Tolerance
"Work, solidarity and
tolerance." Allan Kardec
People claiming
the lapidary
slogan of Kardec
in part on
tolerance,
applying this
result in the
publications of
books being
without the
lower criterion,
both regarding
the content as
well as the
form.
Clearly, the
recommendation
of the encoder
applies to
relationships
between people.
Accordingly,
there are many
pages by
spiritual good
doers that
recommend the
constant
exercise of this
virtue in our
personal
relationships.
Be tolerance
towards people
and not towards
their work. On
these, Kardec
always exercised
the most severe
test, is
recommended you
do the same,
before you make
something public
on behalf of
Spiritism.
Should we
publish anything
that comes
through
mediumship in
the name of
tolerance? If
there is no
opportunity for
an analysis,
where should we
place the famous
recommendation
by the Spirit
Erasto,
contained in
"The Book of
Mediums"
(question 230)?
"Is better to
refuse ten
truths than to
accept one lie,
one wrong
theory."
And how to apply
what Kardec
recommended on
the same book
(question 266)?
"To submit all
communications
to a scrupulous
examination on
them,
understanding
and considering
the thought and
expression, as
it is done when
it comes to
judging a
literary work,
rejecting it,
without
hesitation,
everything that
contradicts
logic and common
sense, anything
that denies the
character of the
spirit believed
to be in
communication.
This action will
discourage lying
spirits liars
and they will
withdraw, as
they know that
you cannot be
deceived. We
repeat: this is
the only and
effective way,
because there is
not one false
communication
that can pass a
thorough
critical
analysis. Good
spirits never
get offend with
this because
they gives the
advice
themselves and
have nothing to
fear because of
the examination.
Only bad spirits
avoid it,
because they
have everything
to lose. Only
with this
analysis they
will show who
they really are.
"
To be tolerant
is to publish
all that is
produced by
mediumship,
without any
criteria?
Kardec continues
by citing a
recommendation
by the spirit of
Saint Louis:
"Whatever
legitimate trust
the spirits that
support you work
inspire in you,
a recommendation
that there will
never be used
too often and
you should have
this always in
your memory when
you your study,
is to weigh and
meditate, to
submit to the
crucible of the
most severe
reason all
communications
you receive. Do
not stop asking
the necessary
explanations so
you can form a
safe opinion if
something seems
suspicious,
doubtful or
obscure. "
But recently, in
an article
transcript in '
“O Espírita
Mineiro” (The
Spiritist from
Minas Gerais),
the author
confuses the
tolerance that
must be taken in
dealings with
members of the
spiritist
family, with the
lack of
discretion in
the selection of
what is given to
the public on
behalf of
Spiritism "It
happens that
after a century
and a half, we
still hear
discussions and
debates that
demonstrate our
lack of
knowledge of the
basic works of
Spiritism and
the exaggerated
gospel
principles in
them entered,
primarily those
of union and
mutual tolerance
between those
who work in
Christian
Fields" .
The author works
based on an
unfortunate
mistake, because
one learns in
the Gospel:
"However, your
may say: Yes,
yes, no, no,
because this
comes out of
malignant
origin." (2) And
with Kardec one
learns to refute
communications
that are not
consistent with
the Spiritist
Doctrine
structure.
To be tolerant
is to give the
public
everything that
is produced
mediumship,
without any
standard? And
those that
ensure
consistency, the
level of
language, and
the maintenance
of the dignity
and nobility of
spirit would be
considered to be
intolerant and
inquisitors?
Examine a work -
in obedience to
the teachings of
Kardec - is an
act of lack of
fraternity?
In the article
mentioned, the
author
imperceptibly
stumbles on
comments on
interpersonal
tolerance -
essential for
good living in
the spiritist
work - to a
dangerous field
of lack of
criterion to be
observed in
everything that
is presented to
the public on
behalf of
Spiritism, when
examining a work
- in obedience
to the teaching
Kardec - was an
act of lack of
fraternity.
The author
demands
knowledge
Kardec’s works,
as mentioned
above. But did
he read the
works which
disclosure he
defends?
On "Missionaries
of Light", by
André Luiz,
chapter 10, one
can read that to
produce
materialization
is necessary to
have the
presence of
twenty spiritual
entities, some
of higher
planes. Among
those incarnated
in the meeting,
had ingested an
alcoholic
beverage and had
to be isolated.
However, in one
of those books
sold in the
bookstore of UME,
is written that
a spirit,
without any
support,
materializes
himself by
taking the
fluids of the
body of a drunk,
walks
materialized
through the
streets of
Uberaba, has an
interview with a
psychiatrist
doctor – a
spiritist who is
used to
mediumistic work
- although he
did not revealed
his identity or
his discarnate
condition even
though he was
dressed with
garments with
the appearance
of more than one
hundred years
ago. Those
interviews were
repeated for
days to follow,
and the
physician only
became aware
that he was
talking to a
materialized
spirit after a
while, when the
Spirit revealed
his identity
through a medium
in a mediumistic
meeting.
One would have
to ask the
author what he
would answer to
a person who was
interested in
knowing the
doctrine, which
case of
materialization
is true: the one
from the
cemetery, or the
one quoted by
André Luiz, and
others, cited by
William Crook,
Aksakof, Bozzano?
It is
irresponsible to
publish
everything we
receive from the
spiritual world,
without a
careful review
How would the
writer reply
when asked if
the criterion in
relation to
abortion, which
reads in The
Spirits Book,
"was changed?
There one learns
that there is
only permissible
if the child
endangers the
life of the
mother. In a
work sold in the
bookstore said,
are added two
situations: in
cases of
anencephaly and
rape, with
aggravating
allegations that
Chico Xavier’s
spirit gave
these
“revelations”.
Would it not be
prudent a prior
examination of
these
contradictions,
before making
such works
public? Would it
be a lack of
tolerance?
Would this be
included in the
article’s
statement: "The
mediums and
writers that
believe they are
the pariahs of
the spiritist
movement are
there with their
works. I
searched with my
eyes, my hands
and my brains
trying to
understand
whether there
was logic in the
organization of
the shelves of
books on sale,
some indication
of "selection"
or "exclusion"
of the
"controversial
works," and did
not find
anything. I
tried to locate
an index of
content works
best spirit of
the possible
indexed
(disapproved),
but my search
was fruitless,
nothing. "
The existence of
a list of
condemned books
would be
something
unacceptable
within the
spiritist
criterion; in
fact it would be
an aberration.
Kardec never
behaved like
that. But on the
other hand, he
never published
anything he
produced without
careful and
judicious
examination. If
he were
incarnated, he
would be silent
before these
gaudy and
dreadful
revelations,
before of this
low language and
such attacks on
the Spiritist
movement. All of
this in the name
of tolerance?
We need to see
the fine line
that separates
the absurdity of
the Index
librorum
Prohibitorum
from such
rampant
irresponsibility
to publish
anything that we
get from the
spiritual world,
without a
careful review,
in the name of
tolerance.
|