Divination

153. Notions. 1. Divination (Wahrsagerei) is defined as superstition by which the demon is invoked in order to know hidden things by his help.

a. Divination tends to this, that knowledge of some thing be obtained which cannot be known by natural means. Hidden things: these can be present, past, or future; and although those things whose knowledge is sought are for the most part hidden, nevertheless if things known to all were sought from the demon for the sake of jest or experiment, there would be true divination, since its essence consists in commerce with the demon.

b. It is certain that the same spirit of Python which St. Paul cast out at Philippi from the girl who, by divining, brought great gain to her masters,¹ even now, although more rarely, manifests hidden and future things to men.

2. Divination can be done in a twofold way: through express invocation of the demon (with an express pact), or through implicit or tacit invocation (with an implicit pact). It is committed by express invocation when the demon is invoked by express words, or if an agreement is expressly made with him that, when such signs have been placed, he produce such effects; but for committing this divination it is not necessary that the demon in fact respond, but it is enough that the effect be sought by his help. It is committed by implicit invocation when someone, in order to obtain knowledge, uses inept means which he knows have the power of producing the intended effect neither from their nature nor from the institution of God or the Church. For he who knowingly uses an inept means for obtaining some effect expects this effect from a higher power; but the effect cannot be expected either from God or from the angels, who disapprove the use of such means; therefore it is expected from the demon, who is implicitly invoked by the very use of those means.

a. For this reason those are not excused who knowingly employ vain means and protest against any commerce with the demon: for the protestation is contrary to the deed and therefore null.

b. The demon gladly intermingles himself with vain and inept means of this kind; for he approves all things which are vain and reprobated by God, and freely seizes the occasion of effecting what he himself intends, namely that man, having left God, recur to him and render divine honors to him.

¹ Acts 16:16.

154. a. Nine different species of divination with an express pact are numbered according to the different mode by which the demon invoked responds and reveals hidden things. Seven different species especially of divination with an implicit pact are numbered according to the different mode by which knowledge of hidden things is sought.¹

b. Judicial astrology also is numbered among divination with an implicit pact, by which knowledge of hidden things is sought from the position and motion of the stars. For natural and judicial astrology are distinguished; the former, by which certain effects are known from the influence of the stars, especially of the moon, is founded in natural science; the latter, by which rules are established for knowing future things from the stars, especially the varied fortune of men, is founded in superstitious art.

c. Since today the divination of crystallomancy is again not rarely exercised, it helps to note that those who gaze into crystal, or into water contained in a vessel, etc., see various images there, which are nothing but hallucinations (visions) provoked by the "scryers" themselves by the aid of imagination. But the demon easily intermingles himself with these experiments and manifests hidden or future things to the scryers, so that in this way he may revive divination used both in the ancient age of the gentiles and in the middle age.²

¹ Cf. Sporer-Bierbaum, I, tr. 2, n. 313 ff.; Gopfert, I, n. 387.

² Cf. Bessmer, "Die Visionen im Kristalle," Stimmen aus Maria Laach 1908, p. 165 ff.

155. Its moral and specific malice. 1. Divination which is done through explicit invocation is a sin grave from its whole genus. For in every divination there is commerce with the demon; but any commerce with the demon, the most hostile enemy of God and men, is gravely illicit, as injurious to God and pernicious to man. Moreover, some worship is exhibited to the demon by the very fact that man recurs to him and thus subjects himself to him.

2. Divination with implicit invocation is indeed also by its own nature a grave sin, because it involves commerce with the demon; yet it can become venial: a. from ignorance and simplicity, because its malice is not equally manifest as that of express invocation; b. from defect of firm faith, when certain faith is not given to vain signs, but only some fear or suspicion of a future event is conceived; c. from defect of serious will, when knowledge of a hidden thing is sought more for the sake of jest or curiosity than from serious intention. And since almost commonly something intervenes which excuses from mortal sin, divinations with implicit invocation are rarely grave sins; nevertheless the thing is always dangerous if someone directs his actions from them.

Those who consult soothsayers or diviners (gypsies) concerning fortune sin gravely if this is done with firm faith or scandal of others; but venially if it is done only for the sake of curiosity, or if firm faith is not given to their sayings, as is most often the case. Likewise it is a light sin to do or omit an indifferent thing because of responses heard from them, if it is done from some fear or for the sake of curiosity in testing. Yet those who consult them in addition commit a sin of induction or cooperation.

3. Divination which is done through explicit and implicit invocation, and likewise the different divinations which are done through invocation, whether explicit or implicit, do not differ in species, but contain the same specific malice. Therefore of itself it is not necessary that it be declared in confession whether the invocation of the demon was express or tacit; and likewise the penitent is not bound to declare by what signs or means he exercised divination.

Yet ordinarily in confession it must be declared, for another twofold reason, whether the invocation was explicit or implicit: a. so that the confessor can judge whether a grave or light sin was committed; b. because it is established that divination with express invocation generally has several other sins joined to it which do not occur where only tacit invocation is had. But the sins which are often joined to express invocation are these: abjuration of Christ, adoration of the demon, promise of perpetual service with a promise of help in return on the part of the demon, blasphemies against God, sacrileges (abuse of sacred things and of the Eucharist itself), etc.

156. On dreams. 1. Dreams: a. ordinarily depend on natural causes, namely either on daily occupations, or on the temperament and constitution of the body, or on the concurrence of phantasms, etc.; nevertheless it cannot be denied that b. dreams are sometimes stirred up by God: for although God does not direct men through dreams, He nevertheless promised that sometimes He would be the author of dreams;¹ moreover, from Sacred Letters and from the lives of the saints we learn that dreams were sometimes sent by God;² c. but that the demon can be, and in fact sometimes is, the author of dreams cannot be denied, since he can stir up phantasms in men.³

If God sends dreams, at the same time there are certain indications from which it can be gathered that they have been sent by God. Signs of this kind are these: a. if the matter is worthy of God, and not vain and indecent; b. if it impels to good, but not to evil and presumptuous things; c. if it makes the soul tranquil and more ready for works of piety, not disturbed, inclined to earthly things, and slower for the service of God.

2. Since dreams are sometimes also sent by God, where prudent reason suggests this, they must be diligently examined whether they are from God. But if it appears morally certain that a dream has been sent by God, we are bound to believe it; if it is probable, we can believe it and direct our actions according to it.

3. To believe natural dreams with blind faith in such a way that someone ordinarily directs his actions according to them is the mortal sin of divination; but sometimes to place or omit an indifferent action because of a dream, or then lightly to fear lest what dreams portend may happen, does not exceed light sin.

He sins gravely who desires to be taught by the demon through a dream, and more so he who for this reason takes sleep in a certain position of the body. He sins gravely who directs his life almost from dreams, lots, cards, and vain means of this kind. But he ordinarily does not sin gravely who plays in a game the numbers which he dreamed, or who does not mount a horse because he dreamed of a fall, or who digs up the earth because he dreamed that a treasure was hidden there, because he does this not so much from certain faith in a future event as from a certain excessive timidity or hope.

¹ Acts 2:17; Num. 12:6.

² Judg. 7:13; Dan. 2:19; Matt. 1:20; 2:12, 13, 19.

³ Deut. 18:10.

157. On sortilege, or on the use of lots (Loswerfen). Since threefold lots are distinguished, these things must be established concerning them:

1. Divisory lots, which are used for discerning what is to be attributed to each one in things to be divided or in suits to be settled, are licit unless they are prohibited by human law: for this sortilege is nothing other than a contract by which it is decreed by common consent that the thing is to be attributed to him to whom the lot has fallen.¹ But lots are prohibited by canon law in ecclesiastical elections.²

This means of lots for settling controversies is to be preferred to conducting lawsuits before a judge and to the appointing of arbiters themselves; it is also brought into use by the Austrian Code §§ 885, 841, and by the German Code §§ 659, 752. Concerning these lots Sacred Scripture says: Lots are cast into the lap, but they are tempered by the Lord.³

2. Consultory lots, which are used for investigating what is to be done or omitted, constitute a sin of superstition if the response is expected from the demon. If the response is explicitly expected from God, there is the sin of tempting God, unless they are used from divine inspiration (as in the election of Matthias), or from a sufficiently grave cause of necessity or utility (where other ordinary means are lacking) and with prayer to God sent beforehand, as if someone, remaining at a crossroad in a matter of great moment, cannot otherwise determine himself as to the way.

3. Divinatory lots, which are used for obtaining knowledge of a hidden thing, are ordinarily a grave sin of superstitious divination: for lots have the power of manifesting a hidden thing neither from themselves nor from divine institution; therefore its manifestation is expected from the demon, although the demon is not explicitly invoked.

Ordinarily. Without doubt he commits superstition who, for example, by lots tries to divine what numbers are to be drawn in a lottery; but divinatory lots are not superstitious if they are used: a. from divine inspiration;⁴ b. from the intention of obtaining from God the manifestation of a hidden thing (in which case temptation of God can be committed); c. from mere jest or curiosity of seeing what in that case is designated by the lot, without faith being given to the thing.

¹ Cf. John 19:24.

² c. Ecclesiae fin., De sortilegiis (V. 21).

³ Prov. 16:33.

⁴ Cf. Josh. 7:14.

158. On the use of the divining rod. The divining rod (Zauberrute) is a rod cut from hazel (Haselnuss) or willow (Weide) which is used for finding hidden or lost things, indeed even for detecting men (murderers, thieves).

a. The use of the divining rod is certainly illicit if the rod is used so that it may move according to the intention of him who holds it in his hand: for if it were moved by natural force, it would be moved toward all things of the same nature.

Thus, if the rod of one seeking a boundary stone is moved only toward that stone, not likewise toward other stones, and the rod of one seeking water only toward water, not likewise toward metals, and conversely, it is moved according to the intention of the one seeking, not by natural force.

b. The use of the rod for seeking waters or metals is licit, especially if a protestation against diabolical influence is made.

He will scarcely err who attributes the motion of the rod placed in the hand of a certain determinate person to natural magnetic or electric forces, which are more abundantly contained both in the body of certain persons, and in the branches of certain trees (for example, peach), and in certain bodies (water, metals), provided that independently of the intention of him who uses the rod, it is moved only toward certain bodies (water, metals), and toward these bodies always in an equal manner.

Note. Of itself it is licit to use the power of a natural means which has been known through superstition, provided its efficacy does not depend on the influence of the demon: for a thing does not become evil from this, that it has been known in an illicit way.

¹ In this treatise on superstition there is presupposed what is demonstrated in dogmatic theology, namely that the demon not only of his own accord and spontaneously, even if he is not called, exercises a malign influence upon human affairs and harms men in various ways, but also, when called by men either explicitly or implicitly, produces various effects, as if by a pact entered into with them, as is established from the history of Job and of the magicians in Egypt. Although the common persuasion concerning the existence and influence of witches, which was spreading especially in Germany in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, must be rejected as vain and false and mourned as a most unhappy error, nevertheless it cannot be denied that there have existed, and even now can exist, wicked men who by the help of the demon manifest hidden things and effect unusual works. What in antiquity they strove to obtain through various divinations and observances, that today they strive to seek out through turning tables and spiritism; the name is different, the thing is the same.

¹ Cf. Fr. Spee, Cautio criminalis; Janssen-Pastor, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, Freiburg: Herder, 1894, VIII, pp. 494-694; I. Diefenbach, Der Hexenwahn, Mainz: Kirchheim, 1886; Stohr-Kannamuller, Handbuch der Pastoralmedizin, Freiburg: Herder, 1900, p. 425.

167. On turning tables. 1. All agree that consultation of tables, even if questions are proposed concerning merely indifferent matters, for example concerning the age of a determinate person, is altogether illicit, although it is done only for the sake of experiment: for it is manifest commerce with the demon, and indeed also superstitious divination, because by the very recourse to the demon some worship is exhibited to him.

2. Concerning simple rotation without consultation there is a twofold opinion, of which the one permits it, because it is not established that the rotation cannot be accomplished by natural powers; but the other prohibits it, because it is accomplished by preternatural powers and therefore is superstitious and diabolical: for consultation is for the most part joined with the rotation; but this consultation is diabolical; therefore also the rotation. Moreover they narrate that the rotation is impeded whenever a blessed thing is placed on the table.

3. Therefore in practice simple rotation, with a protestation against the influence of the demon premised, can of itself be permitted: for since it is doubtful whether the effect of the rotation is produced by natural or preternatural powers, it must rather be attributed to natural powers; indeed it is very probable that it is produced merely by electric or magnetic powers of nature.

a. From the fact that consultation of the table is for the most part joined with its rotation, it is indeed gathered that there is an easy passage from one to the other, because the demon uses a natural experiment in order to induce to superstition; but from the fact that consultation is diabolical, it does not follow that rotation, which is distinct from it and independent, is likewise to be attributed to the demon. The things which are added concerning blessed things are said by others, with experience as witness, to be false.

b. Nevertheless, the faithful are to be kept away from experiments of this kind, even if they are produced by the powers of nature, unless there is question of investigating the powers of nature, because the matter is not without danger. For it is explored that the demon gladly mingles himself with these things and impels to illicit divination.

168. Animal magnetism properly signifies the power which they thought to be in living bodies, similar to the magnetic power of the mineral magnet. Then it signifies the new art of curing diverse diseases by the help of animal magnetism. This medical art, from its inventor Franz Mesmer (+1815), is also called Mesmerism. In the course of time animal magnetism degenerated into a diabolical superstition. There is no reason why moral theology should speak more accurately about animal magnetism: for insofar as it is a medical art, hypnotism has succeeded into its place, concerning which there will be speech below; and insofar as it is a new superstition, it is now called spiritism.¹

Animal magnetism, insofar as it is a means of curing diseases under certain conditions and with due cautions, can be licitly employed;² but to degenerate magnetism are referred several responses of the Holy Office, by which the use of magnetism is said to be illicit, because through it a certain new genus of superstition is brought in from magnetic phenomena.³

¹ Cf. Kirchenlexikon, 2nd ed., "Magnetismus"; Gopfert, I, n. 390 ff.

² Holy Office, June 23, 1840; July 28, 1847.

³ Holy Office, April 21, 1841; July 30, 1856. These responses can be compared in Ballerini-Palmieri, II, n. 366 ff.

169. On spiritism.¹ First of all the system of spiritism must be distinguished from the phenomena of spiritism. The system of spiritism, which is a religious system plainly opposed to the Catholic religion and which the sect of spiritists professes, does not pertain to moral theology; but concerning the phenomena of spiritism the question is asked whether they can licitly be produced.

1. Spiritism (as it is considered here) is the art of communicating with spirits and, by their help, of knowing hidden things. Revelations of hidden things do not proceed immediately from the spirits themselves, but for the most part depend on persons who are called "media" or mediators, spiritistische Medien. These media, while the spirits use them to manifest their revelations, are occupied by artificial sleep or hypnosis.

2. Spiritistic phenomena are numbered as many and diverse, but especially revelations of diverse things, which for the most part are manifested to men by the help of media; sometimes also, with no visible person intervening, writing appears on a board or paper; indeed sometimes the evoked spirits themselves appear and respond to proposed questions, and when they are interrogated concerning their name, they affirm that they are now angels, now saints, but most often souls of the dead. Among these phenomena is found also what is called clairvoyance (Hellsehen): a spiritistic medium reads books of an unknown language, even if he has never learned letters; he discourses about things which otherwise he utterly ignores; he knows hidden things and even the secrets of the heart; he indicates the diseases of the sick and their remedies, etc.

There are those who say that spiritistic phenomena are nothing but fabulous inventions. It cannot be denied that spiritistic phenomena in many particular cases must be attributed either to frauds and deceptions, or to the art and dexterity of spiritists, or finally to the imagination of the media; but the same would be affirmed imprudently concerning all experiments. It is certain that many spiritists and their media are persuaded that they evoke spirits and really have commerce with them.

¹ W. Schneider, Der neuere Geisterglaube, 2nd ed., Paderborn: Schoningh, 1885; C. Gutberlet, Der Spiritismus, Cologne: Bachem, 1882; J. E. Wieser, Der Spiritismus und das Christentum, Innsbruck: Rauch, 1881.

170. Whether it is licit. Spiritistic phenomena are to be attributed to the demon; wherefore spiritism is nothing other than most foul magic, and in species superstitious necromancy. For spiritistic phenomena must be attributed not to a natural cause, but to a preternatural and intellectual cause; but this cause is nothing except an evil spirit: for God, the angels, and the saints do not cooperate with vanities and impieties of this kind; but the souls of the dead can neither licitly nor effectively be evoked by men; therefore nothing remains except that they be attributed to the demon, with whom spiritists enter into impious commerce. These things are confirmed from the responses themselves given by the spirits, which contain many vain and foolish things, indeed also things impious and contrary to the Catholic faith.

a. Therefore it is never licit to undertake spiritistic experiments, wherefore the Holy Office declares the use of spiritism illicit, even if every convention with the demon is excluded and commerce is instituted only with a good spirit: for by a protestation of this kind commerce with the demon cannot be removed, since it is contained in the very consultation of spirits.¹

b. It is not licit to serve as a medium in spiritistic experiments. For although spiritists think that they invoke not evil but good spirits, nevertheless in reality they invoke none but evil ones and exercise true magic. It is scarcely credible that subjectively they are excused from the exercise of sinful magic because of good faith; certainly it will happen only rarely.

c. It is not licit to be present at spiritistic experiments as a spectator, because of scandal and cooperation, even if approval of spiritism is excluded. Yet if someone from mere curiosity is present once or twice at experiments of this kind, with grave scandal excluded, he does not sin gravely; and if it is morally established that the spiritist is only a fraudulent deceiver, with scandal excluded, it is licit to be present at the spectacle.

¹ Holy Office, March 30, 1898. To this place must also be referred the responses by which animal magnetism is prohibited (n. 168).

We here suppose that the devil, a wicked spirit of great intelligence and power, but subject to God, exists and continually interferes in the affairs of men in order to ruin them. This truth belongs to the Catholic faith and cannot be denied without sin. The sin of divination is committed when the devil is invoked expressly or tacitly in order to discover what is secret and hidden. There is express invocation of the devil when his aid is expressly implored. The devil is tacitly invoked when altogether inadequate means are used to find out what is occult, means which are not sufficient for the purpose naturally, and which have not been ordained by God for that purpose. The devil is eager to be appealed to in order the more easily to attain his own ends, and anyone who uses such inadequate means to find out hidden secrets virtually appeals to the devil to help him. A great variety of such means of divination has been in use from the earliest times among all nations; and periods which have witnessed a decay of faith have also witnessed a recrudescence of these superstitions. The following are some of the better known methods of divination practised from the earliest times. The devil sometimes takes possession of the body of a human being and manifests what is secret through it; this was called pythonism. The devil had his prophets as God had. In necromancy the devil answers through the dead called to life again. At certain places he gave oracles through idols. Sometimes he communicated with men through dreams, In all the foregoing methods we have the express invocation of the devil. He is tacitly invoked when the lines of the hand are consulted as indications of the future, as is done in chiromancy; or the course of the stars, as in astrology; or the flight or song of birds, as in augury; or some chance event is taken as foretelling what is going to happen, as in omens.

Divination is mortally sinful, for it is a great insult to God to hold intercourse with and seek aid from the devil, his bitter enemy; and, besides, it is most dangerous to the parties concerned. He is wont gradually to insinuate himself until he has his victim within his power, and then he works on him his evil will. Such practices as those of divination are specially declared to be hateful to God in Holy Scripture: ‘‘ Neither let there be found among you anyone that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire; or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, nor charmer, nor anyone that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune-tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations he will destroy them at thy coming.”¹ Although tacit as well as express divination is grievously sinful of itself, yet it is frequently only venial on account of the ignorance and simplicity of those who indulge in it, or because they do not entirely believe that the future can be known by such methods, and they use them in joke or out of curiosity. In this way young people who consult gipsies or palmists are ordinarily excused from grave sin.

¹ Deut. xviii 10-12.

We know from Holy Scripture that almighty God has sometimes made known his will to men by means of dreams, and the devil, too, is able to fill the mind with his suggestions during sleep. If God in some rare instance uses dreams to make known his will, he should of course be lovingly obeyed. The suggestions of the devil, on the contrary, should be repelled and despised. We can distinguish between the two sources by observing whether the impulse received is towards good or evil, whether what is suggested is worthy of God, whether it tends to disturb our peace or leaves us tranquil and disposed to the service of God. Dreams have ordinarily a natural cause, but they are no indication of what the future will bring. We may not, then, guide our conduct by dreams; God has given us our reason and the Church to teach us what we should do; we must follow these and not dreams if we would act aright. Constantly to guide ourselves by dreams would be mortally sinful, to allow them to influence us occasionally and in matters of little moment would not be more than a venial sin.

There is no harm in casting lots to decide a doubtful claim; the parties merely agree to stand by what turns up by chance. It is superstitious and sinful to cast lots in order to discover some secret, or with a view to shaping one’s life according to the issue. Sometimes this method of deciding doubts has been adopted by holy men in consequence of an intimation received from God, or sometimes because no better way out of the difficulty appeared.

