Case 4. The Divining Rod

Caius, a Catholic, cultivated fairly extensive lands, which, however, did not abound in water. When he heard that Marcus had rather often found water for others by means of a divining rod, Caius consulted his confessor as to whether it was lawful to hire Marcus to find water for him on his land. Hence it is asked:

1. What is divination, and whence is it unlawful?

2. Can it be proved with sufficient certainty that water does not naturally bend the divining rod?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. This question is answered in “Manual of Moral Theology,” vol. i, p. 217.

2. Can it be proved for certain that water does not naturally bend the divining rod?

Yes; this can be proved by the application of the fundamental axiom of natural science — the uniformity of nature. If the twig bends at the presence of underground water, it should do so all the more when the water is exposed; yet ordinarily it does not do so. Moreover, the divining rod is used to find not only underground water, but minerals, lost property, and other objects. And when it is being used to find minerals, it does not indicate the presence of underground water, and vice versa. Besides, if the divining rod is moved by the water, the movements should take place, no matter who holds it. Conscious or unconscious muscular movements are capable of causing the bending of the rod, and in many cases have been observed to do so. See Professor Barrett’s “Reports on the Divining Rod.”¹ Whence we may conclude with Professor Barrett: “Few will dispute the proposition that the motion of the forked twig is due to unconscious muscular action.”² The rod on this hypothesis is merely an indicator which shows when the diviner is over a supply of underground water. The presence of water is suggested to the diviner according to Professor Barrett “From various hints he has gathered or knowledge he possesses becoming unconsciously operative ; or from his subconscious and perhaps hyperaesthetic discernment of the surface signs of underground water or ore; or from some kind of transcendental discernment possessed by his subconscious self.” Professor Barrett attributes great importance to the last source of knowledge and thinks “that in years to come we shall see in all these phenomena the manifestation of the transcendental Subject which lies in the background of our being, and remains unrevealed to our self-consciousness.”³ For this pantheistic interpretation of certain rare and extraordinary cases the Catholic theologian will substitute the intervention of preternatural causes.

1 Proceedings S. P. R., vols. xiii and xv.

2 Vol. xiii, p. 243.

3 Vol. xv, pp. 310, 311.

3. The case. The confessor of Caius will tell him that he may use his own judgment about employing Mark the dowser to find water for him. It is probable at least that divination does not enter into the method of the ordinary dowser, and that he may therefore be employed without sinning against religion.