Chapter XI — On superstitious magic, or on sorcery

I. Sacred Scripture (Matt. 7, Mark 9, and elsewhere passim) and all Doctors alike bear witness to the existence of sorcery. Sorcery is magic that, by the art of a demon, inflicts harm. Sorcery is twofold: harmful, and amatory. The former is employed to injure men, animals, and plants; the latter sorcerers use to arouse carnal love, or hatred, toward those we ought instead to love. Harmful sorcery is sometimes worked by a powder cast into food or drink, or sprinkled upon clothing. According to the varying color of this powder, different afflictions are induced: if the powders are reddish or ash-colored, illness is contracted; if black, death follows. This variety of diseases and of death, however, arises not from the diversity of the colors, but from the malice of the demon — the various colors being merely signs, at whose placement demons produce the effects. Sorcerers sometimes use poisons, by which they can naturally inflict harm. Countless are the ways by which sorcerers can harm men, which you may see in Sprenger's Malleus Maleficarum (Part 1, q. 2), Del Rio (Bk. III), and many others — though I would not have you place full trust in everything they relate. Amatory sorcery, which is also called by the Greek term "philter," is customarily carried out in two ways. The first is when things to be eaten or drunk are given, which by their own nature tend to stimulate desire. No food or drink, however, can, of itself, determinately arouse love and inflame the will; it can only heat the body, stir the humors, alter the senses, and present to the senses those qualities apt to stir love — while it is the demons themselves who arouse love and inflame the will. In the second manner, such amatory sorceries are worked upon the most sacred sacraments and rites of our religion — as upon consecrated hosts, incense, oil, and holy water. Nor are such love-charms always given to be eaten or drunk by the intended victim; sometimes they are bound externally to garments, or hidden beneath the bed on which the person lies, or beneath the threshold of the door, or in some other place through which the person to be bewitched must pass. Various devices which women have used to arouse desire are described by the Prophet Baruch (ch. 6): Babylonian women, seated in the streets, burning olive-stones as incense, are approached by a passer-by; and if one of them, drawn aside by someone passing, sleeps with him, she reproaches her neighbor for not having been thought equally worthy, nor having had her cord broken like her own. All such things done to them, however, are false and worthless. These and similar illusions can in no way move the will; they are merely signs, at whose placing demons inflame men's desires.

II. To drive away such sorceries, our Holy Mother the Church proposes the meditation on the four last things, continual prayers to God and the Blessed Virgin, frequent reception of the sacraments, fasting, hairshirts, disciplines, almsgiving, humility of spirit, and bodily mortification, and other such pious works; likewise the avoidance of dangerous occasions, especially of young women and girls, who are truly incitements to unchaste love, and enchantments. The remedies which philosophers commonly propose against such unchaste love kindled by sorcery are vain, and full of superstition: the herb "promethea," wolf's-bane, a toad bound in the skin of a sheep, goat's urine, and other things Pliny mentions (Bk. XXVIII, ch. 38 and following) are superstitious — as are many others they heap up, such as a lover's hair enclosed in one's shoe: a foul remedy, which only the mad and the foolish would employ. Theologians commonly add, however, that beyond the sacred remedies which the Church prescribes in her rituals against any sorceries (of which, besides those already mentioned, faith in Christ, the sign of the Cross, and the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints are chief), it is also lawful and useful to make use of natural remedies — not because demons, the authors of sorcery, could be countered by them, but because natural remedies can soothe and check harmful humors, and drive them out, as is gathered from Sacred Scripture. For David, with his sweet music, brought joy to Saul, from whom the evil spirit thereupon departed; and Tobias drove away Asmodeus with the smoke of a fish's liver. Many herbs, too — sage, rue, vervain, and others — are taught by Pliny, Galen, Aristotle, and physicians generally, to be beneficial against sorceries, insofar as they expel, correct, or purge harmful humors.

