Article VI. On Magnetism, Hypnotism, and Spiritism

520. Magnetism is either mineral or animal. The former is a certain physical force, very similar and closely related to electricity, inhering in certain minerals and metals. Although the intimate nature of this magnetism is still hidden from us, nevertheless from day to day it is employed more and more for the utility of the human race. To treat of this magnetism pertains to the natural sciences, not to moral theology. Animal magnetism, which is also called mesmerism after the physician Francis Mesmer (d. 1815), is a certain force, perhaps subsisting in the nerves of man, suited to curing diseases and producing other material effects by external contact alone. Animal magnetism in our days is often practiced by so-called magnetopaths, and, considered in itself, contains nothing unlawful. For it is nothing other than one of the diverse modes of curing diseases; and just as electrotherapy, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, etc. are objectively lawful, so also is mesmerism, which truly, according to experts in the art, sometimes produces good effects. Per accidens, however, mesmerism is not rarely unlawful, because it is practiced by men who lack due knowledge, good morals, and a right end in acting. Concerning the use of magnetism the Holy Office⁷⁸³ established the following as a general rule: "With every error, sortilege, and explicit or implicit invocation of a demon removed, the use of magnetism, namely, the mere act of employing physical means otherwise lawful, is not morally forbidden, provided that it does not tend toward an unlawful or in any way depraved end. But the application of purely physical principles and means to things and effects truly supernatural, so that they may be explained physically, is nothing but an altogether unlawful and heretical deception." Magnetism is not to be confused with hypnotism, which will be treated below. For in magnetism the use of reason and liberty is never lost; nevertheless, this sometimes happens in hypnotism.

⁷⁸³ On 28 July 1847.

521. On turning tables. Perhaps "turning tables" can also be explained through the assistance of animal magnetism. Behold their manner of operation: several persons, whether men or women (it happens rather rarely that one person alone can produce the same effects), touch some table with the tips of their fingers, arranged in a determined manner. After some time the table begins to move and especially to be agitated by its feet. If it is then established among those present, for example, that one knock signifies affirmative and two knocks signify negative, the table responds by knocks of its foot according to the responses established. These responses are true provided that one of those touching the table knows what ought to be answered; otherwise, they always speak falsely. Certain authors assert that the table suddenly ceases to turn when a blessed object is placed upon it, or that the table gives responses also concerning things altogether occult; this, however, is rightly denied by others, since men above every suspicion firmly contend from their own experience that the table never gives a true response when no one touching it knows the matter asked, and a fortiori that the table never reveals anything altogether unknown.⁷⁸⁴ The phenomena narrated, for example, by Gury-Ballerini⁷⁸⁵ certainly do not occur in six hundred experiments performed; and if they happen in a rare case, they are often nothing other than effects produced by the greatest dexterity of the magnetizer. Therefore, since it is not yet certainly established what precisely is produced through turning tables, they must be judged with great caution. The following seem to be said:

1. The simple rotation of the table can in some measure be explained from the natural powers of nerves and muscles or of some fluid, whose nature, however, is still hidden from us.

2. The response of the table to questions known to one or several of those touching it need not be attributed to preternatural powers; for just as the nerves of those touching it can probably produce the rotation itself, so nothing seems to prevent the same nerves from also causing, according to the will of those touching it, a determined number of knocks.⁷⁸⁶

3. If the table truly gives responses concerning things truly occult, then this is to be attributed to the devil. For without any doubt a material table can give no response of itself; moreover, those present cannot give the response, since, as is supposed, the matter is altogether occult; finally, neither God nor a good angel gives responses of this kind to questions that are often frivolous. It remains, therefore, that the devil mingles himself in it.

4. Even with responses of the table concerning things altogether occult excluded, the faithful are to be deterred from experiments with turning tables, because, even if more probably no diabolical intervention is present, nevertheless experiments of this kind, far from producing any utility, are accustomed rather to cause several harms; for they excite unhealthy curiosity, foster superstition, and not rarely injure decency and charity.

