Section 4: Superstition in the Supernatural Order

In regard to the strictly supernatural order there are two additional forms of superstition, namely, superstitious Naturalism and exaggerated Mysticism.

1. SUPERSTITIOUS NATURALISM.—The Church teaches that grace is ordinarily (modo ordinario) communicated to men by means of external signs, i. e., Sacraments, sacramentals, and prayer. This truth is distorted by those who believe that these divinely appointed means of grace produce their effect by magic, and especially that, under certain definite conditions or external circumstances, this effect is absolutely certain; for instance, that a definite number of masses said for some poor soul will infallibly release that soul from purgatory, or that a determined number of Pater nosters recited in a certain place or at a certain time will surely procure the desired favor, or that the intercession of the Saints will follow upon the recitation of certain prayers or is assured by invoking them in some particular place. Thus the grace of God is, as it were, materialized.

The superstition consists in the wrong belief that certain prayers or formulas operate infallibly, that some masses are of greater value than others, or that a definite number of them, said in a particular place, possess a special power, etc.¹

¹ P. Laymann, Theol. Mor., 7th ed., l. IV, tr. 10, c. 4, n. 4: “For although God confers upon certain persons the grace of healings, which is numbered among the graces freely given, He nevertheless confers it in such a way that it is a personal grace and is not infallibly annexed to a certain thing or action which any man can employ and thereby produce a miraculous effect.”—Cfr. K. Eberle, Der Tricenarius des hl. Gregorius, Ratisbon 1890; A. Franz, Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter, Freiburg 1902, pp. 87 sqq., 244 sqq.

One curious form of superstitious Naturalism which has become very popular of late years is faith-healing, especially in the shape of “Christian Science.” Christian Science does not owe its alleged successes to prayer, because its foundress, Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy, expressly rejected the dogma of the efficacy of intercessory prayer. This deluded woman and her followers deny the existence of disease and reject all the knowledge of curative agencies which the human race has accumulated in the course of many generations. They exclude physicians from the sick-room, deny that drugs have any power to heal, and reject, those that are consistent, opiates and anesthetics, the greatest boon medical science has conferred on man. Their anodyne for the agony that finds expression in the heart-rending cry of the sick is the formula: “There is no disease,” “Pain is imaginary,” “Think of God not as a person, but as a principle,” “Get rid of this nonsense about being sick, and you will be as well as anybody.” The Christian Scientists and other “faith healers” reject the things which God has endued with healing power and which even the brute beasts instinctively seek when ill. Their exaggerated trust in “faith” is a superstition that is apt to entail very dangerous consequences.² Aside from its unreasonableness and heretical tendency, faith-healing is sinful because it is apt to produce an effeminate type of character which shrinks from pain and concentrates attention upon itself. It sets up false grounds for determining whether a person is or is not in the favor of God. It opens the door to many superstitious practices, such as attaching undue importance to dreams and signs, opening the Bible at random, expecting the Lord so to influence the thoughts and minds of men that they can gather His will from the first Bible text their eyes accidentally fall upon; impressions, “assurances,” etc. By violating reason this superstition often leads to mental derangement.³

² J. M. Buckley, Christian Science and Other Superstitions, p. 45, New York 1899.

³ G. M. Searle, C.S.P., The Truth About Christian Science, New York 1916, p. VII.

