Case 5. Hypnotism in Medicine

Arsenius, a Catholic physician, was accustomed to lull nervous clients, or those given to drunkenness, into a hypnotic sleep, and, while they were asleep, to suggest various remedies directed toward curing them. Indeed, once, when he had received a letter from a long-standing client who lived at a distance, in which he was asked whether the prescribed medicine should be continued or changed, since he wished to know more about the client’s condition and could not visit him, he consulted what they call a “medium,” lulled into a hypnotic sleep, concerning the client’s condition, and received a truthful answer. He had heard, however, that the Church had condemned every use of hypnotism, and, in order that he might be safe in conscience, he asked his confessor about the lawfulness of the things done by him. Hence it is asked:

1. What is to be said concerning the cause of hypnotism?

2. Are the decrees concerning animal magnetism to be applied to hypnotism?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is to be said about the cause of hypnotism? The question which concerns us here is whether hypnotism is to be attributed to natural or to preternatural causes. Many of the older theologians expressly attributed it to the devil, whence it followed that Catholics could take no part in it. Others, however, distinguished between the phenomena of hypnotism. The hypnotic sleep itself, anaesthesia, catalepsy, aptitude for receiving suggestions, somnambulism, and other similar phenomena, they attributed to natural causes, as similar normal or pathological states are familiar. Clairvoyance, knowledge of languages and sciences unknown in the normal state, prediction of the future, and similar phenomena, they attributed to preternatural causes. The Holy Office in its decrees of July 28, 1847, Aug. 4, 1856, July 26, 1899, favored the latter opinion.

2. Are the decrees concerning animal magnetism to be applied to hypnotism ?

Yes; the same phenomena which are now grouped under the general name of hypnotism were formerly known by that of mesmerism or animal magnetism. And so the two first of the decrees of the Holy Office which have just been referred to and which expressly mention magnetism may and should be applied to what is now called hypnotism.

3. The case. Arsenius, a Catholic doctor, is accustomed to use hypnotism in the treatment of nervous patients and of those given to drink. It would be well if he were to try other approved remedies first, and to have recourse to hypnotism only in cases where they have failed, and never to hypnotize anyone except in the presence of a third person. Under these conditions Arsenius may continue to use hypnotism for such cases as these. But when he consulted a medium about the state of health of a distant client whom he could not visit in person, he transgressed the limits allowed to a prudent Catholic doctor. Although such acts of clairvoyance are reported they seem to be inexplicable by the forces of nature; examples of mistake and fraud in such cases are frequent, so that it is by no means a safe method of diagnosing a disease. Arsenius therefore did wrong in this respect. The decree of the Holy Office, dated July 26, 1899, given in answer to a doctor who had consulted it, confirms this solution: “With regard to experiments already made, they can be permitted, provided that danger of superstition and scandal is absent, and moreover that the petitioner is prepared to abide by the commands of the Holy See and does not act the part of a theologian. With regard to new experiments, if it concerns facts which certainly exceed the powers of nature, they are not lawful; but if there is doubt about this, after a prior protestation that he wishes to have no part in preternatural facts, it is to be tolerated, provided that danger of scandal is absent.” Leo XIII approved.