Section 2: Superstition in the Natural Order

1. ORIGIN.—The varied and mysterious processes and phenomena of nature place man before a multitude of riddles. Science has succeeded in clearing up some of these, but many more remain unexplained and give rise to superstitious notions and fears. Instead of awaiting further reliable information, credulous persons are prone to attribute the things they cannot understand to preter- or supernatural causes. They honor and revere these mysterious powers, endeavor to obtain their aid, try to fathom them in order to turn them to their own advantage, either by obtaining remedies or preventives for disease or by peering into the future.

2. DIFFERENT KINDS OF SUPERSTITION.—The principal species of superstition in the natural order are the following: a) Ordeals (iudicia Dei sive divina), a form of superstition wherein supernatural aid is invoked in the place of evidence, as in trial by fire, water, poison, or battle. This was formerly conceived as an immediate appeal to the judgment of God. There were various forms of ordeal. The hand was plunged into boiling water, a red-hot iron was carried nine paces, etc. If no injury appeared after three days, the accused was declared innocent.¹

b) Divination (divinatio) is the pretended forecasting of future events by means of the stars (astrology), or the lines of the hand (chiromancy, palmistry), or the bumps of the skull (phrenology), by signs or omens (augury), the laying of cards, the study of meteorological conditions, and the interpretation of dreams.²

¹ Knight, England, Vol. I, ch. 8, p. 33; A. Franz, Das Rituale von St. Florian, pp. 180 sqq.; IDEM, Die kirchlichen Benediktionen, Vol. II, pp. 307 sqq.

² St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 95, art. 1: “If anyone presumes in any manner to foretell or foreknow future things of this kind, unless God reveals them, he manifestly usurps for himself that which belongs to God. . . . Therefore it is not called divination if someone foretells those things which happen by necessity or for the most part and which can be foreknown by human reason, nor even if someone knows other contingent future things through God’s revelation; for then he does not himself divine—that is, do what is divine—but rather receives what is divine. But then alone is he said to divine when he unduly usurps for himself the foretelling of future events. This is established to be a sin. Hence divination is always a sin. And for this reason Jerome says (In Mich., l. I, c. 3) that ‘divination is always taken in a bad sense.’”—Cfr. 2a 2ae, qu. 96, art. 3, ad 2; Slater, II, 220 sq. Frequently divination, express as well as tacit, is only a venial sin on account of the ignorance of those who indulge in it, or because they do not entirely believe that the future can be known by such methods and use them in joke or out of curiosity. In this way young people who consult astrologers or palmists are ordinarily excused from grave sin.

Astrology is nearly as old as the human race.^* At all times there have been men who believed that the “stars,” particularly the planets, not only foretell, but also influence the future. The astrologer gives his judgment by finding the position of the planets at a given moment (for instance, at birth). The child born when Mars was in the ascendant will be of a warlike temperament, and so forth. All the planets, they say, have an influence on human life and must be taken into account. But several planets, e. g., Uranus and Neptune, were unknown when astrology was in flower. Thus all past horoscopes must have been wrong. And yet astrologers have their clients to-day.

^* B. C. A. Windle, “Astrology,” in the Cath. World, N. Y. 1922, Vol. CXVI, No. 691, pp. 76–81; F. O. Wedel, The Medieval Attitude toward Astrology, Yale University Press, 1920.

Palmistry does not confine itself to the comparative study of hands, which would be harmless, but proceeds to divination from the lines or marks of the palm. Here, again, we are in touch with an ancient superstition of the East. In China palmistry is said to have existed three thousand years before Christ. The gypsies brought it to Europe in the sixteenth century. As the marks on the hand are caused by the mechanical arrangement of the bones and sinews, it is hard to see how people can be led astray by the claims of the palmists, who in some countries are punishable under the law as vagabonds.^* As to phrenology, while it is true that the brain is the organ of the mind, we know very little about their mutual relations. Modern medical science condemns phrenology as quackery and tells us that the grey matter on the surface of the brain cannot be mapped out into thirty or forty areas corresponding to mental or moral qualities, such as intellectual acumen, benevolence, veneration, etc. The outer table of the cranial bones does not accurately represent the contour of the brain surface; the thickness of the skull varies in different individuals; in short, the “brain bumps” mean nothing. An expert on the brain sums up the case against phrenology in these words: “Psychology, physiology, and experience alike contribute to discredit the practical working of phrenology and to show how worthless the so-called diagnoses of character really are.”^*