⁷⁸⁴ Cf. C. Gutberlet, Der Kampf um die Seele (1903), p. 582.

⁷⁸⁵ Comp. theol. mor. I, n. 273ff.

⁷⁸⁶ Thus also Tanquerey, De virt. relig. n. 913.

522. Hypnotism. Although certain authors (for example, Marc) would have hypnotism to be nothing other than a higher degree of animal magnetism, it is more correctly distinguished from it in reality. For animal magnetism can be effected by bodily contacts alone; hypnotism, however, is produced in many other ways, for example, by a fixed gaze upon a shining object, by suggestion, and by other mechanical means; indeed, there are men who, by a certain autosuggestion, are able to transfer themselves into hypnotic sleep. To hypnotism is reduced the so-called suggestion in the waking state (Wachsuggestion), through which hypnotic sleep is not indeed produced, but a man nevertheless necessarily performs the commands of the hypnotizer or suggester.

The effects produced through hypnotism are many and diverse. Dr. Joire,⁷⁸⁷ professor of the Psychological Institute of Paris, enumerates five categories of effects, namely, active suggestion, passive suggestion, somnambulism, catalepsy, and lethargy; but he himself admits that all these categories are not altogether diverse, but are often intermixed. An altogether astonishing effect of hypnotism is somnambulism, in which the hypnotized person is subjected in all things to the will and command of the hypnotizer and, although he seems to be deprived of the external senses, nevertheless sees and hears the hypnotizer, whom he obeys at a nod.

In our days hypnotism is employed for obtaining diverse ends, namely:

1. by physicians to cure various diseases, especially those of the nerves;

2. by artists, for example, by a painter to procure for himself a model,⁷⁸⁸ who for a long time retains the same posture immovably, or for a long time expresses the same vivid internal affection by the arrangement of the mouth and countenance;

3. by judges, that they may elicit useful or necessary confessions from the accused or from witnesses;

4. by parents and teachers to assist education and eradicate depraved habits; for those things which have been suggested to a hypnotized person, even when the hypnosis has ceased, he is accustomed for at least some time to carry into execution by the force of a certain inclination implanted in him (posthypnotic states);

5. by curious persons for their own recreation and that of others.

Although certain phenomena of hypnotism are most difficult to explain, nevertheless it is by no means necessary to have recourse to diabolical intervention. The things narrated by certain authors concerning the speaking of unknown languages and concerning wholly extraordinary sciences and notions possessed by hypnotized persons are mere fables, or at least are not certainly established. A certain physician, most distinguished both for knowledge and for good morals, who himself very often employed hypnotism with good effect and who often saw it employed by others, told me that neither he nor anyone else had ever been able through hypnotism to obtain any effect exceeding the natural powers of the hypnotized person; and that, if such exceeding effects are narrated, they are to be attributed solely to the credulity and simplicity of the hearers and to the exceedingly great dexterity of the hypnotizer.⁷⁸⁹ I can assert the same from my own experience.

⁷⁸⁷ Handbuch des Hypnotismus, German translation (1908), p. 31ff.

⁷⁸⁸ Modell [model].

⁷⁸⁹ Tanquerey rightly says (l.c., n. 916): "The hypnotic phenomena which are certainly established do not seem to exceed the powers of the natural order."

523. The liceity of hypnotism. Principle. Hypnotism is not unlawful in itself; often, however, it becomes unlawful because of abuse.

Thus holds the more common opinion today.

