Charms, spells and magic

The term vain observance is used by theologians to designate various kinds of superstition by which altogether disproportionate means are employed to procure a sure and certain effect. It comprises the use of charms, spells, and cabalistic signs, which are used to preserve persons and things from harm, or cure wounds and diseases, or acquire knowledge without the labour of study. It also signifies the superstitious observance of chance events and days, some of which are considered lucky, others unlucky. Magic is the art of wonderworking by the help of the devil.

Vain observance, or witchcraft and magic, is gravely sinful for precisely similar reasons as divination is. There is only an accidental difference between these kinds of superstition, for while divination uses disproportionate means to discover what is hidden by the help of the devil, witchcraft uses disproportionate means to obtain certain and wonderful effects by his help. Morally, therefore, there is no difference between divination and witchcraft. Like divination, witchcraft may contain an express or tacit compact with the devil, and although if the compact be express there will always be mortal sin, there will frequently be only venial when the compact is tacit. Ignorance or good faith or want of full confidence in the effect will in that case frequently excuse from serious sin. Moreover, there must be advertence to the total inadequacy of the means to obtain the effect desired, and to the danger of the devil’s intervention, otherwise there will not be the sin of superstition. And so people who do not like to undertake any journey on a Friday, or to sit down with thirteen 1 Summa Theol., 2-2, q. 96, a. 3, ad 2. at table, because they have always heard that it is unlucky, and because their fathers had similar scruples, may often be excused from sin.

In a case of doubt whether a particular effect is to be ascribed to natural causes or not, we should rather ascribe it to natural causes than to the devil, for we must not bring in the preternatural without necessity, and we do not yet know all the forces of nature. Thus many believe that telepathy really exists and is due to natural causes. In such a case of doubt, then, we may experiment and investigate the matter; it is advisable to renounce all intention of dealing with the devil as a precautionary measure. If, on the contrary, it is certain that the effect is not attributable to natural causes, it should be ascribed to the devil rather than to God in case of doubt; for God does not work miracles without good reason, and ordinarily the sanctity of the person concerned and other circumstances clearly show divine intervention when it takes place.

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 1 passage

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. I, Pt. I, Sect. II, Ch. I, Art. II, § II, Point II. On Superstitious Observances in Particular

n. 601.

II. Vain observance. By this term is signified superstitious observance which seeks any effects whatever, except knowledge of a hidden or future thing. It is called magic insofar as it seeks wonderful effects; malefice insofar as it seeks effects harmful to another, for example by inspiring a base love in someone, inflicting disease, etc. But it is clear that malefice is opposed not only to religion, but also to justice (St. Alphonsus, III, 23).

Corollary I. Vain observance is: 1. "To wear amulets, bindings, and packets marked with false characters, against wounds or sudden death, so that they cannot be harmed, or so that blood may not flow, or for procuring invisibility, impenetrability, love, fortune, harms, and malefices" (St. Alphonsus, III, 17); 2. "to hold certain days as lucky and others as unlucky, and therefore to omit business" (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.), etc.

Corollary II. Vain observance is not: 1. to wear relics, scapulars, pious medals; 2. in honor of some mystery to perform devotions which they call novenas, or to pour forth prayers in a certain number; 3. to observe the moon or times more suitable for gathering herbs and cutting trees (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

Corollary III. Somnambulism, that is, the art by which someone, after magnetic sleep has first been induced, becomes capable of indicating diseases and assigning remedies, as it is ordinarily practiced, is lawful. For somnambulists commonly make a diagnosis of a sick person who is present; or indeed of one who is absent, but after touching either some thing, for example hair, belonging to the sick person, or at least the image of the sick person. But these things very probably do not exceed the powers of nature. I said as it is ordinarily practiced, because things can be added which are spiritistic; in which case apply what we shall say about spiritism.³

Corollary IV. Salvatorism, as it is called, consists in this, that someone, by pouring forth certain prayers or by the sign of the cross, quickly cures diseases or wounds. Moreover, in practice it is lawful, provided the healer does not use an inept means, nor add anything inept, nor cling to determined words as though every power were to be attributed to the words themselves. The reason is that, if the conditions set forth are observed, it can be presumed that the effect can be ascribed to the grace of healings or to a special hearing of prayers; at least it is not sufficiently evident that the effect must be attributed to the demon (St. Alphonsus, III, 18).

Corollary V. To set a table or boards in motion in a circle, with fingers placed upon them, is of itself lawful, because the effect seems to be ascribed to a natural cause. By accident it can be unlawful because of the danger of passing over to the practice of spiritism. It is also unlawful to use a rotating board which writes a response, for acquiring knowledge of a hidden or future thing.

Corollary VI. Religious worship of ancestors, such as is found among many barbarians, so that by their help evils may be averted or goods acquired, this worship, I say, must be reduced to commerce with the devil and therefore is superstitious. For the inhabitants of heaven do not involve themselves in this worship. But the damned, neither of themselves nor commonly from divine providence, can provide for men; and, besides, commerce with the damned is equated with commerce with the demon.

Corollary VII. It is lawful to remove a malefice inflicted on someone, either by destroying the sign by which, once it has been placed, the demon harms; or by placing a contrary sign by which the demon, in view of his pact, is compelled to abstain from inflicting evil. It is also lawful to ask the worker of malefice to remove the malefice, if he can accomplish this by a lawful means. But if it is feared that he will use an unlawful means, for example a new malefice, that may be permitted. If it cannot be removed by a lawful means, recourse can be had to means of a higher order, for example to exorcism (St. Alphonsus, III, 24 sq.); the latter is always preferable, because recourse to the worker of malefice is very dangerous.

¹ Cf. St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 92-96; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, lib. III, nn. 1-28; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 4, nn. 34-37.

² Cf. F. Walter, Aberglaube und Seelsorge.

³ Cf. Holy Office, August 4, 1856 (Collectanea, n. 1128).

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 2 passages

Vol. I, On the First Precept of th…, V. On Vain Observance

n. 479.

Of how many kinds is vain observance? - There are four species of vain observance, which are distinguished only materially by reason of effects. 1. If certain useless things are observed for acquiring an infusion of knowledge, without other study, and it is called the notory art. It differs from divination because the latter directly regards speculative knowledge; the former directly regards an infusion of knowledge for one's own convenience, but indirectly the knowledge itself. Thus they sin who take a prepared potion, or employ a certain prayer, so that they may immediately become learned. 2. If useless things are observed for obtaining health, and it is called the observance of healths. Thus they sin who use unknown names and certain empty ceremonies for driving away animals; or who carry amulets, wrappings, or something similar for repelling diseases. L. 18; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 178, a. 2. 3. If from consideration of some trifling event it is determined what will be future, and someone thence regulates his actions, and it is called the observance of events. It differs from divination, both because observations of this sort are without any reason and art, whence they are more vain and superstitious, and because they look to directing one's own acts; but divination rather intends speculative knowledge of hidden things. Thus he would sin who refused to sit with thirteen at table as though this were a sign of death, although this for the most part can be excused, since no true faith is given to this matter, but there is a certain simple and empty fear. 4. If the observance concerns bodies to be variously changed and other wondrous or harmful effects to be produced, and it is called magic or malefice. Malefice contains a threefold moral malice against religion, charity, and justice. One malefice is amatory, or a philter; another is poisonous. The former is for exciting carnal love or hatred toward some person, the demon moving the phantasy of the man or the humors of the body, yet doing nothing upon the will; whence it does not induce necessarily to committing sin. But the latter is for inflicting harm upon someone, whether in his goods or in his health.

Job 1:12; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 178, a. 2. But here it must be noted that possession consists in this, that a demon in some way is united to a human body, and works extraordinary things in it and through it. But if the demon does not seem to reside in the body of a man, but only works externally, vexing it in various ways, then there is obsession. It must be noted besides that "power over demons has not been committed to man, so that he could licitly use them for whatever he wished." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 96, a. 2 ad 3. Struggl 28, 41, 42, 43; Suarez, cc. 15, 16; L. 15, 23; S. Th., Quodl. 4, q. 9, a. 16; 2. 2, q. 96.

n. 483.

Does magic introduce a new species beyond vain observance? - R. Negative. For magic does not differ from vain observance except merely materially, because its effects are more wondrous, for example, the changing of bodies, etc. But in moral species it differs neither from vain observance nor from divination, because it matters little whether knowledge of hidden things or wondrous effects are sought from a demon. Therefore these three in the moral line contain the same malice in species. But whether these three are distinguished from idolatry, some deny, because they contain implicitly the worship of a demon, and implicit and explicit do not change the species. Others affirm, because these three contain only commerce with a demon, whose help man implores. Ex. 22:18; Struggl 39.

Vermeersch, On Forbidden Books

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 1 passage

Tit. I, Ch. V, Article 12

n. 77.

What sortilege is

77. 1. Sortilege is divination by lots, or that which is exercised by inspecting how some action succeeds, done by you for the end of obtaining an indication: as if, with this intention, you throw dice, observe what occurs by opening a book at that place which chance has offered, set forth unequal straws, etc. Cf. St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, q. 95, art. 3.

Divination

2. Divination designates that kind of superstitions by which someone, by the help of the demon, expressly or tacitly (if you seriously use an inept means), invokes, wishes to know contingent and freely future things, or other things hidden and inaccessible to himself. Hither therefore come praestigia, pythons, oneiromancy, geomancy, haruspices, auguries, etc.

Magic

3. Magic rather embraces those superstitions by which marvelous effects are sought (on account of the satisfaction of vain curiosity): various changes of bodies, etc.

Evocation of spirits?

4. Evocation of spirits, namely of souls separated from the body. For if you should expressly wish a demon to appear, there is divination which they call praestigium. Moreover, concerning that evocation B. P. write:¹ "It is established by faith that God does not wish the souls of the dead to be evoked by men ... This is the certain doctrine of the Church."

To this pertains the recent response of the Holy Office,² by which there is reprobated the practice of someone who, while protesting that he rejected every commerce with the demon, nevertheless was attempting to evoke the very souls of the dead.

Superstitions of this kind

5. And other superstitions of this kind. Therefore they will be those which tend to this: that hidden things be disclosed, marvelous things be accomplished, commerce be entered into with spirits or separated souls. Sufficiently and more than sufficiently our modern spiritism is touched by this article.

When they are taught

6. They are taught, or are handed down as if an art: not indeed the art of simulating them (for they mostly consist in frauds), but the art of exercising them, although the writer is conscious of the vanity of the means.

Are commended?

7. They are commended, not if the facts of "spiritism," etc., are merely reported.

Notable matter is required

8. On account of the reason made in explaining article 11, it is necessary that those superstitious arts be either taught or commended sufficiently diffusely.

What of hypnotism and magnetic phenomena, as they say?

9. But what of the various arts of modern hypnotism or magnetism?

Deliberately we have abstained from these names, by which many too easily suppose superstitious arts, although that moral canon had to be recalled: in doubt, the matter must be presumed to pertain to the natural order, that is, to the secondary causes of this world.

First of all, concerning medical hypnotism, which is practiced even by Catholic physicians, no question can be raised.

Its use does not transcend the natural order, and, with due cautions, is most honorable. Cf. Theol. mor.

As to other phenomena, several already (for example, the simple motion of tables) have a natural and sufficiently open explanation in spontaneous impulses, "suggestions" of the imagination, and so forth. Concerning some, if all fraud is absent, the explanation appears less easy and perhaps still escapes us. Therefore cautiously, and only if a proportionate cause has manifestly failed, will you pronounce that there is superstition objectively.³

And so, as pertains to our matter:

a) Scientific books about hypnotism and magnetic phenomena are by no means affected by the present article.

b) Books which strive to offer fodder of this kind to popular curiosity, although they are often harmful, nevertheless cannot in themselves, or commonly, be ascribed to superstitious books.

What of books of pagans

10. On account of a similar reason, on account of which heretics of the more ancient age, whose heresies have become almost harmless, can already be frequented at least by the learned, books of the more ancient pagans which treat of divinations foreign to present-day use seem also immune from positive reprobation.

¹ Tr. 6, s. 1, n. 99.

² March 30-April 1, 1898.

³ For subjective persuasion can differ by defect or excess from the objective reason of the matter. Here, however, the persuasion or intention of the writer is not observed.

