(Part 1)

“(...) And among you there should be no one who has the Spirit of a Python and is willing to foretell, interrogating the dead in order to know the truth.”

Moses (Deuteronomy, 13:9 a 12.)

Besides prohibiting the indiscriminate exchange with Spirits, Moses also orders to stone adulterous women; to kill and bury a cow that hurt somebody… Are those laws still obeyed nowadays?

Kardec teaches us the following^[1]:

“If the Law of Moses is to be so strictly observed in an aspect, it should be equally done in all the others. Why would it be good concerning evocations and bad concerning other things? One needs to be consequent. Once you recognize that Mosaic Law is not in accordance with our times and customs anymore, the same reasoning applies to the prohibition we speak about. Furthermore, one needs to make clear the motives that justified this prohibition, that now null themselves completely: the Hebrew lawmaker wanted his people abandoned all the customs acquired in Egypt, where evocations were in use and abuses occurred, as we can see in these words by Isaiah: “The Spirit of Egypt will annihilate itself and I will precipitate his advice; they will consult their idols, their fortunetellers and their pythons”.

The Israelites should not contract alliances with foreign nations, where they would find the same practices. Moses should, therefore, inspire in the Hebrews the aversion to all customs that resembled the ones of the enemy. To justify this aversion, it was needed to present these practices as condemned by God Himself, hence these words: “The Lord abominates all of these things and will destroy, upon His arrival, the nations that commit such crimes”. 

There are two distinct parts in Moses’ Law – Moses’ prohibition was rather fair, for the evocation of the dead did not stem from feeling of respect, affection, or pity towards them, but a resource for divination, such as auguries and omens explored by charlatanism and superstition. These practices, so it seems, were also a business, and Moses, however hard he tried, was not able to unravel them from popular customs.

These superstitious practices lingered until the Middle Age, but today reasoning prevails at the same time that Spiritualism came to show the solely moral, consoling and religious aspects of after-grave relationships.

There are two distinct parts in Moses’ Law: the Law of God itself, promulgated on the Sinai, the civil law or disciplining, appropriate to the people’s customs and character. One of these laws is invariable, whereas the other one changes with time, and no one notices that we may be governed by the same means as the Jewish people in the desert. Who would have thought today, about reliving this article of the Law of Moses^[2]: “If an ox gores a man or a woman let it be killed, it must be stoned to death and no one should eat its flesh; but the ox’s owner will be judged innocent”.

This article seems absurd, it didn’t have, however, another aim than to punish the ox and free the owner, only confiscating the animal, the cause of the accident, in order to make the owner be more attentive. The loss of the ox was the punishment that should be very sensitive to a people of shepherds, to the point of ruling out other forms of punishment; however, this loss was not enjoyed for its meat was prohibited to be consumed. 

Had Jesus modified the Law of Moses? – Everything had a reason to be according to Moses’ Law, once it foresees everything in every minute detail, but the form, as well as the depth, was adapted to occasional circumstances. If Moses returned today to legislate over a civilized nation, he would certainly not provide them a code such as the Hebrews’.

To this objection opposes the affirmation that all the Laws of Moses were dictated by God, like the ones on the Sinai. But, by considering them all from the same divine source, why are the commandments limited to the Decalogue? Why the difference? Isn’t it certain that if every law emanates from God they should be equally mandatory? Why don’t they keep circumcision, to which Jesus was submitted and did not abolish? Well, they forget that, in order to lend authority to their laws, all ancient rulers attributed them a divine origin. There you are: Moses, more than anybody else, needed this recourse, observing his people’s character; and if, despite of that, he faced some difficulties applying these laws, what would happen if they weren’t promulgated under his own name? Hadn’t Jesus come to modify the Law of Moses, making His law the code for all Christians? No, He said: “You know what was told to the ancient, such and such, and I go and say something else?” However, Jesus did not proscribe, but sanctioned the Law of the Sinai, from which all His moral Doctrine stems from.

Well, Jesus never alluded to a prohibition of evoking the dead at all, when that was too hot a topic to be omitted from his preaching, mainly because He also dealt with other less important issues. 

Do cults fear manifestations? – If Moses prohibited the evocation of the dead, it is because they could actually appear; otherwise the prohibition would be useless. Well, if the dead could come by then, they can also do it today. If the Spirits were disturbed, or distressed with our callings they’d say so and leave; however, in evocations, as free as they come about, Spirits do it because they want to.

All the alleged reasons to condemn relationships with Spirits fall apart in face of serious examination. All the heated arguments about it make it easy to find out why there’s so much interest around it. Looking at how certain cults repudiate manifestations, one can say they fear them.   

The real reason could well be that Spirits, more enlightened, would have come to teach about things that were obscured, providing knowledge of the existence of both another world giving knowledge of the true conditions to be happy or disgraced. The reason is the same of when you tell a child: - “Don’t go there, there’s a werewolf”. To man they say: “Do not call Spirits, they are the devil”. It does not matter anyway: - they stop people from evoking them, but they cannot stop them from coming around to raise the light from the bushel.  

The cult that is in sync with the absolute truth should not fear the light, for it makes the truth shine and the devil (who, by the way, does not exist) cannot do much against it.

To repel communications from beyond the grave is to repudiate the most powerful means to educate oneself, by the initiation on the knowledge about a Future Life, through the examples that such communications provide us with. 

Is it be beneficial for Spirits to interdict communications? –Experience teaches us, the Good we can do, steering imperfect Spirits away from evil, helping the ones who suffer to detach themselves from matter and improve themselves. To interdict communications is, therefore, to deprive Souls that suffer the assistance that we could and should spare.

The following words of a Spirit amazingly sum up the consequences of evoking, when used for charity:

“Every desolate Spirit who suffers will tell you the cause of his or her downfall. The madness that got them lost. Hopes, struggles and dread; remorse, despair and pain, all they will say, showing a God justly angry and punishing the guilty with all severity. When listening to a Spirit, two feelings will take over: the feeling of compassion and fear! Compassion towards the Spirit and fear for yourselves. And if you follow them in their complaints, you shall see, then, that God never loses sight of him, waiting for the regretful sinner and stretching His compassionate arms as soon as he seeks recovery. From the guilty one you see, at last, the beneficial progress for which you will have the joy and glory to help achieve, with solicitude and the care of a surgeon monitoring the healing of a wound that burdens daily.

Many creatures that have frequented medium gatherings, when asked about why they do it, they wrongly reply: “it’s for charity”. They only forget to say that the charity is towards themselves, for when they see what happens to trapped Spirits and understanding why they fell down such an unfortunate situation, will certainly not do the same as them, thus learning with the situation of the unfortunate.

^[1] - KARDEC, Allan. Heaven and Hell. 51. ed. Rio: FEB, 2003, 1st part, chap. XI, items 3 to 15.

^[2] - Exodus, chapter. XXI, verses 28 on.