Intolerance and persecution with respect to Spiritism.

— The following fact was pointed out to us by one of our correspondents. For propriety's sake, we withhold the name of the place where it occurred, but, if necessary, we have in hand the supporting document.

The parish priest of…, having learned that one of his parishioners had received The Spirits' Book, came to her house and made a scandalous scene, apostrophizing her with epithets very little evangelical; moreover, he threatened not to bury her, when she died, if she did not believe in the devil and in hell; then, seizing the book, he carried it off.

A few days later that lady, who had been little shaken by that altercation, went to the priest's house to demand her book back, telling herself that if he did not return it, it would not be difficult for her to acquire another and that she would know how to put it in a safe place.

The book was returned, but in a state that proved that a holy wrath had been discharged upon it. It was stained with erasures, with annotations, with refutations, in which the Spirits were treated as liars, as demons, as fools, etc. That lady's faith, far from being shaken, was strengthened still further. They say that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. The priest offered her vinegar; she preferred honey, and said: Forgive him, Lord, for he knows not what he has done. On which side was true Christianity?

— Scenes of this nature were very frequent seven or eight years ago, and at times they had a character of violence that bordered on the burlesque. Recall that missionary who foamed with rage preaching against Spiritism, and grew so furious that they feared he might fall from the pulpit at any moment. And that other preacher who invited all holders of Spiritist works to bring them to him, in order that they be burned in the public square. Unfortunately for him they did not bring him a single one, and he had to content himself with burning, in the seminary courtyard, all the volumes he could buy in the bookshops. Today, now that their uselessness and impropriety have been recognized, these eccentric demonstrations are very rare; experience proved that they turned more of the faithful away from the Church than from Spiritism.

The fact related above has a character of particular gravity. In his church, the priest is in his own house, on his own ground; to grant or to refuse prayers, according to his conscience, is his right; he uses it, no doubt, in a manner more harmful than useful to the cause he defends, but, after all, it is his right, and we find it illogical that persons who are, in thought, if not in fact, separated from the Church, who fulfill none of the duties that it imposes, should presume to compel a priest to do what, rightly or wrongly, he considers contrary to his rule. If you do not believe in the efficacy of his prayers, why demand them of him? But, by the same reasoning, he oversteps his right when he imposes himself upon those who do not ask it of him.

In the case in question, by what right did that priest go to do violence to that lady's conscience in her own home, to make there an inquisitorial visit and to seize what did not belong to him? What does religion gain by this excess of zeal? Inept friends are always harmful.

The fact in itself is of little importance and is, in the final analysis, nothing but a petty spite, which proves the narrowness of its author's ideas; we would not have spoken of it had it not been connected to graver facts, to persecutions properly so called, whose consequences are more serious.

— Strange anomaly! Whatever a man's position may be, official or subordinate under any title whatever, no one disputes his right to be Protestant, Jewish, or even absolutely nothing; he may be openly unbelieving, materialist, or atheist; he may advocate this or that philosophy, but he has not the right to be a Spiritist. If he is suspected of Spiritism, as one was formerly suspected of Jansenism, he is suspect; if the matter is confessed, he is looked at askance by his superiors, when these do not think as he does, regarded as a disturber of society—he who abjures every idea of hatred and of vengeance, who has as his rule of conduct Christian charity in its most rigorous acceptation, benevolence toward all, tolerance, the forgetting and the pardon of injuries, in a word, all the maxims that are the guarantee of social order and the greatest curb upon evil passions. Well then! That which, in all times and among all civilized peoples, is a title to the esteem of honest people, becomes a mark of reprobation in the eyes of certain people, who do not forgive a man for having become better through Spiritism! Whatever his qualities, his talents, the services rendered, if he be not independent, if his position be not invulnerable, a hand, instrument of a hidden will, oppresses and wounds him, if it can, in his means of subsistence, in his dearest affections, and even in his standing. That such things should happen in regions where exclusive faith erects intolerance into a principle, as its best safeguard, has nothing surprising; but that they should occur in countries where liberty of conscience is inscribed in the code of laws as a natural right, is more difficult to understand. It must be, then, that this Spiritism is greatly feared, even though they present it as a hollow idea, a chimera, a utopia, a trifle that a breath of reason can knock down! If this fantastic light is not yet extinguished, it is, nevertheless, not for want of blowing upon it. Blow, then, blow always: there are flames that are stirred up by blowing, instead of being put out.