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 1 passage

Vol. II, Bk. II, Tr. II, Ch. I, Art. II, § 2. On Magic

n. 241.

Notion and morality of magic. 1. According to modern psychological analyses ¹, worshipers of gods are distinguished from magicians by this mark: the former by suppliant prayer, but the latter, whether in certain circumstances or perpetually, contend and boast that they use a mysterious power conferred on them, truly or fictitiously. That power is exercised through means which are without any proportion to the effect sought, or are generally not judged to be naturally at hand for man. Wherefore we call it mysterious. Magic, therefore, designates power of this sort or the use of it, while formerly magic was a general name of superstitious art, or designated that art which is directed to wondrous effects, changes of bodies.

Therefore no magic is exercised by him who, deceived by error in the natural sciences, employs vain means, ridiculous medicines in which he thinks a natural power is present, as barbarians hope for the restoration of a member from certain ligatures or things carried.

If a magician thinks that power has been made his through an express pact with the devil, he sins by a manifest and grave sin of superstition, both in the prior pact itself and in the conscious use of a power whose origin is diabolical: the magician agrees to be an instrument of the devil.

But he who seems to himself conscious of a power which he at the same time judges to be preternatural and not proceeding from God, whether he has judged rightly or erroneously, is subjectively guilty, in operating, of tacit invocation of the devil, which cannot be excused from grave sin.

¹ Cf. D'Alès, Dict. d'Apologétique, under the word [OCR uncertain: ...].

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 3 passages

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. I, Ch. III, Art. I, § 4. On Magic and Malefice

n. ¶571.

Magic is a generic name and designates the art of effecting wonderful and unusual things.

One kind is natural or white magic, which works wonderful things through natural causes, for example chemical ones. There is no reason why we should long remain over this, since of itself it is licit. But another is diabolical or black magic, and is, as we said, superstition either of divination (divining magic), or of vain observance (working magic), and, where it is done for harming, it is called malefice.

NOTION. Malefice is the force of harming others, from pact and cooperation of the demon. Those who use malefices are commonly called sortilegists.

DIVISION. One malefice is called amatory, or philtre, whose end is to excite carnal love or hatred, with the demon moving the imagination and humors of man. Another is called poisonous, by which harm is inflicted upon some person or his goods (III, 23).

Note. One infected by malefice does not lose liberty; but, strengthened by divine grace, he can resist the temptation. Therefore if he consents, for example to lust, he sins mortally, although, by reason of vehement passion, he is more easily worthy of pardon.

n. ¶572.

PRINCIPLE. Malefice contains a twofold malice, and sometimes is subject to ecclesiastical penalties. For in malefice there is grave sin against religion, insofar as it is superstition, and against justice, on account of the injury which is inflicted upon neighbor. - It is punished with excommunication latae sententiae if formal heresy is joined to it. Confer n. 1314. See the Holy Doctor (III, 27).

n. ¶573.

MODE OF REMOVING MALEFICE; PRACTICAL RULES.

I. Mode of removing. 1. Malefice cannot be removed through another malefice to be inflicted by another man or by a magician. 2. But it can be removed by using: natural means, for example medicine, destruction of the sign by which the demon harms, use of a contrary sign, provided it is honorable; or supernatural means, prayer, exorcism, sacraments of the Church (III, 24, 25). Cf. n. 622.

II. Practical rules. 1. As regards malefices and magic, let the priest beware lest he exceed in this matter either by excessive credulity or excessive incredulity, and let him first take care lest someone lose his reputation from false suspicion of sortilege; and then let him prudently reconcile persons oppressed by sortilege with God, through a good confession, prayers to be recited daily, etc.

Shepherds, blacksmiths, rustics who heal draught animals or cattle are to be questioned; likewise certain old women rightly suspected. "Besides various superstitions, they are to be examined: a) for what end they attached themselves to such superstition, for example whether by reason of vehement passion, sadness, vengeance, avarice, or of procuring the name of sanctity; which would be sacrilegious hypocrisy; b) concerning apostasy, idolatry, and heresy: for they deny Christ and God and renounce the sacraments; they hold the demon as God or a Saint, and do not think him damned or wretched, and consequently that his followers are not to be damned; c) concerning blasphemies against God and the Saints, and concerning sacrileges: for they abuse sacred things, as holy water, Eucharist, etc.; d) concerning lust and commingling with the demon; e) concerning harms inflicted upon neighbor (III, 28, resp. 1).
"They are to be admonished that they ARE BOUND: a) To abjure and dissolve an express pact, if they have one with the demon, or commerce with him. b) To burn their books, papers, bindings, and other instruments of the art. c) To burn the handwriting, if they have it; but if the demon alone has it, he is not necessarily to be compelled to return it, because the pact is sufficiently dissolved through repentance. d) To repair harms inflicted" (III, 28, resp. 2).
Especially, although prudently, the faithful are to be turned away from superstitions of whatever kind; for they are AS IT WERE SACRAMENTS OF THE DEVIL. Moreover, the Doctors note that to enter into society with the devil is a probable sign of eternal reprobation; because, just as conversation in this life with God and the angels through prayers, etc., belongs to the beginning of eternal happiness, so society and conversation with demons belongs to the beginning of damnation (Laymann, l. 4, tr. 10, c. 3, n. 4).

Cf. Janssen, Gesch. des deutsch. Volkes, B. VIII, Hexenwesen; Surbled, Le secret des sorciers (Science cath.), 1902; Paulus, Rom u. die Blutezeit der Hexenprozesse (Hist. pol. Bl., B. 141, p. 241); Spee, Cautio criminalis.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 2 passages

Vol. II, Tr. XI, Sect. II, Q. I, Ch. III, Article V. On Magic and Malefice

n. 518.

518. Notions. Magic, taken in a general sense, is the art of working wonders through occult causes. There is distinguished white or natural magic,⁷⁷⁹ which is the art of working wonders through natural means, and black⁷⁸⁰ or superstitious magic, which is the art of working wonders through the assistance of a demon. Magic which is employed to harm others is called malefice. The ancients distinguished a twofold malefice, namely, amatory malefice, or a philter, which is the excitation of most vehement love or hatred toward some determined person; and poisoning malefice, which through the assistance of a demon inflicts harm upon some person in body or goods. In the old canon law malefice is sometimes called sortilege, because an evil lot befalls those who are affected by malefice. Likewise, male and female practitioners of magic are called sorcerers and sorceresses.⁷⁸¹

⁷⁷⁹ Taschenspielerkünste, prestidigitation [sleight-of-hand tricks, prestidigitation].

⁷⁸⁰ Schwarzkunst, magie noire [black art, black magic].

⁷⁸¹ Cf. the whole of q. 5, C. 26.

n. 519.

519. Moral malice. 1. White magic is of itself lawful.

For it is practiced through natural powers and through the sagacity and dexterity of men. Per accidens, however, even white magic can become unlawful, because spectators and hearers are excessively excited and easily believe that preternatural powers intervene to produce the marvelous effects.

Black magic is a grave sin of superstition, which differs only accidentally from divination and vain observance.

The reason is that in each there is at least an implicit invocation of the devil. Therefore the same things said above concerning the malice of divination and vain observance must be applied.

Malefice contains a twofold malice: the one against religion, since it is worship of a demon; the other against charity and justice, because it inflicts unjust harm upon one's neighbor.

That a demon can truly harm a man in both amatory and poisoning malefice is evident of itself, because such effects are produced through corporeal actions which do not exceed the power of a demon; nevertheless, a demon cannot remove human liberty, and therefore acts committed by a man under the influence of the devil remain imputable, unless, however, reason was totally disturbed. In practice it is not readily to be believed that black magic or diabolical malefice is present in a particular case. For the sad history of witches demonstrates how many most unjust atrocities were committed because men were excessively credulous in these matters.⁷⁸² The following must be held as a certain rule denied by no one: whenever a reasonable doubt remains whether some effect proceeds from a natural cause or from a demon, it is to be attributed to natural powers. The reason is that a) very many natural powers are still unknown to us. If someone, for example, had suddenly presented in ancient times several modern phenomena of the telephone, phonograph, electricity, etc., he perhaps would have been regarded as a diabolical sorcerer. Almost daily new natural powers are discovered which produce astonishing effects. b) Some men are endowed with the greatest dexterity and sagacity and through natural powers alone produce effects which are altogether inexplicable to the men who behold them. c) The influence of the devil seems now to be greatly constrained by divine omnipotence, and is to be presumed in no case, but must always be clearly proved. These things indeed are to be attended to especially by priests, lest they too quickly attribute some unusual and inexplicable effect to the devil and afterward are deservedly ridiculed by all.

⁷⁸² Hexenwahn [witch delusion].

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 28 passages

Vol. II, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On the Cardinal …, Fifth Part: On the Virtues…, Sect. C, Ch. I, Question Four: On Vain Observance and Magic

n. ¶1.

S. Th. II-II, q. 96.

n. 785.

785. Vain observance and its various species. - Vain observance (ijdel of bijgeloovig gebruik) is defined: the employment of a thing for some effect, for obtaining which it has power neither from its own nature nor from divine or ecclesiastical institution (a. 2).

n. 785.

A. One kind is done without express invocation of a demon, and this is threefold: a) the notorious art or art of acquiring science without labor (not of hidden things), through inspection of certain figures or the utterance of certain words or other things of this sort, for example, fasts and prayers, by taking a potion or bolus; b) the art of healings or of healing or preventing diseases of men and animals by empty remedies; c) observance of events foreboding fortunate or unfortunate things, as if they were signs of future things. Moreover it differs from divination by intrinsic end, because divination is directly and principally ordered to knowledge of hidden things; but observance to directing one's own acts by employing vain things, and thus to an external effect, for example, to attaining favorable things or avoiding unfavorable things, to obtaining health or science by an infused mode.

n. 785.

B. Another kind is more often done with express invocation of a demon, and this is a) magic (tooverij), or the art of working marvels by the help of a demon, for display or for another advantage, one's own or another's, namely, the art of changing bodies or displaying marvelous effects; or b) malefice (hekserij), or the art of doing harm through his intervention; which is amatory (or philtre), by which carnal loves or hatreds are excited, and poisonous, by which diseases or other harms are inflicted upon a person or fortunes (a. 1-3).

786. Vain observance is a sin of superstition, for a reason similar to divination.

It is proved: Certain causes produce an effect by natural physical efficiency, as medicine produces health; certain signs are instituted by God which are valid for producing supernatural effects, namely, the sacraments; certain signs from the institution of the Church obtain a certain virtue, namely, sacramentals. Now to apply natural causes to their effects, or to use signs instituted by God or by the Church is not superstitious. But when someone employs means which do not have the aforesaid efficacy for natural effects, or signification and virtue from God or the Church for certain natural or supernatural effects, he tacitly invokes the help of a demon.

For if, for obtaining effects, things are employed which naturally do not seem able to cause such effects, it follows that they are not employed for producing these effects as causes, but only as signs. But not as signs instituted by God or the Church. Therefore as signs to be employed, from an express or tacit pact, by another intelligent being, which is nothing other than a demon. "Whence," says St. Thomas, a. 1, "it remains that they are superfluous signs and consequently pertain to certain pacts of significations entered into with a demon."

The various modes both of divination and of vain observance differ in physical and material species; but, according to many, they are of only one moral species, under the account of superstition, namely, of invocation of a demon; whence they are not to be explained in confession. But if a demon is expressly invoked, often there will be other sins against faith, religion, justice, for example, heresy, idolatry or adoration of a demon, apostasy, blasphemy, sacrilege, luxury, harm to one's neighbor, on account of which express invocation rather often must be accused.

787. Vain observance is a mortal sin from its whole genus, in the same way as divination, because the least invocation of a demon is per se a grave injury to God. But in practice it is often excused from mortal sin by a certain imperfection of the act:

Because of ignorance in a physical or religious matter, by which they unduly attribute natural or supernatural power to certain things.

This happens especially easily from credulity toward those things which they have received by tradition or by the authority of elders, and also sometimes if in a chance case a congruous event has been present, because they falsely infer that it proceeds from the virtue of things.

Because of inconsiderate fear or vain hope, by which they indulge in observances without giving certain faith to them.

Thus one who in illness, trying all remedies, also uses some inept means; one who, undertaking a great business, for calming his soul avoids an unlucky number or day; one who transfers a journey to the following day because he is terrified by an atrocious dream, is often excused from grave sin.

