Section 3: Superstition in the Preternatural Order

Superstition in the preternatural order, which we have to some extent already anticipated in the last Article, is of a twofold kind, according as it concerns man’s relation to the demons or to the souls of his departed fellowmen.

1. SUPERSTITION IN REGARD TO MAN’S RELATION TO THE DEMONS.—a) Undoubtedly this form of superstition draws sustenance from the theological belief in the existence of demons, from the possibility and reality of their influence upon mankind, and from the deep-seated conviction existing in the minds of men that evil spirits exercise extraordinary power. Nevertheless it is not true to say that this kind of superstition is a by-product of Christian angelology; rather is it an unconquered relic of paganism,¹ and consequently, like superstition itself, much older than the Christian Church. Wherever Christianity has not yet penetrated, this particular kind of superstition takes the form of a distortion of Catholic teaching. For this reason it is a mistake to try to eradicate it by simply denying the existence of the devil and his kingdom. Only by propagating the undiluted truth concerning Satan and his work can this spiritual malady be overcome.

¹ Cfr. Döllinger, Heidentum und Judentum, pp. 181 sqq., 617 sqq.

The Catholic Church teaches: (1) that the evil spirits, like the angels, are entirely subject to God and can do nothing without His concurrence and permission; (2) that they can work no miracles, but by means of their superior insight and of a certain control over the powers of nature, are able to produce what seem to us extraordinary phenomena; (3) that they are, by themselves, incapable of producing any good effects, but, on the contrary, habitually practice falsehood and deception.²

² St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a, qu. 8; qu. 114; Cat. Rom., P. IV, c. 15.

From these truths it follows that it is superstitious and foolish to attribute exaggerated power to the evil spirits, to ascribe extraordinary happenings to them too readily, to invoke their help in order to injure others, and, in general, to attempt with the aid of the devil and his fallen angels to do things which transcend the order of nature.

b) The principal forms of this species of superstition are sorcery and witchcraft. These and other practices, by which disproportionate means are employed to procure a certain effect, are embraced by theologians in the technical term vana observantia.

α) Sorcery, in the broad sense (also called natural, artificial, or white magic), is defined as the art of working apparent wonders by the help of natural causes. In a stricter and more limited sense sorcery means the art of producing effects which, though not supernatural, exceed the powers of man and, consequently, can be wrought only by the help of the devil, explicitly or implicitly invoked for that purpose.³

³ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 264: “Magic broadly taken, or natural or artificial magic, which is called white magic, is the art of doing wonderful things, at least apparently, through natural causes or human skill without any ministry of a demon. Magic strictly so called is the art of doing wonderful things which, although they are not supernatural, nevertheless surpass the powers of man and consequently can be done only by the aid of a demon explicitly or implicitly invoked.”

There is only an accidental difference between these kinds of superstition and divination; for while divination uses disproportionate means to discover, by the help of the devil, what is hidden, witchcraft and magic employ disproportionate means to obtain certain and wonderful effects by the same agency. Morally, therefore, the two practices are equally reprehensible.

β) Witchcraft, like divination, may imply an express or a tacit compact with the devil. If the compact is express, it always involves mortal sin. If it is merely tacit, ignorance, good faith, or lack of confidence in the effect will frequently be a cause of leniency. Moreover, there must be ad- vertence to the total inadequacy of the means to produce the desired effect, and to the danger of diabolic intervention, otherwise there will be no sin of superstition.⁴

⁴ Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 221 sq.

Belief in malevolent witchcraft (maleficium) is based upon the idea that certain persons, especially of the female sex, in virtue of a formal compact with the devil, command diabolical powers, by means of which they can produce preternatural effects for the purpose of injuring their fellow-creatures.⁵