c) Magic is the pretended art of producing preternatural effects by bringing into play the action of supernatural beings, of departed spirits, or of the occult powers of nature. To this category belong the supposed arts of witches, the use of amulets, magic salves and lotions, talismans, “chain-prayers,” etc. d) Another form of superstition is belief in the efficacy of occult remedies and so-called sympathetic cures by means of mysterious personal or moral influences, etc.³

^* J. Nestler, Lehrbuch der Chiromantie, Leipsic 1922.

^* G. E. Smith, The Old and the New Phrenology, London, 1924.

³ A. Hartung, Die Sympathie als Heilmittel, 3rd ed., Leipsic 1900; E. M. Zimmer, Kräutersegen, 2nd ed., Donauwörth 1902.

We do not, of course, mean to say that the use of so-called secret remedies is always superstitious and therefore forbidden. Nature contains curative powers which Science has not yet fully investigated and cannot explain. The intimate connection existing between the soul and the body gives rise to a personal influence of one man over another which can be utilized for the benefit of the sick. So also the application of prayers and sacramentals for the healing of diseases is not necessarily superstitious. The belief or practice becomes superstitious only when there is a tendency to ape the doings of the Church, or an attempt to influence the patient by mock ceremonies, etc.

Divination in all its forms is per se mortally sinful, because, in the words of Father Slater, “it is a great insult to God to hold intercourse with, and seek aid from, the devil, His bitter enemy,” who is invoked either expressly or tacitly whenever men try, by inordinate means, to find out what is secret and hidden.

The same writer pertinently recalls a remark which St. Thomas makes after St. Augustine, and which should always be borne in mind when there is question of the practices with which we are here dealing. It is said that the devil wishes to excite among men a greater curiosity about occult matters, “so that, being implicated in these observances, they may become more curious and get themselves more entangled in the manifold snares of pernicious error.”⁴

⁴ Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 96, art. 2 sq.; Slater, I, 220 sq.

e) Among the abnormal conditions that invite superstitious practices are somnambulism, magnetic sleep, and hypnosis.⁵ These states generally involve an increase of intellectual acumen on the one hand and a dangerous limitation of will-power on the other. Their nature is not yet sufficiently cleared up, though Science has shown that they need not be traced to supernatural or diabolical causes. Hence it is superstitious and therefore sinful to assume such causes and by means of them to try to obtain supernatural effects, elicit revelations, or pry into the future.

⁵ E. L. Fischer, Der sogenannte Lebensmagnetismus oder Hypnotismus, Mayence 1883; L. Haas, Ueber Hypnotismus und Suggestion, Augsburg 1894; A. Moll, Der Hypnotismus, 3rd ed., Berlin 1895; L. Schütz, Der Hypnotismus, Fulda 1897; Th. M. Coconnier, O.P., L’Hypnotisme Franc, 2nd ed., Paris 1898; O. Stoll, Suggestion und Hypnotismus, 2nd ed., Leipsic 1903; J. Lapponi, Ipnotismo e Spiritismo, 2nd ed., Rome 1906 (Engl. tr. Hypnotism and Spiritism, N. Y. 1915); K. Hasert, Gedankenlesen, Hypnotismus und Spiritismus, 2nd ed., Graz 1906; A. Forel, Der Hypnotismus, 5th ed., Stuttgart 1908; G. v. Doss, Der Hypnotismus, Halle 1907.

