The Spiritist Review - Journal of Psychological Studies - 1863

Allan Kardec

Back to the menu
Some members of the Church use Moses’ directive to not enage in communications with the Spirits but if his law is to be strictly observed on that point it must be followed on all others. Why would his law be correct on this point but not on others? One must be consistent. If we acknowledge that his laws are no longer in harmony with our time and customs on certain things there is no reason to be different with respect to the prohibition of the evocations. As a matter of fact, we must refer to the reasons that led him to such prohibition, reasons that made sense then but that are certainly no longer here.

As for the death penalty that followed the breach of that law, we must consider that he was very prodigious in that and in his Draconian legislation the severity of the punishment was not always an indication of the severity of the fault.

The Hebrew people were tempestuous, difficult to lead and could not be tamed but by terror. Besides, Moses did not have much choice as he had no way to punish his people through more modern means, like a jail or correction center. He was only able to control his people through purely psychological penalties. Hence, he could not scale up punishments as in our days.

Now would that be necessary to respect death penalty in all applicable cases for respect to his law? Besides, why people insist so much on bringing back this article of the law and remain silent with respect to the beginning of the chapter that prohibits clergymen from having the ownership of earthly properties and from sharing inheritance because the Lord is their inheritance? (Deuteronomious, Chapter XVIII).[1]



Moses’ law has two distinct parts: God’s law per se, given at Mount Sinai and the civil or disciplinary law, adequate to the customs and character of the people. One is invariable, the other modifies itself over time and nobody should believe that it can be governed by the same means. How we addressed the Hebrews in the desert during the Middle Ages could not be applied to France of the nineteen century.

Who would, for example, dream of reviving today the following article of Moses’ law: “If a man or a woman is hurt by the horn of an ox and the person dies the ox will be stoned without remission, the meat will not be eaten and the owner of the ox will be acquitted.”

What do God’s commandments say? “You shall have one God only; you will not use God’s name in vain; honor your father and your mother; do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not bear false testimony against your neighbor; do not covet your neighbor’s possessions.” Here we have a law that belongs to all times and all countries and for that very reason has a divine character but it does not deal with the prohibition of evoking the dead from which we must conclude that such prohibition was a simple disciplinary measure according to the circumstances.

Hasn’t Jesus modified Moses’ law and isn’t his law the code of Christianity? Hasn’t Jesus said: You heard what was said to former peoples and I tell you this…? There isn’t a single place in the Gospels with prohibition to the evocation of the dead. It is something very serious to have been left out by Jesus Christ from his instructions when he dealt with issues of much more secondary order. Or should we follow one priest that when asked about such objection said that “Jesus forgot to talk about it”.

Since the pretext of Moses prohibition is inadmissible, they then bring the idea that the evocation is a lack of respect to the dead whose ashes must not be disturbed. When such evocation is carried out religiously and with deference there is no disrespect but there is a prompt response to such an objection. The Spirits come in good will when called and even spontaneously without being called; that they give testimony of their satisfaction in communicating with people and eventually regret the obliviousness in which they are sometimes left.

If they were disturbed in their silence or if they were unhappy with our calls they would either tell us or do not come. If they do come, it is because it is convenient to them since we know nobody that has the power of forcing and bothering the Spirits, impalpable creatures, considering that we cannot apprehend their bodies.

There is another alleged reason, when they say that the souls are either in heavens or in hell. The ones in hell cannot leave hell. The ones in paradise are in complete beatitude and well above the mortal ones to be bothered by them. There remain the ones in purgatory but those are the suffering ones and must think in their salvation before anything else. Well, if neither ones nor the others may come it is only the devil that come in their place.

In the first case, it would be very rational to suppose that the devil, author and provoker of the first revolt against God, in an eternal rebellion, who does not experience regret or remorse for his actions, be more rigorously punished than the poor souls that he drags to evil and that many times are just guilty of a temporary fault over which they feel a bitter remorse. Far from that what does happen is exactly the opposite. Those unfortunate souls are condemned to terrible sufferings, without a truce or mercy for eternity, without a single moment of relief, and during that whole time the devil, author of all that evil, enjoys a plentiful freedom, going around the world and recruiting victims, taking all forms and shapes, given to all sorts of pleasures, even having fun by interrupting the course of God’s laws since the devil can even make miracles.

Frankly speaking the guilty souls should envy the fate of the devil. And God goes quiet and allows them to act, without the imposition of any brake, not even allowing the good Spirits to come to counter the devil’s criminal actions! Is this in good faith logical? And those who profess such a doctrine can they swear with their hands in their conscience that they would stick their hands in the fire to sustain that this is true?

The second case raises an issue whose difficulty is equally great. If the souls that enjoy beatitude cannot leave their place of rest to come to rescue the poor mortals, something that in-passing must be said would be a very egotist happiness, why does the Church claim the support of the saints who must enjoy an even greater beatitude? Why does the Church offer the help of the saints to its followers in their afflictions, in their diseases and to keep them from all miseries? Why, according to the Church, the saints and the Virgin herself come to show up to people and even make miracles? Do they leave heavens to come to Earth then? If they can do so why can’t others?

Since all the reasons given to justify the prohibition of communication with the Spirits cannot withstand a serious examination, there must be another unconfessed one. That reason could well be the fear that very enlightened Spirits could come and clarify people about certain points, allowing the righteous ones to get to know how things are in the other world and the true conditions to become happy or unfortunate. That is why for the same reason a child is told: “don’t go there because the werewolf is there”, people are then told: “don’t call the Spirits because it is the devil that comes”.

But that will be useless. If people are prohibited from calling the Spirits they cannot preclude the Spirits to come to people to remove the light from below the bowl.



[1]The Levitical priests—indeed, the whole tribe of Levi—are to have no allotment or inheritance with Israel. They shall live on the food offerings presented to the Lord, for that is their inheritance. 2 They shall have no inheritance among their fellow Israelites; the Lord is their inheritance, as he promised them.” (T.N.)


Related articles

Show related items