788. Corollary. - In doubt whether some cause is proportioned to producing an effect, if by a truly probable conjecture the effect can be attributed to a natural cause, it is not illicit to employ it, at least if a protestation, at least implicit, is made against the devil; but if the effect seems rather to be supernatural, the intervention of God is not to be presumed but must be proved, and with that proof lacking, the cause must be left aside as superstitious or involving danger of superstition. Thus St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. III, n. 20.

Vain observance is chiefly recognized from three things:

chiefly from the insufficiency of the cause for producing the effect, for example, a brief prayer for health;

from the addition of a false or vain circumstance, as if necessarily required, as if a whipping ought to be done at a certain hour, time, hand; if unknown names are employed; if hairs are cut from the neck for recovering health;

from the infallibility which is attributed to means in no way infallible.

789. Observations. - 1. Formerly it was doubted whether hypnotism is vain observance; concerning which we have already said: the facts which per se pertain to hypnotism are natural (n. 347); those which sometimes accompany it are altogether marvelous, similar to the facts of Spiritism; whence concerning them the same holds as n. 780, under 5 and 6.

The use of sacred things for certain effects is licit and pious if it is done in reverence for God, and the agent clings to no vain circumstance, nor attributes to the sacred thing another or more certain effect than it has; otherwise it will be illicit, as containing superfluous worship, or sacrilege, or tempting of God, or even and chiefly vain observance. In particular:

a) To observe a certain number of prayers, days, etc., is licit on account of mystical signification or indulgences and privileges attached to it; but not if the effect of the work is attributed precisely to such a number.

b) To use certain formulas of praying or pious exercises because they are approved by the Church, or have a holy author, or procure devotion better, is licit; but not to expect efficacy from the words of the prayer rather than from their sense or from our affection, nor to place trust in inept little prayers containing fabulous sayings or deeds of Christ or of the saints, or empty names.

c) To hang divine words or relics, pious medals, Agnus Deis around the neck for reverence is licit, but not if hope is had in the mode of writing or tying, or in a vain circumstance, for example, that they be carried in such a box, for so many days, with such an herb, or if they contain something false.

d) By the use of sacred things it is licit to expect the effect for which they have been instituted; but not to turn them to a use for which they are not destined, nor to attribute to them some infallible power which they do not have (a. 4).

The use of a divining rod from hazel wood (coudrier) or willow for detecting waters or certain metals cannot be condemned per se: for the motion of this rod is quite easily explained from some unconscious influence of water or metals through magnetic or electric force; or from a motion which the user unconsciously impresses upon it, because he suspects the presence of water or metal, or is endowed with special sensibility for perceiving their presence. Unless, however, vain and superstitious circumstances accede, or it is employed for detecting any things whatsoever, for example, a thief, a murderer, a treasure.

Concerning removing a malefice it should be noted: against malefices remedies are given, both supernatural, such as trust in God, prayer, fasting, the sign of the cross, exorcism, invocation of the names of Jesus and Mary, blessed water, relics; and natural, such as the use of medicines against an introduced disease, destruction of a magical sign by a licit means; nevertheless it is not licit to destroy the sign by another malefice. Hence it is never licit to ask a sorcerer to remove a malefice by a malefice; sometimes it is licit to ask that it be removed by him who can do it in a licit mode, although in fact he is going to remove it by another malefice.

Let preachers neither teach unknown superstitions, nor that they are diabolical, but rather that they are empty.

Diss. II, Chapter X — On natural magic and its effects · Diss. II, Chapter XI — On superstitious magic, or on sorcery · Diss. II, Chapter XII — On witches, sorcerers, and "striges" · Diss. II, Chapter XIII — On the penalties established against witches, and against all who enter into a pact — explicit or tacit — with demons

Diviners and magicians are to be admonished, says St. Alphonsus, l. c., n. 21, that they are held to abjure and dissolve an express pact or commerce with a demon, to burn all instruments of the art, and to repair harms inflicted.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 2 passages

Vol. I, Tr. VI, On the First Precept of th…, Ch. II, Art. I, § IV. On Magic and Malefice

n. 210.

Magic taken broadly, or natural or artificial magic, which is also called white magic, is the art of doing wondrous things at least apparently through natural causes or human industry, without any ministry of the demon. But strictly speaking, magic is the art of doing wondrous things which, although they are not supernatural, nevertheless surpass the powers of man, and therefore can be done by the help of the demon alone, explicitly or implicitly invoked.

But malefice is the art of harming with the intervention of the demon. A twofold kind is distinguished, namely amatory and poisonous. Amatory malefice, which is also called a philter, is a diabolical art by which lustful love or hatred is vehemently excited in some person toward another through a more vivid disturbance of the humors. Poisonous malefice is precisely the art of harming one's neighbor by the help of the demon, and that in various ways, for example, by diseases, dullness, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 23.

Malefice is commonly called sortilege, because through it an evil lot is cast upon those against whom vengeance is exercised by diabolical operation. Hence in canon law and ecclesiastical history magicians and witches are called male and female sortiarii.

n. 211.

Question. Whether and how do magic and malefice differ from the other species of superstition?

Response. Magic does not differ from vain observance except that its effects are more wondrous, for example, the alteration of bodies, etc. But in moral species it differs neither from vain observance nor from divination, because it matters little whether knowledge of hidden things or wondrous effects are sought from the demon. But malefice differs in species from other superstitions because, besides the sin opposed to religion, it adds harm to one's neighbor.

Concina, Theologia Christiana III

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 41 passages

Diss. II, Chapter X — On natural magic and its effects

I. Magic, taken in a general sense, is a certain wondrous art of operating, divided into two species: natural, and superstitious. Natural magic is that which, by the use and application of natural causes, produces hidden and marvelous effects; superstitious magic is that which, with the help of a demon, produces unusual effects.

II. Question I. Is natural magic lawful and genuine? Response: The affirmative opinion is common, and can be established both by reason and by examples drawn from Sacred Scripture and from profane history. Natural magic is, in fact, a philosophy which, penetrating the power and efficacy of natural causes, produces by their use effects that seem unusual and marvelous to the unlearned and inexperienced, who are ignorant of the hidden powers of causes. Hence philosophers and wise men were formerly called Magi. It is related, in Genesis 30, that Jacob made use of this art, fixing peeled rods in the watering-troughs, so that the sheep, gazing upon them while in the heat of mating, would bear spotted young. For the most weighty authors teach that an animal seized by the ardor of lust attracts and imprints images upon its offspring by the power of vivid imagination in mating; and it is more truly to this impression, conceived during vehement coition, that those spotted markings sometimes observed in certain men and women too may be attributed. That Jacob learned this natural magic while he attended the schools of Melchizedek is taught by Tostatus, commenting on Genesis 30. Tobias likewise made use of this art, restoring his father's sight with a fish's gall. Whoever wishes to know more on this subject may consult, among others, Albertus Magnus (Bk. VIII and Bk. XXIV), if indeed that work is genuinely his.

III. Question II. By what means may natural magic be distinguished and separated from the superstitious kind — namely, that one may know whether an effect proceeds from a natural or from a superstitious cause? Response: All admit that it is exceedingly difficult to discern this, or to distinguish superstitious effects from natural ones. For to distinguish their effects would require a comprehension of the power of natural causes. Three signs, however, are commonly assigned. The first is knowledge of the cause — namely, whether the cause is, by its own nature, judged wholly unsuited to producing such an effect. Now a cause is judged especially unsuited to producing an effect when the one bringing it about, in applying the cause, employs ligatures, characters, apocryphal words, unknown names, and other such things — as if so many knots, and no more, so many crosses, so many words, and other such things, must be employed a set number of times, and no more. For it is then certain that such characters, ligatures, so many knots, and the rest, when so, and only so, many times repeated, have no power at all to produce such effects. The second sign is drawn from the manner of operation: namely, if this occurs in a matter far removed, or if the effect is caused within an extremely brief interval of time — as if an animal, or a man, suddenly cured of a grave illness, or a long journey of several leagues completed within a quarter of an hour. The third is gathered from the very nature of the effect, when it is known for certain that such an effect exceeds human power and skill.

IV. Question III. When it is doubtful whether an effect proceeds from a natural or from a superstitious cause, what is to be presumed? Response: The theologians of Salamanca (tract. 21, ch. 11, punct. 9, n. 111) contend that it must be presumed to proceed from a natural cause, on the grounds that doubtful matters are to be interpreted in the better part; and they cite in support the authority of St. Thomas (II-II, q. 60, art. 4), where he raises the question whether doubtful matters ought to be interpreted favorably, and they transcribe these words from him: "Where the signs concerning a man's character are not manifestly evil, we ought to regard him as good, interpreting in the better sense whatever is doubtful." This teaching is true, but its application to the present little question is not correct, and runs contrary to the express intention of the Angelic Doctor himself. For one rule is to be observed in interpreting a man's evil or good will, and another in the interpretation of doubts that arise regarding things themselves. No one ought to be presumed evil unless it is proven. Therefore, when it is doubted whether a man's will is good or evil, judgment ought always to be given in the better part. But when it is doubted whether certain predictions are true or false, whether the nature of certain things is honorable or base — then we ought to embrace what is true, and safer. Let us hear the Angelic Doctor himself: "It is one thing to judge of things, and another to judge of men. For in judging of things, what is attended to is not what is good or bad on the part of the thing itself of which we speak — since it makes no difference to the thing itself how we judge of it — but rather what is attended to there is only the good of the one judging, if he judges truly, or his evil, if he judges falsely; for the good of the intellect is the true, and the false is its evil, as is said in Book VI of the Ethics. And therefore everyone ought to strive to judge of things according to what they are. But in the judgment by which we judge of men, what is chiefly attended to is the good or evil on the part of the one who is judged — who is held honorable by this very fact, that he is judged good, and contemptible if he is judged evil. And therefore in such a judgment we ought rather to tend toward this: that we judge a man to be good, unless manifest reason appears to the contrary" (II-II, q. 60, art. 4, ad 1). In the question proposed, then, a distinction is called for. If it is doubtful whether a man acts with a superstitious and wicked will, or with an upright intention, the doubt is to be interpreted in the better part. But if it is doubted whether an effect produced is superstitious or natural, then the truth must be sought, and what is more correct, according to the more probable and true doctrine, must be embraced. And in a similar case, one must be advised that, so long as the doubt persists, a man should abstain from such actions. For in doubtful matters we ought to choose the safer course.

V. We too affirm that the powers of nature are hidden, and that it is not rare for men, through ignorance of natural efficacy, to attribute to the magic art certain effects that in truth proceed from a natural cause, in the case of many unusual effects produced. But in that case, the ignorance of men must be corrected, and the powers of nature, and the views of the learned, consulted; and, all things weighed, it must be determined what is to be credited to art, and what to nature. If, however, doubt remains, it will be safer to choose the position free of controversy. To resolve doubts, the reading of learned authors — St. Thomas above all, who discusses this subject learnedly and wisely, as is his custom — is of great help. St. Augustine too recounts marvelous portents of nature. It is worth quoting some of his words at length; for he writes thus (Bk. XIV, City of God, ch. 24): "We know of the natures of certain men, greatly unlike others, and remarkable for their very rarity, some doing things with their own bodies which others are utterly unable to do, and can scarcely believe when they hear of them. For there are those who can move their ears, either one at a time, or both together. There are those who, without moving the head, can pull down the whole scalp, as far as the hair covers it, to the forehead, and bring it back again at will. There are those who, of the many and various things they have swallowed, can, by lightly working their chest, bring up whatever they please, whole and unmixed, as if from a bag. Some so imitate the voices of birds, cattle, and other men, that unless they are seen, they cannot be distinguished at all. Some, without any shame, produce so many varied sounds from their lower parts at will, that they seem to sing even from that region. I myself have known a man who was accustomed to sweat whenever he wished. It is known that certain men can weep, and shed tears abundantly, whenever they wish. But that which very many of our brethren experienced quite recently is far more credible. There was a certain priest named Restitutus, in the parish of the Church of Calama, who, whenever it pleased him — and he was asked to do this by those who wished to witness so marvelous a thing — upon hearing imitated wailing sounds of some lamenting person, would so withdraw himself from his senses, and lie as if dead, that he not only felt nothing when pinched or pricked, but sometimes even when burned with applied fire, without any sense of pain except afterward from the wound; and it was proven that he did not fail to move his body out of resistance, but from not feeling it at all — since, as in one dead, no breathing at all could be detected in him; yet he later reported that he had heard, as if from a great distance, the voices of men, if they spoke loudly enough." Augustine recounts very much else here and elsewhere, which he judges to be attributed to hidden natural powers, not to superstitious art. We do not, then, say that the wonders of nature are to be reckoned superstitious without mature and serious examination beforehand; we affirm only that the safer course is to be chosen, if, after serious study and prudent examination, doubt still remains.