£) Hypnorism.—The question has been raised whether it is permissible to put a person into a hypnotic sleep even when no superstition is involved and the danger of abuse is reduced to a minimum. The hypnotic state is a partial sleep of the motor side of the nervous system and of portions of the sensory nerves. While certain of the higher intellectual powers are quite awake, liberty of action is diminished, if not entirely suspended. Granting that no one can be hypnotized against his will, the further question arises whether one may give his consent to be put into this state, which is but another way of asking whether a man:is allowed to renounce his will and place it completely under the control of another. There can be no doubt that such an experiment may be justified by an exalted and important purpose, such as scientific research, provided, of course, all danger of abuse is excluded and no injury is to be feared for one’s health. The same rule applies to attempts at curing disease by means of magnetism and hypnotic suggestion, as long as the necessary moral precautions are ob- served and the danger of abuse is excluded. A conscientious physician, in applying these means, will, in his own interest, if for no other reason, insist upon the presence of reliable witnesses.

It goes without saying that a priest, on account of the seal of confession, may not allow himself to be hypnotized or magnetized or put into any state in which he loses the full control of his will.

The use of hypnotism or hypnotic suggestion for the purpose of reforming moral perverts has not yet been sufficiently explored to enable the moralist to declare it permissible.⁶ Pierre Janet, Fére, Grasset, Binswanger, and other competent writers are sceptic on the subject. It is quite generally admitted that organic diseases cannot be cured by hypnotism, but that its influence extends only to functional diseases of the nervous system. Even these hypnotism does not cure radically, but merely alleviates certain particularly unpleasant symptoms, and that only for a time. It can offer no guarantee against their recurrence. Moreover, its effects upon the nervous system are not entirely devoid of danger. The intellectual dependence of the patient and his suggestibility are apt to be increased. The firmness with which he will resist immoral suggestions depends, as in the dream state, upon the character and self-control exercised when awake. Re- peated hypnotizing increases the suggestive power of the influence proceeding from the hypnotizer.⁷

⁶ A. Forel, Der Hypnotismus und die suggestive Psychotherapie, 4th ed., Stuttgart 1902; F. Walter, Der Aberglaube, pp. 242 sqq.—A decision of the S. Congr. of the Holy Office, of June 23, 1840, and July 28, 1847, says: “With every error, divination, and explicit or implicit invocation of the demon removed, the use of magnetism—namely, the mere act of employing physical means otherwise lawful—is not morally forbidden, provided it does not tend to an unlawful or in any way evil end. But the application of purely physical principles and means to truly supernatural things and effects in order that they may be explained physically is nothing but an altogether unlawful and heretical deception.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1653).

⁷ See the famous Jesuit review, Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, Vol. LXX (1906), pp. 457 sq.

g) SPIRITISM.—Closely allied with animal magnetism and hypnotism is Spiritism, which is therefore commonly treated under the same general heading by theologians and in the decisions of the Roman Congregations. Spiritism may be defined as the belief that the living can and do communicate with the spirits of the departed and receive certain information from them. Though Fr. Thurston has recently tried to justify the use of the name Spiritualism for this movement, we agree with Dr. Pace that Spiritism “should be carefully distinguished from Spiritualism, which is the philosophical doctrine holding, in general, that there is a spiritual order of beings no less real than a material, and, in particular, that the soul of man is a spiritual substance.”⁸

⁸ Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 221.

a) This is not the place to describe the phenomena of Spiritism or to give an account of its history. In some form or other it is as old as the human race.⁹ Modern Spiritism dates from the year 1848, when the Fox family, at Hydesville, N. Y., first began to hear strange “knockings,” and then received messages. Catherine and Margaret Fox were the first “mediums.”¹⁰ Since then the phenomena have multiplied and there are hundreds, nay thousands of mediums in all civilized countries receiving “messages from the other world.” Modern Spiritism has passed beyond the limits of a merely popular movement and challenges the attention of scientists, among whom it has brought about serious divisions. For those who denied the existence of a soul distinct from the body it was a foregone conclusion that there could be no communication between the dead and the living. This view derived plausibility from the innumerable cases of fraud which were brought to light upon closer examination of the methods employed and of the mediums themselves.¹¹

⁹ W. R. (“Dean”) Harris, Essays in Occultism, Spiritism, and Demonology, St. Louis, 1919; Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Necromancy,” Vol. X, pp. 735 sqq.

