On the prohibition of evoking the dead.

— Some members of the Church rely on the prohibition of Moses to proscribe communications with Spirits; but if his law must be rigorously observed on this point, it must be so equally on all the others. Why would it be good with regard to evocations and bad in other parts? One must be consistent; if, for certain things, it is acknowledged that his law no longer harmonizes with our customs and our age, there is no reason why the same should not hold for the prohibition of evocations. Moreover, it is necessary to consider the motives that led them to make such a prohibition, motives that, then, had a reason for being, but which assuredly no longer subsist today. As for the death penalty inflicted on whoever disregarded this prohibition, it must be acknowledged that in this Moses was very prodigal and that, in his draconian legislation, the severity of the punishment was not always an indication of the gravity of the fault. The Hebrew people were turbulent, difficult to lead, and could not be tamed except by terror. On the other hand, Moses did not have a great choice in his means of repression; he had neither prisons nor houses of correction, and his people were not susceptible to suffer the fear of purely moral penalties; thus, he could not grade his penalty as is done in our days. Now, out of respect for his law, would it be necessary to maintain the death penalty for all the cases in which he applied it? Besides, why do they resurrect this article with so much insistence, while keeping silent about the beginning of the chapter that prohibits the priests from possessing the goods of the Earth and from having a part in any inheritance, because the Lord himself is their inheritance? (Deuteronomy, chapter XVIII).

— There are two distinct parts in the law of Moses: the law of God properly speaking, promulgated on Mount Sinai, and the civil or disciplinary law, appropriate to the customs and the character of the people; the one is invariable, the other is modified with time.

It can come to no one's mind that we could be governed by the same means as the Hebrews in the desert, just as the legislation of the Middle Ages could not be applied to the France of the nineteenth century. Who would think, for example, of resurrecting today this article of the Mosaic law: “If an ox gores a man or a woman with its horn, and the person dies, the ox shall be stoned without remission, no one shall eat its flesh, and its owner shall be acquitted.” Now, what does God say in his commandments? “Thou shalt have no other God but me; thou shalt not take the name of God in vain; honor thy father and thy mother; thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbor.” Here is a law that is of all times and of all countries, and which, for this very reason, has a divine character; but it does not treat of the prohibition of evoking the dead, whence it must be concluded that such a prohibition was a simple disciplinary and circumstantial measure.

— But did Jesus not come to modify the Mosaic law, and is his law not the code of Christians? Did he not say: “You have heard that it was said to the Ancients such and such a thing; but I say to you another thing?” Now, nowhere in the Gospel is mention made of the prohibition of evoking the dead; it is a point too grave for the Christ to have omitted it in his instructions, although he treated of questions of a far more secondary order. Or must one think, like an ecclesiastic to whom such an objection was made, that “Jesus forgot to speak of it?”

As the pretext of the prohibition of Moses is inadmissible, they rely on the excuse that evocation is a lack of respect for the dead, whose ashes must not be disturbed. When this evocation is done religiously and with recollection, one cannot speak of disrespect; but there is a peremptory answer to give to such an objection: it is that the Spirits come willingly when called and, even, spontaneously, without being called; they manifest satisfaction at communicating with men and frequently complain of the forgetfulness in which they are sometimes left. If they were disturbed in their quietude or were displeased with our appeal, they would say so or would not come. If they come, it is because it suits them, for we know of no one who has the power to constrain the Spirits, impalpable beings, to inconvenience themselves, should they not wish it, since we cannot bind them to the body.

— They allege another reason: the souls, they say, are in hell or in paradise. Those that are in hell cannot leave it; those that are in paradise remain in entire beatitude and far too much above mortals to occupy themselves with them. There remain those that are in purgatory; but these are suffering and must think above all of their salvation. Therefore, if none of them can come, only the devil comes in their stead. In the first case it would be very rational to suppose that the demon, author and instigator of the first revolt against God, in perpetual rebellion and experiencing neither repentance nor regret for what he does, would be more rigorously punished than the poor souls dragged by him into evil and who, many times, are guilty only of a temporary fault that causes them bitter remorse. Far from it: it is exactly the contrary that happens. These unhappy souls are condemned to atrocious sufferings, without respite or mercy throughout all eternity, without a single instant of relief and, during that time, the devil, author of all evil, enjoys full liberty, runs about the world recruiting victims, takes all forms, permits himself all joys, plays pranks, amuses himself even by interrupting the course of the laws of God, since he can work miracles. In truth, it would remain for the guilty souls to envy the lot of the devil. And God lets him act, without saying anything, without opposing any check to him, without permitting the good Spirits at least to come to counterbalance his criminal actions! In good faith, is this logical? and can those who profess such a doctrine swear, with their hand on their conscience, that they would put it into the fire to maintain that it is the truth? The second case also raises a very great difficulty. If the souls that are in beatitude cannot leave their blissful abode to come to the aid of mortals – which, be it said in passing, would be a very egoistic happiness – why does the Church invoke the assistance of the saints, who must enjoy the greatest possible sum of beatitude? Why does it tell the faithful to invoke them in illnesses, in afflictions and to preserve themselves from scourges? Why, according to it, do the saints, the Virgin herself, come to show themselves to men and work miracles? Then they leave Heaven to come to the Earth? If they can leave it, why could others not do so?

— As the motives alleged to justify the prohibition of communicating with the Spirits do not bear a serious examination, there must be another, unconfessed. This motive could well be the fear that the Spirits, very clairvoyant, would come to enlighten men on certain points and make known to them exactly how things happen in the other world and the true conditions for being happy or unhappy. This is why one says to a child: “Do not go there; there is a werewolf”; and one says to men: “Do not call the Spirits; they are devils.” A useless precaution, since, even though men are prohibited from calling the Spirits, the Spirits will not be prevented from coming to men, taking the lamp from under the bushel. [See the following article on the same subject.]