The use of the divining-rod under the belief that a stick of a special shape cut from a particular kind of tree or bush will point out hidden treasure, or mines, or springs of water, is superstitious and sinful. For it is certain that there is no natural force which acts in the arbitrary manner in which the divining-rod is said to act under the circumstances. It is not impossible but that particular individuals may be very sensitive to the presence of water or minerals even when hidden under the surface of the earth, and perhaps the frequent finding of springs by dowsers is partially to be explained in this way. Then by practice and experience a power of detecting the presence of underground water from the vegetation or other signs on the surface may be developed. There is also without doubt a great deal of fraud in such matters. Finally, the devil may sometimes intervene.

Modern spiritism is obviously the pythonism, necromancy, and other forms of divination which have been mentioned above. It is gravely sinful, therefore, to act as a medium or to consult one with a view to finding out something which is not known. Crystal-gazing, table-turning, the use of the planchette for occult purposes, is also divination and grievously sinful. It is not impossible that the movements of the table in table-turning and of the planchette are due to the unconscious action of the sitters. On this hypothesis it would not be unlawful to make experiments with a view to finding out the truth; divination comes in when by such means the sitters seek to discover what it is certain none of them knows, consciously or unconsciously.

It is well to bear in mind a remark which St Thomas Aquinas makes after St Augustine, that the devil wishes to excite among men a greater curiosity about occult matters “ so that being implicated in these observances, they may become more curious and get themselves more entangled in the manifold snares of pernicious error,””

I. Divination is superstitious observance which seeks knowledge of a future or hidden thing.

"It is called an oracle if it is done through idols; necromancy especially if through an apparent raising of the dead, for necromancy generally also comprehends other species of divination; oneiromancy if it is done through dreams; prestidigitation if through fictitious figures; haruspicy if through signs in the entrails of animals; geomancy if through a figure in the earth; hydromancy through a figure in water; aeromancy in the air; pyromancy in fire; astrology if it is done through the positions and movements of the stars; auspice through signs of birds; augury through signs of animals; omen if it is done through chance, for example through the meeting of a funeral, etc.; sortilege if it is done by lot, for example by opening a book, throwing dice" (St. Alphonsus, III, 6; St. Thomas, II-II, q. 95, a. 3).

Corollary I. The use of lots must be judged as follows:

1. Divisory lots, that is, those instituted for dividing things or composing disputes, are of themselves lawful, because they contain nothing except an aleatory contract (St. Alphonsus, III, 11).

2. Consultory lots, that is, those instituted for consulting God in a doubt about what must be done, "are lawful when the necessity and honesty of the cause demands it, and no more suitable mode of overcoming the doubt appears, provided they are done after prayer has been offered with due reverence, and judgment is expected from God alone; as, for example, if someone stuck at a fork in the road cannot otherwise determine himself concerning the way; or if they are done by divine instinct or command, as happened in the election of Saul" (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.; cf. 1 Sam. 10:20-21). In the cases set forth, an act of ordered trust in God is found.

3. Divinatory lots are those which, outside the cases comprehended under 2, are instituted for obtaining knowledge of a hidden thing, as if someone were to draw from the casting and arrangement of dice who is going to obtain victory. Such lots, since they are inept for obtaining knowledge of this kind, are superstitious (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

Corollary II. Consultation of soothsayers, that is, of those who manifest hidden or future things from cards or other things, is a grave sin: 1. if it is done seriously, even if only externally; 2. if the soothsayer acts seriously, even if only externally. For in this hypothesis the one consulting formally cooperates in a gravely evil act (St. Alphonsus, III, 10). But more often, for example during Carnival time, these things are not done seriously.

Corollary III. The use of a divining rod or of another instrument for detecting metals or waters is lawful, because the means seems apt for the intended end. The same must be said of telepathy, as it is called, that is, of the art of exploring the thoughts of others or other hidden things;¹ for it is by no means evident that the said art exceeds the powers of human nature (n. 597).

Corollary IV. One who gives some credence to a dream, and conducts himself according to it, is free from superstitious observance: 1. if it is at least permissible to suspect that the dream is from God; 2. if it is not evident that such a thing cannot be explained naturally, for example through telepathy. For the efficacy of natural powers is wonderful. How many effects are now ascribed to those powers which formerly were held certainly to be diabolical. Nevertheless, note in general that dreams themselves rarely come either from God or from the demon, but almost always from nature. "When God sends dreams, at the same time he also makes the man certain or nearly certain that they are sent by himself" (St. Alphonsus, III, 9).

¹ Cf. J. Zeehandelaar, Over de mogelijkheid van Telepathie.

I. Notion. Spiritism is the art, whether true or pretended, of evoking spirits and communicating with them. The evocation and communication ordinarily does not take place except through a medium, as it is called; and indeed this medium at the time of the communication is held in hypnosis induced by the spiritistic leader. As to the phenomena which are reported to have happened in spiritistic gatherings, it is certain that very many are frauds and are to be ascribed to the dexterity of the trickster or medium. Yet certain things seem to have taken place which seem to require diabolical intervention.

Definition of Divination.—Divination (soothsaying, fortune-telling) is a form of superstition in which the evil spirits are invoked explicitly or implicitly with a view to the discovery of what is future or occult.

(a) It is a form of superstition, because it seeks to obtain through natural means knowledge that cannot be had except from God, or substitutes other teachers for God.

(b) It contains the invocation of evil spirits, for the information sought surpasses the powers of nature and, being illicit, cannot be expected from supernatural powers that are good (such as God, the Angels, the Saints).

(c) The invocation is explicit or implicit. There is explicit calling on the evil spirits when one prays to the demon or makes an agreement with him; there is implicit invocation when one does not address an evil spirit, but does employ means for the discovery of knowledge which are not adequate, either from their nature or from the will of God, for the desired effect.

(d) The knowledge desired is of future or occult things, that is, of such things as cannot be foreseen in their causes or discovered by natural means (such as the future acts of free beings, the secret thoughts of the heart).

Distinction between the Fact and Sin of Divination.—(a) The fact of divination—that is, the actual manifestation by evil spirits of things humanly unknowable—is not impossible, since the demons are far superior to man in intelligence and knowledge, and it is the teaching of revelation that they use their powers to mislead and seduce mankind. Their knowledge, however, does not extend to future contingencies, nor to the secrets of hearts, and their word cannot be relied on. A case of real communication by an evil spirit is that of the girl of Philippi possessed by a pythonical spirit (Acts, xiv. 16-18), and some think that the same can be said of the Witch of Endor (I Kings, xxvii. 7-25); but no doubt there have been many instances of divination in which the intervention of demons was only imaginary.

(b) The sin of divination is committed when one has the will to receive occult knowledge from forbidden sources, or uses the means to obtain knowledge from those sources, even though there be no communication or response on the part of the spirits of evil.

Forms of Explicit Invocation.—Divination in which there is explicit invocation of the demon is of various kinds according to the medium through which instruction is given or expected.

(a) Thus, the medium is direct if it is an external sensible appearance representing the demon (praestigium) or an internal picture in the imagination or a dream containing his answer (oneiromancy).

(b) The medium is indirect and rational when it is a human being, dead or living. Divination through the evocation of the departed is known as necromancy, while that which is given through living possessed persons is called pythonism. Modern Spiritism partakes of the character of both necromancy (since the spirits of the departed are consulted) and pythonism (since persons supposed to be under the control of familiar spirits act as mediums).

(c) The medium is indirect and irrational when it is some solid body (such as iron, stone or crystal) in which figures or signs appear; idols from which oracles are received; tables or ouija boards from which answers are given by raps or writing; divining rods supposed to lead the way to any hidden person or thing, etc. (geomancy); or some liquid body (hydromancy), or air (aeromancy), or fire (pyromancy), or the entrails of sacrificial victims or natural prodigies, such as lightning (haruspicy). Here also may be mentioned the superstition of ordeal by fire, boiling water, combat, etc., once used to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person.

Forms of Implicit Invocation.—Divination in which there is only implicit invocation of evil spirits is manifold, just as the natural causes from which preternatural knowledge is expected are manifold. Among the principal forms are the following:

(a) that which is made from the human mind, when clairvoyance or clair-audience is employed. It is supposed that certain persons have the natural gift, at least when in a trance or hypnotic state, of perceiving what is done or said at a distance without any of the normal means of communication, and even of reading minds. This supposed inborn gift is sometimes called second sight or telepathy. Some authorities hold that there is sufficient evidence for vision at a distance as a sixth sense in certain individuals, especially among primitive peoples and persons bound by a tie of blood or intimate friendship. Moreover, many facts learned through telepathy seem to have been verified sufficiently to render telepathy probable. Accordingly, to believe telepathy or to practice it, excluding all superstition and invocation of demons, is not illicit.

(b) divination that is made from the human body in physiognomy, phrenology, and chiromancy. The physiognomist pretends that he is able to discover the hidden character, latent abilities or defects, secret thoughts, etc., by a study of the features or expression of the countenance. The phrenologist claims that he can read the mental and moral traits of a person from the bumps or prominences of the skull. The chiromantist, or palmist, promises to foretell the future, read the past, discover the present secret character and aptitudes of an individual from an inspection of the shape, lines and configuration of his hand and of the character of the lines and marks of his palms;

(c) divination that is made from non-human and necessary events in astrology. This pseudo-science gives predictions about the fortunes of an individual drawn from a study of his horoscope (i.e., the aspect of the heavenly bodies at the moment of his birth) and of certain rules of interpretation;

(d) divination that is made from non-human and contingent events in augury and auspice, which divine from the voices or manner of flight of birds; in omen or portent, which divine the future from some chance happening (such as meeting with a red-haired woman or a hunchback, a sneeze, etc.), in sortilege, which divines by lots or signs arbitrarily chosen (such as the letters that appear on opening a book at random, the numbers or figures that appear when cards are drawn or dice thrown). Superstitions about omens are of two kinds, some happenings being regarded as signs of good luck (e.g., to find a pin), others as signs of bad luck (e.g., to meet a black cat, to spill the salt, to break a mirror, to raise an umbrella in the house).

The Malice of the Sin of Divination.—(a) The Theological Species.—If there is explicit invocation of evil spirits, divination is of its nature a mortal sin that admits of no lightness of matter, for it gives divine worship to a creature, acts on friendly terms with the enemy of God, and prepares one for apostasy and eternal damnation. If there is no explicit invocation of the spirits of evil, the sin is of its nature mortal on account of the implicit commerce with the devil; but generally the sin will be light on account of the dispositions of the offender (e.g., because he is ignorant, or consults divination as a joke or from curiosity, or has no faith in it). Hence, the faithful should be warned not to go to fortune-tellers or put faith in dreams, but, apart from such cases as serious scandal, habitual direction of one’s life by superstition, cooperation in serious sin of a diviner, etc., the sin will usually be venial, at least in young people. Persons who occasionally act or omit to act in some indifferent matter on account of dreams they have had are often excused from all sin on account of the fear or hope which the dreams excited.

(b) The Moral Species.—All forms of divination, it is commonly held, belong to the same species of worship of a false god (Deut., xviii. 10-12). Yet, the confessor should be told about an explicit pact with evil spirits, if there was one, since thus he will be able to decide the gravity of the sin and to make inquiries about other sins that usually accompany such a pact (e.g., blasphemy, promise to serve the devil, sacrileges, etc.).

When Knowledge Is Obtained from God.—There is no sin of divination when knowledge is obtained from God.

(a) Thus, God can communicate directly in a vision or dream, and there are examples of this in Scripture, But generally one should not be guided by dreams as if they were means for supernatural knowledge, since nearly all dreams are produced by natural causes. It is not sinful to believe that a dream of an extraordinary kind (e.g., one in which the future is wonderfully foretold or a warning given, or which produces great spiritual good) was sent by God.

(b) God can communicate through other human beings, and hence it is not superstitious to put faith in the private visions or revelations that have been recognized by the Church, or that have the marks of genuineness required by the Church.

(c) God has sometimes communicated through the instrumentality of irrational beings or by means of portents. Thus, Gedeon took the words of enemy soldiers as a premonition of victory (Judges, vii. 15); Eliezer chose a sign by which to recognize the woman who should be the wife of Isaac (Gen, xxiv. 14); the ordeal of bitter waters was prescribed in Numbers, v. 11 sqq.; Josue discovered the guilt of Achan by lots (Josue, vii. 14), and St. Matthias was elected to the Apostolate by lots (Acts, i. 23-26). But these were exceptional cases in which men were inspired to consult God as they did, and it would be superstitious to seek knowledge in these ways against the will of God. Those who desire light and guidance should have recourse to the teachers God has provided on earth and should pray to God, leaving to Him the ways and means of His answer. Hence, the Church has declared it unlawful, even in private, to call upon the good spirits to give answers through automatic writing (Collect. de Prop. Fide, 1894), or to interrogate the dead at spiritistic seances (AAS, 1917, IX, 268). It is not superstitious, however, in a grave matter when there is no ordinary means of instruction at hand, to offer a prayer to God and then have recourse to lots to decide what course shall be followed (Prov., xvi. 33).

When Knowledge Is Obtained Through Natural Causes.—There is no sin of divination when knowledge of the future or of hidden things is obtained through proportionate natural causes or indications.

(a) Thus, knowledge of future happenings is naturally deducible from their necessary causes, when these causes are known. The effect may be predicted with certainty if the cause is so determined to one course that its result is invariable (e.g., the revolution of the earth around the sun always brings on the four seasons of the year); it may be predicted with the greatest probability if the cause is so constituted that almost always it has a certain consequence (e.g., a seed properly planted usually grows into a tree). Hence, there is no superstition in astronomical predictions, weather forecasts by meteorologists, tables of life expectancy drawn up by insurance experts, etc., since these are inferences from known scientific laws.

(b) Knowledge of hidden things is naturally deducible with more or less certainty from the presence of their known causes, or effects, or indications. Hence, a physician is not accused of superstition if he reasons out the character or phase of an internal disease from the symptoms that exhibit themselves. Moralists today generally agree that the use of the magic wand (divining rod, dipping rod, dowser) for the discovery of subterranean springs, mineral deposits, oil wells, etc., is not superstitious, although there is some difference of opinion and uncertainty about the cause of the phenomenon. It is true that many means of detection or discovery, supposedly scientific, are due to misunderstanding of scientific principles or of logic; but their authors, since they rely on natural causes, are guilty of ignorance or quackery rather than superstition.

Use of Lots.—Is it lawful to use lots in settlement of some business, when there is no intention to seek preternatural oracle?

(a) It is lawful to do this, if there is some reason of necessity or utility or amusement to justify the lots, and no injustice or prohibition of law. Hence, if there is no other convenient method of decision, one may use the drawing of straws or cards to decide how lands or goods shall be divided between claimants, or which of several competitors shall receive a reward or office.

(b) It is not lawful to do this, if there is a prohibition of law (e.g., ecclesiastical elections may not be made by lot), or if there is no necessity for the lots (e.g., it is at least foolish to use the Gospels for deciding by lot matters that could be decided by reflection), or if injury is done another person (e.g., to decide by lot when the merits of two contestants are unequal, to practise unfairness in the drawing).

What is divination? - Divination is defined as the tacit or express invocation of a demon for knowing hidden things. Tacit or express, because it can be done in a twofold way: either by expressly invoking that help of a demon, and it is called express, or by employing certain means, useless and ineffective of themselves, for imploring the aid of a demon, and it is called tacit. Here it must be noted that it is not required that the demon at some time have made a pact that he would concur with the use of some vain means. For by the very fact that someone knowingly uses means lacking all proportion to the end, he invokes in act the aid of the demon, who is accustomed to mingle himself in these things. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 95, aa. 1, 2; L. 5, 6, 8.

Of how many kinds is divination? - Divination is distinguished into several species, but only materially, by reason of the diverse means. The principal species of divination through express invocation of a demon are: 1. Pythonism, when namely a demon, occupying the body of some man or woman and emitting voices from there, discloses hidden things. 2. Vaticination, when a demon uses the work of pseudo-prophets to signify hidden things. 3. Necromancy, when a demon answers through the dead or through those called back to life. 4. Oracle, when a consulted demon, hiding in images, answers. 5. Prestige, when the demon himself strikes the eyes by apparitions. 6. Oneiromancy, when a demon discloses hidden things through dreams. 7. When he foretells hidden things through certain figures or signs which appear in inanimate things, "and indeed if these appear in some terrestrial body, say in wood or iron or polished stone, it is called geomancy; if in water, hydromancy; if in air, aeromancy; if in fire, pyromancy; if in the entrails of animals immolated on the altars of demons, haruspicy." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 95, a. 3.

Divination which is made without express invocation of a demon is twofold: one uses the dispositions of certain things; the other uses certain things which are seriously done by men for inquiring into something hidden. To the first pertain: 1. Chiromancy, as it were divination from inspection of the hand. 2. Physiognomy from the lineaments of the face. 3. Haruspicy from the entrails of animals. 4. Augury from the chattering of birds. 5. Auspice from their flight, position, feeding. 6. Astrology from the stars. 7. Geomancy, hydromancy, pyromancy, aeromancy from signs in earth, in water, in fire, in air. 8. Omen from words said without intention. But to the other pertains sortilege, as it were divination from lots, for example by considering what occurs to one opening a book, what one receives from slips secretly deposited, who throws more points of dice, what figure arises from melted lead thrown into water. "Thus therefore it is clear that there is a threefold genus of divination, of which the first is through manifest invocation of demons... the second is through the mere consideration of the disposition or motion of another thing... the third is when we do something so that something hidden may be manifested to us... but under each of these many things are contained." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 95, a. 3; L. 6; Struggl 20, 21.

Note: Natural effects must be carefully distinguished from free effects. For the former can often be conjectured, as, for example, from the song and flight of birds or from the aspect of the stars, weather, rain, or serenity of the sky, etc., is conjectured. For experience establishes that a natural connection exists among these things. But one must speak otherwise concerning the latter. A disposition or state of mind sometimes can in some way be conjectured from color of face, or other external signs, although in practice one should generally abstain from such conjectures, on account of the danger of rash judgment. But free acts, whether past or future, can never be known with certainty.

To divination is to be attributed whatever hidden thing is known in another way than through revelation or through natural means; for no other means is given for investigating hidden things. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 95, aa. 1, 7; q. 96, a. 2; L. 9, 10.

What kind of sin is divination? - Divination from its genus is mortal, both because it attributes divine honor to a creature, by wishing to know from it things known to God alone, and because society with a demon is a great contempt of God, a betrayal and apostasy from God, since the demon is his perpetual enemy. Hence the Apostle warns: I do not want you to become associates of demons. 1 Cor. 10:20; Deut. 18:10-12. Yet tacit divination can sometimes be excused from mortal sin on account of simplicity and ignorance, or on account of defect of certain faith. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 95, aa. 2, 4; L. 7; Suarez, de Relig., tr. 3, l. 2, c. 8, n. 15; Laym. l. 4, tr. 10, c. 3, n. 4; Struggl 19.

You will resolve: He is not free from grave fault who, using means disproportionate for some knowledge, protests that he intends no commerce with the demon; for he acts against his own protestation, and implicitly invokes the demon, since neither God nor an Angel mingles himself with such things.

Those sin gravely who ask soothsayers concerning their fortune or their future life, unless they act from simplicity, jest, or for the sake of curiosity, without giving faith to the sayings. Yet if the soothsayer acts seriously, they can with difficulty be excused from gravely culpable cooperation. Reuter 43; L. 8, 10; S. Th., Quodl. 3, a. 22.

Is it ever permitted to conjecture future things from dreams? - There are four kinds of dreams: 1. Natural, which have their origin from natural causes, for example, occupations or temperament of body. 2. Casual, which arise from the varied concurrence of phantasmal representations. 3. Those which are from God as author. Judg. 7:13; Dan. 2:19; Matt. 1:20; 2:12, 13, 19. 4. Those which have the demon as author. Deut. 18:10. Moreover, from natural dreams it is not superstitious to conjecture the present health of the body, or its future state, or even the manner and discipline of living, because among these there is a true and natural connection. Yet it would be superstitious to conjecture from them future freely contingent things, since these proceed only from the free and changeable will of man. From casual dreams it is superstitious to derive future things, because by the very fact that they are casual they cannot be accommodated for signifying any matter. Ecclus. 34:7. But he would not seem to sin mortally who, on account of a preceding dream, omits or performs an indifferent action; because this seems to proceed rather from a certain simplicity of mind, or excessive timidity, for example if someone should omit a walk because he dreamed that on it he would be treacherously killed on this or that day. Dreams which are certainly or more probably from God we can, indeed we are bound, says S. Alphonsus, n. 9, to believe, since God at times promised that he would speak in this way. Acts 2:17; Num. 12:6.

To believe diabolical dreams is mortal, unless ignorance or simplicity excuses, since it is to found truth upon a lie, and to enter into society with a demon. In this sense Scripture says: You shall not practice augury, nor observe dreams. Lev. 19:26. But whether a dream is from God or from a demon is difficult and dangerous to define. Struggl 24; L. 9; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 95, a. 6.

Note: The general rule for discerning whether dreams come from a demon is: if they impel to evil, or if one experiences himself disturbed and less prompt for good. But otherwise, if the dream impels to good, or one feels himself readier for it; nevertheless one must always proceed with humility and fear, since the devil often transforms himself into an angel of light. Struggl 25; L. 9.

