§ III. On Divination

Divination is inquiry into hidden things by the help of the demon. Hence it agrees with vain observance, insofar as each rests on an express or at least implicit pact with the demon; but it differs insofar as divination is ordered only to knowledge of hidden things, and vain observance, taken generally, extends itself to any effect, even external. Moreover it differs from notory art, because this directly seeks an infusion of knowledge without labor; but divination employs certain means, although disproportionate. Finally it differs from the observance of events, because this uses observations without reason and art, and for arranging one's own acts; but that uses them artfully, and for speculative knowledge of hidden things. - Cf. Baller., note (b), p. 231.

Various kinds of divination are distinguished; of this kind especially are: 1st, judicial astrology from the stars; 2nd, augury from the chattering of birds; 3rd, auspice from their flight; 4th, haruspicy from the entrails of animals; 5th, chiromancy from the lines of the hand; 6th, geomancy from signs in the earth; 7th, omen from a fortuitous event; 8th, necromancy from invocation of the dead; 9th, oneiromancy from dreams; 10th, sortilege from lots; 11th, oracle from idols; 12th, vaticination from seers or cards. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 5 and 6.

I Say 1st. Express divination, namely that which is made through express invocation of the demon, can never be excused from mortal sin. This is clear both from many places of Sacred Scripture, for example, Deut. xviii, 10, Lev. xx, 6, etc.; and because expressly to invoke the demon and to bargain with him is the same as to acknowledge his dominion and authority, which is intrinsically evil.

I Say 2nd. Tacit divination, by which namely the demon is invoked by employing means in no way proportioned to attaining the effect, even if someone openly protests that he intends no commerce with the demon, is also of itself a grave sin; yet sometimes it can be excused from mortal sin because of simplicity or ignorance or defect of certain faith. The reason of the first is that recourse to the demon, in whatever way it is made, contains in itself a grave offense of God. But the reason of the second is taken from the imperfection of the act. I said even if someone, etc., because he acts against his protestation, and action is more efficacious than words. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 7 and 8. - Voit, n. 416.

Every knowledge useful and necessary to us which you cannot obtain by natural power is to be sought by you from God. It is also superstitious to ask from the demon what by natural power you can know or do; thus you leave God and ask help from his and your enemy, who always uniquely desires to obtain from man the worship due to God alone. The faithful are to be kept away altogether from every divination, even from games which are instituted for the sake of jest without any credence applied. For these are always dangerous, and the devil always holds himself ready to obtain by these means the evil which he hopes for. But especially care must be taken lest boys and girls become accustomed to these things, even if they are led only by reason of curiosity or levity. ... Bal. Palmieri, Opus Morale, vol. 2, pp. 226 and following.

Question 1. Are those to be condemned of divination who from the song and flight of birds, or the appearance of stars, conjecture a future storm?

Response. Negatively, and the reason is that often there is present, or can be present, a natural nexus between signs of this kind and the predicted effect proceeding from a necessary cause. Likewise they are not to be condemned, for the same reason, who conjecture a character or state of soul from the color of the face or other external signs, although in practice one must for the most part abstain from conjectures of this kind on account of the danger of rash judgment.

Question 2. Do those sin gravely who inquire from diviners (fortune tellers) concerning their fortune or future life?

Response. Negatively, generally speaking, because firmness of belief is lacking; for just as seers are ordinarily moved by the promise of money, so those who inquire for the most part act from simplicity, jest, or curiosity. Wherefore penitents are to be questioned concerning the credence which they furnished, unless it is known from elsewhere. But if they indeed acted jokingly, yet the diviners conducted themselves seriously, they can with difficulty be excused from gravely culpable cooperation. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 10. - Reuter, n. 43. - Kenrick, tract. 12, n. 43.

Question 3. Is the use of lots sometimes licit?

Response. Divisory lots, by which it is discerned what is to be attributed to each person in settling lawsuits, or in distributing things, are certainly licit, since indeed they are wholly free from every superstition. But consultory lots, by which the divine will is investigated so that it may be known what is to be done, are not licit unless they are done by a special impulse of God, or it is a question of a grave matter in which other counsel is lacking. The reason is that from ordinary providence God does not will that inquiry be made in this way concerning his will, but that recourse be made to prudent men or ecclesiastical superiors. Finally 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 tacit invocation of the demon. Superstition of this kind is properly called sortilege, although by this name other kinds of superstitions also commonly come. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 11.