The first part is proved: The means employed in hypnotism (and its end) are lawful. Therefore hypnotism is not unlawful in itself. The means employed are suggestions, shining objects, etc., which certainly contain nothing unlawful. Likewise, the ends of hypnotism enumerated above (except perhaps the ends indicated above under nn. 3 and 5) are not necessarily evil and repugnant to right reason. Nor should anyone say that it is not lawful to deprive oneself violently of the use of reason, and much less to subject one's will to the judgment of another. For although these things are true if a sufficient cause is not present, nevertheless, when a reasonable cause exists, nothing prevents someone from renouncing for a time the use of reason and will. Thus, for example, when a man gives himself to natural sleep or when a sick person is placed under narcosis, he also renounces the use of reason and will. There is, however, some difficulty concerning the so-called posthypnotic states. For even after the hypnotism is completed, the will of the hypnotized person remains in some manner under the power of the hypnotizer, whose commands (even from a distance) he is accustomed to fulfill without resistance. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the hypnotized person has entirely lost liberty, since he not only is able to resist but sometimes in fact resists the command of the hypnotizer. Therefore a more or less vehement inclination is impressed through hypnotism, but liberty is not customarily removed entirely in the posthypnotic state.

The second part is explained: Hypnotism is a land still sufficiently unknown and full of dangers. For sometimes bodily health is not merely not cured by it, but rather is ruined; moreover, the hypnotizer can easily abuse that subjection of the will which remains in some manner even after hypnosis in order to perpetrate crimes. Since these things are so, it is not lawful to use hypnotism except from a proportionately grave cause and with all precautions employed so that abuse may not be possible. There are several authors who absolutely forbid the use of hypnotism, such as Ballerini-Palmieri,⁷⁹⁰ Bucceroni,⁷⁹¹ and Aertnys;⁷⁹² but several others, such as Berardi,⁷⁹³ Génicot,⁷⁹⁴ Lehmkuhl,⁷⁹⁵ D'Annibale,⁷⁹⁶ Noldin,⁷⁹⁷ and Coconnier,⁷⁹⁸ hold it lawful under certain conditions. The response of the Holy Office concerning hypnotism, dated 26 July 1899, is to be noted: "As regards experiments already made, they can be permitted, provided that the danger of superstition and scandal is absent, and that in addition the petitioner is prepared to abide by the commands of the Holy See. As regards new experiments, if there is question of facts which certainly exceed the powers of nature, they are not lawful; but if this is doubted, they are to be tolerated after a protestation that one wills to have no part in preternatural facts, provided that the danger of scandal is absent." From this response it plainly appears that the Holy See does not condemn hypnotism as simply unlawful, but determines only the conditions under which experiments of this kind can be performed lawfully.

Note. The salutary effects of hypnotism are being called more and more into doubt by more recent physicians, at least if it is carried as far as somnambulism. For it is now sufficiently established that the salutary effects obtained through hypnotism are often of brief duration, but that afterward the apparently cured disease returns, and indeed in a more vehement degree.

⁷⁹⁰ Opus theol. II, tr. 6, n. 101 (ed. 1890).

⁷⁹¹ Theol. mor. I, n. 485.

⁷⁹² Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 32. Aertnys nevertheless permits hypnotism to be employed by a trustworthy physician for producing natural effects alone.

⁷⁹³ Praxis confess. I, n. 484. Nevertheless, the author's mind is not so clearly established.

⁷⁹⁴ Theol. mor. I, n. 273.

⁷⁹⁵ Theol. mor. I, n. 502.

⁷⁹⁶ Summula theol. mor. II, n. 43.

⁷⁹⁷ De praeceptis n. 749.

⁷⁹⁸ L'hypnotisme franc, p. 260ff. Above the others, this author is to be consulted in this matter.

524. Spiritism (which is also sometimes called spiritualism) is taken either in a broad sense, and then also the phenomena of turning and responding tables pertain to spiritism; or in a strict sense, and then it is unlawful conversation with spirits of another world. When this conversation takes place by means of hypnotism, then the phenomena of hypnotism and spiritism are present together. Sufficient has already been said above concerning hypnotism. In spiritism strictly so called, spirits of another world are evoked, especially known deceased persons. The spirits evoked sometimes produce the so-called "materialization," that is, they appear in a sensible and visible form, so that their photograph can be taken. In present times spiritism is spreading widely. It is said that a special chair of spiritism has been established at the University of Philadelphia, and several periodicals spread spiritism daily. So-called spiritistic mediums, that is, persons having a special aptitude for conversing with spirits, are customarily employed; by falling into a certain artificial sleep (which is called trance), they produce a materialization of spirits. It has been proved several times that the most celebrated spiritistic mediums⁷⁹⁹ were base impostors who with great dexterity produced astonishing effects, but by natural powers alone. There are those who call all spiritistic phenomena fabrications and deceptions; and indeed a strong suspicion of deception ought to arise from the fact that all spiritistic sessions are customarily held under uncertain and unclear light. But why do spirits so fear full light?

