spirits to reach the most suffering hearts, the way they managed to develop. He was “definitively” labeled as a follower of Roustaing. Countless texts, exhibitions and even extensive, winding books, repeat messages reinforcing the fact that he is a Roustaing’s follower.

Anyone who has read any article in “Max”, a pseudonym used by Adolfo Bezerra de Menezes Cavalcanti in the newspaper “O Paiz”, will know how he understood the Gospel. Was he a roustainguist? There is nothing new about this. Although it is a “fact”, linking the image of Bezerra de Menezes to Roustaing is absurdly childish, not to mention mean. They did the same with Euripedes Barsanulfo, treating him as a follower of Roustaing, even though Herculano Pires said that he “woke up from the mistake”.

It would be the same as listing Dr. Carlos Imbassahy as a follower of Roustaing for the publication of the book “Religion” in 1942, a period in which he was still part of FEB and this was one of the reasons why he broke up with that institution, among others that were recorded by Professor Carlos de Brito Imbassahy, his son.

Another one who is always remembered as a roustainguist and responsible for practicing a Spiritism that Spiritists do not manage to practice, is Chico Xavier. The work “Brazil, heart of the world, homeland of the Gospel” is a classic example of an attempt to link Chico Xavier to Roustaing. Not satisfied, they still published correspondence between Chico Xavier and one of the presidents of the Federation, which were attached in the work “Chico Xavier’s Testimonies”. According to Herculano Pires, Chico was never a roustainguist, but, like others, his work was distorted.

Although the analysis of the facts is done with the knowledge and intellectual tendency of each one, it is appalling that such basic principles of fraternity and civism have been neglected when labeling Spiritist exponents in such a pejorative and limited way. The curious thing is that examples of civism and fraternity exist in the Spiritist movement. Let's take an important example.

The most combative Spiritist writer, the one who always raised his pen or typed with the speed of his insightful, intellectual and philosophical thinking, was Professor Jose Herculano Pires.

In his more than 80 works, some of them harsh, with deep criticisms, showing the struggle of a pygmy against giants, he never limited himself or dedicated a work to criticize one of the doctrinal exponents, whether in Brazil or abroad, blaming them for the direction of the Spiritist movement. His criticisms have always been the way the Spiritists were giving in to the charms of the "mermaid", repeating mistakes from the past ("Agony of Religions", "Dynamic Course of Spiritism", "Mediumship", "In the age of the Spirit", "At the time of Testimony”, and “Spiritist Center”, among others).

Proficient writer and translator of Spiritist works, especially the works of Allan Kardec, considered in the Spiritist movement “as the meter that best measured Kardec”, Herculano Pires can be criticized for everything, except for abusing his doctrinal lucidity, for lacking in respect to the effort of any doctrinal exponent. His criticisms aimed to clarify doctrinally its reader as to the content. An example is the work “A Pedra e o Joio”. Herculano Pires was the only exponent to criticize the work of Dr. Hernani Guimaraes Andrade. He criticized the work harshly.

It is possible that some detail escapes us, however, we dare ask if there is, on the part of Herculano Pires – and in his works - any pages dedicated to criticizing Antonio Luiz Sayao, for example? When quoting Sayao and other Roustaing’s followers, Herculano always looked at the work developed by each one of them and there were no other remarks regarding them.

In “O Verbo e a Carne”, a work that made Herculano Pires definitively enter the FEB's “index librorum prohibitorum”, as a “heretical, anticlerical or lascivious and forbidden work (...)”, the Spiritist Philosopher presented his arguments as to the absurdities produced by the work of the French lawyer, self-titled “revelation of revelation”, opening the eyes of the Spiritists to the erroneous practices adopted by the federation. At no time did he hold Bezerra de Menezes responsible. He criticized the institution.

Some malicious people may say that it is a matter of interpretation, because it is implicit. Now, to imply evil only makes sense to those who are evil, limiting the movement of the world to their movement.

If Bezerra de Menezes, Euripedes Barsanulfo, Dr. Carlos Imbassahy and Chico Xavier were wrong, none of them became leading exponents because of Roustaing’s thinking. Would it be fair to denigrate their work because of this? Their work was never limited to this anti-doctrinal thought.

Until the 1990s, there were still some burning roustanguist embers. Then it cooled down, to wake up in a resounding way as if knowing doctrinal errors was more important than knowing what Spiritism is. There is an inversion of values ​​in many Spiritist books and “lives”, when they address this issue. Do not waste time on this. We have a lot of work to do in the name of the Spiritist Doctrine, starting by studying it deeply, without depending on pseudo intellectualized and limited leadership, as fallible as anyone.

Finally, although some Spiritists insist on the thesis that Roustaing is largely responsible for Docetism in the Spiritist environment, a thought that we also sympathize with, although we defend the idea that this docetism is much more the result of a lack of doctrinal knowledge than of syncretism, we insist with the idea that limiting the work of a Spiritist exponent to Roustainguism is a way to denigrate his image and that is a tremendous lack of charity. It is enough the words that are put in the mouth of these exponents as we have observed on the internet. It is a so-called "guy said" or "beltran spoke" that only shows the fainthearted manner with which they conduct studies and doctrinal thoughts.

For this reason, we publicly repudiate those who blame leading exponents for the mistakes of the Spiritist movement. Evidently we do not deify them and we know how much their works can count dubious contents at any given moment, without thereby invalidating the whole set, because if there are uncertainties, they are not in their pillars, as the founder of Spiritism guided us when analyzing an idea.

The “witch hunt” was a religious persecution movement that started in the 15th century and extended until the 18th century, with cruelty. The difference from that movement to the current one, is that the hunt occurred with the hunter looking in the eyes of the hunt. Traditional religions are full of similar thoughts. The Spiritist Doctrine is not like that.