Some, however, will ask: what can be reproached to him who wishes and practices nothing but good? who fulfills the duties of his office with zeal, probity, loyalty, and devotion? who teaches to love God and neighbor? who preaches concord and invites all men to treat one another as brothers, without distinction of creeds or of nationalities? Does he not labor for the appeasement of the dissensions and antagonisms that have caused so many disasters? Is he not the true apostle of peace? Uniting by his principles the greatest possible number of adherents, by his logic, by the authority of his position, and, above all, by his example, will he not avert lamentable conflicts? If, instead of one, there be ten, a hundred, a thousand, will his salutary influence not be so much the greater? Such men are precious helpers; there are never enough of them; should they not be encouraged, honored? Is the doctrine that causes these principles to penetrate the heart of man, by conviction supported upon a sincere faith, not a pledge of security? Besides, where has it ever been seen that Spiritists were provokers of disturbances? On the contrary, are they not always and everywhere pointed out as peaceful people, friends of order? Every time they have been provoked by acts of malevolence, instead of using reprisals, have they not carefully avoided everything that could have been a cause of disorder? Has authority ever punished them for some act contrary to public tranquility? No, for an official, charged with the maintenance of order, said not long ago that if all those under his administration were Spiritists, he could close his office. Could there be a more characteristic homage rendered to the sentiments that animate them? And to what watchword do they obey? Solely to that of their conscience, for they betray no patent personality nor any concealed in the shadows. Their doctrine is their law, and that law prescribes to them to do good and to avoid evil; by its moralizing power it led to moderation exalted men who feared nothing, neither God nor human justice, and who were capable of anything. If it were popular, with what weight would it not present itself in moments of effervescence and in turbulent centers? In what, then, can this doctrine be a motive for reprobation? How can it call down persecution upon those who profess and propagate it? You are astonished that a doctrine which produces nothing but good should have adversaries! But, then, you do not know the blindness of the spirit of party? Has it ever considered the good that a thing can do, when it is contrary to its opinions and to its material interests? Do not forget that certain opponents are so by system, far more than by ignorance. It would be in vain that you should hope to draw them to you by the logic of your reasonings and by the prospect of the salutary effects of the Doctrine; they know this as well as you, and it is precisely because they know it that they do not want it; the more rigorous and irresistible that logic is, the more it exasperates them, because it shuts their mouths. The more you demonstrate to them the good that Spiritism produces, the more they grow irritated, because they feel that therein lies its strength; therefore, even were it to save the country from the greatest disasters, they would repel it all the same. You triumph over an unbeliever, over an atheist of good faith, over a vicious and corrupt soul, but never over people of preconceived ideas!

— What, then, do they expect from persecution? To halt the impulse of new ideas by intimidation? Let us see, in a few words, whether such an aim can be attained.

All great ideas, all renovating ideas, in the scientific order as in the moral order, have received the baptism of persecution, and this was inevitable, because they wound the interests of those who lived by old ideas, prejudices, and abuses. But, since these ideas constitute truths, has persecution ever been seen to halt their course? Is not the history of all times there to prove that, on the contrary, they grew, consolidated themselves, propagated by the very effect of persecution? Persecution was the stimulant, the goad that drove them forward and made them advance faster, overexciting minds, so that the persecutors worked against themselves and gained nothing but to be stigmatized by posterity. Only those ideas in which the future was seen were persecuted; those judged to be of no consequence were left to die a natural death.

Spiritism, too, is a great idea; it had, then, to receive its baptism like its precursors, because the spirit of men has not changed, and there will happen to it what happened to the others: an increase of importance in the eyes of the multitude and, consequently, greater popularity. The more the victims are in evidence by their position, the greater the repercussion will be by reason of the extent of their relations.

Curiosity is the more overexcited the more a person is surrounded with esteem and consideration; each one wishes to know the why and the how; to know the foundation of those opinions, which arouse so much wrath; they inquire, they read, and thus a quantity of people, who perhaps would never have concerned themselves with Spiritism, are led to know it, to judge it, to appreciate it, and to adopt it. Such was, as is known, the result of the furious declamations, of the pastoral interdictions, of the diatribes of every sort. Such will be that of the persecutions. These do more: they raise Spiritism to the level of serious beliefs, for good sense says that one does not combat chimeras.

Persecution against false, erroneous ideas is useless, because these discredit themselves and fall of their own accord. Its effect is to create partisans and defenders, and to delay their fall, because many consider them good, precisely because they are persecuted. When persecution attacks true ideas, it goes directly against its aim, because it favors their development; it is, then, in all cases, an ineptitude that turns against those who commit it.

A modern writer lamented that they had not burned Luther, in order to destroy Protestantism at its root; but as they could not have burned him save after the emission of his ideas, had they done so Protestantism would perhaps be twice as widespread as it is. They burned John Huss; what did the council of Constance gain by it? To cover itself with an indelible stain. But the martyr's ideas were not burned with him: they were one of the foundations of the Reformation. Posterity conferred glory upon John Huss and shame upon the council. (Spiritist Review, August 1866.) Today they no longer burn, but they persecute in other ways.

No doubt, when a tempest breaks, many take shelter. Persecutions can, then, momentarily impede the free manifestation of thought; the persecutors, believing they have stifled it, fall asleep in a deceptive security; but their thought subsists none the less, and ideas repressed are like plants in a greenhouse: they grow faster.