Is astrology ever permitted? - Astrology is of two kinds, natural and judiciary. By the first, natural effects are predicted, some certain, others probable; by the second, freely contingent effects are foretold from consideration of the position and motion of the stars. Now natural astrology is licit, as is clear. But judiciary astrology is altogether illicit and superstitious, because heavenly bodies can do absolutely nothing upon man's free will. L. 10; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 95, a. 5. Those who, by judiciary astrology either by themselves or through others, have inquired concerning the state of the Christian republic are to be understood, from the Warnings for the Jubilee, as those who have inquired by the said Astrology concerning the life or death of the Roman Pontiff; their censures the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis preserved intact. Leo XIII, Const. Singulares, Kal. Nov. 1899; S. Penit., 20 Feb. 1900; E. M.

Is the use of lots ever licit? - Some lots are divisory, others consultory, others divinatory. Divisory lots, which are employed for settling disputes, etc., with both parties consenting, are licit, since they contain nothing superstitious, but are as it were a certain species of contract; and they are also approved in Scripture by these words: The lot suppresses contradictions. Prov. 18:18; 16:33. Except, by positive law, all elections to ecclesiastical prelacies and benefices, which ought to be made by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; this also holds concerning disputes about the same benefices. C. Ecclesia 3, de Sortil. Yet the doctors more probably judge that only this is forbidden, so that if the lot is used, the elections are illicit but valid. The reason is that nowhere are they declared invalid, if one election of a Prelate having jurisdiction is excepted. C. Quia propter, de Elect. Cf. Schmalz., l. 5, p. 2, t. 21, n. 38 seqq. Secular offices also are to be distributed not by lot, but according to the aptitude of persons; although among several equally apt and worthy persons, one can act by lot. Thus also, if several have deserved death, and it is not expedient that all be punished, it can be determined by lot who among them is to be killed. C. A. 835, 841; C. B. 659, 752; John 10:24.

Consultory lots, by which inquiry is made what should be done in this or that matter, are generally illicit, because they contain temptation of God and danger of diabolical fraud. Generally, for sometimes they are licit: when they are done by divine instinct or command, as happened in the election of Matthias, Acts 1:26; when necessity and honorableness of the cause require it, for example an urgent necessity of salvation, and no more apt mode of overcoming the doubt appears, provided they are done with prayer having first been made, with due reverence, and judgment is expected from God alone, and divine things are not turned to earthly affairs, etc. Divinatory lots, by which through the throwing of dice the knowledge of a hidden or future thing is inquired into, and this is sortilege, are in no way permitted, since neither from their own nature, nor from that of other things, nor from the institution of God or of the Church, does that casting of lots have any force for the aforesaid effects. Yet if God himself should impel one to cast a lot, which should scarcely ever be thought, then it will be licit, just as it was licit for Joshua when he used it to investigate the hidden crime committed by Achan. Josh. 7:14. "Moreover, if someone were to ask from God through lots the manifestation of hidden truth, such sortilege would not be superstitious, but a temptation of God, or another sin of irreligiosity, as Laymann teaches with Sanchez, n. 9." Struggl 26; L. 10, 11; S. Th., Quodl. 12, a. 35; 2. 2, q. 95, a. 8.

Is the use of the divining rod licit? - This rod, whose first mention, they say, was made in the fifteenth century, is from hazel and is forked. They use it for finding treasures, veins of waters, shifted boundaries of fields, thieves, murderers, etc. There are not lacking those who defend its use as natural; but deservedly this is commonly denied. For intention alone can contribute nothing to physical motion. Moreover the rod is moved according to the mind of the bearer, so that if he seeks metals, not water, the rod is not moved if it finds water, and conversely. Add that it remains unmoved in the hands of him who protests that he wills nothing superstitious, as examples prove. Yet it must not be denied that it can also happen naturally that some rod is moved toward one part rather than another; and thus it can serve for detecting waters or metals, namely by force of natural attraction, as is clear concerning the magnet. But then this happens constantly, and independently from the intention of the one using it, and never in matters moral, or insofar as they are moral, to be investigated, for example thieves. Hos. 4:12; L. 8; Albit., de Inconst. in Fide, c. 32, n. 26.

Beatrix, a nun, had a spiritual friendship with another nun, Sanctina. When she was now near death, Beatrix asked of her that, if it pleased God, she would reveal to her the state of her soul after her death. With her hand stretched out toward the Crucifix, Sanctina nodded with her head. But, when Sanctina had piously died in the Lord, Beatrix immediately began to be disturbed by scruples; whence, approaching the confessor, she manifests the matter to him. You have acted very badly, the confessor responds; for, in these matters, the devil is accustomed to mingle himself. For it is not licit to inquire into things which God wills to be hidden, according to that saying of Eccl. 3:22, Do not seek things higher than you. But God wills the state of the soul after death to be hidden; which is clear from this, that when the rich man asked that Lazarus be sent to his living brothers, this was denied, as is said in Luke 16:29. Beatrix, more disturbed by this response, asks her Superior that before night she call Fr. Thomas, her extraordinary confessor; otherwise she certainly will not be able to sleep quietly and in peace.

Q. What will the extraordinary confessor be able to respond to Beatrix?

R. Fr. Thomas will be able to respond with that which St. Thomas would respond, Quodl. 3, a. 22. "I respond that it must be said that, since sin is against nature... to seek the fulfillment of a natural desire is not a sin, unless some disorder is added, as is clear in the taking of food and drink. But man naturally desires to know. Hence, if he seeks knowledge of some thing, it is not a sin, unless perhaps by accident, that is, through some disorder added; for example, if through the study and inquiry of some science someone is impeded from those things to which he is held to attend; for example, if a preacher is impeded from the office of due preaching on account of the study of geometry; or also, if someone seeks to know something, trusting proudly and presumptuously in his own ability; or if some other disorder of this sort should happen concerning this. But no disorder seems to be in this inquiry, if someone should seek from one dying to know his state after death, nevertheless submitting this to divine judgment. Hence no reason appears why this ought to be said to be a sin, unless perhaps he inquires from a doubting of faith concerning the future state, as though tempting.

But to that which is objected to the contrary, it must be said that God wills many things to be thus hidden from us, knowledge of which we cannot acquire by our own powers or merit; which nevertheless he wills to be revealed to those asking humbly and piously, according to that saying, Matt. 2:25, You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent; and have revealed them to little ones. Hence it is not marvelous if God was unwilling that some things be revealed to the proud brothers of the proud rich man, which nevertheless he wills to be revealed to the faithful asking piously and humbly."

"He does not sin gravely," says La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 18, "who enters into an agreement with another, that the one dying first appear to the survivor, God permitting this, being about to warn the other concerning things pertaining to salvation; for in this he intends to know nothing by the aid of the devil. Nevertheless there could be venial sin present on account of curiosity or danger of deception."

273. • A few years ago (especially the years 1852-53-54), first in America, then in all Europe, indeed in the whole world, the most astonishing portents of rotating tables became widely known. In the beginning tables, or even any other movable things, were seen to turn in a circle, while they were touched by the joined fingertip of those standing around. But soon tables appeared which, one or the other foot being raised on high, by striking the ground and by other signs exhibited responses to those questioning; and not long afterward they satisfied questions also about things entirely unknown, or future, or even accomplished outside the present life, by writing on paper placed beneath, by the help of an attached pen.

Then astonished pious men, who perhaps at first had thought that in rotating tables there was a merely physical phenomenon, undoubtedly recognized a diabolical work and an infernal divination. Nor was there any delay: that practice of interrogating tables was condemned by several Bishops as full of superstitions and dangers.

274. • And indeed whatever may be the case concerning the simple motion of tables, which at some time could seem physical ¹, provided it is not made at the command of the will, the other effects, so astonishing, are in no way to be attributed to the powers of material nature, but wholly to a cause endowed with intellect. For does anyone propose questions to a wooden or marble table, and expect a response from the same? There is no one who would be so insane; and therefore the common persuasion deservedly prevailed that the matter is conducted with spirits, by whom the tables themselves are moved; and for this reason they were called knocking spirits (esprits frappeurs). Now those spirits cannot be good spirits; for it would be blasphemous to assert that Angels or Saints, enjoying eternal happiness, intervene in these childish games of men, obey their vain will, and satisfy their most foolish curiosity. Moreover it would be asserted entirely impiously that God, who abominates divination and has prohibited it so severely, permits that the citizens of heaven serve it. Therefore spirits of this kind must be called evil spirits, cursed by God eternally, who continually lay snares for men. Now is it not horrendous to have such fellowship with unclean spirits, to invoke them with prayers, and thus to exhibit true worship to them? Is not that the crime of divination, which was prohibited by God as a great abomination?

¹ That certain persons wished to inquire, indeed to direct all the powers of their mind to this, that they might assign these phenomena to some natural cause, if any could be found, could perhaps be attributed to praise. But that seriously at last they attributed effects of this kind to powers exerted from the extremity of the fingers, either on account of imperceptible impulses of the nerves, or on account of the motion of an artery, or on account of some imagined magnetic force (all of which indeed were afterward repudiated even by those who first devised them through empty conjectures), and that not a few, otherwise sensible men, seemed to admit these things as in some way plausible - this indeed it is uncertain whether it brings more grief or shame to our age. To these vain fantasies indeed it is really due that the common people did not receive prestiges of this kind with the horror with which it was fitting, and being childishly delighted with them as with a kind of game, opened wide access to a more notable fraud of the demon, namely of giving responses through tables, more stupid even than the stupid pagans themselves, by as much as it is a grosser stupidity to have expected some response from wooden tables than oracles from Pythian seers.

275. • Moreover, how many terrors of soul, how many detractions and calumnies concerning the neighbor, how many dissensions and disgraces of families, how many errors and apostasies from the true Faith, how many dangers of eternal salvation have arisen from this impious and pestiferous divination! Yet it must be acknowledged that not absolutely all things which are attributed to tables are true. Sometimes human fraud has crept in for deceiving the simple. But in so great a number of portents of this kind, very many are altogether undoubted, since they have been proved by most approved witnesses worthy of all faith. Although sometimes fraud was present, nevertheless where the thing is conducted as true, this in no way excuses from crime.

Nor is it right to interrogate tables or other things of this kind for the sake of experiment or jest. For it is not lawful to attempt an experiment in a thing evidently evil, nor to amuse oneself concerning it. And to this indeed pertains that excellent saying of St. Peter Chrysologus: He who wishes to jest with the devil will not be able to rejoice with Christ. - V. Casus, n. 271.

Concerning this matter see, among other things, the work of D. de Mirville, whose title is: Des Esprits et de leurs manifestations fluidiques.

282. • Behold a recent superstition, but the worst of all, which in this age has arisen from Orcus for the destruction of souls.

For almost a whole century the monstrous plague of magnetism had raged throughout the whole world. Subsequently the phenomena of rotating tables came forth and became widely known; by various motions these gave responses to questions proposed to them concerning hidden things, and also concerning the state of souls of the dead. Soon the tables were silent, or a little afterward, or in these our times, namely from the year 1862, demons who had deceived men through the predictions of sleepers and afterward through the responses of tables, mock and lie in wait for them through pythons or intermediary persons themselves (they call them mediums).

But the consultation of spirits is had in this way: You go to a python, to whom you signify what you desire to know concerning matters wholly hidden, especially those pertaining to the other life. By him, with you present and hearing, some spirit is interrogated, as if it were some soul which had already migrated from this life, for example the soul of your father, mother, sister, etc. From the responses which are given, you could by no means doubt that you truly have a conversation with most dear deceased persons. For those persons report very many things to you, and indeed things known to you alone, but wholly unknown to others; indeed the responses are issued in their very style. This superstition, much worse than the former ones, smells still more of heresy and impiety; for it overturns the unshaken dogmas of our Faith, especially the eternity of the punishments of gehenna. For the dead, when questioned concerning their present state, respond that they are already blessed, or soon to be freed from punishments, although they do not deny that they have been sunk into hell.

From what has been said, it is sufficiently clear that the consultation of spirits is diabolical, and is properly called divination so severely prohibited by Sacred Letters.

Those who consult spirits, or Spiritists, in order that they may more easily spread their pestiferous error, at the persuasion of the devil have coalesced into a sect, which day by day grows especially in great cities.

Now it is not only gravely illicit to consult and interrogate spirits concerning hidden things, but also to be present at a consultation even merely passively, since it is a sin of cooperation in a thing intrinsically evil. - V. Casus, n. 277. et seq.

See more concerning the consultation of spirits, in various little works recently published, especially On Spiritism, by the Rev. Fr. Nampon, of the Society of Jesus. The Dead and the Living; Conversations on communications from beyond the tomb, by the Rev. Fr. Matignon, S. J. Magnetism, Spiritism, and Possession; Conversations on spirits, by Fr. Pailloux, S. J.

906. 1. Historical overview. In our age, under the name of magnetism or spiritism, many phenomena have been made public, concerning which it can be inquired whether they are diabolical or not.

(a) The principal promoter of animal magnetism is recognized to be Anthony Mesmer, a Viennese physician, who around the end of the eighteenth century, seeking new modes of curing, thought that he had found a marvelous means in a certain most subtle fluid, which is similar to magnetic fluid, and is supposed to flow from the bodies of animals, indeed to pervade absolutely all bodies. His disciples developed his system, especially Puysegur and J. Braid.¹ There are especially three phenomena attributed to magnetism, which are produced either by gestures of the hands, or by magnetized substances, or even by the simple nod of the will expressed in words: convulsions, and various physiological effects which are diverse according to the diverse condition of the sick; a certain state of paralysis and catalepsy, in which the members become rigid and sensibility vanishes; magnetic sleep, in which the magnetized person, although deprived of the use of the senses, nevertheless sees, hears, and speaks, indeed knows marvelous things which before were unknown to him, and perceives actions which are done secretly or far away. - Hypnotism soon succeeded magnetism; its phenomena were described above, n. 134.

¹ Cf. Deleuze, Histoire critique du magnetisme animal, Paris, 1813; Puysegur, Memoire pour servir a l'histoire... du magnetisme, Paris, 1830; J. Braid, Neurypnology, or the Rationale of Nervous Sleep, London, 1843; A. Wood, What is Mesmerism, Edinburgh, 1851; Heidenhain, Animal Magnetism, London, 1880; Perrone, De Virtute Religionis, n. 400 sq.; Encyclopaedia Britannica, word "Magnetism animal"; Gasc-Desfosses, Magnetisme vital, Paris, 1897; Surbled, Morale, t. IV, ch. 6. - Concerning diabolical obsession and possession we spoke in De Deo Creante, n. 95-99. Sometimes, however, certain facts similar to obsession are mere hallucinations. Cf. Veronnet, La possession diabolique, in Revue du Clerge francais, t. XXXVII (1904), p. 570, and t. XXXIX, p. 423.

907. (b) Modern spiritism² had its origin in the Federated States of America. Already in the year 1832, three boys playing, with a hand placed upon a certain table, made it rotate, and practice of this kind immediately was diffused far and wide through America. But in the year 1848 a new phase of the same thing began in a little town of the State of New York, called Hydesville; namely, in the house which the Fox family, of the Methodist sect, inhabited, knocks and noises were heard: indeed amazed, but not terrified, two young girls who lived there, thinking that a spirit was present, asked from it that it would respond by distinct blows; and this indeed succeeded in such a way that a little afterward they became mediators between spirits and persons who wished to communicate with them. Sometimes also various utensils of the house were thrown here and there, whether in closed rooms, or in the presence of the Fox family. From this the matter became frequent not only in America but in all Europe, and in the years 1852-1854 became common. Everywhere it was noted that the principal phenomena occurred only when certain persons were present; these persons are called media or mediators, since the phenomena are produced only through their mediation. Nor do individual media have equal force or aptitude for accomplishing them, but some are more skilled than others; besides, the same media do not seem equally apt for producing the same effects in any session whatever, but succeed more or less according to various circumstances. - Moreover there were diverse forms of spiritism: for sometimes spirits gave responses through rotating tables, either by striking various blows, or by writing with the help of a pen or stylus, or by the hand of the medium; but sometimes there was a direct evocation and apparition of spirits. All these things indeed were accompanied by various mechanical phenomena, for example of levitation, by which the laws of nature concerning the gravity of bodies seemed to be suspended; luminous phenomena, with flashes and splendors suddenly appearing; or even by noises imitating the whistling of winds or the roar of waters; or by harmonious sounds imitating human voices; physiological phenomena, namely the vital functions being more or less disturbed, but especially the nervous system being more or less shaken and as it were exhausted. Yet it must by no means be doubted that very many frauds have intervened in all these things, and it is often difficult to distinguish the true from the false.³

² E. W. Capron, Modern Spiritualism, Boston, 1855; Edmonds and Dexter, Spiritualism, New York, 1854-57; Allan Kardec, Le livre des esprits, Le livre des mediums, Paris, 1864-1865; O. Brownson, The Spirit Rapper; Crookes, Researches on the Phenomena of Spiritualism; Encyclopaedia Britannica, word "Spiritualism"; E. Meric, Le Merveilleux et la Science, Paris, 1887; id., L'imagination et les prodiges, Paris, 1905; E. Dupouy, Sciences occultes et physiologie psychique, Paris, 1898; Surbled, Spiritualisme et spiritisme, Paris, 1898; Gibier, Le Spiritisme, Paris, Doin, 1904; Grasset, Le Spiritisme devant la Science, Paris, Masson, 1904; Maxwell, Les Phenomenes psychiques, where the phenomena observed by him are described methodically and accurately. - L. Denis sets forth modern theories of spiritism, Christianisme et spiritisme, Paris, Leymarie, 1903; id., Apres la mort.

³ For not a few of the persons who boast that they are media try to deceive not only the simple, but also the learned; others, who are truly media, use frauds to amplify the phenomena which they produce. Cf. Proceedings Soc. for Psych. Researches, VI, p. 253; XIII, p. 45; Maxwell, op. cit., p. 116 and 256-312. Thus, concerning the Fox sisters, certain American physicians said: "The double raps were produced by a rapid movement of dislocation and relocation of the knee" (Maxwell, op. cit., p. 258).

908. 2. Principal phenomena. Among the phenomena which have been scientifically weighed and are thought to be free from fraud, these especially can be enumerated:

(A) Physical phenomena: (a) the noise of a table, whose foot, raising itself and afterward descending, strikes the earth and thus gives responses; these motions and noises sometimes occur not only when the bystanders extend their palms over the table, but also when they have already withdrawn from it.⁴ Sometimes also a rotating table strikes one or another of the bystanders. (b) Objects fixed to the walls, or those which are in the room, fall or are moved confusedly, not without great noise; after some time, all return to their former state.⁵ (c) Sometimes a stool or table, where the medium sits, is raised into the air (which is called levitation), without any cause of motion appearing.⁶ (d) Not rarely flames or lights of diverse color appear in a dark room.⁷ (e) Sometimes human hands, feet, a head appear; indeed, although rarely, an entire human body, ordinarily clothed in long and broad garments, walking, speaking with those present, which leaves a photographic impression of itself, either in paper, or in wax or gypsum, and otherwise can be touched:⁸ these phenomena are called materializations of spirits, because they are thought to be the bodily apparition of some spirit or of the soul of one deceased. But many are persuaded that these spirits are nothing other than human persons who are called media, clothed with special garments and masks; that the matter is thus has been discovered in some cases.⁹

⁴ Maxwell, op. cit., p. 67-85.

⁵ Maxwell reports facts of this kind observed by trustworthy witnesses, op. cit., p. 232-255. To this belong the phenomena which are called haunting, haunted house, concerning which see E. Dupouy, op. cit., p. 273-309; Surbled, Hantise, in Science Catholique, 1899; Civilta cattolica, Serie XVIII, vol. III and IV.

⁶ Maxwell, p. 87-92.

⁷ Maxwell, p. 118-146.

⁸ Maxwell, p. 135-162 and 209-212. - Especially celebrated is the apparition, for three years, of the spirit who called herself Katie King; the very well-known W. Crookes described her various manifestations, who affirms that he observed not a few differences between the bodily form of this spirit and the medium, namely Miss Cook. Apud Dupouy, op. cit., p. 216-231. Yet certain persons think that the most learned Crookes was deceived: thus Davis, op. cit., p. 39-90; the same author explains, p. 224, how in New York those who wish to deceive the common people by apparitions of spirits are taught.

⁹ Cf. Davis, op. cit., p. 163 sq.

909. (B) Intellectual phenomena. By the blows of a rotating table, or by the writing of the medium, or even by conversation with the same, certain hidden or secret things can be known. (a) Sometimes facts are manifested which occur in a distant place, for example the illness or death of some person;¹⁰ at other times objects are detected which had been lost or placed in a hidden place. (b) Often indifferent things and things little connected among themselves are brought forth; not rarely false things are mixed with true.¹¹ (c) Generally the responses given are accommodated to the mind, disposition, and dispositions of those present; if they are Christians and devout, nothing is said against religion, but rather the doctrine of Christ and worship toward God are commended. But if impious or unbelieving persons are present, certain Catholic dogmas are denied, especially the eternity of punishments, the indissolubility of the matrimonial bond; the name of God is retained, but a little afterward pantheism is proposed.¹² Finally, when men of little honesty are present, shameful things are sometimes brought forth and commended. - But whether secrets of hearts and future events are revealed with certainty is not so certain; for the alleged facts seem to some to be nothing other than those things which probably can be detected or foreseen from things already known.

¹⁰ Dupouy, op. cit., p. 115-126 and 140-143, 151-173; Gurney, Myers, Podmore, op. cit.

