Chapter I — Definition and division of superstition

I. Superstition is described by St. Thomas (II-II, q. 92, art. 1) in these words: "Superstition is a vice opposed to religion by way of excess — not because it renders more than true religion does, but because it renders divine worship either to one to whom it is not owed, or in a manner in which it is not owed." All this is clear enough.

II. The Angelic Doctor first divides superstition into two species (loc. cit., art. 2). One is named from the undue manner of worshipping God; the other from the object which is worshipped. The first offers to God the worship owed him, but in an undue manner; the second offers to a creature the worship owed to God. The species of superstition are therefore differentiated, first by manner, and second by object. "For divine worship can be offered either to him to whom it should be offered — namely, the true God — but in an undue manner (and this is the first species of superstition); or to one to whom it should not be offered at all — namely, any creature whatsoever (and this is another kind of superstition, which is divided into many species according to the different ends of the divine cult)." The Angelic Doctor further divides this first kind — superstition of undue manner — into further subspecies (q. 93, art. 1): the first of these is false, or pernicious, in that a false and pernicious worship is rendered to God on account of the thing signified — as if someone were to worship God now with the ceremonies proper to false gods, or intended to confirm the Catholic faith by false miracles, or offered shameful sacrifices in divine rites; and it is pernicious also by reason of the worshipper's intention — as if someone were to pretend to be a priest of the Church, to whom a false worship would then be attributed. This can occur not only in public, but in private as well. Cajetan, in his commentary on this article, gives examples drawn from fasting and prayer: as if someone fasted on a Sunday contrary to the Church's practice, or prayed in such a purely private a manner as to have no regard at all to the Church — since the precept of praying in the person of the Church has been laid down by the Lord himself: "You shall pray: Our Father... Give us this day our bread... Forgive us..." Whoever, then, offered this prayer to God for himself alone would worship God with a false worship. This, however, is to be understood only in the sense that one positively intended to exclude the rest of the faithful from a share in that prayer; or intended to fast on a Sunday with no regard whatsoever for ecclesiastical discipline, but simply to institute a private rite of his own. No one, however, would be guilty of any superstition who, moved by a spirit of penance, fasted on Sundays — not to introduce some private discipline, but to bring the flesh more firmly into subjection to the spirit, and to pay the penalties owed for his sins; likewise one who offered the Lord's Prayer to God for himself, without any intention of excluding his other brethren.

III. The other species of superstition, arising from an undue manner of worshipping God, occurs when a superfluous worship is rendered to God, as the same Angelic Doctor adds: "But if there be something which, considered in itself, contributes nothing to God's glory, nor helps the mind of man to be directed toward God, nor serves to restrain the disordered concupiscence of the flesh; or again, if it falls outside what God and the Church have instituted, or is contrary to the common custom which, according to Augustine, is to be held as law — all this is to be reckoned superfluous and superstitious; for, consisting only in externals, it does not pertain to the interior worship of God. Whence Augustine, in his book On True Religion, cites the text of Luke 17, 'The kingdom of God is within you,' against the superstitious — that is, against those who devote their principal care to externals" (II-II, q. 93, art. 1). Thus one who devised for himself, at his own whim, certain particular ways of praying — wishing, say, to pray only after sunrise, or to hear Mass only from a priest named Anthony and no other, or with just so many candles, no more and no fewer, or of one color and no other; or who, setting aside the ceremonies established by the Church, invented others for himself — would be guilty of superstition; nor would it help him to plead that his intention in arranging all this was directed to his own spiritual profit, since an external worship contrary to the Church's ordinances is vicious in itself, and therefore cannot be cleared of the fault of superstition by any intention whatsoever. Ignorance, however — especially in lighter matters, when joined to a good intention — can, in my own opinion, serve as an excuse from fault.

IV. The second species of superstition, arising on the side of the object worshipped, occurs, says St. Thomas (II-II, q. 92, art. 2), when worship is rendered "to one to whom it should not be rendered — namely, to any creature whatsoever: this is another kind of superstition, which is divided into many species according to the different ends of divine worship." If a worship instituted for divine reverence is offered to a creature, it is called idolatry. In another way, divine worship is instituted so that man may be instructed by the God he worships; and if, spurning God, he consults demons instead, having entered into some tacit or explicit pact with them, this constitutes a second species of superstition regarding the object worshipped, which is called divination. A third species of the same superstition, again regarding the object worshipped, occurs when the divine worship that is meant to guide human acts according to the ordinances of the God who is worshipped is instead offered to a demon, from whom aid is sought — and this is called vain observance. These three, says the Angelic Doctor, are touched upon by Augustine (Bk. II, On Christian Doctrine), where he says that superstitious is whatever has been instituted by men pertaining to the making and worshipping of idols — which pertains to the first; and afterward he adds: "or to consultations and pacts concerning meaning agreed upon and struck with demons" — which pertains to the second; and a little further on he adds: "To this class belong all amulets and remedies of this kind" — which pertains to the third.