VI. Question IV. What is to be said of those called "healers"? Response: Theologians call "healers" those who display a power of curing many diseases — rabies, or hydrophobia, and mortal wounds — by the sign of the cross impressed, or by breathing upon them, or by the utterance of certain words, or other signs. They dispute this matter at length: whether such a power is natural, and whether such healers, who cure diseases, are really found to exist. That they are indeed found, hardly anyone calls into doubt. Pliny (Bk. XXVIII, ch. 2), as Azor relates, discusses this question, and concludes that it is uncertain whether incantations and charms have any power to heal; and in ch. 1 he writes that gum-diseases and cataracts of the eyes are cured by human gall. He adds (ch. 3) that in Africa there were Psylli, whose families, from which they derived their origin, cured, by mere touch or saliva, those wounded by snakes; and that a certain man, thrown by way of experiment into a barrel full of snakes, emerged entirely unharmed by their darting tongues. He also relates that there were found in Italy the Marsi, whose sweat was effective in driving away many diseases. Azor, then, along with others, maintains that such healers are indeed found, and that their power is natural.

n. VII.

VII. Others hold the contrary view — that all these things are accomplished by demonic power; since natural power is not capable of curing diseases in an instant, and of producing such marvels; nor does the same power operate identically upon the disposition of all the sick alike. Nor, moreover, is such a power from God, as is gathered from many signs: for these healers are for the most part exceedingly wicked men, who gape after other people's purses — though they often feign, with practiced cunning, to offer their remedies for free, so that, under this mask of generosity, they may the more easily and abundantly empty people's purses.

n. VIII.

VIII. A third opinion holds that such a power is indeed a grace freely given by God, not a natural power. The first part of this they establish from the fact that Inquisitors and Bishops permit such healers to practice their art freely. That they do not confer health by any natural power, they gather from the fact that this would otherwise arise either from the quality of their temperament, or from the fact that such men were conceived under this or that aspect of the stars and planets — but this cannot stand, since all men born under such a constellation would be endowed with a similar power; nor is it the case that only one or another family in the whole world is propagated under this aspect of the stars, in the way that all herbs, all magnets of the same species, possess the same, more or less, power. There is, then, no reason to say that these healers cure the aforesaid diseases by a natural power. That this power is freely conferred by God upon certain persons, they prove by the authority of Scripture, which says: "To another is given the grace of healing in one spirit... the working of miracles" (1 Cor. 12). No reason at all can be assigned, moreover, that would suggest God does not confer upon certain families a power, universal or at least particular, of curing certain diseases.

n. IX.

IX. That God can confer this power on whomever he wishes — universal, or at least particular, for the curing of certain diseases only — no one doubts. But that he actually confers it, and has conferred it, upon certain families over the span of several centuries — this is what raises the difficulty. For no reason, no origin of such a divine privilege, and no authentic document, is adduced by those who defend this perennial power. One of these families is reported to be found in Umbria, whose members are said to cure, by mere blessing, those suffering from a contraction of the sinews and other similar diseases. All this seems suspect to me. For from no properly established history is it read that such privileges were granted to entire families. What, moreover, of the fact that we do not know of any similar privilege granted, over the span of many centuries, to entire families of the Prophets, or of the Apostles, or of other Saints — as these more recent theologians claim was granted to the families of those healers? For this reason the opinion of the theologians of Salamanca does not convince us, in which (tract. 21, ch. 11, punct. 9, §2) they defend that such healers are indeed found who cure diseases, not by natural power, but by a grace freely given by God. Their chief and principal reason is that Bishops and Inquisitors permit these men to practice their art freely, and that several theologians approve them. How much weight this reasoning deserves, let others judge.

What seems more probable to us is that no families possess this power of curing the aforesaid diseases at all — with the exception, perhaps, of the privilege granted by God to the Kings of France to cure scrofula, commonly called "the king's evil," as approved historians relate, and which is therefore believed admissible. St. Thomas (Bk. II, On the Governance of Princes, ch. 16) writes that the Kings of the Franks worked such wonders by the power of the sacred anointing with which they were anointed. "Of whose sanctity," he says, "we also take an argument from the deeds of the Franks, and from the Blessed Remigius, over Clovis, the first Christian king of the Franks and his descendants — and by the descent of oil from above, by a dove, the aforesaid king was anointed, and his successors are anointed, with signs and wonders, and various cures, appearing in them from the aforesaid anointing."

n. X.

X. The aforesaid theologians of Salamanca adduce several further signs by which the superstition of such healers ought to be more carefully examined by superiors: if they touch burning coals, or handle iron plates, without harm; if they extinguish, or merely warm, a furnace; if they show a mark or brand impressed upon them; if they claim to recognize such healers as themselves, though they have never seen them before; if they assert that they cannot heal diseases in the presence of another healer; if they claim to have learned this art from breath alone; if they predict future events; if they claim, or add, that they possess this same power because they are seventh sons, born of males, with no female birth intervening; finally, if they assert that they can heal diseases only by using certain fixed words, and not others. These and other signs are commonly used to discern the superstition of such healers. Let the faithful, then, seek health from God, and implore the intercession of holy men, setting aside such charlatans — who, in my own opinion, if they produce anything unusual, do so either with the help of a demon, or by chance and by a natural power that sometimes so operates.

n. XI.

XI. Question V. Is a charm ("ensalmus") to be reputed lawful? Response: An "ensalmus" is a prayer composed of sacred words to drive away diseases; and since it is for the most part composed of the words of the Psalms, this prayer is called an "ensalmus." Theologians distinguish a twofold kind of "ensalmus." One is invocative, when prayers are poured out to God to implore his divine mercy, that God may deign to remove from us, or from our neighbor, diseases or other temporal harms — yet in such a way that we do not place infallible trust in these prayers over others, but place our whole confidence in the divine goodness. The other is a prayer composed of certain, fixed words for curing diseases, and this "ensalmus" is called constitutive. The "ensalmus" of the first kind is lawful and honorable, whether composed on public or private authority: there is nothing in it that could rightly be reprobated. For it is not only lawful, but holy, to ask of God health from illnesses and pains, and other temporal goods, insofar as they lead to eternal ones. That prayers should be composed under a certain fixed formula of words presents no evil at all — provided that no efficacy for obtaining the effect is attributed to that particular arrangement and formula. The "ensalmus" of the other kind is unlawful, and superstitious; since God has conferred no infallible power of producing any effect upon any words (the sacramental ones excepted), nor does such a power reside naturally in these words. It remains, therefore, that those who utter such sacred words have an explicit or tacit pact with a demon. For those who practice charms are guilty of superstition precisely in this: that they firmly believe such words contain some certain healing power, or that such a power has been communicated to them by God. God indeed promised to the ministers of the Church that they would cast out demons, speak with new tongues, take up serpents, and lay hands upon the sick, and they would recover — but not in the sense that a certain healing power is attached to the utterance of some fixed formula of words by cunning and most wicked charm-practitioners; but rather, insofar as God himself, according to the counsel of his own will, will sometimes grant their petitions, and sometimes not. All this is common doctrine among theologians. Read St. Thomas, II-II, q. 96, art. 1 and 4.

n. XII.

XII. Question VI. Is there a natural power by which someone can be bewitched by a look? Response: "Fascination" is, as it were, a certain wicked quality inherent in the eyes, arising from some malignant disposition of the soul of the one who looks. Theologians divide it into the popular kind, which arises from popular opinion — namely, when the common people believe that men can, by a look conceived with an envious mind, bewitch frail infants; and into the physical or natural kind, which arises from a vehement imagination, followed by corrupted humors, and an alteration of the body — so that the eyes, being thus tainted, emit noxious emanations, infecting the persons looked upon, especially those of tender age and weak constitution: and this occurs by an explicit or tacit pact with a demon alone, whose mere gaze inflicts harm.

n. XIII.

XIII. On the question proposed, theologians dispute on both sides. Those who affirm that this can naturally occur produce several examples — both of the basilisk, which kills men by its gaze alone, and of several men who, as Pliny testifies, were endowed with the same power — namely, of bewitching by sight alone; and of menstruating women, who, gazing into a mirror, stain it with bloody spots. Those who deny that such effects can be produced by natural power prove this from the fact that sight, being an immanent act, is incapable of producing an external effect.

n. XIV.

XIV. The more common and more probable opinion is that this natural power does indeed exist — not because the sight itself of the one who looks infects others, but because from the eyes, and from other parts of the body, poisonous emanations can issue, which, permeating the nearby air, can inflict harm upon bodies close by. Let us hear what the Angelic Doctor writes on this matter (I Part, q. 117, art. 3, ad 3): "It must be said that Avicenna assigns the cause of fascination to this: that bodily matter is naturally apt to obey a spiritual substance..." to obey a spiritual substance more than contrary agents in nature. And so, when the soul is powerfully affected in its imagination, bodily matter is altered accordingly. And this is the cause he assigns for the bewitching eye. But it has been shown above that bodily matter does not obey a spiritual substance so as to be transformed into it, except by the Creator alone. And therefore it is better to say that, by a strong imagination, the spirits of the body united to the soul are altered — and this alteration of the spirits occurs chiefly in the eyes, to which the subtler spirits arrive. Now the eyes infect the surrounding air up to a certain distance — in the same way that mirrors, if new and clean, contract a certain impurity from the gaze of a menstruating woman, as Aristotle says in his book On Sleep. Thus, when some soul has been vehemently moved to malice — as happens most in old women — the gaze of the eye becomes harmful in the manner already described, especially to children, who have a tender body, readily receptive of such impression. It is also possible that, by God's permission, or even by some hidden pact, the malice of demons — with whom a sorcerous old woman has some compact — cooperates to this effect.

n. XV.

XV. It follows from this that the popular kind of fascination is superstitious. Sight alone cannot produce an external effect. Indeed, though natural fascination can occur, as has been said following St. Thomas, we hold that it is very rare. In animals, venom is found, and so the spirits, or emanations, that issue from them can easily be tainted and infect nearby bodies. In men, and even in women, no venom exists, nor is it easy for the bodily humors to be so corrupted and depraved, through emotional agitation and a wicked disposition, that they issue forth through the eyes, mouth, and nostrils, and infect those looked upon. We do not deny the possibility; but that this actually happens, at least frequently, we consider false. We therefore commonly judge that such instances of fascination as do occur happen through the art of a demon. Guilty of superstition, too, are those women who hang little sacks around children's necks, or other signs, against fascination. It is likewise superstitious to bring bewitched children to old women, so that they may be freed by their blessing. This wicked custom traces its origin to pagan superstition, against which the Patriarch Chrysostom declaims (Homily 8 on the Epistle to the Colossians): "The Cross of Christ is dishonored, superstitious characters of the elements are preferred; Christ is cast out, and a drunken old woman brought in; our mystery is trampled upon, and the devil's seduction dances in triumph."