III. Question I. Is it lawful to cure a sorcery by means of another sorcerer? Response: There have not been wanting those who taught that it is lawful to seek the dissolution of a sorcery from sorcerers prepared to provide it — just as, in a case of necessity, it is lawful to seek money at interest from a usurer, or the sacraments from a priest in a state of mortal sin. But the common and sound opinion denies that it is lawful to seek the dissolution of sorcery from sorcerers, however willing they may be to provide it. The reason is clear: for just as sorcery is worked by the aid of a demon, so too it is undone by an explicit or tacit invocation of a demon. But the invocation of a demon is by its very nature evil. Therefore it is always unlawful and superstitious. For evils that are evil by their very kind, and which can in no way be cleansed of their malice, are never to be done, that good may come of it, as the Apostle says (Rom. 3). Hence God commands (Lev. 19): "Turn ye not to magicians, neither ask anything of soothsayers, to be defiled by them." And against those who commit such a crime, he establishes a punishment (ibid., ch. 20, v. 6): "The soul that shall go aside to magicians and soothsayers, and shall commit fornication with them, I will set my face against that soul, and destroy it out of the midst of its people." By the term "fornication," Scripture means commerce and communion with sorcerers.

IV. All this is clear, and needs no further lengthy explanation. The arguments raised against it are of no weight at all. For it is lawful to seek the sacraments from a sacrilegious priest, and money from a usurer; because it is lawful, honorable, and holy by its very nature to administer the sacraments, and to lend money — and it is only through man's own wickedness that either can be rendered shameful. What is required is only what is honorable, what is holy, what can be done without fault; the crime and wickedness lie entirely outside the intention of the one who requests it, and proceed solely from the malice of the other party's wicked will. As for the further claim — that it is lawful to ask a demon to desist from a sorcery, as exorcists do; and that what is sought from the demon is not the wicked deed itself, but the destruction of the sorcery, which is by its own nature good — these and similar claims are sophistries. For any communication whatsoever with a demon is unlawful. One communicates with a demon, and even acknowledges him as a superior, the moment one asks him to desist from a sorcery. Exorcists command by divine power, and subject the demon to that dignity and authority — which is lawful. But when you ask him to desist from the sorcery, you implore his aid, and subject yourself to him — which is wicked. The destruction of sorcery obtained by lawful means is good; obtained by unlawful and superstitious means, it is not. The destruction of a sorcery achieved through exorcism, then, is good; achieved through another sorcery, it is wicked. Nor may you say that you are not subjecting yourself to the demon, but merely compelling him to remove the sorcery. For either you do this on the authority of the Church, or on private authority. If on the authority of the Church, you compel him in the name of Christ and of God, and this is lawful — provided you are duly invested with such authority. If you do this on your own authority, this very fact is proof that some tacit pact exists there. If, however, in the faith and hope of Christ you rebuked the demon, that he might desist from inflicting harm, you would not be guilty of superstition. It is likewise unlawful to induce sorcerers to remove sorceries by means of a blessing, as though by a sign — for sorcerers abuse this blessing, having previously arranged with the demon that he will cease from the sorcery, or remove it, upon the sign being given. Only the remedies prescribed by the Church, then, are to be used to drive away sorceries. It is, finally, unlawful to remove sorceries by other vain rites, if these are used to induce the effect; since vain rites, being unsuited to the purpose, imply the intervention of a demon's aid.

V. Question II. Is it lawful to seek from a sorcerer that he remove a sorcery, when it is established that he can remove it by lawful means? Response: It is established among theologians that it is lawful to compel sorcerers to remove sorceries by lawful means, insofar as they are approached, not as sorcerers, but as men skilled in a good art suited to producing a good effect. Just as, on the contrary, all assert that it is unlawful to seek the dissolution of a sorcery if one is uncertain, or doubts, whether the sorcerer knows a lawful means of removing it — since then a lawful means is not employed, but it becomes a matter of indifference whether the sorcery is removed by lawful or unlawful means. And for this reason it is likewise unlawful to seek the dissolution of a sorcery, not from the one who worked it, but from another sorcerer, who is ignorant of the signs of that sorcery, since such a sorcerer cannot recognize the sorcery except by first working another sorcery of his own — and so you would be asking that a new sorcery remove the old one. Nor, finally, is it lawful to permit a sorcerer to apply a vain and superstitious remedy to the bewitched person.