V. Question I. As is clear from what has been said, there are two genera of superstition: one regarding the manner of worshipping God, the other regarding the object worshipped. It is the first genus of superstition that concerns us here. And first we say that to render to God a false worship — whether by reason of the thing signified, or by reason of the worshipper — is by its nature a mortal sin; since a pernicious falsehood in a grave matter is a mortal sin. Now superstition is a pernicious falsehood in a grave matter — namely, in the matter of religion — to which it does grave injury. It is therefore, by its very kind, a grave sin. So hold Cajetan (on II-II, q. 93, art. 1), Suárez (Vol. I, On Religion, tract. 3, Bk. 3, ch. 11), the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 21, ch. 11, punct. 1), and Leander (tract. 9, disp. 1, q. 4). Hence those would sin mortally who sacrificed a calf to God, kept the Sabbath, or circumcised themselves according to the rite of the Mosaic law.

VI. Question II. Is it a grave sin to mix profane and shameful things into divine offices? Response: All affirm that this is a sin of undue worship — a superstition — which is false with respect to the worshipper, and altogether contrary to the end of divine worship. For divine worship aims at raising and moving hearts toward heavenly things; whereas shameful and profane things incite toward carnal ones. It should be noted, however, that if the things mixed in carry no shameful character, but are merely vain and not sacred, they are not therefore immediately to be condemned as a mortal fault — though they are never free of venial fault. I would add, moreover, that those are not in slight danger who recite the divine praises, or even the most sacred Passion itself, with a musical and profane style of chant, in churches, during the very sacred week of the Lord's Passion, declaiming from the pulpit and courting and stirring up the applause of a frenzied crowd. What a sacrilegious practice! Has the state of our religion come to this — that our most sacred mysteries should be celebrated with a profane rite, merely to soothe the ears and tickle the senses of the common rabble, together with play-actors? What, indeed, has the Church to do with theaters, and with actors? But of this, elsewhere.

VII. Question III. Does one who proposes false relics for adoration, or preaches fabricated miracles, sin mortally? Response: All affirm that this is a most grave crime of superstition, since it does grave injury to the faith and to religion; nor does a pious intention of increasing devotion remove the guilt of this crime. For the worship of religion is diminished, not increased, by needing to be propped up by such fabrications — whether feigned miracles or false relics.

VIII. Question IV. Is it a mortal sin to abstain from meat, and to fast, on a Sunday? Response: [Some] condemn as superstitious those who abstain [from meat on Sundays, provided they attach] no [further superstition to the practice, and] defend such a fasting-custom; Leander (tract. 9, disp. 1, q. 9) commends this view, along with other supporters of it, and teaches that fasting on a Sunday is no sin at all. The former, absolute view, however, [that it is always sinful] is [rejected] — as is proved by the experience of several sacred Orders, which abstain from meat perpetually. Far from condemning this practice as superstitious, the Church rather approves and commends it as a form of penance. It is the intention of those who fast that must be examined. The fasting of the Manichees, appointed for Sundays, was tainted with superstition, because it was instituted in contempt of the Lord's Resurrection. But those who fast in order to restrain the flesh and unbridled desires do not show contempt for, but rather honor, the Church's discipline. Hence one who spent Sundays in fasting with this intention of mortifying the flesh would sin neither mortally nor venially — especially since the Manichaean heresy is now extinct, and so there is no occasion for scandal. It is, nevertheless, more advisable to conform oneself to the Church's own practice, and to abstain from fasting on these days, unless some particular reason presses otherwise — as it does press upon those bound by vow or by law to abstain from meat even on these very days. From this you may gather that the superstition of a superfluous worship can be either mortal or venial, according to the gravity of the matter and the intention of the one performing it. For when a superfluous worship is offered to the true God with a pious mind, no grave injury is done to religious worship, scandal being absent. The magnitude of the fault, therefore, is to be gathered from these circumstances.