¹⁰ On Horace Greeley’s view of their doings (he knew them well), see H. Thurston, S.J., A Sober Condemnation of Spiritualism, London 1920 (C. T. S. pamphlet).

¹¹ Dr. Pace in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 222.

β) The phenomena of Spiritism are partly physical and partly psychical. The physical phenomena appear as effects produced in physical substances and often occur in connection with external objects. They may be divided into two groups, one of which includes mainly such effects as locomotion, counteraction of gravitation, and percussion, or, in general, the application of a seemingly physical force to objects, while the others embrace phenomena suggesting a more profound alteration in physical nature or implying the conveyance of intelligence by physical means.¹² The phenomena of the first group consist of movements of inanimate objects, apport, change in weight, levitation, touches and sounds, while the second group includes elongation, ability to touch burning substances, production of inanimate substances, materialization, impressions, spirit-photography, direct spirit messages, spirit voices, etc.

¹² J. Liljencrants, Spiritism and Religion, p. 45, New York 1918,

The psychical phenomena show a different aspect. They are of the mental order and can be verified only from the accounts of those who claim to have experienced them. Automatic writing and speaking constitute the main and most interesting phenomena of this group. γ) That some of the physical as well as psychical phenomena of Spiritism are real, admits of no doubt. Even Dr. Liljencrants, who tries to explain most of them by an appeal to automatic activity, secondary personality, subliminal memory, telepathy, and so forth, acknowledges it to be “possible that in individual cases there has actually been present an influence from a spirit world,” and that this element must be diabolical, since “the assumption that God would allow departed human beings, whether in a probationary state or after they have attained their super- natural end, to cause the phenomena presented by Spiritism, is . . . preposterous.”¹³ That the devil, with the permission of God, can produce such phenomena is a thesis which can be theologically demonstrated. All Catholic theologians who have treated of the subject uphold the view that where a preternatural element is found in Spiritism, it is to be referred to evil spirits and not to departed human souls.¹⁴

¹³ Op. cit., pp. 268 sq.

¹⁴ Op. cit., p. 269.

δ) This unfavorable view is confirmed by the character of the alleged spirit messages and by the fact that such eminent modern Spiritistic writers as Sir Oliver Lodge and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle herald these messages as a “New Revelation,” which contradicts the old in all its vital points. Mr. J. Godfrey Raupert summarizes the content of this “New Revelation” from the writings of its principal prophets as follows: The New Revelation claims to be divine and authoritative. It asserts that man has not fallen into sin; that the Incarnation and death of Jesus Christ were in no sense an atonement; that death does not fix man’s destiny, but the undeveloped soul, after being separated from the body, passes into a temporary penal state, which becomes a means of its development and education.¹⁵ These teachings, as the same writer points out, are wholly subversive of historical Christianity and therefore must come from some one who is a liar and a deceiver.¹⁶

¹⁵ The New Black Magic and the Truth about the Ouija-Board, New York 1919, pp. 19 sqq.

¹⁶ Op. cit., pp. 24 sq.