VI. Cajetan responds to the question proposed (Opuscula, tract. 12, On Sorcery, q. 1) that it is unlawful to seek from a sorcerer the dissolution of a sorcery, because such a dissolution is then sought from the sorcerer as sorcerer, just as one seeks a work of art from an artisan. Now a sorcerer, as such, is a minister of the devil, whose invocation is always unlawful.

VII. The contrary opinion is common, and seems to me more true. For it is false, what Cajetan puts forward as the reason for his opinion — namely, that in the question proposed, it is asked whether a sorcerer, as sorcerer, may be sought for the dissolution of a sorcery — this is rather taken for granted as the point at issue. For we are asking whether it is lawful to seek the dissolution of a sorcery from a sorcerer, in the case where he knows, and has ready at hand, a lawful means to this effect. If, indeed, the sorcerer lacks a lawful means, all agree that such a request is unlawful. When, then, it is established for us that a sorcerer really does possess lawful means by which he can remove the fascination, what prevents us from asking him to free the bewitched person by lawful means? For it is clear that in that case we do not make use of the sorcerer as sorcerer, but as a man who has, and knows, lawful means to an excellent effect — namely, the health of the bewitched. Indeed, on this same principle, we say that it is lawful to seek money from a usurer, and the sacraments from a sacrilegious priest — because he can lawfully administer the sacraments; although we know from other sources that neither the usurer will lend money without interest, nor the priest administer the sacraments without sin. Why is this, unless because the whole malice is thrown back onto the wicked will of the moneylender, or of the priest? The very same, then, is to be asserted of the sorcerer in our case: the sin of the new sorcery would fall entirely upon his own malice alone, since we could lawfully seek the necessary actions to remove the earlier sorcery. Nor are we bound to avoid our neighbor's sin, which arises solely from his own obstinate malice, and not from any pressing necessity of our own health. Christ himself taught us that the scandal of the Pharisees is to be disregarded. The only difficulty in this matter is that we should know for certain that the sorcerer possesses a lawful remedy by which he can dissolve the sorcery — just as we know for certain that a usurer can lawfully lend money, and an unbeliever can lawfully take an oath. Nor should faith be placed in a sorcerer who merely claims to have such remedies, since no trust is to be placed in such people. It must, therefore, be established for us by certain evidence that the sorcerer knows lawful remedies by which he can remove the sorcery. And because this is rarely established for us, I would never permit anyone to seek the dissolution of a sorcery from a sorcerer. But if the sorcerer testified that he had such remedies, I would permit him to reveal them to me, or to another, so that some upright man, without his help, might use these remedies and apply them. Otherwise I would place no trust at all in the sorcerer, if he refused to reveal these harmless remedies to another upright man, who, applying them, might remove the sorcery.

VIII. Question III. Is it lawful to destroy the instruments of sorcery? Response: The common opinion, and the true one, affirms this. This is clearly gathered from Scripture (Deut. 12), where it is commanded that the idols, statues, temples, and altars of the pagans be destroyed, and their sacred groves burned. Now these are the very signs and monuments of superstition, and, as it were, of diabolical magic. By the same reasoning, then, it will be lawful to destroy the signs and instruments of sorceries. Nor can it be said that this removal of such signs entails a pact with the demon, or an invocation of him, or any communication with him — since such a destruction of these signs breaks whatever pact one might have had with the demon. For the very purpose of destroying these signs — namely, the bindings, papers, hair, and other such things — is to break whatever pact was made with the demon. This destruction of signs, then, is not the effect of the sorcerous art, or of the sorcerer as sorcerer, but of a man restoring health to the bewitched. All, therefore, who recognize such signs, can and ought to remove and destroy them. Sorcerers are bound to do this out of justice, let alone charity; all others, out of charity, by which all are bound to remove harm from their neighbor. Nor can any harm that might befall the sorcerer as a result rightly hinder this destruction — since such harm falls outside the intention of the one dissolving the sorcery; and the sorcerer must attribute to himself whatever loss he suffers, if it arises from his pact with the demon. All this is common doctrine, and many theologians are cited in favor of this opinion, including the Fathers of Salamanca (tract. 11, ch. 11, punct. 10, §3, n. 158).

