Section — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
§ III. On Divination
- DEFINITION. Divination is an inquiry into hidden things by the help of the demon.
DIVISION. It is 1º express, if it is made by express invocation of the demon; 2º tacit, if that invocation is only in disproportionate means 1.
1 Namely it is not required that the demon at some time have made a pact that he would concur in the use of some vain means: for by the very fact that someone uses vain things, the demon mixes himself in, even if it is beyond the intention of the user to invoke his assistance. Nor is he excused who believes such means useful because of experiences: indeed the demon procures these, that he may gradually ensnare men and induce them to using similar things. Conf. Sanchez in Decal. Lib. 2. Cap. 38. And these things indeed must also be retained with regard to vain observance. From forgetfulness of these things indeed it has happened that, in passing judgment on certain phenomena of magnetism (as they call it) in these our days, some altogether most imprudently either remained uncertain or even pronounced that free from any fault which even a boy imbued with the first rudiments of catechesis would have pronounced manifestly to be ascribed to diabolical fraud.
Various kinds of divination are distinguished, of which kind especially are 1º Judicial astrology from the stars; - 2º Augury from the cry of birds; - 3º Auspice from their flight; - 4º Haruspicy from the entrails of animals; - 5º Chiromancy from the lines of the hand; - 6º Geomancy from signs in the earth; - 7º Omen from a fortuitous event; - 8º Necromancy from the invocation of a dead person; - 9º Oneiromancy from dreams; - 10º Sortilege from lots; - 11º Oracle from idols; - 12º Vaticination from seers or cards. - St. Lig. n. 5-6.
- Principles. - I. Whatever hidden thing is known in another way than through revelation or through natural means must be attributed to divination; for there is no other means of investigating hidden things. - But in doubt whether knowledge arises from natural means or not, whether from a good or from an evil spirit, the rules set forth above concerning vain observance must be applied.
II. Express divination can never be excused from mortal sin, not even through ignorance; for it is clear that a pact with the demon is something most gravely illicit.
This is openly established from Sacred Scripture. For thus Deut. 18. 10: Let there not be found in thee one who consults soothsayers, and observes dreams and auguries. Neither let there be an enchanter, nor one who consults pythons, nor diviners, or seeks the truth from the dead: all these things the Lord abominates. - And Lev. 20. 6: The soul which shall turn aside to magicians, and shall fornicate with them, I will set my face against it, and I will cut it off from the midst of my people.
III. But tacit divination can sometimes be excused from mortal sin on account of simplicity or ignorance, or on account of defect of certain faith. - St. Lig. n. 7. - Voit, n. 416.
- Resolves. - 1º He who, using disproportionate means for some knowledge, protests that he intends no commerce with the demon, is not free from grave fault 2; for he acts against his own protestation, and implicitly invokes the demon, since neither God nor the Angels mix themselves in such things. - Otherwise, however, in doubt whether the effect is had from a natural cause, as was said concerning vain observance. - St. Lig. n. 8. - Lacroix, - Bonacina, etc.
2 Conf. the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary to the Bishop of Lausanne (below n. 280.), concerning knowledge of some secret to be drawn from a person who is induced into somnambulism by the help of magnetism.
2º Natural effects must be diligently distinguished from free effects; for the former can often be conjectured, as, for example, from the singing and flight of birds, or from the aspect of the stars, tempest, rain, or serenity of the sky, etc., is conjectured: for experience establishes that a natural connection is present among these things; but otherwise must be said concerning the latter.
3º Disposition or state of soul can sometimes in some way be conjectured from the color of the face or other external signs, although in practice one must for the most part abstain from such conjectures on account of the danger of rash judgment; but free acts, whether past or future, can never be known certainly.
4º They sin gravely who inquire from seers concerning their fortune or future life (in French: faire dire sa bonne fortune ou sa bonne aventure; faire tirer les cartes); unless they act from simplicity, jest, or curiosity, without applying faith to the things said. - St. Lig. n. 10. - Sanchez, etc. - But if they do this seriously, seers can with difficulty be excused from grave culpability in cooperation. - Thus Reuter, n. 43.
- Questions. - Q. 1º Is the use of lots sometimes lawful?
Resp. 1º Divisory lots, by which it is discerned what is to be assigned to each in settling lawsuits, or in distributing things, certainly are lawful, if every trace of superstition is absent.
Resp. 2º Consultory lots, by which the divine will is investigated, that it may be known what is to be done, are not lawful, unless they are made by special impulse of God, or it is a matter of grave business in which other counsel is lacking. The reason is that according to ordinary providence God does not will that inquiry be made concerning his will in this way, but recourse must be had to prudent men, or to ecclesiastical Superiors.
Resp. 3º Divinatory lots, by which the manifestation of a hidden thing is sought, for example from the casting of dice, etc., are always gravely illicit, as containing at least a tacit invocation of the demon. Superstition of this kind is properly called sortilege, under which name also other kinds of superstitions commonly come. - St. Lig. n. 10.
- Q. 2º Is it lawful to conjecture future things from dreams?
Resp. Neg. ordinarily, because dreams almost always come from natural causes, for example from the commotion of humors, etc. On the other hand, dreams sent by God are very rare, and are joined with signs by which they can certainly be distinguished from natural or diabolical dreams. - St. Lig. n. 9. - Tamburinus, etc.
Q. 3º Is the use of the divining rod lawful?
Resp. 1º It is certainly to be condemned, whenever the rod is moved, or is not moved, at the mere intention of him who holds it by the hand, nor is it moved in the presence of another thing not sought, although it is of the same nature. For there is no proportion between a natural thing and the intention of a man. Hence they sin gravely who use the rod for seeking a thief, or for detecting the boundary stone of a field.
Resp. 2º The use of the rod for detecting waters or metals does not seem certainly to be condemned, if the rod over these is moved equally in every case, whether they are sought or not sought, provided a protestation is made against diabolical operation, which perhaps could be present, and every superstitious intention is excluded. - Thus commonly the more recent authors, against St. Lig. n. 8., where he reproves the use of the divining rod in every case 3. - V. Casus, n. 263. et seq.
3 ** It is not true that St. Alphonsus reproves the use of this rod in every case. He reproves it in the sense concerning which A. speaks in the first Response; but concerning the second hypothesis the Holy Doctor has not even a word.