Of all delusions in the matter of religion, which have ever gained support among apparently intelligent people, “Christian Science” is perhaps the most surprising. It has been justly remarked that this system is “neither Christian nor science.” For, as Father George M. Searle, C.S.P., points out, in what is probably the best refutation of this modern heresy, “a doctrine professing to be Christian should (as is evident) be one founded on the words of Christ as a whole, which the person holding such a doctrine endeavors to explain in their genuine sense, rather than on theories which he himself has elaborated, and supports, here and there, by such words of Christ as he can manage to fit to suit his purpose. Also, a system professing to be scientific should rest on a solid basis of fact, and be stated clearly and distinctly, not in vague generalities, which are either truisms or have no precise meaning whatever. A scientific system should in some way be a contribution to our knowledge. But the most favorable criticism on the lucubration known as ‘Christian Science’ would be that it contains ‘some things which are new, and some things which are true; but the things which are true are not new, and the things which are new are not true.’” Despite its absurdity, “Christian Science” is a dangerous and soul-destroying error, which has deceived and is deceiving thousands of well-meaning persons. It strikes at the very root and foundation of all the Christian virtues, and substitutes for humility an overweening pride, which calls it a delusion to think that we are not as just and as good as God Himself. It is dangerous also for the reason that it has, superficially, a specious appearance of good and presents in its poor dupes a fair-seeming counterfeit of the joy and peace which Christ promised to give to His true followers.⁴

⁴ 1 Cor. XII, 9.—Searle, ibid., p. 209.

Father Noldin gives the following criteria for distinguishing superstitious practices from the scriptural “grace of healing,” of which St. Paul speaks in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (xii, 9), and which it is reasonable to believe that God even now occasionally bestows upon saints and other individuals for the common welfare. We should inquire, he says, (1) Whether the healer is the only one who is able to produce the effect in question, or whether it can be produced by others with the same means, and whether he has learned his art from others; (2) Whether the means employed are silly and inappropriate; because if God makes a cure dependent upon external signs, as He sometimes does, these signs will never be silly or inept; (3) Whether the healer believes that his power of curing disease inheres in the words or signs employed, because God gives the grace of healing to persons and does not attach it to external signs.⁵

⁵ See note 1, supra.

Those who go about healing diseases in man or beast should be subjected to the following tests: a) Inquiry should be made whether the means or remedies employed produce their effect by virtue of their natural power. If this can be affirmed with any degree of probability, their use may be permitted, but protestation should be made against the possible influence of the devil. b) If the effect produced can by no probable conjecture be ascribed to the powers of nature, the whole thing need not be rejected a priori as superstitious and illicit, but a careful examination of each case should be made with all its attending circumstances. c) If this examination shows that the method employed is not positively superstitious, if the prayers and invocations used by the healer contain nothing wrong or inept, and if the healer himself is in good faith and does not attribute infallible efficacy either to the remedies he prescribes or to the formulas he employs, it will not be necessary to forbid the practice, though it is always prudent to advise those who submit to such ministrations that they should make a formal intention of rejecting any and all effects that might possibly be produced by the intervention of the evil one.⁶

⁶ H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 176 sq.

2. SUPERSTITIOUS MYSTICISM.—The Church teaches, and history attests, that the religious life in its higher (mystic) stages is characterized by extraordinary signs or states, such as visions, ecstasies, raptures, stigmata, mystic espousals, miracles, revelations, and prophecies.⁷ This truly Christian belief becomes superstitious when purely natural phenomena, or phenomena produced by diabolic power, are proclaimed to be miraculous effects of divine grace, or when apparent or fictitious miracles or revelations are incautiously and credulously accepted as genuine. The Church, to prevent such aberrations, im- poses upon her children the strict duty of exercising reserve and caution when confronted with such dubious phenomena, that is, not to form an opinion on them according to their own subjective notions, but to be guided by the judgment of the legitimate ecclesiastical authority. The reason is because, even in extraordinary states or phenomena of genuine mysticism, the personal element is always very pronounced, and it is therefore difficult to distinguish purely natural or diabolical from supernatural effects. In such cases the following rules will be found helpful: a) All phenomena and statements which run counter to the faith, to sound piety, or to approved Catholic custom, or which in form or substance contain anything equivocal, unbecoming, or ludicrous, are undeserving of belief because the circumstances of the case absolutely exclude supernatural revelation. b) Persons whose behavior does not fully conform to the strict requirements of Christian morality, or who are physically or mentally abnormal, or obviously eager to create a sensation or to derive some advantage from their condition, or claim special consideration or favors on account of it, or are extremely sensitive to criticism or to doubts expressed by others in their good faith or honesty, or who proudly raise themselves above and criticize others, nay, attempt to reform the Church itself, must be suspected of simulation or fraud. c) Even when the phenomena are undoubtedly genuine and there is evidence of a divine revelation, not everything is to be accepted as equally supernatural, because every private revelation is dependent more or less on the subjective views and the individuality of the medium, and it is easy for purely human opinions and even errors to become mixed with genuine communications from above. For this reason private visions and revelations need not be received with divine or theological, but can claim only human faith (fides humana), and it is strictly forbidden to publish miracles and private revelations as such before the Church has pronounced upon their genuineness through her legitimately constituted authorities.⁸