ε) The evil tendency of modern Spiritism was perceived from the beginning by the Church authorities. As early as June 25, 1840, the Congregation of the Inquisition, having animal magnetism in mind, decreed as follows: “Where all error, sorcery, and invocation of the demon, implicit or explicit, are excluded, the mere use of physical means which are otherwise lawful, is not morally forbidden, provided no unlawful or evil results are intended. But the application of purely physical principles and means to things or effects that are really supernatural, in order to explain these on physical grounds, is unlawful and heretical.”¹⁷ This decision was reiterated on July 28, 1847. A further decree, issued on July 30, 1856, after mentioning discourses about religion, evocation of departed spirits, and “other superstitious practices,” exhorted the bishops to put forth every effort for the suppression of these abuses, “in order that the flock of the Lord may be protected against the enemy, that the deposit of faith may be safeguarded, and that the faithful may be preserved from moral corruption.”¹⁸ On March 30, 1898, the Holy Office condemned Spiritistic practices, even when intercourse with the demon was expressly disavowed and communication sought with good spirits only.¹⁹ On April 24, 1917, the same sacred Congregation forbade even passive assistance at Spiritistic séances.²⁰ A little later the question was proposed, whether it was permissible to take part in any Spiritistic communications or manifestations, even of a genuine and reverential nature, either by interrogating “souls” or spirits, or by listening to their answers, or as a simple spectator, tacitly or expressly protesting that one wishes to have nothing to do with malign spirits. The answer was, “Negative in omnibus.”²¹

¹⁷ Cfr. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 224.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Liljencrants, Spiritism and Religion, p. 280.

²⁰ Op. cit., p. 281.

²¹ Text of the decree in the Ecclesiastical Review, August, 1917, p. 186, and in Liljencrants, op. cit., p. 281.

Whether this decree forbids laboratory work with entranced persons, if conducted without reference to spirits of any kind, is doubtful.²²

²² Liljencrants, op. cit., p. 281.

The basic malice of Spiritism is to be found in its opposition to the virtue of religion. It explicitly attributes to creatures what belongs to God. ‘There is another and secondary objection to Spiritistic practices, and that is, that they presuppose explicit or implicit commerce with the devil.²³

²³ J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Vol. I, 9th ed., pp. 247 sq.

h) THE OUIJA BOARD.—This is a simple con- trivance, by means of which messages are obtained that have the appearance of coming from the spirits of the dead. According to Mr. Raupert,²⁴ who is thoroughly familiar with its workings, the ouija board (also called planchette), in the beginning, before the mind of the experimenter has attained any great degree of passivity, gives out messages which are wholly normal and drawn from the slightly awakened subconscious mind. Sometimes the messages appear to come from an independent personality, such as the spirit of a deceased friend or relative. But so long as the statements made contain no matter foreign to the mind of the experimenter, and no answer to a question that might not have been projected from the subconscious storehouse of his own mind, there is no valid reason for assuming the presence of an outside intelligence. In proportion, however, as the mind becomes more passive and lethargic, the phenomenon begins to change its character, and imperceptibly passes from the natural into the preternatural. Here and there a message is jerked in, which is startling and seen at once not to be a part of the experimenter’s mental outfit. Events happening at a distance are accurately reported and commented upon, disclosures are made respecting the character and doings and intimate personal af- fairs of persons not known to the experimenter. Messages are given, clearly and conclusively indicating knowledge and information beyond the reach of the writer’s own mind, and they are conveyed in a form and manner suggesting the presence of a critical and observant mind and of a judgment quite at variance with that of the experimenter. When further questions are asked, the answer generally is that the spirit of some departed friend or relative is present, that he has discovered this simple means of communication, and is eager to cultivate intercourse with the living for the benefit of the experimenter and of the human race at large.

²⁴ The New Black Magic, pp. 207 to 234.

The experimenter, fascinated by these communications, and convinced that he has come upon a great and valuable discovery, readily adopts the advice given and resorts to the ouija board habitually and systematically. . When trust and confidence have been secured, the spirit will slowly begin to undermine the Christian belief of the experimenter, deny the divinity of Christ, the authority of conscience, and the reality of the judgment to come. It will feed the mind with empty platitudes, very acceptable to the natural man, but ultimately in contradiction with the fundamental truths of the Christian religion.