Diss. II, Chapter XI — On superstitious magic, or on sorcery

I. Sacred Scripture (Matt. 7, Mark 9, and elsewhere passim) and all Doctors alike bear witness to the existence of sorcery. Sorcery is magic that, by the art of a demon, inflicts harm. Sorcery is twofold: harmful, and amatory. The former is employed to injure men, animals, and plants; the latter sorcerers use to arouse carnal love, or hatred, toward those we ought instead to love. Harmful sorcery is sometimes worked by a powder cast into food or drink, or sprinkled upon clothing. According to the varying color of this powder, different afflictions are induced: if the powders are reddish or ash-colored, illness is contracted; if black, death follows. This variety of diseases and of death, however, arises not from the diversity of the colors, but from the malice of the demon — the various colors being merely signs, at whose placement demons produce the effects. Sorcerers sometimes use poisons, by which they can naturally inflict harm. Countless are the ways by which sorcerers can harm men, which you may see in Sprenger's Malleus Maleficarum (Part 1, q. 2), Del Rio (Bk. III), and many others — though I would not have you place full trust in everything they relate. Amatory sorcery, which is also called by the Greek term "philter," is customarily carried out in two ways. The first is when things to be eaten or drunk are given, which by their own nature tend to stimulate desire. No food or drink, however, can, of itself, determinately arouse love and inflame the will; it can only heat the body, stir the humors, alter the senses, and present to the senses those qualities apt to stir love — while it is the demons themselves who arouse love and inflame the will. In the second manner, such amatory sorceries are worked upon the most sacred sacraments and rites of our religion — as upon consecrated hosts, incense, oil, and holy water. Nor are such love-charms always given to be eaten or drunk by the intended victim; sometimes they are bound externally to garments, or hidden beneath the bed on which the person lies, or beneath the threshold of the door, or in some other place through which the person to be bewitched must pass. Various devices which women have used to arouse desire are described by the Prophet Baruch (ch. 6): Babylonian women, seated in the streets, burning olive-stones as incense, are approached by a passer-by; and if one of them, drawn aside by someone passing, sleeps with him, she reproaches her neighbor for not having been thought equally worthy, nor having had her cord broken like her own. All such things done to them, however, are false and worthless. These and similar illusions can in no way move the will; they are merely signs, at whose placing demons inflame men's desires.

II. To drive away such sorceries, our Holy Mother the Church proposes the meditation on the four last things, continual prayers to God and the Blessed Virgin, frequent reception of the sacraments, fasting, hairshirts, disciplines, almsgiving, humility of spirit, and bodily mortification, and other such pious works; likewise the avoidance of dangerous occasions, especially of young women and girls, who are truly incitements to unchaste love, and enchantments. The remedies which philosophers commonly propose against such unchaste love kindled by sorcery are vain, and full of superstition: the herb "promethea," wolf's-bane, a toad bound in the skin of a sheep, goat's urine, and other things Pliny mentions (Bk. XXVIII, ch. 38 and following) are superstitious — as are many others they heap up, such as a lover's hair enclosed in one's shoe: a foul remedy, which only the mad and the foolish would employ. Theologians commonly add, however, that beyond the sacred remedies which the Church prescribes in her rituals against any sorceries (of which, besides those already mentioned, faith in Christ, the sign of the Cross, and the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints are chief), it is also lawful and useful to make use of natural remedies — not because demons, the authors of sorcery, could be countered by them, but because natural remedies can soothe and check harmful humors, and drive them out, as is gathered from Sacred Scripture. For David, with his sweet music, brought joy to Saul, from whom the evil spirit thereupon departed; and Tobias drove away Asmodeus with the smoke of a fish's liver. Many herbs, too — sage, rue, vervain, and others — are taught by Pliny, Galen, Aristotle, and physicians generally, to be beneficial against sorceries, insofar as they expel, correct, or purge harmful humors.

III. Question I. Is it lawful to cure a sorcery by means of another sorcerer? Response: There have not been wanting those who taught that it is lawful to seek the dissolution of a sorcery from sorcerers prepared to provide it — just as, in a case of necessity, it is lawful to seek money at interest from a usurer, or the sacraments from a priest in a state of mortal sin. But the common and sound opinion denies that it is lawful to seek the dissolution of sorcery from sorcerers, however willing they may be to provide it. The reason is clear: for just as sorcery is worked by the aid of a demon, so too it is undone by an explicit or tacit invocation of a demon. But the invocation of a demon is by its very nature evil. Therefore it is always unlawful and superstitious. For evils that are evil by their very kind, and which can in no way be cleansed of their malice, are never to be done, that good may come of it, as the Apostle says (Rom. 3). Hence God commands (Lev. 19): "Turn ye not to magicians, neither ask anything of soothsayers, to be defiled by them." And against those who commit such a crime, he establishes a punishment (ibid., ch. 20, v. 6): "The soul that shall go aside to magicians and soothsayers, and shall commit fornication with them, I will set my face against that soul, and destroy it out of the midst of its people." By the term "fornication," Scripture means commerce and communion with sorcerers.

IV. All this is clear, and needs no further lengthy explanation. The arguments raised against it are of no weight at all. For it is lawful to seek the sacraments from a sacrilegious priest, and money from a usurer; because it is lawful, honorable, and holy by its very nature to administer the sacraments, and to lend money — and it is only through man's own wickedness that either can be rendered shameful. What is required is only what is honorable, what is holy, what can be done without fault; the crime and wickedness lie entirely outside the intention of the one who requests it, and proceed solely from the malice of the other party's wicked will. As for the further claim — that it is lawful to ask a demon to desist from a sorcery, as exorcists do; and that what is sought from the demon is not the wicked deed itself, but the destruction of the sorcery, which is by its own nature good — these and similar claims are sophistries. For any communication whatsoever with a demon is unlawful. One communicates with a demon, and even acknowledges him as a superior, the moment one asks him to desist from a sorcery. Exorcists command by divine power, and subject the demon to that dignity and authority — which is lawful. But when you ask him to desist from the sorcery, you implore his aid, and subject yourself to him — which is wicked. The destruction of sorcery obtained by lawful means is good; obtained by unlawful and superstitious means, it is not. The destruction of a sorcery achieved through exorcism, then, is good; achieved through another sorcery, it is wicked. Nor may you say that you are not subjecting yourself to the demon, but merely compelling him to remove the sorcery. For either you do this on the authority of the Church, or on private authority. If on the authority of the Church, you compel him in the name of Christ and of God, and this is lawful — provided you are duly invested with such authority. If you do this on your own authority, this very fact is proof that some tacit pact exists there. If, however, in the faith and hope of Christ you rebuked the demon, that he might desist from inflicting harm, you would not be guilty of superstition. It is likewise unlawful to induce sorcerers to remove sorceries by means of a blessing, as though by a sign — for sorcerers abuse this blessing, having previously arranged with the demon that he will cease from the sorcery, or remove it, upon the sign being given. Only the remedies prescribed by the Church, then, are to be used to drive away sorceries. It is, finally, unlawful to remove sorceries by other vain rites, if these are used to induce the effect; since vain rites, being unsuited to the purpose, imply the intervention of a demon's aid.

V. Question II. Is it lawful to seek from a sorcerer that he remove a sorcery, when it is established that he can remove it by lawful means? Response: It is established among theologians that it is lawful to compel sorcerers to remove sorceries by lawful means, insofar as they are approached, not as sorcerers, but as men skilled in a good art suited to producing a good effect. Just as, on the contrary, all assert that it is unlawful to seek the dissolution of a sorcery if one is uncertain, or doubts, whether the sorcerer knows a lawful means of removing it — since then a lawful means is not employed, but it becomes a matter of indifference whether the sorcery is removed by lawful or unlawful means. And for this reason it is likewise unlawful to seek the dissolution of a sorcery, not from the one who worked it, but from another sorcerer, who is ignorant of the signs of that sorcery, since such a sorcerer cannot recognize the sorcery except by first working another sorcery of his own — and so you would be asking that a new sorcery remove the old one. Nor, finally, is it lawful to permit a sorcerer to apply a vain and superstitious remedy to the bewitched person.

VI. Cajetan responds to the question proposed (Opuscula, tract. 12, On Sorcery, q. 1) that it is unlawful to seek from a sorcerer the dissolution of a sorcery, because such a dissolution is then sought from the sorcerer as sorcerer, just as one seeks a work of art from an artisan. Now a sorcerer, as such, is a minister of the devil, whose invocation is always unlawful.

n. VII.

VII. The contrary opinion is common, and seems to me more true. For it is false, what Cajetan puts forward as the reason for his opinion — namely, that in the question proposed, it is asked whether a sorcerer, as sorcerer, may be sought for the dissolution of a sorcery — this is rather taken for granted as the point at issue. For we are asking whether it is lawful to seek the dissolution of a sorcery from a sorcerer, in the case where he knows, and has ready at hand, a lawful means to this effect. If, indeed, the sorcerer lacks a lawful means, all agree that such a request is unlawful. When, then, it is established for us that a sorcerer really does possess lawful means by which he can remove the fascination, what prevents us from asking him to free the bewitched person by lawful means? For it is clear that in that case we do not make use of the sorcerer as sorcerer, but as a man who has, and knows, lawful means to an excellent effect — namely, the health of the bewitched. Indeed, on this same principle, we say that it is lawful to seek money from a usurer, and the sacraments from a sacrilegious priest — because he can lawfully administer the sacraments; although we know from other sources that neither the usurer will lend money without interest, nor the priest administer the sacraments without sin. Why is this, unless because the whole malice is thrown back onto the wicked will of the moneylender, or of the priest? The very same, then, is to be asserted of the sorcerer in our case: the sin of the new sorcery would fall entirely upon his own malice alone, since we could lawfully seek the necessary actions to remove the earlier sorcery. Nor are we bound to avoid our neighbor's sin, which arises solely from his own obstinate malice, and not from any pressing necessity of our own health. Christ himself taught us that the scandal of the Pharisees is to be disregarded. The only difficulty in this matter is that we should know for certain that the sorcerer possesses a lawful remedy by which he can dissolve the sorcery — just as we know for certain that a usurer can lawfully lend money, and an unbeliever can lawfully take an oath. Nor should faith be placed in a sorcerer who merely claims to have such remedies, since no trust is to be placed in such people. It must, therefore, be established for us by certain evidence that the sorcerer knows lawful remedies by which he can remove the sorcery. And because this is rarely established for us, I would never permit anyone to seek the dissolution of a sorcery from a sorcerer. But if the sorcerer testified that he had such remedies, I would permit him to reveal them to me, or to another, so that some upright man, without his help, might use these remedies and apply them. Otherwise I would place no trust at all in the sorcerer, if he refused to reveal these harmless remedies to another upright man, who, applying them, might remove the sorcery.

n. VIII.

VIII. Question III. Is it lawful to destroy the instruments of sorcery? Response: The common opinion, and the true one, affirms this. This is clearly gathered from Scripture (Deut. 12), where it is commanded that the idols, statues, temples, and altars of the pagans be destroyed, and their sacred groves burned. Now these are the very signs and monuments of superstition, and, as it were, of diabolical magic. By the same reasoning, then, it will be lawful to destroy the signs and instruments of sorceries. Nor can it be said that this removal of such signs entails a pact with the demon, or an invocation of him, or any communication with him — since such a destruction of these signs breaks whatever pact one might have had with the demon. For the very purpose of destroying these signs — namely, the bindings, papers, hair, and other such things — is to break whatever pact was made with the demon. This destruction of signs, then, is not the effect of the sorcerous art, or of the sorcerer as sorcerer, but of a man restoring health to the bewitched. All, therefore, who recognize such signs, can and ought to remove and destroy them. Sorcerers are bound to do this out of justice, let alone charity; all others, out of charity, by which all are bound to remove harm from their neighbor. Nor can any harm that might befall the sorcerer as a result rightly hinder this destruction — since such harm falls outside the intention of the one dissolving the sorcery; and the sorcerer must attribute to himself whatever loss he suffers, if it arises from his pact with the demon. All this is common doctrine, and many theologians are cited in favor of this opinion, including the Fathers of Salamanca (tract. 11, ch. 11, punct. 10, §3, n. 158).

n. IX.

IX. The contrary opinion is attributed to Jean of Louvain, who contends that this destruction is unlawful, on the grounds that he supposes a twofold pact to be entered into in sorcery: one, of inflicting harm once a sign is placed; the other, of desisting from harm once that same sign is removed. This, however, is not absolutely true. But even granting this twofold pact, it does not follow that the destruction of the sorcery becomes an unlawful violation of the pact with the demon; rather, it more likely constitutes a desisting from it. For if a person who is not himself a sorcerer destroys these signs, there can be no suspicion at all that he does so by imploring the demon's aid; rather, by driving him away, and removing his instruments, he prevents him from inflicting harm. If, however, the sorcerer himself destroys these signs, he can do this without seeking the demon's aid; rather, in breaking the pact he had entered into, and repenting of it, he shows that he wishes to have no further communication with the demon in the future. Nor does the one who destroys these signs ask the demon for health, or for any benefit; rather, by destroying the sign, he compels him to desist from causing harm. If you wish to know more, see Del Rio, Bk. VI, ch. 2.

n. X.