¹¹ Maxwell, op. cit., p. 202-212; 242-255.

¹² This is clear, for example, from the works edited by Allan Kardec, Le livre des esprits, Le livre des mediums.

910. 3. Various opinions concerning the cause of these phenomena. Although certain persons still deny most of the facts hitherto described, today they are rather commonly recognized as true by many even unbelievers, except however apparitions of spirits, as is clear from the authors cited, not a few of whom admit no revelation. Nevertheless they are explained in diverse ways:

(a) Some say that all these things are merely natural, although the same cannot be scientifically explained because of the limits of modern science; but as science progresses, the natural reason for these things will at last one day be manifested.¹³ (b) Others, on the contrary, hold that at least the principal and almost all facts of this kind must be attributed to the devil;¹⁴ for, on the one hand, they not only go beyond the laws of nature, but also often contradict them; on the other, they cannot be ascribed either to God or to the good angels, since ridiculous, false things, contrary to faith and morals, are often found mixed with them; therefore they must be attributed to the devil alone.

¹³ Thus, among others: A. Maury, La magie et l'astrologie dans l'antiquite et le moyen-age, Paris, 1864; C. Richet, Preface to the already cited work of Maxwell; Gibier, op. cit.; M. de Rochas, Les etats profonds de l'hypnose.

¹⁴ Franco, L'hypnotisme remis a la mode, Paris, 1891; id., La nouvelle theorie de la suggestion, Paris, 1892; Ch. Helot, Nevroses et possession diaboliques, Paris, Bloud, 1897.

(c) Between these two extremes, not a few Catholics are found who ascribe many of these phenomena to the laws of nature, and only certain ones to a supernatural agent, whose nature, in any case whatever, ought to be judged from the circumstances, according to the laws of the discernment of spirits.¹⁵ And we assent to these. For since new laws of nature, or at least new applications of the same, are detected daily, and on the other hand supernatural agents usually intervene rarely, a fact often occurring can be held as natural, probably at least, as long as the contrary is not morally certain. Ferraris had already wisely observed this.¹⁶

¹⁵ Thus Meric, Le merveilleux et la Science, and in the periodical La Revue du monde invisible; Coconnier, L'hypnotisme franc; P. G. Moreau, L'hypnotisme, etude scientifique et religieuse, Paris, 1891; Guibert, Etude sur l'hypnotisme; Surbled, Spirites et Mediums; id., Les Frontieres du surnaturel; Lescoeur, La Science et les faits surnaturels contemporains, Paris, Roger, 1900; P. de la Barre, L'ordre de la nature et le miracle; P. Grasset, L'hypnotisme et la suggestion, Paris, 1903; id., Le spiritisme devant la Science, 1904.

¹⁶ Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, word "superstitio."

911. 4. The more probable opinion is proposed. (A) Moreover the opinion which we defend seems clearly to be inferred from various responses of the Holy Office concerning magnetism.

Thus, on June 23, 1840, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, to the question whether magnetism, taken generally and in itself, ought to be considered licit or illicit, responded: "Every error, sortilege, and explicit or implicit invocation of the demon being removed, the use of magnetism, namely the mere act of applying physical means otherwise licit, is not morally forbidden, provided it does not tend to an illicit end, or in any way depraved. But the application of principles and means purely physical to things and effects truly supernatural, so that they may be physically explained, is nothing but an altogether illicit and heretical deception."¹ From this it is clear that not every species of magnetism (say the same of hypnotism) is condemned, but only that by which effects truly supernatural are expected from merely physical means. Moreover what those supernatural effects are is declared in the Encyclical of the Holy Office, issued on Wednesday, July 30, 1856, and sent to all Bishops: "Although by this general decree the licitness or illicitness in the use or abuse of magnetism is sufficiently explained; yet the malice of men has so increased that, neglecting the licit pursuit of knowledge, and rather pursuing curious things, with great loss of souls and detriment to civil society itself, they boast that they have obtained a certain principle of soothsaying and divining. Hence, by the tricks of somnambulism and clear vision, as they call them, little women, carried away by gestures not always modest, babble that they see all invisible things, and undertake discourses about religion itself, evoke the souls of the dead, receive responses, detect unknown and distant things, and rashly presume to exercise other superstitious things of this kind, certain to obtain great gain for themselves and their masters by divining. In all these things, whatever art or illusion they may finally use, since physical means are ordered to non-natural effects, there is an altogether illicit and heretical deception, and scandal against the honesty of morals."²

¹ Collectanea S. C. de Prop. F., n. 1743.

² Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. I, p. 177; Collectanea, n. 1754.

912. (B) But if we descend to particulars, these things can be established:

(a) When there is question of merely physical phenomena, such as rotations of tables, blows, various motions even of levitation, they are not to be attributed to a preternatural agent, unless it is morally certain that these same things, from various circumstances, evidently contradict the laws of nature. For many today probably think that there is in the human body, especially of certain persons in whom the nervous system preemininently stands out, a certain fluid, analogous to the magnetic or electric fluid, which can be projected outwardly and influence surrounding objects, either by immediate contact, or by mediate contact transmitted through the ether;³ and thus, at least hypothetically, the blows and movements of rotating tables can be explained.

³ To the point S. Cox, apud Davis, op. cit., p. 293: "The theory of psychic force is simply to recognize a fact almost indisputable under some respects, but still imperfectly known under others. This fact establishes that at an indefinite distance from the body of certain persons, having a special nervous organization, there exists a force producing, without the aid of muscles, a particular action capable of giving motion or making solid substances move, and of producing sounds in these same bodies."

913. (b) The same can be said concerning intellectual phenomena which do not transcend the intellectual powers of those present and of the medium; for if, under the influence of the medium, responses are given, they certainly do not proceed from the table itself, nor necessarily from a supernatural agent, but only from the very mind of the person who, by force of the fluid emitted by him, directs the motion of the table. - On the contrary, however, if the phenomena denote knowledge of things which surpass the capacity either of the medium or of those present, they ought to be attributed to a supernatural agent; such are, according to the Roman Ritual, "to speak with many words in an unknown tongue, or to understand one speaking; to disclose distant and hidden things; to show powers above the nature of one's age or condition; and other things of this kind, which, when several concur, are greater indications." From this it follows that generally not one of these indications suffices for producing moral certainty, but several are desired. As to speech in an unknown tongue, it is not enough, in a state of feverish excitement, to recite certain words which were heard formerly, but it is necessary that someone indubitably show that he has suddenly learned or truly understands a language which he by no means knew. As to distant and hidden things, it is not enough to conjecture them, or even to see something about them in a certain state of hyperesthesia;⁴ but, if things which can be known only by revelation or inspiration are distinctly manifested, such as secrets of hearts, future events, and indeed not conjecturally, but with certainty, this must be ascribed to a supernatural agent. But what kind of agent this is cannot be defined except from all the adjuncts, from object, end, and circumstances, by investigating whether all these things tend to good or to evil.

⁴ For certain facts of telepathy or clear vision, which occur transiently in a state of hyperesthesia (that is, abnormal sensibility), are not wholly certain indications of supernatural intervention.

914. 5. Practical conclusions. Whatever may be the case concerning the nature and cause of these phenomena, these things seem to be established in practice:

(A) The faithful are carefully to be turned away from the use of magnetism, hypnotism, and spiritism for the sake of mere curiosity; for it usually disturbs the nervous system and prepares the way for neurasthenia and hysteria, concerning which above, n. 130-131; besides, it favors superstition, and turns the mind away from the practice of true religion, insofar namely as those who are addicted to these extraordinary things neglect the ordinary duties of Christian life as too common; not rarely it stirs up dissensions between persons and families, by spreading suspicions or defamations; sometimes it also harms good morals, insofar as young persons of different sex are present at these gatherings, and seek responses from the medium which are less honorable.

915. (a) Hence, on July 1, 1841, the use of magnetism was declared illicit, as it was being expounded by the Bishop of Lausanne; and among other things this was being expounded:⁵ the magnetized person, who is generally of the female sex, questioned about her own illness and the illness of persons absent and entirely unknown to her, although evidently unlearned, most accurately states anatomical matters; she points out the cause, seat, nature of internal diseases in the human body, which are most difficult for experts to know and define, and unfolds their progress, variations, and complications, and this by proper terms; often also she exactly pronounces the duration of the said diseases, and prescribes the simplest and most efficacious remedies. If the hair of an absent person is placed against the palm of the magnetized woman, she immediately declares whose hair it is, where the person to whom it belongs now is, what he is doing, and discusses his illness no otherwise than if, after the manner of physicians, she herself were looking within the body. With covered eyes she can read a book or manuscript, open or closed, placed upon the head or stomach. - Deservedly indeed the use of such magnetism was prohibited, since, from the things set forth, it is very dangerous and can be attributed either to fraud or to the devil; in either case the simple are deceived, are made prone to vain superstitions, and, while they intend to be cured, can contract graver diseases.

⁵ You have the complete petition apud Gury-Ballerini, n. 280.

916. (b) The indiscriminate use of hypnotism likewise is illicit, because, as physicians admit, unless it is cautiously applied by honorable and skilled men, it brings in almost the same dangers as magnetism in both the physical⁶ and moral order, insofar namely as the hypnotized person, losing the use of reason for some time, depends wholly, as to the exercise of his own activity, upon the nod of the hypnotizer and is subject to his dominion. But if it is applied within its own limits, without any intention of rashly knowing hidden and future things, by physicians or physiologists, both skilled and honorable, with due caution, and for a grave cause, it is not in itself illicit.⁷ For, according to Catholics who have investigated these things, hypnotic phenomena which are certain do not seem to go beyond the powers of the natural order; on the other hand, the temporary privation of the use of reason can be permitted for a grave cause, as indeed sleep induced by ether is permitted; moreover abuses which can arise from this can be forestalled by due caution; indeed some utility can arise from the prudent use of hypnotism, not only as to the cure of diseases, but also as to the correction of depraved habits: for experience shows that certain young men, given to drunkenness and lust, have been corrected somewhat by mental suggestion prudently applied.⁸ Therefore hypnotism is not illicit in itself, but, as dangerous, is to be applied only cautiously. - Besides, the good effects described above are produced more prudently, without disturbance of the nerves, by suggestion in the state of wakefulness.⁹

⁶ Grasset, L'hypnotisme, p. 352-369; Coconnier, op. cit., p. 155-158.

⁷ Lehmkuhl, n. 994, note 1; Ballerini-Palmieri, n. 365; Coconnier, p. 260 sq.

⁸ Coconnier, op. cit., p. 215 sq. - In truth, the Holy Office, July 26, 1899 (Collectanea, t. II, n. 2061), responded that new experiments can be tolerated, after a protestation that one wills to have no part in preternatural facts has been made, provided danger of scandal is absent, and there is not question of facts which certainly go beyond the forces of nature.

⁹ Cf. Grasset, La Psychotherapie, in Revue des Deux Mondes, Sept. 15, 1905, p. 350.

917. (c) But spiritism, or the evocation of spirits, when it truly happens, is a superstition illicit under grave sin; for good spirits are not accustomed to appear to men, unless they are sent by God for promoting His glory; therefore, if sometimes spirits seem to favor human curiosity, they certainly are not good, but evil. Hence it is necessary to exhort the faithful that for no reason, not even from curiosity, should they assist at gatherings where the phenomena of spiritism are exhibited. And so the Holy Office, on April 24, 1917, declared that it is not licit, through a Medium or without a Medium, hypnotism being applied or not, to assist at spiritistic manifestations, even those bearing before themselves the appearance of honesty or piety, even with tacit or express protestation that one wills to have no part with malign spirits.

918. (B) But if there is question of expert men who wish scientifically to weigh psychic and biological phenomena, so that, insofar as can be done, the laws of nature may be better known, they certainly can carry out those experiments which are necessary for the scientific investigation of the matter, provided supernatural intervention is not sought, and provision is made for the modesty and health of the media.

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.

1. ORIGIN.—The varied and mysterious processes and phenomena of nature place man before a multitude of riddles. Science has succeeded in clearing up some of these, but many more remain unexplained and give rise to superstitious notions and fears. Instead of awaiting further reliable information, credulous persons are prone to attribute the things they cannot understand to preter- or supernatural causes. They honor and revere these mysterious powers, endeavor to obtain their aid, try to fathom them in order to turn them to their own advantage, either by obtaining remedies or preventives for disease or by peering into the future.

2. DIFFERENT KINDS OF SUPERSTITION.—The principal species of superstition in the natural order are the following: a) Ordeals (iudicia Dei sive divina), a form of superstition wherein supernatural aid is invoked in the place of evidence, as in trial by fire, water, poison, or battle. This was formerly conceived as an immediate appeal to the judgment of God. There were various forms of ordeal. The hand was plunged into boiling water, a red-hot iron was carried nine paces, etc. If no injury appeared after three days, the accused was declared innocent.¹

b) Divination (divinatio) is the pretended forecasting of future events by means of the stars (astrology), or the lines of the hand (chiromancy, palmistry), or the bumps of the skull (phrenology), by signs or omens (augury), the laying of cards, the study of meteorological conditions, and the interpretation of dreams.²

¹ Knight, England, Vol. I, ch. 8, p. 33; A. Franz, Das Rituale von St. Florian, pp. 180 sqq.; IDEM, Die kirchlichen Benediktionen, Vol. II, pp. 307 sqq.

² St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 95, art. 1: “If anyone presumes in any manner to foretell or foreknow future things of this kind, unless God reveals them, he manifestly usurps for himself that which belongs to God. . . . Therefore it is not called divination if someone foretells those things which happen by necessity or for the most part and which can be foreknown by human reason, nor even if someone knows other contingent future things through God’s revelation; for then he does not himself divine—that is, do what is divine—but rather receives what is divine. But then alone is he said to divine when he unduly usurps for himself the foretelling of future events. This is established to be a sin. Hence divination is always a sin. And for this reason Jerome says (In Mich., l. I, c. 3) that ‘divination is always taken in a bad sense.’”—Cfr. 2a 2ae, qu. 96, art. 3, ad 2; Slater, II, 220 sq. Frequently divination, express as well as tacit, is only a venial sin on account of the ignorance of those who indulge in it, or because they do not entirely believe that the future can be known by such methods and use them in joke or out of curiosity. In this way young people who consult astrologers or palmists are ordinarily excused from grave sin.

Astrology is nearly as old as the human race.^* At all times there have been men who believed that the “stars,” particularly the planets, not only foretell, but also influence the future. The astrologer gives his judgment by finding the position of the planets at a given moment (for instance, at birth). The child born when Mars was in the ascendant will be of a warlike temperament, and so forth. All the planets, they say, have an influence on human life and must be taken into account. But several planets, e. g., Uranus and Neptune, were unknown when astrology was in flower. Thus all past horoscopes must have been wrong. And yet astrologers have their clients to-day.

^* B. C. A. Windle, “Astrology,” in the Cath. World, N. Y. 1922, Vol. CXVI, No. 691, pp. 76–81; F. O. Wedel, The Medieval Attitude toward Astrology, Yale University Press, 1920.

Palmistry does not confine itself to the comparative study of hands, which would be harmless, but proceeds to divination from the lines or marks of the palm. Here, again, we are in touch with an ancient superstition of the East. In China palmistry is said to have existed three thousand years before Christ. The gypsies brought it to Europe in the sixteenth century. As the marks on the hand are caused by the mechanical arrangement of the bones and sinews, it is hard to see how people can be led astray by the claims of the palmists, who in some countries are punishable under the law as vagabonds.^* As to phrenology, while it is true that the brain is the organ of the mind, we know very little about their mutual relations. Modern medical science condemns phrenology as quackery and tells us that the grey matter on the surface of the brain cannot be mapped out into thirty or forty areas corresponding to mental or moral qualities, such as intellectual acumen, benevolence, veneration, etc. The outer table of the cranial bones does not accurately represent the contour of the brain surface; the thickness of the skull varies in different individuals; in short, the “brain bumps” mean nothing. An expert on the brain sums up the case against phrenology in these words: “Psychology, physiology, and experience alike contribute to discredit the practical working of phrenology and to show how worthless the so-called diagnoses of character really are.”^*

c) Magic is the pretended art of producing preternatural effects by bringing into play the action of supernatural beings, of departed spirits, or of the occult powers of nature. To this category belong the supposed arts of witches, the use of amulets, magic salves and lotions, talismans, “chain-prayers,” etc. d) Another form of superstition is belief in the efficacy of occult remedies and so-called sympathetic cures by means of mysterious personal or moral influences, etc.³

^* J. Nestler, Lehrbuch der Chiromantie, Leipsic 1922.

^* G. E. Smith, The Old and the New Phrenology, London, 1924.

³ A. Hartung, Die Sympathie als Heilmittel, 3rd ed., Leipsic 1900; E. M. Zimmer, Kräutersegen, 2nd ed., Donauwörth 1902.

We do not, of course, mean to say that the use of so-called secret remedies is always superstitious and therefore forbidden. Nature contains curative powers which Science has not yet fully investigated and cannot explain. The intimate connection existing between the soul and the body gives rise to a personal influence of one man over another which can be utilized for the benefit of the sick. So also the application of prayers and sacramentals for the healing of diseases is not necessarily superstitious. The belief or practice becomes superstitious only when there is a tendency to ape the doings of the Church, or an attempt to influence the patient by mock ceremonies, etc.

Divination in all its forms is per se mortally sinful, because, in the words of Father Slater, “it is a great insult to God to hold intercourse with, and seek aid from, the devil, His bitter enemy,” who is invoked either expressly or tacitly whenever men try, by inordinate means, to find out what is secret and hidden.

The same writer pertinently recalls a remark which St. Thomas makes after St. Augustine, and which should always be borne in mind when there is question of the practices with which we are here dealing. It is said that the devil wishes to excite among men a greater curiosity about occult matters, “so that, being implicated in these observances, they may become more curious and get themselves more entangled in the manifold snares of pernicious error.”⁴

⁴ Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 96, art. 2 sq.; Slater, I, 220 sq.

e) Among the abnormal conditions that invite superstitious practices are somnambulism, magnetic sleep, and hypnosis.⁵ These states generally involve an increase of intellectual acumen on the one hand and a dangerous limitation of will-power on the other. Their nature is not yet sufficiently cleared up, though Science has shown that they need not be traced to supernatural or diabolical causes. Hence it is superstitious and therefore sinful to assume such causes and by means of them to try to obtain supernatural effects, elicit revelations, or pry into the future.

⁵ E. L. Fischer, Der sogenannte Lebensmagnetismus oder Hypnotismus, Mayence 1883; L. Haas, Ueber Hypnotismus und Suggestion, Augsburg 1894; A. Moll, Der Hypnotismus, 3rd ed., Berlin 1895; L. Schütz, Der Hypnotismus, Fulda 1897; Th. M. Coconnier, O.P., L’Hypnotisme Franc, 2nd ed., Paris 1898; O. Stoll, Suggestion und Hypnotismus, 2nd ed., Leipsic 1903; J. Lapponi, Ipnotismo e Spiritismo, 2nd ed., Rome 1906 (Engl. tr. Hypnotism and Spiritism, N. Y. 1915); K. Hasert, Gedankenlesen, Hypnotismus und Spiritismus, 2nd ed., Graz 1906; A. Forel, Der Hypnotismus, 5th ed., Stuttgart 1908; G. v. Doss, Der Hypnotismus, Halle 1907.

£) Hypnorism.—The question has been raised whether it is permissible to put a person into a hypnotic sleep even when no superstition is involved and the danger of abuse is reduced to a minimum. The hypnotic state is a partial sleep of the motor side of the nervous system and of portions of the sensory nerves. While certain of the higher intellectual powers are quite awake, liberty of action is diminished, if not entirely suspended. Granting that no one can be hypnotized against his will, the further question arises whether one may give his consent to be put into this state, which is but another way of asking whether a man:is allowed to renounce his will and place it completely under the control of another. There can be no doubt that such an experiment may be justified by an exalted and important purpose, such as scientific research, provided, of course, all danger of abuse is excluded and no injury is to be feared for one’s health. The same rule applies to attempts at curing disease by means of magnetism and hypnotic suggestion, as long as the necessary moral precautions are ob- served and the danger of abuse is excluded. A conscientious physician, in applying these means, will, in his own interest, if for no other reason, insist upon the presence of reliable witnesses.

It goes without saying that a priest, on account of the seal of confession, may not allow himself to be hypnotized or magnetized or put into any state in which he loses the full control of his will.

The use of hypnotism or hypnotic suggestion for the purpose of reforming moral perverts has not yet been sufficiently explored to enable the moralist to declare it permissible.⁶ Pierre Janet, Fére, Grasset, Binswanger, and other competent writers are sceptic on the subject. It is quite generally admitted that organic diseases cannot be cured by hypnotism, but that its influence extends only to functional diseases of the nervous system. Even these hypnotism does not cure radically, but merely alleviates certain particularly unpleasant symptoms, and that only for a time. It can offer no guarantee against their recurrence. Moreover, its effects upon the nervous system are not entirely devoid of danger. The intellectual dependence of the patient and his suggestibility are apt to be increased. The firmness with which he will resist immoral suggestions depends, as in the dream state, upon the character and self-control exercised when awake. Re- peated hypnotizing increases the suggestive power of the influence proceeding from the hypnotizer.⁷

⁶ A. Forel, Der Hypnotismus und die suggestive Psychotherapie, 4th ed., Stuttgart 1902; F. Walter, Der Aberglaube, pp. 242 sqq.—A decision of the S. Congr. of the Holy Office, of June 23, 1840, and July 28, 1847, says: “With every error, divination, and explicit or implicit invocation of the demon removed, the use of magnetism—namely, the mere act of employing physical means otherwise lawful—is not morally forbidden, provided it does not tend to an unlawful or in any way evil end. But the application of purely physical principles and means to truly supernatural things and effects in order that they may be explained physically is nothing but an altogether unlawful and heretical deception.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1653).