Perhaps the most conclusive proof that the spirits communicating through the ouija board are evil is to be found in the physical, moral, and mental effects which the practice has upon the experimenter. Mr. Raupert sums up the testimony of many scientific students of the subject in a series of paragraphs of which the following is the gist: Persons habitually and systematically using the ouija board, or planchette, or similar automatic devices for obtaining spirit messages, after a time experience a peculiar condition of lassitude and exhaustion, often accompanied by severe pain at the top of the spine and gradually spreading over the entire brain. This state of prostration is attributable to the fact that in order to obtain the movements of the board, vital or nerve energy is withdrawn from the organism of the experimenter, often out of all proportion to his or her physical health and constitution. In professional mediums, who practice their power incessantly and for pecuniary gain, this prostration is apt to be so great that they become complete nervous wrecks after a time. The inexperienced experimenter scarcely ever attributes this condition to the true cause, and it is difficult to convince him that a practice seemingly so harmless, could be attended by such bad effects. If the experiments are continued, the general health begins to fail, there manifests itself a kind of apathy and weariness which unfits the person for the ordinary duties of life, deprives him of all interest in them, and is only relieved by the ouija board. Communication with the “friends” in the unseen world now becomes the one exciting and all-absorbing interest and occupation to which all other duties and interests are subordinated. In proportion as physical vigor, and with it the power of resistance, decline and passivity and apathy increase, the “spirit” gains closer access to the mind, directs and influences its operations, and, in course of time, obtains complete control of it. The mind becomes more and more susceptible to suggestion and less and less able to discriminate and resist. The messages come with greater regularity, but their moral tone declines. They become distinctly immoral and mischievous in aim and character. The Christian law is ridiculed and Christian customs and practices are declared to be old-fashioned and out of date. As the “psychic development” advances, the entire mental and moral nature of the experimenter becomes disordered, and he discovers to his cost that, whilst it was an easy thing for him to open the mental door by which the mind could be invaded, it is difficult if not impossible to expel the invader and shut that door. The final result is a pitiable condition of mental and moral collapse, which often terminates in suicide or insanity.

Mr. Raupert merely echoes the warning of such truly scientific and thoroughly well informed scholars as Dr. Mercier in London, Dr. Viollet in France, and the late Dr. Lapponi in Italy, when he cautions against these practices as dangerous to mental and moral health.²⁵

²⁵ Ibid., p. 233.—Father Hubert Gruender, S.J., the well-known psychologist, author of An Introductory Course in Experimental Psychology (Chicago, 1920), explains the first stages of the workings of the ouija board as follows in an article contributed to The Queen’s Work, St. Louis, Mo., August, 1920, Vol. XII, No. 8, pp. 198 sqq.: “In the first stage the person handling the ouija board has no intention to spell out a definite answer to a given question, but he expects a definite answer or he is afraid that a certain answer will be given. In other words, the writing is involuntary but conscious. Under these conditions the heart-shaped table or planchette on the ouija board moves apparently of itself and pulls the hand along. As a matter of fact, however, the hand really pushes the planchette, and invariably in the direction of those letters or signs which are in accord with the expectations or fears of the operator. Involuntary movements of this kind are due to what may be appropriately called the ‘motor power’ of images. What is meant by the phrase is simply: When we imagine a familiar movement of our body—that is, if we recall how such a movement feels, or how it looks, or how it sounds, these images tend to produce the movement itself. I say they tend to do so; for by an act of the will we can inhibit the gross movement. But the initial movement—the first beginnings of the movement—will occur in spite of ourselves. These initial movements are so slight that they cannot be detected by an ordinary observer. Under laboratory conditions, however, they can be detected with precision. . . . When persons have become accustomed to the use of the ouija board they develop gradually another form of automatic writing. They write not only involuntarily but unconsciously, or, more correctly, subconsciously. In other words, persons in an advanced stage of passivity and mental lethargy communicate by means of the ouija board thoughts which exist only in the subconscious background of their minds and which they could not communicate under normal conditions. . . . There are always a foreground and a background in our conscious experience.” The thousand objects of sense which we see, hear, and feel without being aware of the fact (as the ticking of a clock while we are reading or conversing) “are lost to us as far as our normal conscious experience is concerned,” but “they are not entirely lost. They make an impression on our brain. However faint the traces may be which such impressions leave on the brain, the record is there. And under favorable conditions these experiences can be brought to light again just as truly as a phonographic record can be used to reproduce the musical sounds which made the record. It is particularly under abnormal conditions that such subconscious experiences are revealed. . . . In the case of the second form of ouija-board writing . . . there is a brain record of experiences which never reached the focus of attention; there is the abnormal lethargic condition of the operator of the ouija board, made habitual by long continued dabbling in the mysterious; there is the motor power of images; the neural current discharges into the motor tracts, which lead in the first case to the muscles of the vocal organs, and in the other case to the muscles of arm and hand. . . . Sometimes for persons in this stage of ouija-board writing the images of the words to be spelled out become so vivid as to amount to real hallucinations. Such persons then hear voices. What they write is dictated to them by some mysterious agency. They experience an irresistible impulse to write, and then the ouija board works overtime. When it comes to this, such persons are ripe—or will soon be ripe—for the insane asylum. And this is another danger connected with operating the ouija board. Many of its victims do actually end in the insane asylum.”—See also H. Carrington, The Problems of Psychical Research, N. Y., 1921, pp. 247 sqq.