Question 4. Is it licit to conjecture future things from dreams?

Response. Negatively, ordinarily speaking, because dreams almost always proceed from natural causes, for example, from disturbance of the humors, etc. From another source, dreams sent by God are conjoined with signs by which they can certainly be discerned from natural or diabolical dreams. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 9.

Question 5. Is the use of a divining rod licit?

Response. It is certainly to be condemned whenever the rod is moved or is not moved at the mere intention of him who presses it with his hand; and when it is employed for detecting those things with which the movement of the rod has no connection. But the use of the rod does not seem to be condemned for detecting waters or metals, if the rod is moved over these equally in every case, whether they are sought or are not sought, provided that by protestation against diabolical operation which perhaps could be present, every superstitious intention is excluded. - Thus the more recent writers more commonly, although St. Alphonsus reproves the use of the divining rod in every case.

Question 6. What is to be said concerning rotating tables, concerning the use of magnetism, concerning spiritism, and concerning hypnotism?

Response 1st. A twofold effect of rotating tables is usually assigned, namely their simple movement, and the returning of responses either by striking the floor, or by writing with the help of an attached pen. This last is certainly illicit on account of at least the implicit invocation of the demon; for so great an effect cannot be attributed either to a natural cause, because it would not be proportioned, or to God, because the indecency and levity of the act would be reflected back upon him. - But whether simple movement is illicit for this same reason is controverted; yet certainly it is not to be permitted by reason of scandal, danger, etc., which can easily be present.

Response 2nd. Especially a threefold effect or degree of magnetism is exhibited. The first effect is a state of sleep, by which the senses are wholly lulled, so that often not even the greatest crash stirred up by art at the very ears of the sleeper, or any force of glowing iron, is able to wake him. The second is the state of somnambulism, by which someone, wholly deprived of the use of the senses, nevertheless sees, hears, speaks, and responds to all things which are asked of him. Finally the third effect is clear intuition, or wondrous knowledge of himself and of remedies for driving away diseases; and also the vision of actions of other men, even far distant. Now to use magnetism for obtaining the second or third effect is certainly illicit, both because the demon evidently has his part there, and because it was thus declared by the Sacred Penitentiary, July 1, 1841. - But the use of magnetism for causing the first effect, namely sleep, does not seem to be illicit by virtue of the same reasons; because that sleep could at length proceed from a merely natural cause; nor do the words of the declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary of themselves extend to it. Yet certainly it is illicit from another head, namely on account of the violent privation of the use of reason, danger of injuring chastity, scandal, and other circumstances. - Cf. Baller., several notes, pp. 238 and following. - Conc. Plen. Balt. II, nn. 33 and following.

Response 3rd. Spiritism, or evocation of the dead, is truly diabolical and divination properly so called, condemned by Sacred Scripture itself. "Let there not be found in thee one who ... seeks truth from the dead. For all these things the Lord abominates." Deut. xviii, 12, 13.

"For it is established by faith," says Palmieri, Opus Morale, 2, p. 250, "that God does not will the souls of the dead to be evoked by men, nor does he will that by some art or by the nod or will of men commerce be instituted by these with those; and he does not will these things in such a way that such evocation is not only illicit, but altogether ineffective. This is the certain doctrine of the Church. Therefore when such evocations are made, neither the souls called respond, nor a good angel, who cannot contradict the decree of God, and nevertheless some spirit responds. It remains therefore that this is he who is the prince of this world, who is the tempter, who is permitted to deceive those acting against God, that is, Satan or some angel of his. Therefore spiritism is commerce with the devil, to whom men hand themselves over to be taught and ruled."

Hence modern spiritism differs very little indeed from the primitive. We know that very many assemblies exist which follow this superstition. To give one's name to these assemblies is prohibited by natural and divine law. "To publish, read, or retain books in which sortileges, divination, magic, evocation of spirits, and other superstitions of this kind are taught or recommended" is unlawful. - Const. Officiorum ac Munerum, sec. 12. - The Americana, vol. 14, Spiritualism. - Conc. Plen. Balt. II, nn. 36 and following. Cf. Can. 1399, 7th.

