Incarnation as punishment for sin

The following article, dealing with the principle of the non-retrogradation of the Spirit and eliminating the idea of reincarnation as a punishment, was obtained from the article “On the principle of the non-retrogradation of the Spirit”, from the Spiritist Magazine of June 1863. It contradicts what was included in the adulteration of Heaven and Hell, as we demonstrated “The strongest evidence of tampering with Allan Kardec's Heaven and Hell“.

Since questions have been raised several times about the principle of the non-retrogression of spirits, a principle that has been interpreted differently, we will try to resolve them. Spiritism wants to be clear to everyone and not leave its future followers any reason to argue about words, so all points susceptible to interpretation will be elucidated successively.

Spirits do not retrograde, in the sense that they lose nothing of the progress they have made. They may remain momentarily stationary, but they cannot become evil from being good, nor ignorant from being wise. This is the general principle, which only applies to the moral state and not to the material situation, which from good can become bad, if the Spirit has deserved it.

Let's make a comparison. Suppose a man of the world, educated, but guilty of a crime that leads him to Wales. Certainly there is for him a great decline as a social position and as a material well-being. Appreciation and consideration were followed by contempt and abjection. Meanwhile, he has lost nothing in terms of the development of intelligence. He will take his faculties, his talents, his knowledge to prison. He is a fallen man, and this is how fallen spirits must be understood. God can therefore, after a certain time of trial, withdraw from a world where they have not advanced morally, those who have not known him, who have rebelled against his laws, ordering them to atone for their errors and their hardening in a lower world, among even less advanced beings. There they will be as they were before, morally and intellectually, but in an infinitely more painful condition, by the very nature of the globe, and above all by the environment in which they are. In a word, you will be in the position of a civilized man forced to live among the savages, or a polite man condemned to the society of the forced. They have lost their position and their advantages, but have not regressed to the primitive state. From adults, they didn't become children. This is what you mean by regression. Al no have taken advantage of their time, it is up to them to start again. In his goodness, God does not want to leave them more time among the good, whose peace disturb, and therefore sends them to live among men whose mission will be to make them progress teaching them what they know. Through this work they will be able to advance and regenerate themselves, atoning for past faults, like the slave who saves little by little to buy a day of his freedom. But, like the slave, many only save money instead of accumulating virtues, the only ones that can pay for their ransom.

This has so far been the situation on our Earth, a world of atonement and trials, where the Adamic race, an intelligent race, was exiled among the inferior primitive races that inhabited it before it. That is why there is so much bitterness here, bitterness that is far from being felt to the same degree by savage peoples.

There is certainly a retrogression of the Spirit in the sense that it slows down its progress, but not from the point of view of its acquisitions, because of which and the development of its intelligence, its social degradation is more painful. This is why the man of the world suffers more in an abject environment than someone who has always lived in the mud.

According to a system that is somewhat specious at first glance, spirits were not created to incarnate and incarnation would only be the result of their lack. Such a system is undermined by the mere fact that if no spirit had failed, there would be no human beings on Earth or on other worlds. Now, since man's presence is necessary for the material improvement of the worlds; since he contributes by his intelligence and activity to the general work, he is one of the essential cogs in Creation. God could not subordinate the accomplishment of this part of his work to the eventual fall of his creatures, unless he counted on an ever-sufficient number of guilty people to provide laborers for the worlds created and yet to be created. Common sense rejects such an idea.

Incarnation is therefore a necessity for the Spirit who, in carrying out its providential mission, works for its own advancement through the activity and intelligence it must develop in order to provide for its life and well-being.

But incarnation becomes a punishment when, having not done what it should, the Spirit is forced to start again and multiplies its painful corporeal existences through its own fault. A student only graduates after having passed all the classes. Are these classes a punishment? No. They are a necessity, an indispensable condition for their progress. But if, due to laziness, you are forced to repeat them, then it is a punishment. Passing some of them is a merit. What is certain, therefore, is that incarnation on Earth is a punishment for many who inhabit it, because they could have avoided it, whereas they may have doubled, tripled, centupled it, through their own fault, thus delaying their entry into better worlds. What is wrong is to admit, in principle, the incarnation as a punishment.

Another question that is often discussed is this: Since the Spirit was created simple and ignorant, with the freedom to do good or evil, wouldn't it have a moral fall when it takes the wrong path, considering that it ends up doing evil that it didn't do before?

This proposition is no more tenable than the previous one. There is only a fall when passing from a relatively good state to a worse one. Now, created simple and ignorant, the Spirit is, in its origin, in a state of moral and intellectual nullity, like the child that has just been born. If it hasn't done evil, it hasn't done good either; it is neither happy nor unhappy; it acts without conscience and without responsibility. Since it has nothing, it can lose nothing and cannot retrograde. Its responsibility only begins when its free will develops. Its primitive state is therefore not one of intelligent, reasoned innocence. Consequently, the evil it does later on, by breaking God's laws and abusing the faculties it has been given, is not a return from good to evil, but the consequence of the bad path it entered on.

This brings us to another question. Could Nero, for example, while incarnated as Nero, have committed more evil than in his previous incarnation? To this we answer "yes", which does not imply that in the existence in which he had done less evil he would have been better. To begin with, evil can change form without being a greater or lesser evil. Nero's position as emperor, having put him in the spotlight, allowed his actions to be noticed more. In an obscure existence, he may have committed equally reprehensible acts, albeit on a smaller scale, which went unnoticed. As a ruler, he could have ordered the burning of a city. As an ordinary person, he could burn down a house and cause his family to perish. An ordinary murderer who kills a few travelers to dispossess them, if he were on the throne, would be a bloodthirsty tyrant, doing on a large scale what his position only allows him to do on a small scale.

Looking at the question from another point of view, we can say that a man can do more evil in one existence than in the previous one, show vices that he didn't have, without this implying moral degeneration. It is often the occasions that are lacking to do evil. When the principle exists in a latent state, the occasion comes and the bad instincts are revealed.

Ordinary life offers us numerous examples of this: A man who was thought to be good suddenly reveals vices that no one suspected, and which cause admiration. It's simply because he knew how to conceal it, or because a cause provoked the development of a bad germ. It is quite certain that those in whom good feelings are strongly rooted do not even have the thought of evil. When such a thought exists, the germ exists. Often all that is missing is the execution.

Then, as we said, evil, even in different forms, is still evil. The same vicious principle can be the source of many different acts stemming from the same cause. Pride, for example, can cause a great number of faults to be committed, to which one is exposed as long as the radical principle is not extirpated. A person can therefore have faults in one life which he would not have shown in another, and which are nothing more than the various consequences of the same vicious principle.

For us, Nero is a monster because he committed atrocities. But is it believable that these perfidious, hypocritical men, real vipers who sow the poison of slander, despoil families through cunning and abuse of trust, who cover their misdeeds with the mask of virtue in order to reach their ends more safely and receive praise when they only deserve execration, is it believable, we said, that they are better than Nero? Certainly not. Being reincarnated in a Nero would not be a regression for them, but an opportunity to show themselves in a new light. In this condition, they will display the vices they used to hide. They will dare to do by force what they used to do by cunning - that's all the difference. But this new trial will only make their punishment more terrible if, instead of taking advantage of the means given to them to make amends, they use them for evil. However, every existence, no matter how bad, is an opportunity for the Spirit to progress. It develops its intelligence and acquires experience and knowledge that will later help it to progress morally.