X. Question IV. Must a sorcerer who has handed a demon a document signed with his own blood redeem it, in order to be able to make a true confession? Response: Owing to the impiety of sorcerers, many descend so far that they renounce Christ, the sacraments, and the other mysteries of the Christian religion; and, to bind themselves the more firmly as slaves of the demon, they enter into a mutual pact, and confirm the writing with their own blood, which they afterward hand over to the demon for safekeeping, as a pledge of their promised fidelity. A common error prevails, that a sorcerer cannot make sincere confession unless he arranges for the demon to restore this writing to him. This is a false and mistaken persuasion; for there is no sin of which one cannot repent, with the aid of grace. In order for the sorcerer to truly repent, it is enough that he detest the crime committed with his whole heart, that he renounce the demon, submit himself to God, and keep his commandments. If the sorcerer had some sign given him by the demon in his possession, he ought immediately to burn it, in token of the broken pact and future enmity. But sorcerers could lawfully make use of knowledge, money, and other things acquired by the demon's art, whose possession and use would in no way depend on the demon — because, although their acquisition was tainted, once the fault has been removed by penance, their use can become lawful, as theologians commonly teach. They note, however, that it very often happens that riches conferred by a demon's aid turn out to be false, and illusory. I would add that if the money conferred by a demon were procured by theft, it would then have to be unlawfully retained, and it would be a matter of injustice [to keep it]. Likewise health, and any knowledge acquired by a demon's art, may certainly be retained — since these cannot be discarded. For no one made healthy through some sorcery is bound to make himself sick again voluntarily, and cast himself back into his former illness; nor can anyone erase from his mind the knowledge he has acquired. This knowledge, however, ought to be used only for an honorable end, not to be inquired into out of vain or morbid curiosity. As for money, whether it be real, or falsified by the demon's art, procured for an honorable purpose, I hold entirely that it may be used for such a purpose. If you ask for the reason, perhaps I do not know how to present it with full evidence. Nor am I unaware that many things unlawfully acquired can nonetheless be retained, as is commonly said of wages received for prostitution. But the innermost sense, so to speak, of the Christian profession seems to demand a contempt and casting away of such riches. For if the Lord teaches us to despise all riches; if St. Peter rebuked Simon's money, saying, "Thy money be with thee to perdition" (Acts 8:20) — in my own opinion, a repentant sorcerer ought to cast away all such money. But, you say, is it not a waste to throw away money that could serve some good use? This proves only that such money may be handed over to some upright man for a pious use — which I would not dare to disapprove — but by no means that it ought to be retained by the sorcerer himself, so that he might be enriched by it.

Diss. II, Chapter XII — On witches, sorcerers, and "striges"

I. It is customary for wicked women who practice magic, or superstitious sorcery, to be called by these names. They are called "lamiae" on account of a certain analogy with the lamia, a monstrous animal, bearing a woman's face, and showing breasts and milk, and beautiful in its whole body, by which it lures men to devour them, and slaughters children, in whose blood it delights. And since wicked, sorcerous women are cruel, and suck the blood of children, they are compared to lamiae by Jeremiah himself (Lamentations 4): "Even the sea monsters have drawn out the breast, they have given suck to their young: the daughter of my people is cruel, like the ostrich in the desert." They are called "sagae" [witches] from their cunning and craftiness — or, as Marcus Tullius says, from "sagire" [to perceive keenly], insofar as, panting after the foreknowledge of future and hidden things, they demand the demon's art to attain it. They are called "striges" from the "strix," a small bird which flies about at night with a shrieking cry, and attacks children's bodies, sucking out their blood. And this is exactly what those women called "striges" do, who set out chiefly by night, and lie in wait for infants' bodies. They are also called "poisoners" [veneficae], since they employ sorceries, and are harmful to the whole human race. For these most filthy concubines and mistresses of demons, whom they devote body and soul to the devil, abjure the sacraments and mysteries of religion; they defile, tear apart, and trample sacred images, the crucifix, crosses; they tear to shreds, with every insult, the most holy names of God and of the Blessed Virgin; they sacrifice the sacred host to the devil, steeped in urine within the vilest vessels. They carry off to their homes the corpses of murdered infants, pierced through with long needles; they boil them in pots, cooking them down until the joints dissolve, and let them simmer until they have congealed into a certain thick liquid — from which liquid they extract a twofold juice: one, thinner, which they drink, and by which they bind themselves to the devil in a solemn rite; the other, thicker, kept in a certain vessel, with which they anoint their own bodies at night, when they must go, at set times, to attend gatherings with the demon, so as to practice a general debauchery of every vice and lust.

II. Question I. Why are women more given to sorcery than men? Response: Theologians give several reasons. First, women are more prone to belief; hence they are more easily deceived by a demon than men. Second, they labor under the vice of curiosity, and burn more ardently with the desire to know future and hidden things; hence they most readily believe those who reveal their secrets, and predict future things, and implore the demon's aid, that they may know them. They are also of a more pliable nature and disposition, and readily receive impressions and revelations. Women, again, are seized by an ungovernable anger, as Scripture testifies, that there is no wrath above the wrath of a woman; and since they lack the strength for revenge, they seek the demon's help. They also burn with a more intense heat of lust than men, once corrupted, on account of their greater moisture [of humoral temperament]. To satisfy this unbridled passion of lust to the full, they give themselves over to nocturnal embraces with demons. Finally, they are weaker both in intellect and in will, and more prone to deception; hence a demon appears more frequently to women, and more easily enters into pacts with them. From this you may gather how true is that oracle of Ecclesiasticus (ch. 25): "All wickedness is short to the wickedness of a woman" — and consider, at the same time, how great is the folly of men, who submit their bundles and their very minds to these wretched little women, obey their command, serve them day and night, and become their most miserable slaves — so that, in the end, from commerce with them, their bodies become tainted, and their minds bewitched by illusions.

III. Question II. Why do old women, rather than younger ones, more often devote themselves to sorcery? Response: Authors assign a twofold reason. One is that, bitterly resenting the loss of the flower of their youth, they are carried away to the height of hatred against adolescence and youth; hence, in order to harm the young, they have recourse to the demon. The other is that, prompted by the demon, they believe the blood of children suited to prolonging their own lives further.

IV. Question III. Why does God permit witches, or "striges," to harm infants and the young rather than adults? Response: All authors admit that a solid reason for this cannot be assigned. For what reason can be brought forward for things that depend on God's will? This much only we know for certain: that God arranges all this for the greater confirmation of the faith, and for the testing of the good, so that men may be deterred from sin. Some say God permits it as a punishment, or trial, of the parents; others assert it happens on account of children's weakness, which cannot resist. Others, finally, add that "striges" lie in wait for infants because, from the severed limbs of such little bodies — the feet and hands — they prepare an ointment, smeared with which they go to the demons' gatherings and feasts — or imagine that they go.

V. Question IV. Are witches really transported from place to place, or does this movement occur only through a fantastic illusion? Response: All Catholics teach that such a transit can indeed occur, since this transportation does not exceed the powers of a demon, as is established by many examples. For a demon really did transport Christ the Lord to the pinnacle of the Temple, as the Fathers commonly teach, following St. Thomas (III Part, q. 41, art. 4). We also read that Simon Magus was carried up into the air, and, by the prayer of the divine Peter, cast down to earth. This is even clearer in the case of the good Angels: for the Prophet Daniel says (ch. 14): "The Angel of the Lord took hold of Habakkuk by the hair of his head, and carried him by the vigor of his spirit, and set him down in Babylon, over the lake." And St. Luke (Acts 8): "The Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more... but Philip was found at Azotus." Now evil Angels have lost none of their natural powers through their sin. Wherefore, in this order of possible transportation, they can accomplish entirely what the good Angels can. There is, then, no dispute about the fact itself; the whole question concerns witches.

There are certain over-zealous individuals who, without first distinguishing between the fact and the mere possibility, cry out against the fact as altogether impossible, disparaging all such transportations which authors relate as true — treating them as mere fables, without giving any reason, and without regard for the authority of other writers who testify to the contrary. But why do they screech against Inquisitors and judges, arguing that they have often punished witches severely — as if these women could be punished only for such transportations, and not for apostasy from the faith, or for the worship offered to a demon?

Let this be said only in passing — not that I consider all such transportations, as related, to be true; indeed, I hold that they are frequently mere illusions — but so that I may check the ignorance and audacity of certain persons, who, with incredible rashness, extend their censorious pen against far greater theologians than themselves — though such theologians ought not to be trusted even in the slightest particulars. But setting all this aside, it is worth recording what Cajetan long ago taught (II-II, q. 95, art. 3), so that these new men may learn that the older theologians were not so credulous as to consider all such transits genuine. Of the incidents Cajetan himself relates, I will transcribe one. "I too," he says, "know of a certain woman in love, whom the devil anointed while naked, persuading her that thus he would lead her to the house of her beloved; and afterward, having been beside herself for a long time, and believing that she had been with her beloved, etc., she found herself in her own place so bruised that she needed to be revived, etc. And had I not explained to her that this was mere imagination, and that she had been so injured by lying naked in that condition, she would perhaps not know to this day that it was not real. By this, however, we do not deny that the devil, God permitting, sometimes really does transport some willing person bodily from place to place. But this seems to happen VERY RARELY." For when this transvection occurs by mere fantastic illusion, the demon (whom sorcerers thus call by their own name, "Martinet") enters and penetrates the bodies of witches, and so overwhelms their senses that they feel nothing at all, even when injured and scourged; and the demon impresses upon their imagination such species, images, and phantoms, that upon waking from their stupor they truly believe they have flown about, entered other people's houses, and lain with their lovers, and so on.

VI. From this you should gather how very careful you ought to be in placing faith in women, whether wicked or even good. For although accounts of women's [dealings with demons] are found everywhere... concerning women — whether wicked or good — confessors and spiritual directors, far from becoming more cautious on that account, frequently slip into the opposite extreme of excessive credulity. I have learned from experience that little women who are eager to display a reputation for special devotion and holiness seek out credulous and easy-going confessors, so as to draw them more securely into error; they submit to them as handmaids and slaves, promise obedience, and pretend to hang upon their every word — so that, by this means, they may in the end win over even confessors less alert than themselves, and bring them entirely under their own influence. Such women are wont to excuse their own dullness and foolish credulity by the examples of Catherine, Teresa, and other female Saints — although they have imbibed not even half the spirit of a Catherine or a Teresa. Let them see to it that these devout women of theirs perform deeds of outstanding virtue, and confirm their visions by miracles worthy of Catherine and Teresa — and only then let them place firm faith in them. But of this only in passing here; I shall treat it more fully in its proper place.

n. VII.

VII. The opposite opinion is defended by Luther, Melanchthon, and many of that heretical rabble, whom certain Catholics also follow. But all these fight, as it were, blindfolded, inventing an enemy to strike at. For indeed, if they deny that such transportations are even possible, they err shamefully and manifestly. If they merely assert that such transportations, and the other things that follow from them, occur most frequently through mere fantastic illusion, they will find scarcely anyone to contradict them, or at most a few. For that such transits consist most frequently in mere fantastic illusion, we ourselves freely admit. They object with the authority of the Council of Ancyra, cited in the chapter Episcopi, cause 26, question 5, where it is forbidden that anyone give credence to such illusions of women. Several reply, with Severinus Binius in his notes on this Council, that the aforesaid chapter is spurious, and of no authority. Others reply that the Council forbids only the belief that witches ride about upon beasts, transformed by the goddess Diana.

n. VIII.