⁵ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 264: “Magic broadly taken, or magic involving the intervention of a demon, is distinguished into two kinds, namely, amatory and harmful. Amatory sorcery, or a philter, is a diabolical art by which lustful love or hatred toward another person is violently aroused in someone. Harmful sorcery is precisely the art of injuring one’s neighbor in various ways with the aid of a demon, for example, by diseases, dullness, etc. Harmful sorcery is commonly called sortilege, because through it an evil lot is cast upon those against whom vengeance is exercised by a diabolical operation. Hence in canon law and ecclesiastical history male and female magicians are called sorcerers.”—Ibid., n. 265: “Magic does not differ from vain observance except in that its effects are more wonderful, for example, the transformation of bodies, etc. It does not differ in moral species either from vain observance or from divination, because it matters little whether knowledge of hidden things or wonderful effects are sought from a demon. Harmful sorcery, however, differs in species from other superstitions because, besides the sin opposed to religion, it inflicts injury on one’s neighbor. Amatory sorcery does not necessarily induce one to commit a sin of lust; for it does not take away freedom but only violently excites lust toward some determined person by altering and more vividly arousing the imagination, presenting more beautiful appearances, and stirring the humors lustfully.”—Cfr. A. Stöckl, Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Vol. III, pp. 424 sqq., 450 sqq.

Though the possibility of a mystic union between man and Satan is admitted by Catholics, the epidemic occurrence of witchcraft and the persecution of alleged witches in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is not traceable to this theoretical belief, but finds its explanation, partly at least, in the religious, political, and social conditions of the time, in the introduction of narcotics and alcoholic liquors, and in the low state of theology and the natural sciences.⁶ We say, “partly at least,” because from the Catholic point of view there can be no doubt that the devil has a hand in exploiting the superstitions and prejudices of men.

⁶ See the works on witchcraft cited in the bibliography infra, p. 303.

“The possibility of human intercourse with Satan,” says Pohle, “cannot be denied in view of the many instances recorded, or assumed as true, in the New Testament. The medieval witch-baiters sinned grievously by exaggerating the power of the devil, by neglecting the most elementary principles of sound psychology, and by proceeding with unpardonable carelessness and inhuman cruelty in the trial of persons accused of witchcraft. No period of the world’s history is characterized by so many insane superstitions and such a radical want of common sense as the terrible time during which thousands of supposed witches were tried, tortured, and executed for practicing sorcery.⁷ Of course, the theological principle that there are demons, and that they have power to injure men in body and soul, is no more disproved by these medieval excesses than by the all too ready credence which in our own time thousands of well-meaning Catholics gave to the bogus revelations of Leo Taxil and his fictitious Diana Vaughan.”⁸

⁷ See J. Janssen, Geschichte des Deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, Vol. VIII (English tr. by A. M. Christie, Vol. XVI).

⁸ Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, 3rd ed., St. Louis 1919, pp. 348 sq.

It is pleasing to remember that the principal opponent of witchcraft was a Catholic and a Jesuit, the renowned Friedrich von Spee. He was born at Kaiserwerth on the Rhine, Feb. 25, 1591, and died at Treves, Aug. 7, 1635. His famous “Cautio Criminalis,” written in elegant Latin, is a powerful arraignment, based upon the author’s own awful experiences, of trial for witchcraft. The book was printed anonymously in 1631, although Spee was undoubtedly known to many as its author. He describes in thrilling language and with cutting sarcasm the horrible abuses in the prevailing legal proceedings, particularly the inhuman use of the rack, and demands measures of reform. Several generations passed before the persecution of witches ceased in Germany, the classic land of these outrages, but the “Cautio Criminalis” finally brought about its abolition in Mayence and a number of other places and led the way to its general suppression.⁹ Christian Thomasius († 1728), the leading opponent of witchcraft among the legal profession, confesses that it was the Jesuit theologian, Spee, who turned him against the inhuman practice of persecuting women as witches. The abuse was strongly defended by the famous jurist Benedict Carpzov († 1666), whose teaching was endorsed as late as twenty years after the death of Thomasius by the Protestant jurist Bechmann,¹⁰ of Saxony. Bechmann advocated the burning of “witches” even when no damage could be proved, and does not even mention Spee and Thomasius. In view of these facts it is unjust to blame the theologians for the survival of this barbarous superstition.¹¹

⁹ H. Cardauns in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 213 sq.; B. Diel and B. Duhr, S.J., Friedrich Spee, Freiburg 1901.

¹⁰ Discursus Iuridicus de Crimine Maleficii, Halle 1749.