⁷ See the famous Jesuit review, Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, Vol. LXX (1906), pp. 457 sq.

g) SPIRITISM.—Closely allied with animal magnetism and hypnotism is Spiritism, which is therefore commonly treated under the same general heading by theologians and in the decisions of the Roman Congregations. Spiritism may be defined as the belief that the living can and do communicate with the spirits of the departed and receive certain information from them. Though Fr. Thurston has recently tried to justify the use of the name Spiritualism for this movement, we agree with Dr. Pace that Spiritism “should be carefully distinguished from Spiritualism, which is the philosophical doctrine holding, in general, that there is a spiritual order of beings no less real than a material, and, in particular, that the soul of man is a spiritual substance.”⁸

⁸ Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 221.

a) This is not the place to describe the phenomena of Spiritism or to give an account of its history. In some form or other it is as old as the human race.⁹ Modern Spiritism dates from the year 1848, when the Fox family, at Hydesville, N. Y., first began to hear strange “knockings,” and then received messages. Catherine and Margaret Fox were the first “mediums.”¹⁰ Since then the phenomena have multiplied and there are hundreds, nay thousands of mediums in all civilized countries receiving “messages from the other world.” Modern Spiritism has passed beyond the limits of a merely popular movement and challenges the attention of scientists, among whom it has brought about serious divisions. For those who denied the existence of a soul distinct from the body it was a foregone conclusion that there could be no communication between the dead and the living. This view derived plausibility from the innumerable cases of fraud which were brought to light upon closer examination of the methods employed and of the mediums themselves.¹¹

⁹ W. R. (“Dean”) Harris, Essays in Occultism, Spiritism, and Demonology, St. Louis, 1919; Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Necromancy,” Vol. X, pp. 735 sqq.

¹⁰ On Horace Greeley’s view of their doings (he knew them well), see H. Thurston, S.J., A Sober Condemnation of Spiritualism, London 1920 (C. T. S. pamphlet).

¹¹ Dr. Pace in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 222.

β) The phenomena of Spiritism are partly physical and partly psychical. The physical phenomena appear as effects produced in physical substances and often occur in connection with external objects. They may be divided into two groups, one of which includes mainly such effects as locomotion, counteraction of gravitation, and percussion, or, in general, the application of a seemingly physical force to objects, while the others embrace phenomena suggesting a more profound alteration in physical nature or implying the conveyance of intelligence by physical means.¹² The phenomena of the first group consist of movements of inanimate objects, apport, change in weight, levitation, touches and sounds, while the second group includes elongation, ability to touch burning substances, production of inanimate substances, materialization, impressions, spirit-photography, direct spirit messages, spirit voices, etc.

¹² J. Liljencrants, Spiritism and Religion, p. 45, New York 1918,

The psychical phenomena show a different aspect. They are of the mental order and can be verified only from the accounts of those who claim to have experienced them. Automatic writing and speaking constitute the main and most interesting phenomena of this group. γ) That some of the physical as well as psychical phenomena of Spiritism are real, admits of no doubt. Even Dr. Liljencrants, who tries to explain most of them by an appeal to automatic activity, secondary personality, subliminal memory, telepathy, and so forth, acknowledges it to be “possible that in individual cases there has actually been present an influence from a spirit world,” and that this element must be diabolical, since “the assumption that God would allow departed human beings, whether in a probationary state or after they have attained their super- natural end, to cause the phenomena presented by Spiritism, is . . . preposterous.”¹³ That the devil, with the permission of God, can produce such phenomena is a thesis which can be theologically demonstrated. All Catholic theologians who have treated of the subject uphold the view that where a preternatural element is found in Spiritism, it is to be referred to evil spirits and not to departed human souls.¹⁴

¹³ Op. cit., pp. 268 sq.

¹⁴ Op. cit., p. 269.

δ) This unfavorable view is confirmed by the character of the alleged spirit messages and by the fact that such eminent modern Spiritistic writers as Sir Oliver Lodge and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle herald these messages as a “New Revelation,” which contradicts the old in all its vital points. Mr. J. Godfrey Raupert summarizes the content of this “New Revelation” from the writings of its principal prophets as follows: The New Revelation claims to be divine and authoritative. It asserts that man has not fallen into sin; that the Incarnation and death of Jesus Christ were in no sense an atonement; that death does not fix man’s destiny, but the undeveloped soul, after being separated from the body, passes into a temporary penal state, which becomes a means of its development and education.¹⁵ These teachings, as the same writer points out, are wholly subversive of historical Christianity and therefore must come from some one who is a liar and a deceiver.¹⁶

¹⁵ The New Black Magic and the Truth about the Ouija-Board, New York 1919, pp. 19 sqq.

¹⁶ Op. cit., pp. 24 sq.

ε) The evil tendency of modern Spiritism was perceived from the beginning by the Church authorities. As early as June 25, 1840, the Congregation of the Inquisition, having animal magnetism in mind, decreed as follows: “Where all error, sorcery, and invocation of the demon, implicit or explicit, are excluded, the mere use of physical means which are otherwise lawful, is not morally forbidden, provided no unlawful or evil results are intended. But the application of purely physical principles and means to things or effects that are really supernatural, in order to explain these on physical grounds, is unlawful and heretical.”¹⁷ This decision was reiterated on July 28, 1847. A further decree, issued on July 30, 1856, after mentioning discourses about religion, evocation of departed spirits, and “other superstitious practices,” exhorted the bishops to put forth every effort for the suppression of these abuses, “in order that the flock of the Lord may be protected against the enemy, that the deposit of faith may be safeguarded, and that the faithful may be preserved from moral corruption.”¹⁸ On March 30, 1898, the Holy Office condemned Spiritistic practices, even when intercourse with the demon was expressly disavowed and communication sought with good spirits only.¹⁹ On April 24, 1917, the same sacred Congregation forbade even passive assistance at Spiritistic séances.²⁰ A little later the question was proposed, whether it was permissible to take part in any Spiritistic communications or manifestations, even of a genuine and reverential nature, either by interrogating “souls” or spirits, or by listening to their answers, or as a simple spectator, tacitly or expressly protesting that one wishes to have nothing to do with malign spirits. The answer was, “Negative in omnibus.”²¹

¹⁷ Cfr. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 224.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Liljencrants, Spiritism and Religion, p. 280.

²⁰ Op. cit., p. 281.

²¹ Text of the decree in the Ecclesiastical Review, August, 1917, p. 186, and in Liljencrants, op. cit., p. 281.

Whether this decree forbids laboratory work with entranced persons, if conducted without reference to spirits of any kind, is doubtful.²²

²² Liljencrants, op. cit., p. 281.

The basic malice of Spiritism is to be found in its opposition to the virtue of religion. It explicitly attributes to creatures what belongs to God. ‘There is another and secondary objection to Spiritistic practices, and that is, that they presuppose explicit or implicit commerce with the devil.²³

²³ J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Vol. I, 9th ed., pp. 247 sq.

h) THE OUIJA BOARD.—This is a simple con- trivance, by means of which messages are obtained that have the appearance of coming from the spirits of the dead. According to Mr. Raupert,²⁴ who is thoroughly familiar with its workings, the ouija board (also called planchette), in the beginning, before the mind of the experimenter has attained any great degree of passivity, gives out messages which are wholly normal and drawn from the slightly awakened subconscious mind. Sometimes the messages appear to come from an independent personality, such as the spirit of a deceased friend or relative. But so long as the statements made contain no matter foreign to the mind of the experimenter, and no answer to a question that might not have been projected from the subconscious storehouse of his own mind, there is no valid reason for assuming the presence of an outside intelligence. In proportion, however, as the mind becomes more passive and lethargic, the phenomenon begins to change its character, and imperceptibly passes from the natural into the preternatural. Here and there a message is jerked in, which is startling and seen at once not to be a part of the experimenter’s mental outfit. Events happening at a distance are accurately reported and commented upon, disclosures are made respecting the character and doings and intimate personal af- fairs of persons not known to the experimenter. Messages are given, clearly and conclusively indicating knowledge and information beyond the reach of the writer’s own mind, and they are conveyed in a form and manner suggesting the presence of a critical and observant mind and of a judgment quite at variance with that of the experimenter. When further questions are asked, the answer generally is that the spirit of some departed friend or relative is present, that he has discovered this simple means of communication, and is eager to cultivate intercourse with the living for the benefit of the experimenter and of the human race at large.

²⁴ The New Black Magic, pp. 207 to 234.

The experimenter, fascinated by these communications, and convinced that he has come upon a great and valuable discovery, readily adopts the advice given and resorts to the ouija board habitually and systematically. . When trust and confidence have been secured, the spirit will slowly begin to undermine the Christian belief of the experimenter, deny the divinity of Christ, the authority of conscience, and the reality of the judgment to come. It will feed the mind with empty platitudes, very acceptable to the natural man, but ultimately in contradiction with the fundamental truths of the Christian religion.

Perhaps the most conclusive proof that the spirits communicating through the ouija board are evil is to be found in the physical, moral, and mental effects which the practice has upon the experimenter. Mr. Raupert sums up the testimony of many scientific students of the subject in a series of paragraphs of which the following is the gist: Persons habitually and systematically using the ouija board, or planchette, or similar automatic devices for obtaining spirit messages, after a time experience a peculiar condition of lassitude and exhaustion, often accompanied by severe pain at the top of the spine and gradually spreading over the entire brain. This state of prostration is attributable to the fact that in order to obtain the movements of the board, vital or nerve energy is withdrawn from the organism of the experimenter, often out of all proportion to his or her physical health and constitution. In professional mediums, who practice their power incessantly and for pecuniary gain, this prostration is apt to be so great that they become complete nervous wrecks after a time. The inexperienced experimenter scarcely ever attributes this condition to the true cause, and it is difficult to convince him that a practice seemingly so harmless, could be attended by such bad effects. If the experiments are continued, the general health begins to fail, there manifests itself a kind of apathy and weariness which unfits the person for the ordinary duties of life, deprives him of all interest in them, and is only relieved by the ouija board. Communication with the “friends” in the unseen world now becomes the one exciting and all-absorbing interest and occupation to which all other duties and interests are subordinated. In proportion as physical vigor, and with it the power of resistance, decline and passivity and apathy increase, the “spirit” gains closer access to the mind, directs and influences its operations, and, in course of time, obtains complete control of it. The mind becomes more and more susceptible to suggestion and less and less able to discriminate and resist. The messages come with greater regularity, but their moral tone declines. They become distinctly immoral and mischievous in aim and character. The Christian law is ridiculed and Christian customs and practices are declared to be old-fashioned and out of date. As the “psychic development” advances, the entire mental and moral nature of the experimenter becomes disordered, and he discovers to his cost that, whilst it was an easy thing for him to open the mental door by which the mind could be invaded, it is difficult if not impossible to expel the invader and shut that door. The final result is a pitiable condition of mental and moral collapse, which often terminates in suicide or insanity.

Mr. Raupert merely echoes the warning of such truly scientific and thoroughly well informed scholars as Dr. Mercier in London, Dr. Viollet in France, and the late Dr. Lapponi in Italy, when he cautions against these practices as dangerous to mental and moral health.²⁵

²⁵ Ibid., p. 233.—Father Hubert Gruender, S.J., the well-known psychologist, author of An Introductory Course in Experimental Psychology (Chicago, 1920), explains the first stages of the workings of the ouija board as follows in an article contributed to The Queen’s Work, St. Louis, Mo., August, 1920, Vol. XII, No. 8, pp. 198 sqq.: “In the first stage the person handling the ouija board has no intention to spell out a definite answer to a given question, but he expects a definite answer or he is afraid that a certain answer will be given. In other words, the writing is involuntary but conscious. Under these conditions the heart-shaped table or planchette on the ouija board moves apparently of itself and pulls the hand along. As a matter of fact, however, the hand really pushes the planchette, and invariably in the direction of those letters or signs which are in accord with the expectations or fears of the operator. Involuntary movements of this kind are due to what may be appropriately called the ‘motor power’ of images. What is meant by the phrase is simply: When we imagine a familiar movement of our body—that is, if we recall how such a movement feels, or how it looks, or how it sounds, these images tend to produce the movement itself. I say they tend to do so; for by an act of the will we can inhibit the gross movement. But the initial movement—the first beginnings of the movement—will occur in spite of ourselves. These initial movements are so slight that they cannot be detected by an ordinary observer. Under laboratory conditions, however, they can be detected with precision. . . . When persons have become accustomed to the use of the ouija board they develop gradually another form of automatic writing. They write not only involuntarily but unconsciously, or, more correctly, subconsciously. In other words, persons in an advanced stage of passivity and mental lethargy communicate by means of the ouija board thoughts which exist only in the subconscious background of their minds and which they could not communicate under normal conditions. . . . There are always a foreground and a background in our conscious experience.” The thousand objects of sense which we see, hear, and feel without being aware of the fact (as the ticking of a clock while we are reading or conversing) “are lost to us as far as our normal conscious experience is concerned,” but “they are not entirely lost. They make an impression on our brain. However faint the traces may be which such impressions leave on the brain, the record is there. And under favorable conditions these experiences can be brought to light again just as truly as a phonographic record can be used to reproduce the musical sounds which made the record. It is particularly under abnormal conditions that such subconscious experiences are revealed. . . . In the case of the second form of ouija-board writing . . . there is a brain record of experiences which never reached the focus of attention; there is the abnormal lethargic condition of the operator of the ouija board, made habitual by long continued dabbling in the mysterious; there is the motor power of images; the neural current discharges into the motor tracts, which lead in the first case to the muscles of the vocal organs, and in the other case to the muscles of arm and hand. . . . Sometimes for persons in this stage of ouija-board writing the images of the words to be spelled out become so vivid as to amount to real hallucinations. Such persons then hear voices. What they write is dictated to them by some mysterious agency. They experience an irresistible impulse to write, and then the ouija board works overtime. When it comes to this, such persons are ripe—or will soon be ripe—for the insane asylum. And this is another danger connected with operating the ouija board. Many of its victims do actually end in the insane asylum.”—See also H. Carrington, The Problems of Psychical Research, N. Y., 1921, pp. 247 sqq.

i) The rarer phenomena of clairvoyance, by which scenes and events passing at a great distance are seen, or by which an ignorant medium shows knowledge not possessed in the normal state, is by most theologians attributed to preternatural causes. “It seems impossible,” says Fr. Slater, “that natural forces should be able to produce effects altogether beyond their range.”²⁶

²⁶ A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, p. 223.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 92–93; 95–96.—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 1–11; 14–28.—H. Th. Simar, Der Aberglaube, 2nd ed., Cologne 1879.—J. B. Wirthmüller, Die moralische Tugend der Religion, pp. 608 sqq., Freiburg 1881.—F. Walter, Aberglaube und Seelsorge, Paderborn 1905.—W. Fischer, Der Aberglaube aller Zeiten, Paderborn 1906.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Compendium Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 9th ed., pp. 235 sqq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 11th ed., pp. 164 sqq.

On ORDEALS: F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, p. 516.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., I, p. 292.—J. P. Kirsch, art. “Ordeals” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, pp. 276 sqq.—A. Franz, Die kirchl. Benediktionen im Mittelalter, Freiburg i. B., Vol. II, pp. 307 sqq.—Vacandard, Études de Critique et d’Histoire Religieuse, Paris 1905, pp. 19 sqq.—Patetta, Le Ordalie, Turin 1890.

On Divination: H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 166 sqq.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 237 sqq.—J. P. Graham, art. “Divination” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. 48 sqq.—F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, pp. 507 sqq.—E. Müller, Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 242 sqq.

On MAGIC: Suarez, De Religione, l. II, c. 14.—P. Laymann, Theol. Mor., l. IV, tr. 10, c. 4.—J. von Görres, Die christliche Mystik, Ratisbon 1842, Vol. IV, 9th book.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 177 sqq.—J. Diefenbach, Der Hexenwahn, Mayence 1886.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 239 sq.—J. P. Arendzen, art. “Occult Arts” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, pp. 197 sqq.—Andrew Lang, Magic and Religion, London 1910.—Habert, La Magie, Paris 1908.—Kiesewetter, Geschichte des neueren Okkultismus, Leipsic 1891.—Thorndyke, The Place of Magic in the Intellectual History of Europe, New York 1905.

On HYPNOTISM: L. Haas, Ueber Hypnotismus und Suggestion, Augsburg 1894.—A. Moll, Der Hypnotismus, 3rd ed., Berlin 1895.—L. Schütz, Der Hypnotismus, Fulda 1897.—T. M. Coconnier, O.P., Le Hypnotisme Franc, 2nd ed., Paris 1898.—A. Forel, Der Hypnotismus, 5th ed., Stuttgart 1908.—G. v. Doss, Der Hypnotismus, Halle 1907.—G. Surbled, art. “Hypnotism” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 604 sqq.—Gregory, Animal Magnetism, 4th ed., London 1896.—Wetterstrand, Der Hypnotismus und seine Anwendung in der praktischen Medizin, Vienna 1891 (tr. New York 1897).—J. Lapponi, Ipnotismo e Spiritismo, 2nd ed., Rome 1906 (Engl. tr. Hypnotism and Spiritism, New York 1915).—G. Surbled, La Morale dans ses Rapports avec la Médecine, Vol. IV, Paris 1891.—IDEM, Pour ou contre l’Hypnotisme, Paris 1898.—O’Malley and Walsh, Essays in Pastoral Medicine, New York 1906, pp. 120 sqq.—A. E. Sanford, Pastoral Medicine, ed. by W. Drum, S.J., New York 1905, pp. 155 sqq.—J. Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, 4th ed., Vol. II, pp. 18 sqq., Rome 1920.—E. B. Barrett, S.J., “The Meaning and Use of Hypnosis” in The Month, Vol. CXLI, No. 705 (March, 1923), pp. 209–218.—IDEM, S.J., The New Psychology, London 1925, pp. 265 sqq. mus und das Christentum, Ratisbon 1881.—C. Gutberlet, Der Spiritismus, Cologne 1882.—IDEM, Der Kampf um die Seele, 2nd ed., Mayence 1903, pp. 498 sqq.—W. Schneider, Der neuere Geisterglaube, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1895.—J. Dippel, Der neuere Spiritismus, Munich 1897.—E. Meric, L’Autre Vie, 14th ed., Paris 1920.—F. Walter, Der Aberglaube, pp. 301 sqq.—G. Dumesnil, Le Spiritualisme, Paris 1905.—E. Meric, L’Imagination et les Prodigés, Paris 1906.—A. R. Wallace, Miracles and Modern Spiritism, London 1897.—G. Surbled, Spiritualisme et Spiritisme, Paris 1898.—IDEM, Spirites et Médiums, Paris 1901.—Bennett, Spiritualism, New York 1907.—H. Carrington, The Physical Phenomena of Spiritism, Boston 1907.—A. Ph. F. von Schrenck-Notzing, Materialisationsphänomene: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der mediumistischen Teleplastie, Munich 1914 (English by E. E. Fournier D’Abbe, under the title, The Phenomena of Materialization: A Contribution to the Investigation of Mediumistic Phenomena, London 1920).—W. Whately Smith, The Foundations of Spiritualism, London 1920.—Hudson Tuttle, Arcana of Spiritualism: A Manual of Spiritual Science and Philosophy, Manchester 1900. —F. Podmore, Modern Spiritualism, 2 vols., London 1902.—IDEM, The Newer Spiritualism, London 1910.—E. A. Pace, art. “Spiritism” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 221 sqq.—J. G. Raupert, Modern Spiritism, St. Louis 1912—IDEM, Dangers of Spiritualism, London 1914.—IDEM, The New Black Magic, New York 1919.—J. Liljencrants, Spiritism and Religion, New York 1918.—Elliott O’Donnell, The Menace of Spiritualism, London 1920.—W. R. (“Dean”) Harris, Essays in Spiritism, Occultism, and Demonology, St. Louis 1918.—Jos. Sasia, S.J., A Safe View of Spiritism for Catholics, San Francisco 1920.—T. J. Hardy (Anglican), Spiritism in the Light of Faith, London 1920 (to be used with caution on account of its bias against the Catholic Church).—A. M. Lépicier, O.S.M., The Unseen World: An Exposition of Catholic Theology in its Relation to Modern Spiritism, 2nd ed., London 1909.—J. Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, Vol. II, 4th ed., Rome 1920, pp. 1 sqq.—A. T. Schofield, Modern Spiritism, Philadelphia 1920.—Hereward Carrington, The Problems of Psychical Research, N. Y. 1921.

Superstition in the preternatural order, which we have to some extent already anticipated in the last Article, is of a twofold kind, according as it concerns man’s relation to the demons or to the souls of his departed fellowmen.