⁷ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 171–178; E. Amort, De Revelationibus, Visionibus et Apparitionibus Privatis Regulae Tutae, Aug. Vindel., 1744; J. v. Bonniot, Wunder und Scheinwunder, Mayence 1889; J. H. Newman, Two Essays on Biblical and Ecclesiastical Miracles, new impression, London 1911.

⁸ Conc. Trident., Sess. XXV, De Invocat., Venerat. et Reliquiis Sanctorum et Sacris Imaginibus.

How strenuously the Church has always combatted superstition appears from the many laws she has made against it in the course of centuries and from the punishments she has at various times inflicted upon those who transgressed these laws.

READINGS.—F. Walter, Der Aberglaube, pp. 373 sqq.—P. Laymann, Theol. Mor., 7th ed., l. IV, tr. 10.—K. Eberle, Der Tricenarius des hl. Gregorius, Ratisbon 1890.—A. Franz, Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter, Freiburg 1902, pp. 87 sqq., 244 sqq.—A. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor. et Pastor., Vol. II, pp. 519 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 174 sqq.—Berardi, Praxis Confessariorum, Vol. I, 3rd ed., pp. 433 sqq.—Jas. J. Walsh, art. “Psychotherapy” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, pp. 549 sqq.—Cutten, Three Thousand Years of Mental Healing, New York 1911.

On “CHRISTIAN SCIENCE”: J. M. Buckley, Christian Science and Other Superstitions, New York 1899.—G. M. Searle, C. S. P., The Truth About Christian Science, New York 1916.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. X, pp. 288–297 (contains a copious bibliography, pro and con).—L. A. Lambert, Christian Science before the Bar of Reason, New York 1908.—C. Van der Donckt, Mrs. Eddy and Bob Ingersoll, or Christian Science Tested, Pocatello, Ida., 1901.—V. Krull, C.PP.S., A Common Sense View of Christian Science, Collegeville, Ind. 1908.—C. Buotich, O.F.M., Christian Science, an Apostasy from Science and Christianity, San Francisco 1917.—J. Goggin, Christian Science and Catholic Teaching, Notre Dame, Ind. 1912.—Thos. F. Coakley, Christian Science and the Catholic Church, Pittsburgh 1912.—T. J. Campbell, S.J., The Delusion of Christian Science, Brooklyn, 1906.—R. H. Benson, Christian Science, London (C.T.S.), s. a.—J. M. Logan, Christian Science Expounded and Exposed, London 1923.—A. Bellwald, S.M., Christian Science and the Catholic Faith, New York 1922 (the best Catholic work on the subject, with an extensive bibliography).—Jas. J. Walsh, The Educated Classes and Bogus Religions, N. Y. 1923.—C. R. Brown, Faith and Healing, N. Y. 1924.—H. Thurston, S.J., Christian Science, N. Y. 1925.—W. Riley, F. W. Peabody and C. E. Humiston, The Faith, the Falsity, and the Failure of Christian Science, N. Y. 1925.

On superstitious MYSTICISM: E. Amort, De Revelationibus, Visionibus et Apparitionibus Privatis Regulae Tutae, Aug. Vindel. 1744.—J. v. Bonniot, Wunder und Scheinwunder, Mayence 1889.—J. Zahn, Einführung in die christliche Mystik, Paderborn 1908, pp. 524 sqq.—Catholic Encyclopedia, Index, under “Revelations, Private,” “Visions,” etc.