⁷⁹⁹ For example, Slade, Florence Cook, Rothe, Eusapia Palladino, etc.

525. Morality. Spiritism strictly so called, that is, artificial and vain conversation with spirits of another world, is altogether unlawful.

For the phenomena of spiritism are either true or fictitious. In either case, however, spiritism is unlawful. For in the first case spiritism is nothing other than vain observance joined with divination, namely, with pythonism or necromancy. It is established with moral certainty that those apparitions and responses are not to be attributed to a natural cause, but to a preternatural being. Now that being most certainly is neither God, nor a good angel, nor a saint, since these do not cooperate with spiritistic vanities and impieties, especially since things contrary to religion and good morals are not rarely uttered. Therefore spiritistic apparitions, if they are true, are in fact diabolical, and consequently cause unlawful commerce with a demon. But if the phenomena are false, as happens in most cases, spiritism still seems to be unlawful, because it is accustomed to provide grave scandal, to lead many into error, to harm true religion, and to bring altogether no utility; nor has it brought any true utility up to the present. Therefore it is never lawful to conduct spiritistic experiments, although every agreement with a demon is excluded and only commerce with a good spirit is intended. To this pertain the responses of the Holy Office dated 1 April 1898 and 27 April 1917.⁸⁰⁰

A fortiori, it is not lawful to serve as a medium in spiritistic experiments. When scandal and cooperation are absent and every approval of spiritism is excluded, it is indeed unlawful, but does not seem to be a grave sin, sometimes to watch spiritistic experiments, even from mere curiosity; indeed, attendance seems lawful if it is done with the intention of detecting the frauds of spiritists.⁸⁰¹ For it is established that very many of those experiments are effects produced by the dexterity of men; on the contrary, it is not certainly established that even one phenomenon has been produced by the devil. Therefore, according to the rule given above by the Sacred Congregation, in a doubt whether some effect is from a natural or a preternatural cause, the phenomena of spiritism can be ascribed to natural causes.

⁸⁰⁰ "Titius, with every agreement with an evil spirit excluded, is accustomed to evoke the souls of the dead. He proceeds thus: while he is alone, without first doing anything else, he directs a prayer to the leader of the heavenly host, that through him he may obtain the faculty of communicating with the spirit of such a determined person. He waits a little; then, while he presents his prepared hand for writing, he perceives it to be moved, from which he becomes more certain of the presence of the spirit. He sets forth what he desires to know, and the hand writes responses to these questions. These responses all accord with the Catholic faith and the doctrine of the Church concerning the future life. For the most part they regard the state in which the soul of some deceased person is found, its need of receiving suffrages, its complaints concerning the ingratitude of relatives, etc. Is the manner of acting of Titius lawful? Response: As it is set forth, it is not lawful. The Most Holy Father approved" (Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1994). To the question: "Whether it is lawful ... to be present at any spiritistic communications or manifestations whatsoever ... whether by questioning souls or spirits, or by hearing responses, or merely by looking on, even with a tacit or express protestation that one wills to have no part with evil spirits?" the Holy Office responded on 27 April 1917: "Negative in all things" (Act. Ap. Sed. 1917 [IX], 268). The Second Council of Baltimore, n. 41, prudently decreed: "We exhort them in Christ that they favor spiritism in no way, even indirectly, and that they never attend its circles even from curiosity."

⁸⁰¹ Thus also Noldin, De praeceptis n. 170, and Vermeersch, Theol. mor. II, n. 248.