¹¹ Cfr. B. Duhr, S.J., “Zur Biographie des P. Friedrich Spee,” in the Historisches Jahrbuch, 1905, pp. 327 sqq.

The Bull “Summis desiderantes affectibus,” of Pope Innocent VIII is not, as many older writers have asserted, responsible for the witch mania of the two succeeding centuries. Innocent may have personally believed in the actual existence of illicit intercourse between evil spirits and human beings; but he does not say so in his Bull. What he says is that he had heard such evil practices charged against witches in Germany; for example, intercourse with incubi and succubi.¹² To judge his attitude correctly, we must consider that, in the words of Fr. Thurston, S.J., “not only had an active campaign against most forms of sorcery already been going on for a long period [before the publication of the Bull “Summis desiderantes affectibus”] but in the matter of procedure, of punishments, of judges, etc., Innocent enacted nothing new. The direct purport of his Bull was simply to ratify the powers already conferred upon Henry Institoris and James Sprenger, inquisitors, to deal with persons of every class and with every form of crime (for example, with witchcraft as well as heresy), and it called upon the Bishop of Strasburg to lend the inquisitors all possible support.”¹³

γ) It may be advisable to add a few words on the so-called magic wand or divining rod, a forked twig, generally of witch-hazel or witch-elm, used to discover springs of water, mineral deposits, oil wells, etc. The rod is held by the tips, and the larger end is supposed to bend toward the earth when the spring or deposit is reached. The divining rod is sometimes used also to find lost articles and to detect criminals. This latter use is clearly illicit be- cause superstitious. To employ the rod for discovering water, oil, or mineral deposits is permissible only if all superstitious beliefs are excluded. There can scarcely be a doubt that the divining rod in the hands of some persons aids in the discovery of water, oil, and minerals. The reason for this has not yet been satisfactorily explained. Fr. Slater thinks that “particular individuals may be very sensitive to the presence of water or minerals, even when hidden under the surface of the earth,” and that a power of detecting the presence of underground water from the vegetation or other surface indications may be developed.¹⁴

¹² “Indeed, it has recently come to our hearing, not without immense distress, that in certain parts of Upper Germany . . . many persons of both sexes, forgetful of their own salvation and deviating from the Catholic faith, abuse themselves with incubi and succubi demons. . . .” (Bull, “Summis desiderantes affectibus,” 1484).—On incubi and succubi cfr. St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, l. XV, c. 23; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a, qu. 51, art. 3, ad 6; St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 475 (ed. Gaudé, I, 697); J. Hansen, Zauberwahn, Inquisition und Hexenprozess, pp. 25 sqq., 185 sqq., Leipsic 1900.

¹³ Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, p. 676.

¹⁴ A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, p. 220. Noldin says (Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. I, p. 172): “He will scarcely err who attributes the movement of the rod placed in the hand of a certain determined person to natural magnetic or electrical forces, which are contained more copiously in the bodies of certain persons, in the branches of certain trees (for example, peach trees), and in certain bodies (water, metals), provided the rod moves independently of the intention of the one using it, only toward certain bodies (water, metals), and always in an equal manner toward those bodies.”—A correspondent of the Scientific American (Vol. 108, No. 15) recently suggested an explanation of the modus operandi of the divining rod which was favorably received by a number of journals (cfr. the Catholic Fortnightly Review, Vol. XX, No. 9). It may be termed the theory of mental expectancy. The whole secret, this writer thinks, “is in the way the rod is held. Get a forked stick, with each limb about fifteen inches long, and small enough, so as to bend easily. Take a firm hold of both limbs, one in each hand, with the palm up, so the limbs will enter the hand under the little finger and go out under the thumb. Now begin to explore for water. My first experiment was to walk over a water pipe about six feet under ground. Just as I passed the pipe, the end of the stick rose in the air, came over toward me, and pointed down and back in the direction of the running water, but the pull was too strong to be accounted for by any action of the water. The rough knots would have cut the skin of my hand if I had not loosened my grip. I crossed the pipe repeatedly, always with the same result, until I tried it with my eyes closed, so as not to know when I passed the pipe. In this case it failed to work at all. I also found that when the stick is held in any other way, it will never move. Held in the way directed, the muscles of the hands and arms are in a strained position, and the limbs are bent outward, so that a very slight movement of the ends of the limbs will cause the end of the stick to move a long distance in either direction.” In the opinion of this writer the natural efforts of the muscles to relieve the strain, and the automatic action of the mind, account for the working of the divining rod. This theory is not quite satisfactory, but so much is certain that the effect of the virga divinatoria is nowadays commonly explained by natural powers and therefore St. Alphonsus’ condemnation of its use is no longer sustained by moralists. (Cfr. Ad. Tanqueray, Synopsis Theol. Mor. et Pastor., Vol. II, Tournai 1905, p. 522; Revue du Monde Invisible, Paris, Oct. 15, 1898; Surbled, “Le Secret des Sorciers” in the Science Catholique, Paris, Sept. 1902).

