Question VIII: Whether it is lawful to consult witches so that they may at least remove spells

I suppose here with D. Bonavent. in the places cited in the preceding questions, that it is not permitted to approach Witches to place a maleficium. So all the Doctors, and it is proved by the holy Doctor from Levit. 19. and 20. Deuter. 13. and 18. This however proves that it is not permitted to approach even patarini and Arioli.

A greater question is: Whether it be lawful to approach a prepared strix, that she remove a maleficium by maleficium. The common, and true, opinion is that it is not permitted. So Sanchez lib. 7. matr. d. 95. Albertt. in 4. d. 34. art. 9. Sotus quaest. unica, art. 3. Palat. ibi, d. 1. Caietanus in summa, verb. maleficium, et in opusc. tract. 12. de maleficiis, quaest. un. Abul. cap. 19. Matth. quaest. 90. ad 3. Castro lib. de iusta haeret. punit. cap. 15. Ledesma 2. part. 4. quaest. 60. art. 2. Ciruelo de superstit. part. 3. cap. 15. Margarita confess. in primum praeceptum, fol. 60. Viguet. l. Inst. cap. 16. §. 7. ver. 9. imp. 11. Angles in flor. p. p. ubi de matrim. quaest. 8. art. 2. d. 2. Tolet. lib. 4. summae, cap. 16. Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 68. art. 4. d. 2. ad 4. Peretius, Ledesma de matrim. quaest. 58. art. 2. d. 2. Henriquez lib. 5. de poenit. cap. 6. et lib. 12. de matrim. cap. 8. Philiarc. tom. 1. part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 11. Delrius lib. 6. disg. cap. 2. sect. 1. quaest. 2. Barthol. a Ledesma de matrim. quaest. 49. Navarr. summa, cap. 11. num. 29. Couarr. in cap. Quamvis pactum, p. p. §. 1. Ludov. Lopez 2. part. Instruct. ubi de matrim. cap. 52. Rodriguez tom. 1. summa, cap. 7. concl. 11. Flamma 3. part. method. cap. 8. §. 11. Graff. p. p. decis. lib. 2. cap. 6. num. 10. Vega tom. 1. summae, cap. 34. casu 110. Rosella verb. imped. 15. num. 19. ibi. Tabien. imped. 11. quaest. 9. Sylvest. verb. malef. quaest. 8. ibi Armilia num. 2. Binsfeld. lib. 1. cap. de mathem. quaest. 5. Suarez tom. 1. de relig. lib. 2. de superstit. cap. 18. num. 4. Fagundez lib. 1. in primum praecept. Decal. cap. 42. Tannerus Tom. 1. d. 5. quaest. 6. dub. 7. et Tom. 4. de impedimentis matrimonii. Bassaeus V. Malefic. §.

This is the express opinion of D. Bonavent. in confessionali, cap. 1. particula 38. where he proves it from cap. 2. de sortil. where Alexander III condemned a Presbyter who for a good end had tried a superstitious damnation. It is also clear from cap. Qui sine salvatore 26. quaest. 2. drawn from D. Augustine. Thus it is proved also by others.

The reason is, because to make a maleficium in order to remove a maleficium includes a new invocation of the Demon, plainly wicked, but evils are not to be done that goods may come, as is said in Rom. 3.

Hence you have that it is false which is decided in leg. eorum, 46. de malef. and leg. Regia, 3. tit. 23. part. 7. and Azorius relates summa, tit. de malef. that malefics exercising maleficia for a good end, lest the fruits of the earth perish, are excused. For these are false, since these cannot be removed without an invocation of the Demon, which is not permitted even for a good end, as the holy Doctor notes loc. cit. and with him Fagundez num. 26. Bartol. in d. leg. eorum. Salicetus, and others.

You have also that it is unlawful to compel Witches by threats or punishments to remove a maleficium by maleficium, as Sanchez notes lib. 7. de matrim. d. 95. Suarez Tom. 1. de Religione, lib. 2. de superstit. cap. 18. Delrius lib. 6. disg. cap. 2. sect. 1. quaest. 2. The reason is, because this is intrinsically evil.

To me however it seems permitted, at least if the maleficium can be removed by a means unculpable, or licit, because I ask what can rightly be done, compelled by necessity; just as therefore on that account I can ask money from a usurer, because he can damn without usury, so in the present case. So Sanchez dub. cit. Suarez loc. cit. and others cited by Fagundez cap. 42. But that in necessity it be permitted to ask money from a usurer, I showed in the Tract. de charitate, d. 18. quae de scandalo, and Disput. de Usura, quaest. ult.

I add however, with Fagundez num. 12. that the strix is to be exhorted to employ only a licit means, which if she refuse to do, the fault is imputed to her.

Observe also that the remedies for removing maleficia are the Relics of Saints, Blessings, etc. which however, if they have something inept joined to the ceremony as necessary, would be superstitious, as Navar. warns summa Lat. cap. 11. num. 25. and others. It is also permitted to take away and burn the signs of maleficia, for instance knotted hairs, little statues, etc. as the Doctors commonly say; for they are works of the devil, which it is licit to destroy. Wherefore Scotus 4. d. 34. quaest. un. says it is ridiculous to doubt about this. It is permitted also to place other sacred things, that the bond may be destroyed. So Suar. cap. 17. num. 9. Less. lib. 2. cap. 44. d. 6. Fagundez num. 6. cap. 43.