1. SUPERSTITION IN REGARD TO MAN’S RELATION TO THE DEMONS.—a) Undoubtedly this form of superstition draws sustenance from the theological belief in the existence of demons, from the possibility and reality of their influence upon mankind, and from the deep-seated conviction existing in the minds of men that evil spirits exercise extraordinary power. Nevertheless it is not true to say that this kind of superstition is a by-product of Christian angelology; rather is it an unconquered relic of paganism,¹ and consequently, like superstition itself, much older than the Christian Church. Wherever Christianity has not yet penetrated, this particular kind of superstition takes the form of a distortion of Catholic teaching. For this reason it is a mistake to try to eradicate it by simply denying the existence of the devil and his kingdom. Only by propagating the undiluted truth concerning Satan and his work can this spiritual malady be overcome.

¹ Cfr. Döllinger, Heidentum und Judentum, pp. 181 sqq., 617 sqq.

The Catholic Church teaches: (1) that the evil spirits, like the angels, are entirely subject to God and can do nothing without His concurrence and permission; (2) that they can work no miracles, but by means of their superior insight and of a certain control over the powers of nature, are able to produce what seem to us extraordinary phenomena; (3) that they are, by themselves, incapable of producing any good effects, but, on the contrary, habitually practice falsehood and deception.²

² St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a, qu. 8; qu. 114; Cat. Rom., P. IV, c. 15.

From these truths it follows that it is superstitious and foolish to attribute exaggerated power to the evil spirits, to ascribe extraordinary happenings to them too readily, to invoke their help in order to injure others, and, in general, to attempt with the aid of the devil and his fallen angels to do things which transcend the order of nature.

b) The principal forms of this species of superstition are sorcery and witchcraft. These and other practices, by which disproportionate means are employed to procure a certain effect, are embraced by theologians in the technical term vana observantia.

α) Sorcery, in the broad sense (also called natural, artificial, or white magic), is defined as the art of working apparent wonders by the help of natural causes. In a stricter and more limited sense sorcery means the art of producing effects which, though not supernatural, exceed the powers of man and, consequently, can be wrought only by the help of the devil, explicitly or implicitly invoked for that purpose.³

³ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 264: “Magic broadly taken, or natural or artificial magic, which is called white magic, is the art of doing wonderful things, at least apparently, through natural causes or human skill without any ministry of a demon. Magic strictly so called is the art of doing wonderful things which, although they are not supernatural, nevertheless surpass the powers of man and consequently can be done only by the aid of a demon explicitly or implicitly invoked.”

There is only an accidental difference between these kinds of superstition and divination; for while divination uses disproportionate means to discover, by the help of the devil, what is hidden, witchcraft and magic employ disproportionate means to obtain certain and wonderful effects by the same agency. Morally, therefore, the two practices are equally reprehensible.

β) Witchcraft, like divination, may imply an express or a tacit compact with the devil. If the compact is express, it always involves mortal sin. If it is merely tacit, ignorance, good faith, or lack of confidence in the effect will frequently be a cause of leniency. Moreover, there must be ad- vertence to the total inadequacy of the means to produce the desired effect, and to the danger of diabolic intervention, otherwise there will be no sin of superstition.⁴

⁴ Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 221 sq.

Belief in malevolent witchcraft (maleficium) is based upon the idea that certain persons, especially of the female sex, in virtue of a formal compact with the devil, command diabolical powers, by means of which they can produce preternatural effects for the purpose of injuring their fellow-creatures.⁵

⁵ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 264: “Magic broadly taken, or magic involving the intervention of a demon, is distinguished into two kinds, namely, amatory and harmful. Amatory sorcery, or a philter, is a diabolical art by which lustful love or hatred toward another person is violently aroused in someone. Harmful sorcery is precisely the art of injuring one’s neighbor in various ways with the aid of a demon, for example, by diseases, dullness, etc. Harmful sorcery is commonly called sortilege, because through it an evil lot is cast upon those against whom vengeance is exercised by a diabolical operation. Hence in canon law and ecclesiastical history male and female magicians are called sorcerers.”—Ibid., n. 265: “Magic does not differ from vain observance except in that its effects are more wonderful, for example, the transformation of bodies, etc. It does not differ in moral species either from vain observance or from divination, because it matters little whether knowledge of hidden things or wonderful effects are sought from a demon. Harmful sorcery, however, differs in species from other superstitions because, besides the sin opposed to religion, it inflicts injury on one’s neighbor. Amatory sorcery does not necessarily induce one to commit a sin of lust; for it does not take away freedom but only violently excites lust toward some determined person by altering and more vividly arousing the imagination, presenting more beautiful appearances, and stirring the humors lustfully.”—Cfr. A. Stöckl, Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Vol. III, pp. 424 sqq., 450 sqq.

Though the possibility of a mystic union between man and Satan is admitted by Catholics, the epidemic occurrence of witchcraft and the persecution of alleged witches in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is not traceable to this theoretical belief, but finds its explanation, partly at least, in the religious, political, and social conditions of the time, in the introduction of narcotics and alcoholic liquors, and in the low state of theology and the natural sciences.⁶ We say, “partly at least,” because from the Catholic point of view there can be no doubt that the devil has a hand in exploiting the superstitions and prejudices of men.

⁶ See the works on witchcraft cited in the bibliography infra, p. 303.

“The possibility of human intercourse with Satan,” says Pohle, “cannot be denied in view of the many instances recorded, or assumed as true, in the New Testament. The medieval witch-baiters sinned grievously by exaggerating the power of the devil, by neglecting the most elementary principles of sound psychology, and by proceeding with unpardonable carelessness and inhuman cruelty in the trial of persons accused of witchcraft. No period of the world’s history is characterized by so many insane superstitions and such a radical want of common sense as the terrible time during which thousands of supposed witches were tried, tortured, and executed for practicing sorcery.⁷ Of course, the theological principle that there are demons, and that they have power to injure men in body and soul, is no more disproved by these medieval excesses than by the all too ready credence which in our own time thousands of well-meaning Catholics gave to the bogus revelations of Leo Taxil and his fictitious Diana Vaughan.”⁸

⁷ See J. Janssen, Geschichte des Deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, Vol. VIII (English tr. by A. M. Christie, Vol. XVI).

⁸ Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, 3rd ed., St. Louis 1919, pp. 348 sq.

I. Notions. By the name spiritism strictly comes the formal evocation of spirits of the dead, who: a) perform various wonders: noises, rotations of tables, blows, the sound of musical instruments which are moved by no hand, writings which you would call automatic, material apparitions, sometimes preserved by a photographic image ¹, "levitations" by which persons or things are lifted into the air at a certain distance from the pavement; b) and especially satisfy the curiosity of those questioning, by giving various pieces of knowledge concerning the dead, concerning the other life, concerning hidden things, concerning remedies to be applied, concerning future contingents.

In a broader use now, spiritism means the same phenomena, for example answers through blows of tables, obtained without formal or express evocation of spirits.

Often, however, a medium is employed, or, according to the strict notion, a suitable person, who carries mandates between the living and the dead and brings them back. Hence, if we speak properly, no one is or is judged to be a "medium" except one who is the instrumental cause of another agent. But effects whose principal cause is, or is thought to be, another agent endowed with intellect and will are called psychical, or metapsychical, on account of their origin or because they are or are judged to have proceeded from another soul; while those effects are called physical which the medium works as principal cause (cf. Heredia, Spiritism and Common Sense, p. 54).

Some "medium" persons are public, or of public use, who, presenting themselves on every occasion, have acting as a medium almost as their art; others are only of private use.

II. Historical. Already from remote antiquity, men were accustomed through a pythoness, or a person who was judged to have a python, to question the dead concerning various hidden things. Sacred Scripture offers us an example in I Samuel, or Kings, c. 28, vv. 6-19; in this place Saul, after having consulted the Lord in vain, goes to a pythoness, who, at the king's request, raised up Samuel that he might instruct Saul concerning the future event. But a threefold explanation of that fact is proposed. Most of the holy Fathers, St. Augustine remaining doubtful, think that the devil appeared in the figure of Samuel; afterward, from the time of the Protestant pseudo-reformation, Catholic writers judged that Samuel, in reality, with the Lord permitting, appeared; nor were those lacking who ascribed the whole matter to the fraudulent arts of the pythoness.

A certain Swedenborg (1688-1772) is reported to have been the forerunner of modern spiritism, who in the year 1715 declared at London that he had had a vision, after which he was able to enter into habitual commerce with spirits, the fruit of which was a Protestant sect. But he is rather to be called a visionary, whose methods are too distant from modern evocations. Wherefore they rather refer the origin of present spiritism to the mysterious noises which, in a country house of the place Hydesville in North America, heard in the year 1847-1848 by the daughter Fox, impelled her to ask whether perhaps the noises were to be attributed to the spirit of some deceased stranger. After an affirmative answer had been received, she herself and her sister began to try communications with spirits, on account of which the two daughters soon obtained universal celebrity. In the year 1888, however, one of the sisters confessed that all things had been fictitious, and that the credulity of the mother had given occasion to the fraud (cf. Heredia, op. c., pp. 11-14).

Thence the use of communicating, truly or apparently, with so-called spirits began to be spread, so that in the United States of America and in the Canadian region there are many thousands of thousands of associates (Roure, Le merveilleux spirite, c. 12). For already in the year 1900 the association of the United States and Canadian region (National Spiritualistic Association of America) had declared that there were there 10,000 mediums, 350 preachers devoted to propagation, and 82 temples.

For spiritism has grown into a religious sect, which, resting upon a scientific demonstration, as they assert, takes its beginning from communication between the living and the dead, and receives from them its dogmas: infinite divine intelligence; permanent personal identity after death; denial of eternal punishments; and so forth.

III. Harms. Besides the heretical persuasions which occur there, assiduous presence in spiritistic meetings excites the phantasy, disturbs the mind, makes men prone to cultivate superstitions. And serious evocation of spirits makes the one evoking guilty of formal superstition. Therefore spiritism is connected with the worst moral consequences, so that at least for this reason, even if the devil has not seized the hand of the one writing answers, spiritism, like every heresy, can deservedly be called a diabolical work ¹.

IV. Objective interpretation of things. First, those who examine the alleged things with a mind empty of prejudices come more and more to this conclusion: that most wonders are to be attributed to the accustomed frauds and conjurers' collusions. On this matter agree the Rev. Fathers Roure in France (Le merveilleux spirite. Le spiritisme d'aujourd'hui et d'hier); Thurston, in England (Month, 1917, p. 226 ff., "Spirit phenomena"); Zacchi, O. Pr., Lo spiritismo e la sopravvivenza dell'anima, in Italy; and, in the United States of America, Heredia, S.J., who detected the very tricks which "mediums" use, so that he was able to imitate the greatest wonders; and in the book Spiritism and Common Sense, reveals several arts, also demonstrates how men skilled in the sciences are less suitable for discerning those frauds, and recounts several confessions of "mediums" who, after they had obtained the greatest fame for themselves, confess that they were deceivers ¹. Wherefore someone could write: the more you explore the facts, the less wonderful they appear.

As to those things, few in number, which have truly happened without conjurers' arts, writers go off into four opinions. Some, among Catholics, impute almost all things to diabolical intervention, abusing this principle: that all things are to be judged diabolical from presumption if certain things are demonstrated to be diabolical. To this saying P. Zacchi, op. c. XII, opposes this: "Because some rare spiritistic phenomenon shows itself refractory to every naturalistic explanation, it is not permitted to affirm, as is done by many, that all the phenomena of spiritism, without distinction, are due to extra-natural causes." - Others, "spiritists," proceeding from this beginning, that besides the material body and the soul there is some more subtle body, the sidereal body, by which the soul communicates with exterior things, attribute those same things to the souls of the dead, which, through the sidereal, astral body possessed by a "medium," whose force is increased by the spectators, perform those exterior actions. Others think all things to be natural; but they are explained by cryptomnesia, unconscious memory, telepathy, and a certain bodily power not yet well known, which has been ascribed by some to a certain animal magnetism.

Others premise these things: a) We are not rightly permitted, because we lack a modern explanation, to flee to a preternatural origin. How many things remain mysterious in certain facts certainly natural; how many things which formerly would have been held for truly preternatural phenomena today admit scientific formulas! b) Against a preternatural explanation there stand: the perpetual repetition of the same phenomenon in the same circumstances; the necessity of certain circumstances; the limited ratio by which, for example, a person or thing cannot be raised beyond a certain height: for it is clear that a spirit is not subject to physical laws. c) Communication with the soul of the dead, which cannot happen without the permission of God, is indeed rarely permitted; but it cannot in any way be held for normal and ordinary, so that certain commands or ceremonies of ours could determine or induce that communication ¹. Nor do good angels thus become our servants. But with good angels and separated souls excluded, nothing remains except the diabolical preternatural.

With these things posited, this opinion attributes many things to the accustomed frauds and conjurers' collusions; it thinks that many other things have their explanation in the special or morbid state of persons. Certain few things it vehemently suspects betray satanic intervention, while desiring nevertheless a better demonstration of the facts.

Thus the Second Council of Baltimore (T. I, c. 7, n. 36) pronounced: "Indeed it seems well explored that many things which are said to be exhibited in circles of Spiritism as wondrous phenomena, either are altogether fabricated and produced by fraudulent collusion of the operators among themselves, or are chiefly to be ascribed to the imagination of the persons who are called mediums and to the credulity of the spectators, or finally are to be attributed to a certain manual dexterity, such as is used among conjurers. Yet it scarcely seems to be doubted that certain things at least from these are to be traced back to satanic intervention, since they can scarcely be sufficiently explained in another way."

This is also our conclusion. We think these things are usefully to be added. From the Roman Ritual, t. X, c. 1: "Signs of the possessing devil are: to speak in an unknown tongue with many words, or to understand one speaking; to reveal distant and hidden things; to show powers above the nature of age or condition; and other things of that kind which, when very many concur, are greater indications." Those signs remain formally true; but when in reality they are present, that must be judged otherwise than formerly, because of facts recently observed. Since from this it seems reasonable to admit that there are those who sometimes unfold in the body a certain mysterious power; that communications are had through mutual phantastic representations, without oral or written speech; that in some persons there is a certain stupendous power of foreseeing facts ¹, we shall say much more cautiously that communication of an unknown tongue, or one naturally inaccessible, is truly had. - Besides, the Apostle himself already (1 Tim. 4, 7), speaking of errors sufficiently similar to those of the spiritists, warned us to avoid foolish and old-womanish fables, but to exercise ourselves in true piety. And the honor of true religion seems to demand that by the very severity with which we test the facts and then judge them, we show that we have no need at all of miserable spiritistic phenomena for strengthening our faith, but that altogether different rational foundations underlie it; and that we remove the danger of lamentable deceptions, the recent memory of which ought to teach us prudence. Facility of credulity cannot at all be confused with promptitude of Faith.

¹ Cf. Thurston, S.J., The Problem of Materialization, Month, 1922, p. 331; 1923, p. 67 ff.; 227 ff.; 334.

¹ Concerning the harms which are to be feared from spiritistic usages, cf. P. Charles, S.J., [OCR uncertain: A ... de spiritisme], Nouv. Rev. Theol., 1921, p. 113 ff.

¹ Very recently the celebrated Guzik dared to commit himself to be examined by some learned men of the Paris Faculty of Sciences and of the Institute called "College de France," i.e., D. D. P. Langevin, Etienne Rabaud, Laugier, A. Marcellin, I. Meyerson. The experiments, begun November 6, 1923, had their end in the middle of the month of December, so that they were prolonged for six weeks. Thus in the official report inserted in L'Opinion and La Croix, December 21, 1923, they conclude: "The undersigned declare that their conviction is complete and without reserve: the phenomena which were presented to them bring into play no mysterious mechanism. - The medium produces them: by using his elbow for certain contacts applied to the region of the shoulder; - by freeing one of his legs from control: he then realizes movements, contacts, projections of objects by means of this freed member." Cf. also Documentation catholique, 1924, p. 495 ff.

¹ We judge that this also holds concerning the souls of limbo. Thurston, S.J., proposes a wonderful hypothesis on this matter, Communication with the Dead (Month, 1917, p. 139 ff.).

¹ There are in Westphalia persons commonly called Kiekers, who seem endowed with a certain gift of foreseeing things. Cf. Zur Bonsen, Das zweite Gesicht ([OCR uncertain: the opening words of the subtitle] Wirklichkeit und Wesen^†, - [OCR uncertain: Neue Gorres] Freiburg im Breisgau, 1923).

Concerning the morality of use or participation, with religion alone considered,. these things seem to have to be said: 1. It is certainly wrong to cooperate actively in meetings of spiritists, where they contend or desire to become more certain, from evoked souls of the dead, concerning religion itself and the facts of the invisible world. For whether the prodigies are true or fabricated, mere and often foul superstition is exercised in these. Cf. letter of the Holy Office, July 30, 1856. - 2. It would also be superstitious to use those mysterious means for knowing things which certainly transcend human science. - 3. He who, with a mind alien from superstition, so that he repudiates diabolical intervention, is present at experiments either of doubtful nature in themselves or which he himself has persuaded himself are of the natural order, cannot indeed be accused of superstition, but will generally foster evil or dangerous curiosity. - 4. Wherefore on April 24, 1917, in plenary assembly, the Holy Office decreed these things (A. A. S., t. 9, 1917, p. 268): The doubt having been proposed: "Whether it is licit, through a Medium, as they call it, or without a Medium, with hypnotism employed or not, to be present at any spiritistic locutions or manifestations, even those presenting an appearance of honesty or piety, whether by questioning souls or spirits or by hearing answers, or merely by looking on, even with tacit or express protestation that one wills to have no part with malignant spirits. - Negative in all things." - The reason is that even mere witnesses favor an illicit thing, and expose themselves to the useless danger of demoniacal intervention and of their own harm. - 5. This, therefore, is the general rule. But a skilled and sufficiently experienced man who wishes to intervene to detect and denounce fraud, to lessen the fortune of superstitions of this sort and to remove the deception of many, is not merely looking on. Wherefore, provided that he sufficiently removes the scandal of another, we do not think this positively forbidden, especially if the Ordinary judges such a plan opportune. - 6. And because probable arguments and recent discoveries lead to that opinion, that there are certain bodily powers still unknown to us, skilled men are not to be prohibited from carrying out a scientific investigation of them without the scandal of another and physical detriments of body or mind. But here there can be no question of any evocation of spirits. - 7. It would be manifestly impious to adhere to the pseudo-religious sects into which, as we said above, spiritists come together.

Canonical sanctions. Besides the general prohibition of consulting those who were said to possess a python, or diviners (Deut. 18, 11; Levit. 19, 31), the evocation of the dead for learning truth is specially prohibited in Deut. 18, 11 and Levit. 20, 6, 27. - Several canons of the more ancient Councils prohibited consultations of diviners, augurs, and lot. You may see them collected in the Decree of Gratian, Cause III, q. 5, c. 9; C. XXVI, q. 5, cc. 1, 2, 5-10; and in the Decretals, V, 21, c. 1-3. - Pontifical constitutions against sortileges can be read in Ferraris, v. Sortilegium (VII, p. 470). - To these, as to spiritism, were added the decrees of the Holy Office, April 21, 1841; July 8, 1847; May 21, 1856; July 30, 1856; April 2, 1894; April 24, 1917 (here above), which certainly must be circumscribed to meetings where they truly attempt to enter into conversations with the dead or to obtain their manifestation. - The Sacred Penitentiary touched the matter in its responses July 1, 1841 and February 1, 1882 (A. S. S., I, 177). From c. 2325, he who has exercised superstition must be punished by the Ordinary.

On animal magnetism and hypnotic suggestion. At the end of the eighteenth century there was much discussion of a certain mysterious power proper to living bodies, which, because of the magnetic-electric power then discovered, obtained the name animal magnetism. Today various names are used: Od; radiant nervous power; fluidic vital power; psychic power; ideoplastic, teleplastic power (cf. Zacchi, op. c., p. 191); physico-psychical powers: which words explain nothing. It can be admitted that certain mediums are endowed with a power of this sort. They exercise it especially in a special excitation which they call "trance." - They can also undergo hypnotic suggestions; but these are now accustomed to be separated much more from the phenomena of spiritism, so that they rather find a place below, where the care of one's own life and health is treated.

Superstition is false religion, i.e., a vicious worship of the true God or prohibited worship of a creature, and is said to be opposed to religion by excess.

I. Vicious worship of the true God can be of false signification, as when someone wishes to honor God through the abrogated ceremonies of the Old Law, or through usurped ministry, or through false relics or miracles: this, mortal of itself, can be excused from grave sin by ignorance, simplicity, or lightness of matter; - it is superfluous worship, which sins in mode and circumstance: as if you add certain ceremonies, or trust in the very number of prayers as such: these are thought rather venial. The rude are to be taught concerning the right use of sacred things.

II. Concerning superstitious worship of a creature. In order we shall treat of idolatry, of magic, of vain observance, and of modern spiritism.

1. On idolatry. Idols signify both false gods and, more properly, their images, statues, symbols. Wherefore idolatry strictly is the worship of latria attributed to a false god or to some image or symbol of him.