The use of the divining rod in the belief that a stick of a particular shape, cut from a particular kind of tree or bush, will point out hidden treasures, or mines, or springs of water, is superstitious and sinful for the reason that “there is no natural force which acts in the arbitrary manner in which the divining rod is said to act under the circumstances.”¹⁵

¹⁵ Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, I, 218 sq.

2. SUPERSTITION IN REGARD TO MAN’S RELATION TO THE SOULS OF THE DEPARTED.—This species of superstition owes its existence to a perversion of the Catholic dogma of purgatory and of the revealed teaching that the living can aid the souls of the dead by prayer and sacrifice. It was an ancient belief that the souls of departed criminals were confined to the place where the crime was committed, or compelled to watch over the treasure they had unjustly obtained, and that these souls could be cited and forced to give up their hidden riches by the use of magic formulas and the performance of certain acts which atoned for their crimes. To this class of superstitions belong, e. g., the so-called sacrifices for the dead, the invocation of spirits, digging for treasure, etc. They are one and all sinful, first, because they are opposed to the truth that God’s vindictive justice works itself out fully, not in this world, but in the next,¹⁶ and, secondly, because they evince an unwholesome desire for unearned wealth.

¹⁶ Cfr. John III, 17.

On Spiritism proper, see supra, pp. 280 sqq.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 96.—IDEM, Summa contra Gent., l. III, c. 103–108.—F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 355 sqq.—J. B. Wirthmüller, Die moralische Tugend der Religion, pp. 622 sqq.—F. Walter, Der Aberglaube, pp. 265 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 171 sqq.

On WITCHCRAFT in particular: J. Diefenbach, Der Hexenwahn, Mayence 1886; IDEM, Der Zauberglaube des 16ten Jahrhunderts, Mayence 1900; S. Reizler, Besessenheit, Zauberei und Hexenfabeln, Francfort 1893; B. Duhr, S.J., Die Stellung der Jesuiten in den deutschen Hexenprozessen, Cologne 1900; B. J. Diel and B. Duhr, S.J., Friedrich Spee, Freiburg 1901; J. Hansen, Zauberwahn, Inquisition und Hexenprozess, Munich and Leipsic 1900; H. L. Strack, Das Blut im Glauben und Aberglauben der Menschheit, 7th ed., Munich 1900; F. Frank, Der Ritualmord, Ratisbon 1901; IDEM, Nachträge zu “Der Ritualmord” etc., Ratisbon 1902; K. Mommert, Der Ritualmord bei den Talmud-Juden, Leipsic 1905; B. Duhr, S.J., Jesuiten-Fabeln, 4th ed., pp. 342, 488, 879; K. Binz, Dr. Joh. Weyer, Der erste Bekämpfer des Hexenwahns, 2nd ed., Berlin 1896; W. H. Roscher, Ephialtes, Leipsic 1900; L. Günther, Ein Hexenprozess, Giessen 1906; O. Syell, Hexenprozesse und Geistesstörung, Munich 1891; H. Thurston, S.J., art. “Witchcraft,” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, pp. 674–677; J. Janssen, History of the German People (English tr., Vol. XVI); Kittredge, Notes on Witchcraft, Worcester, Mass., 1907. (For additional bibliographical data see Thurston, l. c.)