You Will Resolve. 1st. Titius, excluding every pact with the malign spirit, is accustomed to evoke the souls of the dead. He is accustomed to act thus. Alone and doing nothing else, he directs a prayer to the prince of the heavenly host, that contact with the spirit of a determined person may be permitted to him. A few moments pass, and he notices that the hand which he holds prepared for writing begins to move, and thus he becomes conscious of the presence of the spirit. All things which he wishes to know are manifested, and the hand writes responses to the things asked. These responses agree with the faith and doctrine of the Church concerning the future life. For the most part the responses concern the state of the soul of the dead person, the necessity under which it labors for suffrages, and its sorrow arising from the ingratitude of relatives.

To this case the Holy Office on March 30, 1898 responded: "As it is set forth, it is not licit." Leo XIII approved the response.

The Holy Office, to the proposed doubt: "Whether it is licit through a Medium, as they call it, or without a Medium, with hypnotism employed or not, to be present at any spiritistic conversations or manifestations whatsoever, even those displaying an appearance of honesty or piety, whether by questioning souls or spirits, or by hearing responses, or only by looking on, even with a tacit or express protestation that one does not wish to have any part with malign spirits?" on April 24, 1917 responded: "Negatively in all things."

2nd. He is not free of fault who, using disproportionate means for receiving some knowledge, protests that he intends no commerce with the demon.

Response 4th. Concerning hypnotism it seems that they act imprudently and against the truth who either deny all the phenomena which are related concerning it, or, when these have been admitted, seek a certain and complete explanation of them from diabolical intervention. But the faithful are diligently to be deterred from its use and practice, because the matter is full of dangers; nor, independently of a particular case in which a dishonorable end is sought, does there seem to be another malice of it. But because what is called dangerous is not always and absolutely illicit, otherwise we could never use either weapons or poison, it follows that not all and absolutely are to be condemned who would wish, with cautions employed, to test hypnotism for a good end, for example, for curing diseases not otherwise curable. But whenever it is brought into use, cautions are to be employed: that the hypnotizer be upright and experienced, that there be a trustworthy witness, that the consent of the hypnotized person be had, that a protestation be made. - Cf. Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. 3, pp. 257 and following, and vol. 12, pp. 120 and following. - Lehmkuhl, vol. 1, n. 994 note. - Genicot, vol. 1, n. 275. - Berardi, Praxis Confessar., vol. 1, n. 484.

It will be helpful to relate the following case and Response of the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition given on July 26, 1899:

"Most Blessed Father,

"N. N., Doctor in the medical art, prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, in order to consult the tranquillity of his conscience, humbly asks whether he can have a part in the discussions which are now being held at the Society of Medical Sciences N. concerning hypnotic suggestions in curing sick children. It is a question not only of discussing experiments already made, but of making new ones, whether they admit a natural explanation or not. Wherefore, lest he expose himself to the danger of erring, the orator with docile soul awaits the oracle of the Holy See." This case, proposed in Italian, the Congregation of the Sacred Inquisition resolved thus on July 26, 1899:

"As regards experiments already made, that they can be permitted, provided danger of superstition and scandal is absent; and moreover that the Orator be prepared to stand by the mandates of the Holy See and not act the part of a theologian. - As regards new experiments, if it is a question of facts which certainly exceed the powers of nature, they are not licit; but if this is doubted, with a protestation premised that he wishes to have no part in preternatural facts, it is to be tolerated, provided danger of scandal is absent."

It Must Be Noted. - § 1. Let Ordinaries of places watch that the prescriptions of the sacred canons concerning divine worship are diligently observed, and especially lest any superstitious practice be introduced into divine worship, whether public or private, or into the daily life of the faithful, or anything be admitted foreign to faith or discordant from ecclesiastical tradition or displaying the appearance of base gain.

§ 2. If the Ordinary of the place has issued laws for his territory in this matter, all religious also, even exempt, are held by the obligation of observing the same; and the Ordinary can visit their churches or public oratories for this purpose (Can. 1261).