Material idolatry simulates worship; formal idolatry truly renders it. Perfect idolatry adores a creature which from infidelity it estimates to be God; imperfect idolatry, from desire or hatred of God, exhibits honor to a creature as to God. Perfect idolatry must be judged objectively, though not always subjectively, at least immediately, graver than imperfect. Material idolatry itself is a grave sin. And vulgar paganism confused the image or symbol with the god itself. In Sacred Scripture, idols are sometimes called nothing, sometimes demons. There was also worship of the principle of evil. Similar things occur today among barbarians.

In a more general acceptance, idolatry designates every vicious worship of a creature. This is already had if you wish to obtain certain things through a creature otherwise than God has ordained. For religion wills that we expect all goods immediately or mediately according to the order pre-established by God.

Through express worship, either knowledge or other effects can be sought, besides general protection. Since, excepting the devil, no other creature invisible to us wills to act while released from dependence on God, an absolute invocation of a creature necessarily terminates in the devil. But express invocation of the devil, by which formal commerce of servitude is entered into with the sworn enemy of God, is to be charged as a grave sin. To express invocation of the devil is referred the more general pact with the devil.

2. On magic. What formal idolaters contended to obtain by suppliant prayer, magicians contended to obtain by use of mysterious power. He who consciously exercises a power which he at the same time estimates to be preternatural and not proceeding from God, in operating, is subjectively guilty of tacit invocation of the devil, which cannot be excused from grave sin.

3. On vain observance, or positive use or omission which is inept for the end for which they are employed. Those vain usages, if they are employed as rites of worshiping a creature or obtaining magical power, contain a grave sin of idolatry or invocation of the devil. Employed without firm faith outside an intention of this sort, they are rather venial defects of trust in divine Providence, unless by constant use the distrust becomes grave.

A protestation by which someone excludes commerce with the devil can be overcome by the fact, when someone employs means which he knows are ineffective without diabolical intervention, or when he absolutely wills things which he suspects to be demoniacal. Nor does protestation prevent that, when there is serious doubt, that intervention is permitted. Wherefore a proportionate excusing cause must be present, just as for materially cooperating with those who are subjectively guilty of superstition.

It is not licit to exercise the art of pythons seriously. In admitting dreams, prudent discernment of spirits must be employed.

Certain usages of devotion, innocent in themselves, are mixed with some venial superstition if material circumstances of place, number, or person are held as necessary or infallible. But conjecture concerning propensities from physical signs, or employment of a falsely estimated natural remedy, is empty of superstition. Credulity concerning malefices is rather to be restrained, although malefices can still exist.

4. On modern spiritism. Spiritism is properly the formal evocation of spirits who do various things and especially teach various secrets, whether a person peculiarly suitable, a "medium," is employed, or direct questioning is made, for example, through blows of a table. Phenomena are distinguished as physical and psychical, from the principal cause operating: psychical phenomena are judged to have proceeded from another soul. There is also a religion of spiritism, which is judged to receive from the dead dogmas stained with errors against the faith. Moreover, frequent use of spiritism begets harmful effects upon the phantasy and the mind, so that it can truly be called a diabolical work. In public meetings of spiritism, at least most of the portents by which bystanders are moved are fictitious. Things which truly happen some attribute to the devil, others to separated souls, others to natural powers. With commerce with separated souls excluded, which God regularly does not permit, most things seem to be ascribed to natural powers, whether already known or probably knowable and to be known. Few psychical things remain, and indeed rather knowledge plainly inaccessible than various wonders, for example "levitations," which bring in a founded suspicion of the devil, insofar as they are established. Cf. Rituale, T. 10, c. 1, n. 3.

It would be wrong to cooperate actively in meetings of spiritists, since in these many truly exercise superstition. And it would be superstitious to use mysterious means for knowing things which certainly transcend human science. He who, repudiating diabolical intervention, is present at experiments of doubtful nature, or which he himself is persuaded are of the natural order, generally fosters evil or dangerous curiosity. Yet skilled men are not prohibited from carrying out, without scandal and physical detriments of persons, a scientific investigation of facts, with every evocation of spirits excluded. Assistance at spiritistic locutions or manifestations was declared illicit by the Holy Office on April 24, 1917. Yet a sufficiently experienced man does not therefore seem impeded from wishing, without scandal and especially after consulting the Ordinary, to intervene to detect and denounce frauds.

Learned theologians are now accustomed to ascribe hypnotic suggestions, as such, to natural phenomena, so that these are rather to be treated below, where suicide, etc., is treated.

557. DEFINITION. Divination is a species of superstition by which someone invokes the knowledge of the demon, so that he may know contingent and freely future things, or things otherwise hidden, accessible to God alone.

But since divination (as worship of the demon) proceeds from a certain express or tacit pact with demons, it will be worth the work to discuss: 1. the pact of man with the demon; 2. the various divinations in particular. Cf. 2.2, q. 95, a. 2 ad 2, and a. 3.

A pact with the demon is a convention, or everything by which someone uses something for the worship of demons, that is, for acknowledging their excellence and his own submission.

558. PRINCIPLES. I. Man can do more with the help of the demon than by his own powers alone. For angels are more excellent than men, both in the faculty of knowing and in the power of working; and angelic nature in demons was indeed depraved through sin, but was not taken away or diminished (1, q. 64, a. 1). Yet that which is obtained with the help of the demon is only preternatural.

Hence: 1. As regards KNOWLEDGE, demons easily call past things back into the mind of man; they manifest present hidden things which have been outwardly disclosed, even things much distant; indeed, they foreknow innumerable future things, both by conjecture and also with certainty from natural causes. Yet they do not know the secret and hidden thoughts and volitions of the soul, nor the mysteries of grace (1.2, q. 57, a. 5; Muller, l. 2, § 69, 4).

2. As regards OPERATION, they can move bodies; assume bodies to themselves, either formed from air and vapors, or even true bodies, which indeed they do not formally vivify, but manage as movers. They can excite the imaginative power of man, or the sensitive appetitive power, and thus stir men to hatred or lust; indeed, they can change our senses, for example the eyes, so that something is seen otherwise than it is. In one word, they can effect innumerable things for the deception and destruction of men (1.2, q. 80, a. 2). Yet St. Augustine says: "Nor do demons do anything unless he has permitted it, whose judgments are hidden, many, unjust, none" (de Civit. Dei, l. 18, c. 18, n. 2).

559. II. Preternatural effects are accustomed to be obtained through a pact with the demon. A pact with the demon can be: 1. explicit, when someone invokes him by words, or by deed usurps something through which he knows or thinks that the demon cooperates; 2. implicit or tacit, when someone uses vain and naturally disproportionate means for knowing or effecting something.

"Nor is it required that the demon should at some time have made a pact that he would concur at the application of such a vain means; for by this very fact, that someone uses those vanities, the demon mixes himself in, although it is beyond the intention of the one using to invoke him" (III, 8).

560. III. Every pact with the demon is, of itself, a most grave sin. For in it there is participation or commerce with the sworn enemy of God, and divine honor is attributed to a creature, because that is expected from the creature which ought to be expected from God alone. Yet it can happen that an implicit pact does not exceed venial fault; namely if simplicity, ignorance (yet not crass or affected), defect of certain faith, absence of serious intention are present, for example when, by way of joke, public diviners are consulted on feast days and market days. In these matters generally the imperfection of the act excuses (III, 5, 7).

LET IT BE NOTED: 1. An implicit and explicit pact probably do not differ in species; yet per accidens there is often an obligation of explaining in confession whether the pact is explicit, because express invocation of the demon often has other sins joined to itself, for example heresy, idolatry, etc., and because it does not admit smallness of matter.

2. In doubt whether some effect proceeds from a natural cause or from superstition, it is presumed rather to proceed from a natural cause.¹ Thus the Doctors commonly teach with St. Thomas (2.2, q. 60, a. 4): "Where certain manifest indications concerning someone's malice do not appear, we ought to hold it as good, by interpreting what is doubtful toward the better part." Yet the Doctors rightly counsel that then a protestation be premised against the effect, if any superstition underlies it. The Holy Office also declared the same on July 26, 1899, as regards doubtful experiments of hypnotism (n. 570 bis).

3. If it is certainly or probably established that the effect does not proceed from a natural cause, in doubt whence it proceeds, it is judged rather to proceed from the demon than from God, since there is no divine promise about it (III, 20).

561. From these things you will resolve: a) "He is not excused from sin who, in using such things as are established to be naturally disproportionate to the intended effect, protests that he intends no commerce with the demon, because in reality he acts against his protestation. For since neither God nor good angels mix themselves with such things, the demon is implicitly invoked in them" (III, 8, 3).

b) "Nor is he excused who believes such means useful on account of experiences; because the demon procures these, so that he may gradually ensnare men and induce them to usurp similar things" (III, 8, 4).

c) "It is not illicit to use the power of a natural thing which has been known through superstition, provided its observation or operation does not depend upon the help of the demon. The reason is that although that knowledge was badly acquired, nevertheless the sin has passed, and the natural power has contracted nothing evil from it" (III, 20, 3).

562. PRINCIPLES. I. All divinations are reduced to one species, because all rest upon a pact, at least implicit, with demons. See above n. 560, 1.

Divinations obtain various denominations according to the character of the invocation:

1. Divination through EXPRESS invocation of the demon is called: oracle, if it is done through idols; necromancy, if through an apparent resuscitation of the dead; pythonism, if through living men seized by him; oneiromancy, if through dreams; prestidigitation, if through fictitious figures; haruspicy, if through signs in the entrails of animals; geomancy, if through a figure in earth; hydromancy, if through a figure in water; aeromancy, if through a figure in air; pyromancy, if through a figure in fire.

2. Divination through TACIT invocation is called: judicial astrology, if it is done from the situation and motion of the stars; auspice, if from the flight of birds; augury, if from their chattering; omen, if from a chance event, for example from meeting a funeral; chiromancy, if from the lines of the hand; physiognomy, if from the lines of the face; sortilege, if from vain lots, for example from the opening of a book, from throwing dice. Yet by the name of sortilege (or necromancy) all kinds of superstitions are accustomed to be designated (III, 6 and 9). As regards crystallomancy, to which many today are devoted, cf. Bessmer (Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, 1908, p. 165).

563. II. All divinations are of themselves gravely illicit. It is established again from the things said n. 560.

Hence: 1. "They sin who consult Egyptians (seers or sortilegists) concerning fortune: and indeed, if it is done with firm faith, or scandal, etc., of itself mortally; but if for the sake of curiosity or laughter, as is commonly done, only venially."

2. "If someone should depend so upon the stars, dreams, and similar things, that he wishes to regulate almost all his actions and life according to them, the Doctors commonly teach that he sins mortally."

3. From observation of such things, once and again to omit something to which otherwise you are not held under mortal sin seems only venial; as also lightly to fear from time to time lest it be or happen as they portend (III, 8 and 10).

564. III. Simple conjectures deduced from natural causes are not illicit. For, as St. Thomas speaks (2.2, q. 95, a. 1), "certain causes produce their effects in most cases, yet rarely fail. And through causes of this kind future effects can be foreknown, not indeed with certainty, but by a certain conjecture"; for example, if someone from a certain song and flight of birds conjectures storm, rain, or serenity.

Therefore physiognomy is licit, by which we conjecture the internal dispositions of the soul, provided rash judgment is avoided. Likewise natural astrology is licit, by which we divine certain natural effects, as storms, sterilities, etc.; and if one sometimes exceeds in its certitude, only the sin of lying or imprudence is committed, which is of itself a light sin (III, 9, 8).

565. Questions. Q. 1. Whether it is licit to believe DREAMS?

Resp. a) If dreams are certainly or more probably from God, we can, indeed we are bound to, believe them, since God has promised sometimes to speak through dreams. Conversely, it would be a grave sin to believe diabolical dreams, unless simplicity or imperfection of the act excuses, namely if someone believes them only lightly. Now, in order that those things which are from God may be discerned from the others, it must be seen whether they excite to good or to evil, whether they disturb or quiet one awakened, whether they render him eager or sluggish for good works.

b) In doubt whether they proceed from God, or from the devil, or from a natural cause, one must stand for the natural or diabolical cause, and therefore faith is not to be applied to them; for if God sends dreams, he certainly testifies concerning himself.

Q. 2. Whether the USE OF LOTS is always illicit?

Resp. a) Divisory lots, which are employed for dividing goods, settling disputes, playing honorably, etc., are licit, because they are entirely free from every superstition. Yet they are prohibited as regards ecclesiastical elections, from c. Ecclesia, de sortilegiis. They are permitted in certain codes, for example German Code, 659, 720.

b) Divinatory lots, by which the manifestation of a hidden matter is inquired, for example the detection of a thief from throwing dice, are illicit, unless they are done from divine inspiration (cf. Josue 7:14); because they contain at least tacit invocation of the demon, from the disproportion of the means to the knowledge.

c) Consultory lots (as in the election of Saul and St. Matthias), by which it is inquired what is to be done in this or that matter, "are sometimes licit, when necessity and honesty of the cause require it, and a more suitable mode of conquering the doubt does not appear: provided they are done with prayer premised, with due reverence, and indication is expected from God alone; for example if someone clinging at a fork in the road cannot otherwise determine himself as regards the way; or if they are done by divine instinct or command..." (III, 10, 11).

Q. 3. What is to be thought concerning the use OF THE DIVINING ROD?

Resp. a) If it is employed for finding lost things, transferred boundaries of fields, thieves and murderers, it seems certain that acts of this kind are superstitious divination.

b) If it is employed for finding veins of waters or metals, there are not lacking those who affirm that this is not necessarily to be held as a superstitious thing, because the motion of the rod, if it is held by persons endowed with a certain physical disposition, is a purely natural effect. Yet it is required that the rod be moved equally in every case, whether veins are being sought or not. But deliberately let a protestation be made against diabolical operation which perhaps can be present (III, 8, 4). Cf. Vind. Alph., II, n. 32.

Note. Yet there are some experts who think the use of the divining rod to be prestidigitations (Nat. u. Offenb., 1900, p. 600).

566. Things to be noted beforehand. Spiritism is the consultation of spirits, especially concerning matters of the other life. In spiritism two things must be distinguished: commerce itself with spirits, and the wonderful phenomena which accompany their evocation and consultation. Of the effects produced, some are common to spiritism and hypnotism (see these n. 569); others are proper to spiritism, and they are: materialization, manifestation of light, levitation, motion at a distance, rotation of tables which are touched by the fingertips of those standing around and are moved by the command of the will alone, or also, at the command of those questioning, communicate responses by knocks (or in another mode). Women, who therefore are called mediums, are generally employed for producing these things.¹

PRINCIPLES. I. Spiritism, as an action of consulting spirits, is altogether illicit; and indeed, even if this is only external, provided it is serious. It is established 1. From AUTHORITY. Not rarely has evocation of spirits been condemned, both in Sacred Scripture (Deut. 18:9-12; Lev. 20:6, 27) and by the Church (especially in the Fifth Lateran Council). On Aug. 4, 1856, the Holy Office declared: To evoke the souls of the dead, to receive responses ... is found to be a deception altogether illicit and heretical (A. S. S., I, p. 177). On Apr. 2, 1864, the same Congregation most gravely proscribed all writings favoring spiritism. In the Const. Officiorum ac munerum (tit. I, c. V, 12) it is read: It is forbidden to publish, read, or retain books in which sortileges, divination, magic, or evocation of spirits are taught or commended. It is established 2. FROM REASON: it is clear that evocation of spirits is mere, genuine divination. For the spirits who are judged to be consulted: a) are not good spirits, that is, angels; it would be blasphemous to assert that good spirits adapt themselves to the childish whims of men, and become heralds of execrable and impious doctrine, such as is promulgated in the little assemblies of spiritists; b) are not the souls of the dead: for to them, stripped of the body, there is no community with men without the special permission of God. Therefore it is open that these spirits are demons; and from elsewhere they themselves have often confessed this.

From these things it follows: the art itself of producing phenomena proper to spiritism, and generally the art of producing effects which certainly cannot be ascribed to the powers of nature, is altogether illicit.

The great question is whether, in sessions of spiritists (prescinding from consultation), such phenomena should not rather be ascribed to the cleverness and bad faith of the mediums.

a) There are not lacking authors who admit that wonderful operations, by the work of spiritists, are often truly produced, and that it is not lawful to attribute all things a priori to frauds. Cf. Schneider (Der neuere Geisterglaube, VII, p. 334); Lapponi, Hypnot. et Spirit., p. 153.

b) But other authors affirm that in very many cases (perhaps a few excepted) the leaders of spiritism (the most celebrated mediums) have been convicted of fraud and bad faith. Thus Gutberlet (Nat. u. Offenb., 1897, p. 738). The same opinion is upheld by Von Cyon, professor of psychology, who himself convicted the most celebrated mediums of this age of fraud (cf. Gott u. Wissensch., 1911, p. 206; Nat. u. Kultur, 1911, P. I, Spiritism). Thus also other experts.

II. It is licit, scandal of the medium and of those assisting being excluded, from sufficient reason, to provoke phenomena where someone certainly knows that no preternatural effect is going to arise. The sufficient reason is that the error of the rest may be corrected by experiment. We said: scandal of the medium being excluded; because the invitation would not be licit if the medium clearly pretended (even only externally) that he could consult spirits; otherwise, if from serious indications it were established that the medium boasts himself as such. For then no illicit action is given, but there is a detection of error (Sabetti, Theol. mor., 209; Genicot, I, n. 271, IV; Jaugey, de Virt. Relig., 440).

PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS. 1. A protestation which someone would premise before an act of consultation or exercise of the art, namely of excluding any intervention whatsoever of the demon and of directing himself to angels, does not change the nature of the act, which objectively, or from the end of the work, is referred to the worship of the demon from a pact implicitly had. In this sense the response of the Holy Office, Apr. 1, 1898, was made (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 30, p. 397). 2. They sin gravely who perform the office of medium, who seriously ask evocation from mediums, who hold sessions of spiritism, who often assist at these either actively or passively, even for the sake of curiosity; because scandal and danger to one's own salvation (that is, of perversion in faith and morals) are never wholly absent. Thus according to the response of the Sacred Penitentiary, Feb. 1, 1882 (Bucceroni, Enchir. mor., n. 505).

Note. The mere rotation of tables is not evidently illicit, because it is not established concerning a cause solely preternatural; it can become illicit by reason of scandal or danger. We said: mere rotation, because if consultation accompanies it, even concerning indifferent matters, it would become altogether illicit; since responses of tables by repeated knocks (if they are truly given) would occur only with a pact with the demon going before (Noldin, II, 167).

506. Notion. Divination properly so called⁷⁵⁰ is the foretelling or foreknowledge of future things in an undue manner, that is, through means not instituted by God. Divination is often taken more broadly for the knowledge or declaration of any things whatsoever, not only future but also occult, which cannot be known in a natural manner and have not been revealed by God. Since knowledge of things of this kind is had neither through the natural powers of man, nor through God, nor through good angels or saints (because God does not permit angels and saints to manifest occult things in an undue manner), it remains that all divination is done through the direct or indirect assistance of a demon. Therefore divination in this broad sense can be defined simply: a superstition by which a demon is explicitly, or at least implicitly, invoked in order to know occult things through his assistance.

⁷⁵⁰ Wahrsagerei, soothsaying.

507. Concerning the knowledge of future and occult things, according to the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor,⁷⁵¹ the following things are to be noted. Future things can be known in two ways, namely, in their causes and in themselves. The causes of future things are related in three ways. Some causes produce their effects always and necessarily, for example, the movement of the earth around the sun necessarily produces the diverse seasons of the year. Some causes, however, produce their effects neither necessarily nor always, but nevertheless in the greater number of cases, for example, from a seed a tree is born. Finally, some causes are not determined to producing one effect, but can produce diverse effects, just as, for example, the human will can produce good and evil acts. Therefore, if someone predicts effects from known causes of the first and second kind, he does not commit divination, because he does not predict in an undue manner, but follows the guidance of right reason. But he who from known free and contingent causes attempts to foretell future effects (unless God reveals them) practices divination, because he acts in an undue manner, usurping to himself what belongs to God alone, who knows all contingent future things.

Demons cannot know contingent future things, nor even things altogether occult, and especially the secrets of hearts;⁷⁵² nevertheless, for various reasons, they know far more than men concerning future and other occult things: 1. because the natural intellectual power of angels is much more perfect than the intellect of man. Now this natural intellectual power was not diminished in the demons through sin; 2. because through the experience of so many centuries they know sufficiently perfectly what is accustomed to happen in certain circumstances, even from contingent causes; 3. because, being most powerful and most cunning spirits, they are able, with God's permission, to instigate even free causes to produce certain effects (although not with complete certainty).

All true divination is done with the assistance of a demon, and indeed a) through his express invocation, or, as it is said, with an explicit pact with the demon, namely, when the demon is invoked in set words so that he may be willing to communicate some knowledge, for example, which lot in a lottery is going to have the greatest prize; b) through implicit invocation, when someone, in order to obtain some knowledge, uses inept means which he knows have the power to produce the intended effect neither from their own nature nor from the will of God or of the Church. The demon, however, willingly mingles himself with inept means of this kind, because then man, having abandoned the true worship of God, will gradually fall into pernicious errors.

⁷⁵¹ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 95, a. 1.

⁷⁵² Cf. S. theol. 1, q. 57, aa. 3 and 4.