VIII. Question V. Can a demon transform witch-women, or men, into a cat, a weasel, a hare, or some other beast? Response: Before answering, I will first transcribe the teaching of St. Thomas (I Part, q. 114, art. 4, ad 2), which paves the way for the decision of the question proposed. He says: "Bodily matter does not obey the good or evil Angels at will, so that demons could, by their own power, transmute matter from one form into another; but they can apply certain seeds which are found in the elements of the world, to bring about such effects, as Augustine says (Bk. III, On the Trinity). And therefore it must be said that all transmutations of bodily things which can be brought about by certain natural powers, to which the aforesaid seeds pertain, can be brought about by the operation of demons, these seeds being applied — as when certain things are transformed into serpents or frogs, which can be generated by putrefaction. But those transmutations of bodily things which cannot occur by any natural power can in no way be truly accomplished by the operation of demons — as, for instance, that a human body be changed into the body of a beast, or that a dead man's body be revived. And if something of this sort sometimes seems to occur by the operation of demons, this is not according to the truth of the thing, but only in appearance — which can occur in two ways. In one way, from within: insofar as a demon can alter a man's imagination, and even the bodily senses, so that something appears otherwise than it is, as has been said above — and this too is sometimes said to occur by the power of certain bodily things. In another way, from without. For since a demon can form a body from air, of any form and figure whatsoever, so that, assuming it, he appears visibly in it — he can, by the same reasoning, place around any bodily thing whatsoever any bodily form he pleases, so that it appears in that likeness. And this is what Augustine means (Bk. XVIII, City of God), when he says that the imaginative faculty of man, which even in thinking or dreaming is varied through innumerable kinds of things, appears, as if embodied, in the likeness of some animal, to the senses of others. This is not to be understood as if the very imaginative power of the man himself, or its image, were, numerically the same, embodied and shown to another's senses; but because the demon, who forms some image in the imagination of the man himself, can also present a similar image to the senses of another."

n. IX.

IX. From this teaching alone it is established that demons cannot at all transform a man or a woman into a beast. St. Thomas's teaching is expressly conveyed by Augustine (Bk. XVIII, City of God, ch. 18), where he concludes that many such illusions are merely fantastic: "For we ourselves," he says, "when we were in Italy, heard such things told of a certain region of those parts, where women innkeepers, versed in these arts, were said to be accustomed to give something in a piece of cheese to travelers, by which they would be transformed on the spot into beasts of burden, and carry whatever loads were needed; and afterward, once the task was accomplished, would return again to themselves — nor, however, did their minds become bestial in these cases, but remained rational and human, just as Apuleius, in the books he entitled 'The Golden Ass,' relates having happened to himself: that, having taken a drug, while his human mind remained, he became an ass, or indicated that this was so, or feigned it. These things are either false, or so unusual that they are rightly not believed... I would not, therefore, believe that either the mind, still less the body, can, by any art or power of demons, truly be converted into the limbs and features of beasts; but rather that the imaginative faculty of man, which even in thinking, or in dreaming, is varied through innumerable kinds of things, and, though it is not itself a body, nonetheless takes on with wondrous swiftness forms resembling bodies..."

n. X.

X. To the question proposed, then, the answer is that a demon can in no way transform witches into a cat, a weasel, a goose, a dog, or other animals; but either he alters the senses both of the onlookers and of the witches themselves, who believe they have been turned into beasts, or he fashions bodies out of air closely resembling animals. This is the common opinion of theologians.

n. XI.

XI. Question VI. Can demons bring witches through closed doors into the bedchambers of their lovers? Response: Demons cannot bring it about that two bodies interpenetrate one another; but they can indeed bring women in through closed doors in this sense: that they can open and shut them again with such speed, just as they can remove and replace stones from walls, with such swiftness that it can scarcely be perceived by human eyes; small openings, too, can be widened, through which bodies can pass. When they carry off witches, they do so sometimes visibly, sometimes invisibly. While the husband lies in his bed, they transport the wife away, oppressing the husband's senses in a deep sleep, and sometimes lay a body fashioned of air down beside the husband in her place. The wounds that not infrequently appear on the bodies of witches, who seem to have been transformed into beasts in the manner described, arise from the fact that the witches' true bodies are joined to the airy body representing the beast; and any blow inflicted on the airy body passes through into the true body of the witch. But when this occurs by mere fantastic illusion alone, the demon himself either injures and wounds the witches' bodies directly, or... As for actually leading witches out of prison, demons cannot do this, God preventing it — as is clear from experience.

n. XII.

XII. Question VII. Are the gatherings of witches truly celebrated with demons, and what do they do at such gatherings? Response: Del Rio, along with others, records certain fixed places where demons celebrate their gatherings with their witches — as, in Italy, it is said there is the Mountain of Venus near Lake Orsino. On this matter one may consult Spina, On Witches, ch. 20. They have not only fixed places, but fixed times as well, at which they hold such gatherings — during Lent, especially Holy Week, the Ember Days, and other feasts. What they do at these gatherings is related at length by Del Rio and other authors. First of all, the witches approach the Prince of demons, seated upon a lofty throne, presenting a terrifying form, most often in the guise of a goat or a dog, to worship him — now on bended knee, now with their backs turned toward him, sometimes with their legs thrown up and their heads bent back, chin turned toward the sky. As a token of servitude and homage, they kiss him on his hindquarters; they offer up their own children, and sometimes kill them. Once this is done, they sit down at tables, and feast — the food sometimes most delicate, sometimes tasteless, often prepared from the eyes of infants, boiled without salt. Their bellies sated, they give themselves over to lust, mingling most foully and frequently with demons; the women submit to incubi, and the men perform an unspeakable act of intercourse with succubi, no filthy and abominable species of lust being left untried. I have touched on these few things only briefly in passing. I judge that most of this is fabulous and fantastical, as I said above; yet that it can indeed sometimes really occur is not to be denied.

n. XIII.

XIII. There are those who deny that demons can perform carnal acts, since they lack bodies and are pure spirits. But the common opinion of Catholics teaches that this commingling of demons and women really does occur. St. Augustine attests this openly, in these words (Bk. XV, City of God, ch. 23): "And since it is a very widespread report, and many either affirm that they have themselves experienced it, or have heard it from those who have experienced it, and whose reliability there is no reason to doubt, that Silvans and Fauns, commonly called incubi, have often behaved wickedly toward women, seeking and accomplishing intercourse with them; and that certain demons, whom the Gauls call Dusii, are said to attempt and effect this uncleanness assiduously — a matter attested by so many, and by such persons, that it would seem impudent to deny it..." As for the children born from such intercourse, however, St. Thomas explains and confirms the following doctrine (I Part, q. 51, art. 3, ad 6), adding that the offspring born from such intercourse of demons and women are not the children of the demon, but of that man whose seed was taken; for a demon who acts as a succubus toward a man, and afterward as an incubus toward a woman, does this by means of the semen so received, since it is the same seed. The offspring, then, born from this transported semen, is not the demon's son, but the son of the man from whom the semen was received.

n. XIV.

XIV. From what has been said, it is settled that this whole transportation is momentary, and effected by demonic art in such a way that these emanations, being extremely fine and subtle, and dispersed with utmost speed from their vessels, do not, in so brief a moment, vanish or dissipate — a claim of no weight, which adversaries commonly raise in objection. As for their further claim — that the generative power resides in the spirits, or in the seeds of things — this is disproved by St. Thomas: for he says that demons sometimes assume certain spirits and seeds of other things for the generation of certain effects, as Augustine says (Bk. III, On the Trinity, ch. 8), so that the demon may sometimes perform the act of intercourse without true semen — as, for instance, some demons who become succubi to a man, and afterward transfer the semen thus received to a woman, so that the demon himself is not the parent, but rather the man whose semen was taken. Should some question arise as to whether the witch experiences pleasure in this commingling, it is of no relevance.

There are those who deny that demons can transport true seed thus received without it dissipating in so short a time, especially since the demon, being skilled in the power of these vital spirits, can prevent such dissipation. Many examples are adduced by philosophers and physicians, in which it is related that women have been found with child in the womb without having lost the flower of their virginity. Here is the example recounted by St. Thomas, Quodlibet 6, q. 3, art. 18: "A woman might, perhaps, conceive without a miracle, her virginity remaining wholly intact — as is said to have happened to a certain pubescent girl, whom, to guard her modesty, [her parents] kept in a bed of her own; and while she slept, semen descended to her womb, and the girl conceived... A man, however, could naturally become a father through such a nocturnal emission, by whatever chance it reached the womb, provided virginity was preserved entire." It is likewise related, on the testimony of certain most reliable authors, that other women were found to have become pregnant in a bath, from semen shed there by men. Much else could be said on this subject; but since this concerns curiosity rather than useful and honest knowledge, I pass over it entirely in silence, since no clear reason appears against it, that it should be discussed further here.

Diss. II, Chapter XIII — On the penalties established against witches, and against all who enter into a pact — explicit or tacit — with demons

I. All human and divine laws decree that sorcerers are to be punished. God commands (Lev. 20): "A man, or woman, in whom there is a pythonic or divining spirit, dying let them die: they shall stone them with stones." Likewise (Exod. 22): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live." There are many civil laws — Book 9, title 18, law 7, "Nemo" — which decree that all soothsayers are to be punished with death. Canon law establishes the same penalty.

…and 1 more passage — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Concina, Compendium

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 6 passages

Bk. III, Diss. VIII, Chapter II — On natural and superstitious magic, witches, and hags

I. Question I. What, and of how many kinds, is magic? Answer. Magic, taken generally, is a certain wondrous and unusual art of operating, and is twofold: natural, and superstitious. The former uses the application of natural causes; the latter, the help of the demon. Natural magic is licit, since it is natural philosophy, which penetrates the force and efficacy of natural causes, and their effects. It is most difficult to discern and distinguish natural magic from superstitious. The general rule is: when the cause is inept for producing the effect, then the magic is superstitious.

II. Question II. What must be said of those called "healers"? Answer. The Theologians call "healers" those who display a power of healing several diseases and deadly wounds, by the sign of the Cross imprinted, or by breathing upon, or by other signs. Azor, with others, contends that there are found such healers who induce health by natural virtue. Others hold that this is done by the virtue of the demon, which is more likely. Let Christ's faithful implore health from God, the intercession of the Saints having been invoked, not from these tricksters and crafty enchanters, who lyingly claim to restore health with fictitious prayers concocted from their own brains. The natural fascination of women who by mere sight infect onlookers rests on no sufficiently firm foundation.

III. Question III. Is there such a thing as a superstitious magic art? Answer. Christ's Gospel, Matthew 7 and Mark 9, and all catholic Doctors, testify that a magic art exists. Superstitious magic is divided into maleficence of poisoning and of love: the former is directed to harm, the latter to arousing carnal love. The maleficence of love, which the Greeks call a philtre, is executed in two ways, namely either through food or drink inflaming to Venus, or through sacred objects appended, which are sometimes bound to garments, or placed beneath the bed on which the person to be bewitched lies.

IV. It is not licit to cure a bewitchment through sorcerers, whatever some men fable. Yet it is licit to compel a sorcerer to remove a bewitchment by a licit means, when it is certainly established that the sorcerer has ready honorable means by which to remove the bewitchment; not so if you are uncertain and doubt that the sorcerer has licit means by which to remove it. It is also licit to destroy the signs of a bewitchment, because this can be done without the demon's help. A sorcerer who has handed the demon a document signed with his own blood ought not to demand it back from the demon, but should detest and abjure it, and perform sincere penance, and implore pardon from God with bitter tears.

V. Question IV. What must be said of witches and hags? Answer. Bewitching women are commonly called by three names. They are called Lamiae, from an analogy with the Lamia, which is a monstrous animal bearing a woman's countenance. From craftiness and destructiveness they are called Sagae. They are called Striges from the little bird so named, the strix. They are also called poisoners, since they use bewitchments. Women are more given to bewitchments than men, both on account of their greater credulity and curiosity, and on account of impotent anger and lust.

Tr. IV, Disputation IX: On Superst…, Question VII: On the spells of witches · Tr. IV, Disputation IX: On Superst…, Question VIII: Whether it is lawful to consult witches so that they may at least remove spells · Tr. IV, Disputation IX: On Superst…, Question IX: On the penalties of witches, etc.

VI. Question V. Are witches transported from place to place? Answer. No one can rightly deny that this transportation is possible, since it does not exceed the powers of the demon.

Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V

Gaudentius Bontempi of Brescia, O.F.M. Cap. — 43 passages

Tr. IV, Disputation IX: On Superst…, Question VII: On the spells of witches

The name of magic, belonging to natural science, has been transferred to the wicked art of Witches, whose inventor was Zoroaster, King of the Persians, as they commonly report with D. Bonaventure.

But a far greater number of women than men, from innate levity, follow it, and they are called Lamiae from their cruelty: for the Lamia is a monstrous animal with a human face, carrying the cruelty of a wild beast in its trunk, especially in slaughtering children, that it may pour out and suck their blood, as D. Bonavent. teaches in 3. Threnorum, and with him Fagundez in primum praeceptum, lib. 1. cap. 41. to whom alludes that text of the Threni, sed et Lamiae nudaverunt mammas.