i) The rarer phenomena of clairvoyance, by which scenes and events passing at a great distance are seen, or by which an ignorant medium shows knowledge not possessed in the normal state, is by most theologians attributed to preternatural causes. “It seems impossible,” says Fr. Slater, “that natural forces should be able to produce effects altogether beyond their range.”²⁶

²⁶ A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, p. 223.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 92–93; 95–96.—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 1–11; 14–28.—H. Th. Simar, Der Aberglaube, 2nd ed., Cologne 1879.—J. B. Wirthmüller, Die moralische Tugend der Religion, pp. 608 sqq., Freiburg 1881.—F. Walter, Aberglaube und Seelsorge, Paderborn 1905.—W. Fischer, Der Aberglaube aller Zeiten, Paderborn 1906.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Compendium Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 9th ed., pp. 235 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 11th ed., pp. 164 sqq.

On ORDEALS: F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, p. 516.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., I, p. 292.—J. P. Kirsch, art. “Ordeals” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, pp. 276 sqq.—A. Franz, Die kirchl. Benediktionen im Mittelalter, Freiburg i. B., Vol. II, pp. 307 sqq.—Vacandard, Études de Critique et d’Histoire Religieuse, Paris 1905, pp. 19 sqq.—Patetta, Le Ordalie, Turin 1890.

On Divination: H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 166 sqq.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 237 sqq.—J. P. Graham, art. “Divination” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. 48 sqq.—F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, pp. 507 sqq.—E. Müller, Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 242 sqq.

On MAGIC: Suarez, De Religione, l. II, c. 14.—P. Laymann, Theol. Mor., l. IV, tr. 10, c. 4.—J. von Görres, Die christliche Mystik, Ratisbon 1842, Vol. IV, 9th book.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 177 sqq.—J. Diefenbach, Der Hexenwahn, Mayence 1886.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 239 sq.—J. P. Arendzen, art. “Occult Arts” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, pp. 197 sqq.—Andrew Lang, Magic and Religion, London 1910.—Habert, La Magie, Paris 1908.—Kiesewetter, Geschichte des neueren Okkultismus, Leipsic 1891.—Thorndyke, The Place of Magic in the Intellectual History of Europe, New York 1905.

