Alleged mediums lapse so much. But they're still deified

People currently are saying, with strange emphasis, that the "brazilian mediums" always "do mistakes".

"They're imperfect. They fail constantly. They're the ones that lapse too much", they say.

What interest they have to insist about this point of view?

Allan Kardec described, in The Book of Mediums, several risks that define the imperfect mediums, including mystification and spiritual obsession.

Several excerpts mention it, specially the 195 and 196 items from the 16th chapter, Special Mediums, from the Part II, From Spititists Manifestations.

It means that Francisco Candido Xavier, aka Chico Xavier, the most known alleged brazilian medium, must to be defined as "frivilous medium". As Kardec written:

Frivolous mediums - The ones that don't get serious their faculty and serve them only to fun and insane finalities.

It's so painful to Chico Xavier's followers and supporters.

They deceptively believe that Chico Xavier had other definition about his work, as a "good medium": the "modest medium", mentioned by the 197 item from The Book of Mediums. As Kardec written:

Modest mediums - The ones that attribute them no merit from the received communications, however they were so better. The mediums consider those communications as being from others and they don't judge free from mystifications. Far from get ridding of the imparcial advices, they request them.

Unfortunately, Chico Xavier showed, in his all trajectory, strange aspects about this work.

Their alleged psychographies brought a lot of mistakes. It was not simple mistakes, that would deserve apologies and go ahead.

They're serious and worrisome mistakes that hurt the personal aspects from each alleged dead author let to us in life.

One example is the alleged psychography about the famous writer and founder member of Brazilian Academy of Letters, Olavo Bilac, as an ironic comment by literary specialist Joao Dornas Filho:

"Olavo Bilac, um homem que no estágio de imperfeição nunca assinou um verso imperfeito, depois de morto ditou a Chico Xavier sonetos inteirinhos abaixo dos medíocres".

"Olavo Bilac, a man that in his imperfection stage never written an imperfect verse, after death dictated to Chico Xavier entire sonnets less than mediocre".

Every opportunist guy can say that his work can be to "the bread of the poor".

And Chico Xavier's mistakes were very worrisome and serious enough to eliminate even the simplest admiration to him.

He didn't do charities. He always defended the "accept of sufferance in silence", asking the suffers to don't cry in their extreme pain. This is charity? No.

And the philanthropic Chico's projects were so mediocre like the brazilian presenters like Luciano Huck usually did and do.

Chico Xavier perverted the original Kardec's lesson inserting the medieval Catholicism's dogmas. Any confirmation? Read Chico Xavier's books and anyone will confirm it.

What's the point to admit that Chico Xavier and similares are "imperfect" and "frequently fail" if the followers and supporters continue to admire him as a demigod, although they say that admire him "only for his positive qualities"?

The human falsehood had so hidden tricks that made people, in some cases, deceive themselves.

Nobody wants to be recognized as bad and failed. And there's one more confusion about Chico Xavier.

This new confusion is that he is admitted as "faulty" but he's also treated like a demigod.

What's the point to removing and idol from his pedestal if there's always an altar reserved to him?