They are called Sagae from sagacity: Maleficae from maleficia: Veneficae from veneficia.

n. 4.

They are called Striges from certain night birds that emit a screech in flight.

n. 5.

It is customary here to dispute: Whether striges are truly brought to the places of dances: but I have treated these in my Tract. de Angelis, d. 11. where I also reported the unspeakable copulations with the demon.

n. 6.

These however are apostates from the faith, for they deny Baptism, the most holy Cross, the Trinity, as some of this refuse have expressed to me. Whence they rightly say, with Prosper Farinac. Tract. de haeresi, parte 8. operum crim. quaest. 181. §. 1. num. 46. Delrius lib. 5. disq. sect. 5. that Lamiae are heretics. There is added the cult of demons; for they adore the devil, either under the figure of a He-goat, or seated on a throne; they adore however with the shoulder bent sideways, as they have told me,

n. 7.

Blasphemies are belched forth against God, against Christ, and against the B. Virgin, as I reported d. 11. de Angelis.

n. 8.

There are added sacrileges of every kind in the abuse of the Sacraments, the Relics of Saints, and of the Most Holy Eucharist itself.

n. 9.

There follow the unspeakable copulations with the Demon, both according to nature and against it.

n. 10.

There are added the gravest damages in the goods of orchard, of floods, and of fires, and even to life itself. And so a witch, whom I accompanied to execution, confessed that she had killed ten men. These things they report: Binsfeld, commentar. ad l. Nemo, C. de maleficiis and Delrius disq. lib. 5. sect. 16. Serlogus Anselis. in cant.

n. 11.

Add that this crime is contagious, so that it creeps like a cancer. For these men and women have from the Demon a precept of drawing others to the same apostasy, which is first celebrated by the trampling of the Cross, and the denial of the faith, and the adoration of the goat, and the serpent, as is established for me all too truly by the experiment of those whom I examined; for so pestilential a virus did some Youths spread, that they would hand over to me some of their parents to be converted, otherwise, they protested, they wished to kill them, because they were also corrupting other brothers, even little boys. And I saw some of these even as infants, who would perform these diabolical ceremonies, and with turbulent mouth and horrible face they terrified.

n. 12.

These things they learn in solitudes, while they guard flocks and herds, or in the night time, where they are not recognized. They have confessed also that they bring masters to the sacrilegious places, and except for these, others are not recognized, because all appear masked. But what they do there is so detestable that even inks and pages would blush to describe it: Moreover they bring innumerable calamities, they cast Demons into bodies, as I have learned from the possessed, they stir up tempests so savage that once in the Valley of Rhaetia I saw all the crops cut down by hailstones, the fields laid waste by waters flooding from the ridges, buildings buried, and within one hour damage of forty thousand gold pieces inflicted by two young striges.

n. 13.

Truly for the restitution of these things the striges are held, and those who cooperate with them; but especially those who induce them, as Suarez Tom. 1. lib. 1. de superstit. cap. 14. Toletus lib. 4. summae, cap. 16. Less. Tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 8. d. 2. Navar. cap. 15. num. 19. Fagundez loc. cit. cap. 41. n. 19. note.

n. 14.

Wherefore, as the Doctors commonly teach, this obligation of restitution is not extinguished by their killing; for through those punishments they satisfy legal justice, not the injured party. Therefore the heirs are held to restitution according to cap. in litteris, de raptoribus, and cap. ult. de sepult. But if the goods have come to the fisc, it is held first to restore the damages inflicted according to leg. Non possunt, and leg. In summa, ff. de iure fisci, where the best account of this matter is given, because things liable to a debt owed are not computed among the goods of the deceased. Which is common to all other debts. So teach Suarez num. 12. Navar. num. 25. Binsfeld. tract. de confess. malefic. praelud. 13. Fagundez num. 20. and others.

n. 15.

I confess that those whom I knew were for the most part destitute, and each of them had a single daughter educated, to whom they might leave the inheritance of so great iniquity; but the other offspring the cruelest Lamiae killed. About the aforesaid the confessor ought to question them, as Bass. num. 7. notes.

n. 16.

I know that sometimes fantasy alone carries some to the execrable places, as I said disp. 11. de Angelis cit. In which category there occurred a charming spectacle; for one of the striges under inquisition, who, since she was very old, had not been fastened to the rack, but with fire applied to her feet was called forth to confession and questioning, and had always denied; when she had been condemned to exile and was to go into the lands of Brescia, I approached her, and besought her to inflict no more evils: But she blasphemed that she was innocent as an Angel, and as the most holy Virgin; (for this is their ordinary justification) The young daughter was also present; But having exhorted both with gentle words, I recognized from their own confession that both were striges. Therefore I commended to God my Brescian fatherland, to which one of them was to come. After some days, departing from her sickbed (with her feet burnt — for indeed the fire had been extinguished by the force of a great sum of money) she lay dying for many hours. Her husband, weary of the disgrace, called the Priests, and had her buried as dead; she was let down into a deep dug grave, and covered with much earth; but on the following night a pack of huge Cats of black color led dances around her sepulcher. Thus perished the wretch.

n. 17.

Moreover their philters and love potions are not naturally efficacious for kindling lascivious loves toward a particular individual, although they can excite the humors, as Azor. cap. 26. quaestio 1. Medina lib. de recta in Deum fide, cap. 7. teach.

n. 18.

It is also wont to be asked: Whether men can compel Demons with regard to rings, mirrors, etc. It is answered with Azorius quaestio 2. Fagundez num. 23. negatively; since they are of lower nature and power, but they are compelled by a superior Demon, whom the magus consults.

n. 19.

You will object. The liver of the fish drove away Demons, Tobiae 6. et 8. The holy Doctor answers, de sex alis Seraphim, cap. 8. et part. 3. de Eccl. Hier. cap. 2. et part. 2. cap. 2. that this was done by the power of the Angel Raphael, who took the liver of the roasted fish to signify salvation by the power of the passion of Christ. So also Fagundez num. 25. and Azorius in the place cited.

Tr. IV, Disputation IX: On Superst…, Question VIII: Whether it is lawful to consult witches so that they may at least remove spells

I suppose here with D. Bonavent. in the places cited in the preceding questions, that it is not permitted to approach Witches to place a maleficium. So all the Doctors, and it is proved by the holy Doctor from Levit. 19. and 20. Deuter. 13. and 18. This however proves that it is not permitted to approach even patarini and Arioli.

A greater question is: Whether it be lawful to approach a prepared strix, that she remove a maleficium by maleficium. The common, and true, opinion is that it is not permitted. So Sanchez lib. 7. matr. d. 95. Albertt. in 4. d. 34. art. 9. Sotus quaest. unica, art. 3. Palat. ibi, d. 1. Caietanus in summa, verb. maleficium, et in opusc. tract. 12. de maleficiis, quaest. un. Abul. cap. 19. Matth. quaest. 90. ad 3. Castro lib. de iusta haeret. punit. cap. 15. Ledesma 2. part. 4. quaest. 60. art. 2. Ciruelo de superstit. part. 3. cap. 15. Margarita confess. in primum praeceptum, fol. 60. Viguet. l. Inst. cap. 16. §. 7. ver. 9. imp. 11. Angles in flor. p. p. ubi de matrim. quaest. 8. art. 2. d. 2. Tolet. lib. 4. summae, cap. 16. Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 68. art. 4. d. 2. ad 4. Peretius, Ledesma de matrim. quaest. 58. art. 2. d. 2. Henriquez lib. 5. de poenit. cap. 6. et lib. 12. de matrim. cap. 8. Philiarc. tom. 1. part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 11. Delrius lib. 6. disg. cap. 2. sect. 1. quaest. 2. Barthol. a Ledesma de matrim. quaest. 49. Navarr. summa, cap. 11. num. 29. Couarr. in cap. Quamvis pactum, p. p. §. 1. Ludov. Lopez 2. part. Instruct. ubi de matrim. cap. 52. Rodriguez tom. 1. summa, cap. 7. concl. 11. Flamma 3. part. method. cap. 8. §. 11. Graff. p. p. decis. lib. 2. cap. 6. num. 10. Vega tom. 1. summae, cap. 34. casu 110. Rosella verb. imped. 15. num. 19. ibi. Tabien. imped. 11. quaest. 9. Sylvest. verb. malef. quaest. 8. ibi Armilia num. 2. Binsfeld. lib. 1. cap. de mathem. quaest. 5. Suarez tom. 1. de relig. lib. 2. de superstit. cap. 18. num. 4. Fagundez lib. 1. in primum praecept. Decal. cap. 42. Tannerus Tom. 1. d. 5. quaest. 6. dub. 7. et Tom. 4. de impedimentis matrimonii. Bassaeus V. Malefic. §.

This is the express opinion of D. Bonavent. in confessionali, cap. 1. particula 38. where he proves it from cap. 2. de sortil. where Alexander III condemned a Presbyter who for a good end had tried a superstitious damnation. It is also clear from cap. Qui sine salvatore 26. quaest. 2. drawn from D. Augustine. Thus it is proved also by others.

n. 4.

The reason is, because to make a maleficium in order to remove a maleficium includes a new invocation of the Demon, plainly wicked, but evils are not to be done that goods may come, as is said in Rom. 3.

n. 5.

Hence you have that it is false which is decided in leg. eorum, 46. de malef. and leg. Regia, 3. tit. 23. part. 7. and Azorius relates summa, tit. de malef. that malefics exercising maleficia for a good end, lest the fruits of the earth perish, are excused. For these are false, since these cannot be removed without an invocation of the Demon, which is not permitted even for a good end, as the holy Doctor notes loc. cit. and with him Fagundez num. 26. Bartol. in d. leg. eorum. Salicetus, and others.

n. 6.

You have also that it is unlawful to compel Witches by threats or punishments to remove a maleficium by maleficium, as Sanchez notes lib. 7. de matrim. d. 95. Suarez Tom. 1. de Religione, lib. 2. de superstit. cap. 18. Delrius lib. 6. disg. cap. 2. sect. 1. quaest. 2. The reason is, because this is intrinsically evil.

n. 7.

To me however it seems permitted, at least if the maleficium can be removed by a means unculpable, or licit, because I ask what can rightly be done, compelled by necessity; just as therefore on that account I can ask money from a usurer, because he can damn without usury, so in the present case. So Sanchez dub. cit. Suarez loc. cit. and others cited by Fagundez cap. 42. But that in necessity it be permitted to ask money from a usurer, I showed in the Tract. de charitate, d. 18. quae de scandalo, and Disput. de Usura, quaest. ult.

n. 8.

I add however, with Fagundez num. 12. that the strix is to be exhorted to employ only a licit means, which if she refuse to do, the fault is imputed to her.

n. 9.

Observe also that the remedies for removing maleficia are the Relics of Saints, Blessings, etc. which however, if they have something inept joined to the ceremony as necessary, would be superstitious, as Navar. warns summa Lat. cap. 11. num. 25. and others. It is also permitted to take away and burn the signs of maleficia, for instance knotted hairs, little statues, etc. as the Doctors commonly say; for they are works of the devil, which it is licit to destroy. Wherefore Scotus 4. d. 34. quaest. un. says it is ridiculous to doubt about this. It is permitted also to place other sacred things, that the bond may be destroyed. So Suar. cap. 17. num. 9. Less. lib. 2. cap. 44. d. 6. Fagundez num. 6. cap. 43.

Tr. IV, Disputation IX: On Superst…, Question IX: On the penalties of witches, etc.

Venefici, Sagae, Malefici, Sortilegi, Divini, and Magi, a plague of the world, a virus of the Church, and a contagion of Kingdoms, the laws scourge with the same punishments. Formerly by the old law they were condemned to death Exodi 22. Levit. 20. Deuter. 13. et 18. as we have often seen with the holy Doctor. The same now stands in tota causa 26. and throughout the Codex in the title de maleficis.

In Canonical law venefici and malefici, and those consulting them, are excommunicated cap. si quis ariolos, 26. q. 5. yet the excommunication does not seem ipso facto, but to be inflicted, as the Doctors note. But if they are heretics, they incur ipso facto the excommunication in the Cena Domini.