IX. The contrary opinion is attributed to Jean of Louvain, who contends that this destruction is unlawful, on the grounds that he supposes a twofold pact to be entered into in sorcery: one, of inflicting harm once a sign is placed; the other, of desisting from harm once that same sign is removed. This, however, is not absolutely true. But even granting this twofold pact, it does not follow that the destruction of the sorcery becomes an unlawful violation of the pact with the demon; rather, it more likely constitutes a desisting from it. For if a person who is not himself a sorcerer destroys these signs, there can be no suspicion at all that he does so by imploring the demon's aid; rather, by driving him away, and removing his instruments, he prevents him from inflicting harm. If, however, the sorcerer himself destroys these signs, he can do this without seeking the demon's aid; rather, in breaking the pact he had entered into, and repenting of it, he shows that he wishes to have no further communication with the demon in the future. Nor does the one who destroys these signs ask the demon for health, or for any benefit; rather, by destroying the sign, he compels him to desist from causing harm. If you wish to know more, see Del Rio, Bk. VI, ch. 2.

X. Question IV. Must a sorcerer who has handed a demon a document signed with his own blood redeem it, in order to be able to make a true confession? Response: Owing to the impiety of sorcerers, many descend so far that they renounce Christ, the sacraments, and the other mysteries of the Christian religion; and, to bind themselves the more firmly as slaves of the demon, they enter into a mutual pact, and confirm the writing with their own blood, which they afterward hand over to the demon for safekeeping, as a pledge of their promised fidelity. A common error prevails, that a sorcerer cannot make sincere confession unless he arranges for the demon to restore this writing to him. This is a false and mistaken persuasion; for there is no sin of which one cannot repent, with the aid of grace. In order for the sorcerer to truly repent, it is enough that he detest the crime committed with his whole heart, that he renounce the demon, submit himself to God, and keep his commandments. If the sorcerer had some sign given him by the demon in his possession, he ought immediately to burn it, in token of the broken pact and future enmity. But sorcerers could lawfully make use of knowledge, money, and other things acquired by the demon's art, whose possession and use would in no way depend on the demon — because, although their acquisition was tainted, once the fault has been removed by penance, their use can become lawful, as theologians commonly teach. They note, however, that it very often happens that riches conferred by a demon's aid turn out to be false, and illusory. I would add that if the money conferred by a demon were procured by theft, it would then have to be unlawfully retained, and it would be a matter of injustice [to keep it]. Likewise health, and any knowledge acquired by a demon's art, may certainly be retained — since these cannot be discarded. For no one made healthy through some sorcery is bound to make himself sick again voluntarily, and cast himself back into his former illness; nor can anyone erase from his mind the knowledge he has acquired. This knowledge, however, ought to be used only for an honorable end, not to be inquired into out of vain or morbid curiosity. As for money, whether it be real, or falsified by the demon's art, procured for an honorable purpose, I hold entirely that it may be used for such a purpose. If you ask for the reason, perhaps I do not know how to present it with full evidence. Nor am I unaware that many things unlawfully acquired can nonetheless be retained, as is commonly said of wages received for prostitution. But the innermost sense, so to speak, of the Christian profession seems to demand a contempt and casting away of such riches. For if the Lord teaches us to despise all riches; if St. Peter rebuked Simon's money, saying, "Thy money be with thee to perdition" (Acts 8:20) — in my own opinion, a repentant sorcerer ought to cast away all such money. But, you say, is it not a waste to throw away money that could serve some good use? This proves only that such money may be handed over to some upright man for a pious use — which I would not dare to disapprove — but by no means that it ought to be retained by the sorcerer himself, so that he might be enriched by it.