On HYPNOTISM: L. Haas, Ueber Hypnotismus und Suggestion, Augsburg 1894.—A. Moll, Der Hypnotismus, 3rd ed., Berlin 1895.—L. Schütz, Der Hypnotismus, Fulda 1897.—T. M. Coconnier, O.P., Le Hypnotisme Franc, 2nd ed., Paris 1898.—A. Forel, Der Hypnotismus, 5th ed., Stuttgart 1908.—G. v. Doss, Der Hypnotismus, Halle 1907.—G. Surbled, art. “Hypnotism” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 604 sqq.—Gregory, Animal Magnetism, 4th ed., London 1896.—Wetterstrand, Der Hypnotismus und seine Anwendung in der praktischen Medizin, Vienna 1891 (tr. New York 1897).—J. Lapponi, Ipnotismo e Spiritismo, 2nd ed., Rome 1906 (Engl. tr. Hypnotism and Spiritism, New York 1915).—G. Surbled, La Morale dans ses Rapports avec la Médecine, Vol. IV, Paris 1891.—IDEM, Pour ou contre l’Hypnotisme, Paris 1898.—O’Malley and Walsh, Essays in Pastoral Medicine, New York 1906, pp. 120 sqq.—A. E. Sanford, Pastoral Medicine, ed. by W. Drum, S.J., New York 1905, pp. 155 sqq.—J. Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, 4th ed., Vol. II, pp. 18 sqq., Rome 1920.—E. B. Barrett, S.J., “The Meaning and Use of Hypnosis” in The Month, Vol. CXLI, No. 705 (March, 1923), pp. 209–218.—IDEM, S.J., The New Psychology, London 1925, pp. 265 sqq. mus und das Christentum, Ratisbon 1881.—C. Gutberlet, Der Spiritismus, Cologne 1882.—IDEM, Der Kampf um die Seele, 2nd ed., Mayence 1903, pp. 498 sqq.—W. Schneider, Der neuere Geisterglaube, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1895.—J. Dippel, Der neuere Spiritismus, Munich 1897.—E. Meric, L’Autre Vie, 14th ed., Paris 1920.—F. Walter, Der Aberglaube, pp. 301 sqq.—G. Dumesnil, Le Spiritualisme, Paris 1905.—E. Meric, L’Imagination et les Prodigés, Paris 1906.—A. R. Wallace, Miracles and Modern Spiritism, London 1897.—G. Surbled, Spiritualisme et Spiritisme, Paris 1898.—IDEM, Spirites et Médiums, Paris 1901.—Bennett, Spiritualism, New York 1907.—H. Carrington, The Physical Phenomena of Spiritism, Boston 1907.—A. Ph. F. von Schrenck-Notzing, Materialisationsphänomene: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der mediumistischen Teleplastie, Munich 1914 (English by E. E. Fournier D’Abbe, under the title, The Phenomena of Materialization: A Contribution to the Investigation of Mediumistic Phenomena, London 1920).—W. Whately Smith, The Foundations of Spiritualism, London 1920.—Hudson Tuttle, Arcana of Spiritualism: A Manual of Spiritual Science and Philosophy, Manchester 1900. —F. Podmore, Modern Spiritualism, 2 vols., London 1902.—IDEM, The Newer Spiritualism, London 1910.—E. A. Pace, art. “Spiritism” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 221 sqq.—J. G. Raupert, Modern Spiritism, St. Louis 1912—IDEM, Dangers of Spiritualism, London 1914.—IDEM, The New Black Magic, New York 1919.—J. Liljencrants, Spiritism and Religion, New York 1918.—Elliott O’Donnell, The Menace of Spiritualism, London 1920.—W. R. (“Dean”) Harris, Essays in Spiritism, Occultism, and Demonology, St. Louis 1918.—Jos. Sasia, S.J., A Safe View of Spiritism for Catholics, San Francisco 1920.—T. J. Hardy (Anglican), Spiritism in the Light of Faith, London 1920 (to be used with caution on account of its bias against the Catholic Church).—A. M. Lépicier, O.S.M., The Unseen World: An Exposition of Catholic Theology in its Relation to Modern Spiritism, 2nd ed., London 1909.—J. Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, Vol. II, 4th ed., Rome 1920, pp. 1 sqq.—A. T. Schofield, Modern Spiritism, Philadelphia 1920.—Hereward Carrington, The Problems of Psychical Research, N. Y. 1921.