The impertinent puritanism of some speakers in the spiritist movement

The impertinent puritanism of some speakers in the spiritist movement

 

Marco Milani

 

It is expected that spiritist speakers are committed to exposing the principles and values of Spiritism, and not personal ideas without proper doctrinal foundation. However, as with any activity, we find individuals who perform their function more (or less) appropriately than others.

The quality of the spiritist lecture is directly related to the theoretical-doctrinal basis and the oratory aspects demonstrated by the speaker. The ideal, therefore, would be the high-level union of these two elements: content and form. Obviously, the characteristics of each person, such as knowledge about the themes, cultural influences, formal education, posture, language, desinterest in self-promotion etc., are naturally diferente, and so each speaker has his own style and reasons for acting as a speaker. However, the objective should be one: to contribute to the moral and intellectual improvement of listeners through doctrinal dissemination.

Considering that the speaker is not a perfect being, he or she is subject to making mistakes like anyone else, but from the public's perspective, the speaker is a legitimate representative of Spiritism. Especially for the neophyte audience, what the speaker says will reflect the Doctrine of the Spirits itself, so the expository responsibility is very great. In this sense, the more the expositor adheres to spiritist principles and values, the less subject to errors he or she will be. The problem is that, sometimes, he or she adds his/her opinions, frustrations and even prejudices.

This recently happened with a speaker addressing a group of young spiritists to explore the theme of “sexuality”. The speaker self-described as a health professional and, in her presentation, condemned a certain sexual practice because, according to her, it was not natural, brutal and humiliating and, furthermore, symbolized male oppression over women. In her speech, the speaker claimed to have scientific evidence supporting her assertions about the harmful effects of the practice, although she did not present any formal research. Since the lecture was recorded and made available on the internet, several comments criticizing the speaker’s technical competence  criticizing the speaker to address the subject arose.

Regardless of the speaker's good intentions in defending her personal positions, this situation raises another question: to what extent would the speaker's opinion resemble a puritanical manifestation, and furthermore, would condemning sexual practices under the moralistic banner be pertinent in a spiritist lecture? Is it appropriate to turn the opportunity to address an audience that expected to hear something based on Spiritism into a platform for the exposing of opinions? Probably many young people who attended the lecture in question must have thought that Spiritism "condemns" such a practice. Now, Spiritism does not resemble moralistic religions that condemn and try to shape the conduct of followers through fear or impositions, as it values free will and responsibility for one's own actions.

Doctrinally, we are encouraged to respect others and ourselves. Respect for the choices of others without trying to impose particular behaviors is a clear guidance present in spiritist teachings.

Following the example of the mentioned speaker, perhaps some other lecturers feel very comfortable to also express their opinions on other sexual practices that were not commented on, positioning themselves for ot against them. Is that what we expect to find in spiritist lectures?

The problem is not knowing how to speak well and with ease, but knowing how to build the lecture on solid theoretical bases to free consciences from the shackles of ignorance and encourage the evolution of the being.