Vital principle of the Spiritist societiesDear Sir,
In the April 1862 issue of The Spiritist Review I see a communication signed by Gérard de Codemberg where there is the following passage: “Do not worry about the brothers who move away from your beliefs. On the contrary, act in such a way that those will no longer contaminate the herd of the true believers for they are the rancid sheep and you must avoid infection.”
Regarding the rancid sheep I found it to be not much Christian and even less Spiritist and completely beyond this charity to all that the Spiritists preach. Nto to worry about the brothers who stay away and keeping ourselves from their infection is not the best way to bring them back. It seems to me that up until now our spiritual guides have shown more benevolence. Will this Gérard de Codemberg be a good spirit? If yes, I doubt it.
Forgive me for this kind of control that I have just done but I do so with a serious objective. One of my friends, a beginner Spiritist, has just read that article and stopped before those few lines for not finding the charity that she has so far observed in the communications. I consulted with my own guide about this and here is what he said: “No my child, an elevated spirit does not utilize such expressions. Leave it to the incarnate Spirits the roughness of the language and always acknowledge the worth of the communications in the elevation of the words and more importantly of the thoughts.
(It is then followed by a communication that one supposes to be a spirit that impersonates Gérard de Codemberg)
Where is the truth? Only you can tell.
Yours sincerely,
E. Collingnon
Response:
There is nothing that demonstrates that Gérard de Codemberg is a much-advanced spirit. The book he published largely demonstrates that he wrote it under evident obsession. That notwithstanding, however little advanced the spirit was, he could not be so much mistaken with respect to the value of the revelations that he obtained in life as a medium, nor accept as sublime things that were obviously absurd. Does it follow that he is a bad spirit? Absolutely not. His behavior during his life and his language after his death demonstrate that.
He is in the large category of intelligent, good but not sufficiently elevated Spirits capable of dominating the abuse of obsessing Spirits since he was unable to recognize them. All that with respect to the spirit.
The key point is not to know if the spirit is more or less advanced but if the advice is good or bad. Here I insist that there is no Spiritist meeting without homogeneity. Wherever there is divergence of opinion there is the tendency of making one’s opinion prevail; the desire to impose one’s idea or one’s willpower, and from there the discussion, dissension and later on dissolution. That is unavoidable and happens in every society regardless of the objective, in which each one is willing to walk a different path.
What is needed in other gatherings is even more so in the serious Spiritist meetings in which the first condition is calmness and reverence. Without this discussions are impossible and lead to a waste of time with useless matters. That is when the good Spirits begin to leave the field open to disturbing Spirits. That is why smaller groups are preferable: the homogeneity of principles, of likes, characters and habits, essential condition of a good harmony, is much easier to achieve than in large assemblies.
What Gérard de Codemberg calls rancid sheep are not the persons of good-faith that seek enlightenment before the difficulties of the science or about something that they do not understand, through a peaceful, moderate and restrained discussion, but those who come with preconceived ideas of systematic opposition, that initiate untimely discussions all the time in order to disturb the works! When the spirit says that it is necessary to keep them away he is right because the very existence of the meeting depends on that. He is also right when saying that there is no reason for concern for their personal opinion, if false, these individuals will not preclude the truth from prevailing. The meaning of that sentence is that their opposition must not be reason for concern.
Second, if the one who thinks differently sees their opinion better than the others; if that person is satisfied by that; if the person is adamant, why countering it? Spiritism must not be imposed. It must be freely accepted and in good faith. Spiritism wishes no conversion through embarrassment. As a matter of fact experience demonstrates that it is not by insistence that people will change their opinion.
It is necessary to be fully devoted to the one who seeks light in good faith; one must not spare anything; it is a productive and well-employed dedication. With the one that does not seek light or who thinks to own the light it is a waste of time and the same as sowing on rocks.
The expression “do not worry about them” must then be understood in the sense that one must not bother nor violate them in their convictions. Such an action is not a lack of charity. Is there an expectation that they will yield to better ideas? It would be okay to have it done privately, through persuasion, but never as a source of disruption to the meeting. It would otherwise be disrespectful to the others and would not make any difference to those one is trying to persuade.
The spirit of Gerard de Codemberg clearly and perhaps bluntly issues his opinion without any regard to speech and undoubtedly counting on the common sense of those to whom he addresses his message to mitigate it in its application, observing the civility and adequacy of the recommendations. However, notwithstanding the form of his language, the bottom line of his thoughts is identical to what is found in the following communication given under the title Philosophical Spiritism, received by the same person who raised the question. It reads as follows:
“Watch carefully around you and see if you do not find curious, false, and skeptical brothers. If you do find them kindly and in a charitable way ask them to leave. If they resist then pray with eagerness to have them enlightened by the Lord and do not allow them back next time. Surround yourself by simple brothers who seek the truth and progress.”
This is a nice way of saying that you should keep away those who hinder your progress.
In open sessions where one is free to receive anybody that is easier than in formal societies in which the members have their own right to speak and vote. Thus, one cannot be cautious enough in order to avoid such disappointment.
The system of free members adopted by the Parisian Society is the most adequate to prevent the inconveniencies since it only admits candidates on a provisional basis and with no right to vote on the businesses of the Society during a period that allows the observation of their enthusiasm, dedication and conciliatory Spirits.
It is essential to form a core of founding members united by a perfect communion of visions, opinions and feelings and establish strict rules that must be forcibly observed by those who later want to take part in the Society.
We recommend the bylaws of the Parisian Society to be followed for that matter as well as the instructions that we gave about it. Our dearest wish is to see the spread of union and harmony among the groups and societies that form all over the place. That is why we believe to be our duty to give advice out of our own experience to those who believe to be their duty to take advantage of those advices.
For now we say that without homogeneity there is no sympathetic union among members nor close relationships; without union there is no stability; without stability there is no calmness; without calmness there is no serious work from which we conclude that homogeneity is the vital principle of every Spiritist society or Spiritist gathering. That is what Gérard de Codemberg and Bernardin rightly said.
Regarding the spirit that was taken by a substitute of the first one his communication has every indication of an apocryphal communication.