508. Divisions. Divination is distinguished in two ways, namely, a) divination with express invocation of the devil, and b) divination with implicit invocation of the devil. Each species is subdivided into many parts, which are here enumerated very briefly:

a) There are nine modes of divination with express invocation of the devil:⁷⁵³

1. Praestigium (an apparition of the devil; Teufelserscheinung) is present when the demon himself appears under a sensible sign, as is read in the Gospel concerning the temptation of Christ himself, and in the lives of many saints.

2. Oneiromancy (interpretation of dreams; Traumdeuterei), or divination by dreams, is present when the invoked devil reveals in sleep the things sought. St. Thomas⁷⁵⁴ rightly teaches that there are four causes of dreams, namely, two internal and two external. The first internal cause is animal, namely, a thought or vivid affection had while awake. For it is established by experience that a man often dreams of those things about which he thought insistently before sleep. The second internal cause is corporeal, namely, the internal disposition of the body. Thus, for example, an affection of the heart produces dreams of fear, and an affection of the genital parts produces lustful dreams. The first external cause, and that a corporeal one, is a material impression caused from without during sleep. Thus, for example, one who sleeps in a foul-smelling place suffers wearisome or troublesome dreams. The shining full moon excites certain men to particular dreams (to somnambulism). The other external cause is God or the devil. That God truly sometimes sends dreams is clearly evident from many examples in Sacred Scripture.⁷⁵⁵ That the devil also has the power to cause dreams is evident from the fact that he can excite phantasms in man. For the imagination is a corporeal power upon which the devil can exercise his efficacy. If God sends dreams (which seems to happen rarely in our times), He is accustomed at the same time to provide signs not open to doubt that He Himself is the author of those dreams. Such signs are: a) if the thing perceived in sleep is good, worthy of God, and impelling toward virtue; b) if the soul remains tranquil and inclined toward piety, but not disturbed and obstinate in its own designs. In a doubt whether a dream is from God or not, the legitimate ecclesiastical superior is to be consulted. But if it is certain that the dream was sent by God, the directions received in the dream are diligently to be obeyed. In all other cases, however, whether the dreams proceeded from natural causes or from the devil, it is not lawful to trust dreams; for this would be to wish to know occult things in an undue manner, indeed, in a manner expressly prohibited by God. Already in the Old Testament it was forbidden to observe dreams.⁷⁵⁶ Hence he sins gravely who desires to be taught in sleep by a demon, or, what is much worse, employs certain external signs or a certain position of the body in order to undergo the efficacy of the devil in sleep. In practice all are to be deterred from the observation of dreams, even if someone expressly excludes every diabolical intervention. Those who believe dreams they have had often do not sin gravely, both because of their good faith and because matters of the least importance are involved. Thus, for example, one who does not wish to mount a horse because on the preceding night he dreamed that he would fall from the horse can be admonished concerning his empty fear, but is not to be accused of grave sin.⁷⁵⁷

3. Necromancy is divination in which the devil is asked to be willing to raise some dead person who is to answer questions. Modern spiritism (concerning which below in n. 524) is not very dissimilar.

4. Pythonism is present when a demon, through living men possessed by him, manifests occult things, as is read concerning the pythoness at Endor whom Saul approached.⁷⁵⁸

5. Geomancy is divination in which a demon teaches through figures or signs appearing in some terrestrial body,⁷⁵⁹ for example, in wood, iron, or a polished stone. To geomancy are reduced a) an oracle, namely, when a demon, having been consulted, responds through idols; b) turning tables, when a demon gives responses by means of turning tables. Turning tables will be treated specially below in n. 521.

6. Hydromancy is present if a demon teaches through signs in water. Today the so-called crystallomancy not rarely occurs, in which someone beholds unusual figures in crystal or in water.

7. Aeromancy is present if a demon teaches through signs in the air.

8. Pyromancy is present if a demon teaches through signs in fire.

9. Haruspicy is present if a demon teaches through signs appearing in the entrails of animals immolated upon the altars of demons, as happened among the ancient Romans.

⁷⁵³ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 95, a. 3.

⁷⁵⁴ Cf. ibid., a. 6.

⁷⁵⁵ Gen. 28:13; Judg. 7:13; 1 Kings 3:10; Dan. 2:19; Matt. 1:20 and 2:12.

⁷⁵⁶ Deut. 18:10; Jer. 29:8.

⁷⁵⁷ Cf. Noldin, De praeceptis n. 156.

⁷⁵⁸ 1 Kings 28:7ff.

⁷⁵⁹ Certainly water, air, fire, etc. are also terrestrial bodies, but divination practiced in these things has special names.

509. b) Seven modes of divination with implicit invocation of the devil are customarily given:

1. Judicial astrology,⁷⁶⁰ when someone attempts to know future things from consideration of the position and movement of the stars. To this pertain genethliacs, or those who cast horoscopes.⁷⁶¹ This judicial astrology has nothing in common with scientific astrology or astronomy.

2. Augury, when someone divines from the voices of birds.

3. Auspice, when someone predicts future things from the flight of birds.

4. Omen, when someone from a fortuitous occurrence asserts that certain things are going to happen, for example, from encountering a funeral procession or from the presence of thirteen persons at table.

5. Chiromancy, if someone divines from the lines of the hand, as is often customarily done in our days by gypsies.

6. Physiognomy, if divination is made from the features of the face or of another member of the body.

7. Sortilege, if someone presumes to know future things from signs arbitrarily chosen, for example, from cards, from the casting of dice, from figures in molten lead, etc.

⁷⁶⁰ Sterndeuterei [interpretation of the stars].

⁷⁶¹ Horoskop- oder Nativitätssteller [caster of horoscopes or nativities].

510. On the morality of lots. There are three species of lots:⁷⁶²

1. Divisory lots, which are employed by common consent to discern what is to be allotted to someone, whether it is a possessed thing to be divided, an honor, a dignity, etc. When utility or necessity requires, these lots are entirely lawful and very commonly used. Hence it is lawful to divide an inheritance by lot when another mode of dividing is not so easy; in a time of plague it is lawful to determine by lot which one of the physicians must remain to care for the sick. Even in some civil codes the use of lots for settling controversies is expressly permitted.⁷⁶³ The use of lots in ecclesiastical elections, however, is forbidden.⁷⁶⁴

2. Consultory lots, which are employed to investigate what should be done or omitted in doubtful matters, for example, whether a certain contract of doubtful utility should be made; whether at a fork in the road one should proceed to the right or to the left, etc. Consultory lots are of themselves an unlawful tempting of God, unless they are employed a) from an inspiration of God, as was done in the election of the apostle Matthias; b) from a sufficiently grave cause of necessity or utility, when other ordinary means are lacking.⁷⁶⁵ Prayers to God must then be offered beforehand that He may be willing to direct the lots, according to that saying: "Lots are cast into the lap, but they are disposed by the Lord."⁷⁶⁶

3. Divinatory lots, which are employed to obtain knowledge of an occult thing, are a grave superstition if they are used seriously without a special mandate of God. For lots of this kind can manifest an occult truth neither from their own nature nor from the institution of God. Therefore the manifestation of the truth is expected through the assistance of a demon, who is consequently invoked at least implicitly. If lots are employed from a special inspiration of God, as was done to discover the crime of Achan,⁷⁶⁷ they are entirely lawful, as is evident of itself; but if they are employed from mere jest or some curiosity, without firm faith being placed in the outcome of the lots, they are not indeed gravely sinful, but nevertheless are to be avoided, because they are not a very becoming jest. In canon law sortilege, which is a superstition, has been gravely prohibited.⁷⁶⁸

⁷⁶² Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 95, a. 8, and Billuart, De relig. diss. 7, a. 5, § 5.

⁷⁶³ Cf. German Civil Code, §§ 659, 752; Austrian Civil Code, §§ 835, 841; Swiss Civil Code, art. 611.

⁷⁶⁴ c. 3, X 5, 21; cf. St. Thomas, Opusc. (XXV), De sortibus c. 5.

⁷⁶⁵ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 95, a. 8.

⁷⁶⁶ Prov. 16:33.

⁷⁶⁷ Josh. 7:12.

⁷⁶⁸ Cf. c. 7, C. 26, q. 5; likewise ibid., cc. 8, 9, and 10; cf. also the constitution Coeli et terrae of Sixtus V, issued in 1586, in which not only sortilege but also other modes of superstition are gravely prohibited. Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 2325.

511. Scholion. On ordeals and the use of the divining rod. To sortileges are also reduced the so-called ordeals, or vulgar purgation, and the use of the divining rod. Ordeals were often employed in the times of the Middle Ages. Already St. Thomas taught that they were unlawful, and several Supreme Pontiffs condemned them, for example, Nicholas I,⁷⁶⁹ Innocent III,⁷⁷⁰ and Honorius III.⁷⁷¹ Some men nevertheless used them from an erroneous conscience, or perhaps from a special impulse of the Holy Ghost. Ordeals were customarily performed in many ways, but especially through the judgment of red-hot iron or boiling water, concerning which St. Thomas⁷⁷² says: "A judgment of this kind is rendered unlawful both because it is ordered to judging occult things, which are reserved to divine judgment, and because a judgment of this kind has not been sanctioned by divine authority." And in truth such judgments equally contain an unlawful tempting of God, from whom a miracle is expected, and a sinful superstition.

A divining rod⁷⁷³ is a rod customarily cut from hazel or willow wood and employed for finding hidden things. Authors commonly teach that the use of such a divining rod is lawful for seeking water or metals, provided that a protestation is made against every diabolical efficacy. The reason is that the rod's inclination toward water or metals can be explained with sufficient probability from magnetic and electrical forces; hence even upright men sometimes use a divining rod for this effect. But if that rod is employed to find lost things of any kind, this is then unlawful, because no natural cause has the power to produce such effects.

⁷⁶⁹ c. 22, C. 2, q. 5.

⁷⁷⁰ c. 9, X 3, 50.

⁷⁷¹ c. 3, X 5, 35.

⁷⁷² L.c., ad 3.

⁷⁷³ Wünschelrute, Zauberrute, die aus Haselnuss oder Weide geschnitten wird; baguette de coudrier [divining rod, magic rod, which is cut from hazel or willow; hazel rod].

512. Moral malice. 1. Divination which is done with express invocation of a demon is a mortal sin in its whole genus.

The reason is that:

a) through it divine worship is rendered to the devil;

b) in this manner there is a most manifest commerce with the bitter enemy of God;

c) there easily arises a danger of apostasy and of other grave sins, indeed, even of eternal damnation; for just as association with angels is a certain beginning of eternal life, so commerce with the devil is a certain beginning of eternal damnation.

2. Divination through implicit invocation of a demon is indeed a mortal sin from its genus, because it is a certain commerce with the devil; nevertheless, it becomes a venial sin: a) from the ignorance and simplicity of the agent; b) from the jest and levity with which it is performed; c) from the fact that firm faith is not placed in those vain signs.

Therefore the faithful are indeed to be earnestly admonished not to approach diviners practicing chiromancy, sortilege, etc., but they are not so readily to be condemned as having committed a grave sin.⁷⁷⁴

⁷⁷⁴ Divination by cards (Kartenschlagen) can also be reduced to divinatory sortilege.

513. The specific malice of divination. Theologians indeed commonly teach that all diverse divinations, whether they are done by an explicit or implicit pact with the devil, are not distinguished specifically in the moral genus, because all are reduced to the worship of a false divinity; nevertheless, for two reasons it must be declared in confession whether the divination was done through an explicit pact with the devil or not: 1. because thus the confessor can judge more easily whether the sin committed was grave or not; for divination with an explicit pact with the devil is always a mortal sin, as has been said; 2. because with divination through the express invocation of the devil very many other sins are customarily joined, for example, blasphemy, sacrilege, abuse of sacred things, etc.

S. Th. II-II, q. 95.

777. Divination and its various species. - Those who presume to foreknow and foretell future contingent things attribute to themselves something which is proper to God, and therefore they are called diviners, and their action divination (waarzeggerij). By extension this word designates every undue inquiry into hidden things by the help of a demon (a. 1).

It is twofold: 1. Express, which is made by expressly asking the intervention of a demon, and which is divided into various species according to the diverse modes by which he himself is consulted, or responds: prestige, if he appears under some sensible form; necromancy, if he responds through the dead, whom he falsely presents as present; pythonism, if through the living whom he invades; oracle, if through idols; haruspicy, if through the entrails of sacrificed animals; geomancy, hydromancy, aeromancy, pyromancy, if from signs in inanimate things; oneiromancy or divination of dreams, etc.

2. Tacit, which is made by seriously employing means which, unless a demon intervened, are wholly ineffective for the knowledge of hidden things, and thus by implicitly imploring his help. For he who employs means disproportionate and vain for naturally detecting a thing, by that very fact expects help from an intelligent being. But God or a good angel cannot approve these vain inquiries, nor do they involve themselves in them or furnish aid; but if the means is not valid for divine aid, by that very fact someone expects help from malign spirits, who willingly insert themselves into vain inquiries. Nor does it suffice to protest that he does not intend this; he acts against the protestation while he uses means disproportionate and otherwise ineffective. This is done in two ways:

a) Either by considering, for foreknowing future things, certain dispositions of things; as judicial astrology does, from the position or even motion of the stars; augury or auspice from the voices or motion of birds; chiromancy from the lines of the hands; physiognomy from the lines of the face; spatulamancy from the shoulder-blades of animals; omen from a chance occurrence, for example, meeting a funeral or human words said without intention which someone twists toward future things, etc.

b) Or by doing something and considering the action for knowing hidden things, and this is called divination by lots or sortilege (a. 3).

778. Divination is a mortal sin of superstition from its whole genus. - For the diviner, even if he acts without the mind of honoring a demon, in fact enters into a certain society with the enemy of God and ours, and implicitly subjects himself to him as teacher of truth (Lev. XX, 6, 27; Deut. XVIII, 10-12; Is. XXVIII, 15; Gal. IV, 10, 11). Whence divination is a sin.

It is a sin of superstition. For by divination divine worship is exhibited to a demon, since a) the hidden things which are investigated often are future free things or secrets of the heart, of which certain knowledge is proper to God; whence he who expects the manifestation of such things from a demon attributes to him a certain divine excellence;¹ b) even outside this case, because the demon, through society with men, intends to usurp something of the excellence of God and of the honor owed to Him by men; and therefore one consulting a demon consents to him and cooperates in the usurpation of divine excellence, and thus works superstitiously against religion (a. 2 and 4).

¹ It should be noted that demons cannot with certitude know future contingent things, nor even things wholly hidden, and especially the secrets of hearts, but nevertheless they know far more than men about future and other hidden things, for various reasons: 1. because the natural intellective power of spirits is much more perfect than the intellect of man; moreover this natural intellective power was not diminished in demons by sin; 2. because through the experience of ages they know sufficiently perfectly what is accustomed to happen in certain circumstances even from contingent causes; 3. because with wonderful speed they can pass from one place to another and transfer corporeal things, and thus predict effects from causes which they see placed in distant places; 4. because, God permitting, they can apply natural causes to effects, indeed also instigate free causes to producing certain effects, yet not with every kind of certitude.

Hence it is a grave sin from its whole genus: for that in a small matter a demon be summoned as friend is always gravely injurious to God.

Nevertheless, if it is done tacitly, in fact it will often be venial because of imperfection of the act, whether from ignorance and simplicity of the agent, or from play and levity by which it is performed rather than from serious intention, or from the fact that full faith is not employed.

781. Divination by the stars. - Astrology is distinguished as twofold: one natural, which from natural causes conjectures natural effects such as wind, storm, cold, etc., and this of itself is not illicit; the other judicial, which, namely, from the aspect of the stars judges concerning things depending upon man's free choice, or concerning events merely fortuitous or otherwise altogether hidden, for example, if from them are foreboded the days or mode of death, the course of life, health, honors, offspring, prosperity, etc.: but this astrology is altogether illicit, as manifestly superstitious. "Then it is vain and false," Cajetan notes, "when through them someone wishes to foreknow things which cannot be foreknown through heavenly bodies."

And indeed every corporeal sign is either an effect, or a cause, of that of which it is a sign, or proceeds from the same common cause with the thing signified, and thus, while it designates the cause, it also signifies the effect. But the stars a) are not effects of fortuitous events or of human actions; b) nor can they be reduced into a common cause except into divine providence; but the motions and positions of the stars and contingent events are diversely disposed by divine providence: the former according to the account of necessity, so that they always and in the same mode come about; the latter according to the account of contingency, so that they contingently happen variably; c) nor are they the cause of fortuitous and free effects: not of fortuitous effects, because fortuitous events are beings per accidens, since they are not simply a being, nor simply one but many, as that by a stone falling an earthquake happens, or that by a man digging a grave a treasure is found, does not have one determinate natural cause but several; nor also of free effects, because intellect and will, through which free acts proceed, are spiritual powers, into which bodies such as the stars cannot directly impress or act, and consequently cannot determine them (a. 5).

The same must be said of divinations through the observance of exterior things, such as auguries, physiognomy, etc. They can be natural signs of meteorological events, or of temperament, inclinations, health, etc.; but not of free acts or altogether fortuitous events (a. 7).

784. Observation. - Concerning predictions by cards or by inspection of hands, face, or writing, note that such seers generally do not believe their own art, but conjecture certain things for deceiving the credulous and delighting the curious. But 1. if they pretend that they act seriously, they sin by deceiving unjustly and by cooperating with those by whom they are consulted superstitiously; 2. those who consult seriously sin gravely, unless they are excused by ignorance; but if it is done from jest, levity, vain curiosity, without employing faith, per se it is only venial; 3. if the seers and those consulting act from jest, no sin per se is present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 3. Is the use of lots sometimes licit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Most Blessed Father,

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

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

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

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

I. Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote two entire books on divination. At the very outset he describes it thus: "This opinion has already been common from the earliest ages, confirmed by the agreement of the Roman people and of all nations, that a certain divination exists among men" — that is, a foreknowledge and knowledge of future things. St. Thomas also devotes eight articles to this subject (II-II, q. 95), and gives the very same definition Cicero offers, saying that it consists in the foretelling of future things. Future things, he says, can be known beforehand in two ways: one, in their causes; the other, in themselves. Some causes are natural, producing their effects necessarily, such as the motions of the heavenly spheres and eclipses; others, though they do not produce their effects necessarily, nevertheless rarely fail to do so — as when the aspects and conjunctions of the stars bring on rain or drought. Now one who knows necessary causes can also know for certain the effects that necessarily follow from them. But one who knows causes that do not necessarily produce their effects, but only usually and rarely fail to, can foretell such things only by probable conjecture, not with certainty — in this way astrologers can foretell rain or drought from the observation of the stars, and physicians health or death. The effects of free causes, however, God alone knows; wherefore Isaiah (ch. 41) attributes the foreknowledge of future contingents to God alone: "Show the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that ye are gods."

II. The foretelling of future things through divine revelation is called prophecy — "Divination is in the lips of the king; his mouth shall not err in judgment" (Prov. 16). The foretelling of future things by the power of natural causes is called natural divination. But that foreknowledge of the future which occurs neither through divine revelation, nor through the power of natural causes, but solely through the agency of a demon, is properly called "divination" in the species of superstition. Hence St. Thomas concludes that the term "divination" is nearly always taken in a bad sense. It is of this divination that we now speak, which is commonly defined by theologians, following St. Thomas (II-II, q. 95, art. 1), as "the foreknowledge of future things by the agency of a demon." It is called "foreknowledge" because it can be conveyed by words or by signs. The words "by the agency of a demon" are added so that it may be understood that one who seeks knowledge of future things from God, not from a demon, does not commit this fault. It is called "of future things" because it chiefly foretells what is to come, although it can also concern the past.

III. Question I. What future things can demons foretell? Response: All those things that depend on natural causes — such as the conjunctions of the stars, the motions of the heavens, and the eclipses of the sun and moon — demons can foretell with certainty. Things that arise only contingently from natural causes — such as rains, droughts, plagues, storms, and the like — they can only conjecture probably. Things, however, that depend solely on the divine will, or on the free choice of men — such as the thoughts of the human heart, and future contingents — they cannot know at all, as St. Thomas teaches (I Part, q. 57, art. 3). Nevertheless, those demons who, by the sharpness of their intellect, grasp natural causes, and who penetrate men's native dispositions, temperaments, and inclinations, can foretell many things, even among those that proceed from men's free will. The order of freedom certainly lies beyond the bounds of natural causes, and escapes the grasp even of the subtlest demonic intellect; yet, on account of the connection between the order of free acts and the order of nature, demons can often foretell, through their own diviners, much that pertains to human freedom. They can likewise know future things through divine revelation. They can also foretell things happening in distant regions, on account of the speed of their movement. This much only can they teach their own diviners.

IV. Question II. In what manner do demons teach their diviners? Response: Demons instruct their diviners in many ways — sometimes by express words, making themselves visible to them; sometimes without any sensible appearance, uttering words in the air, or producing the same effect in sleep. Sometimes they instruct them through writings, or through the voice of animals. Diviners, for their part, prepare themselves to obtain such knowledge in various ways — now by burning incense, sometimes by offering sacrifices, now through signs and instruments, according to their various established conventions with the demons.

V. Question III. Is a demon's assistance always invoked by an explicit pact? Response: This invocation is sometimes explicit and solemn, whereby diviners enter into a mutual contract with a demon, who appears to them in royal guise, as it were seated upon a throne. Here the diviners renounce the divine religion, the sacraments, and the other mysteries, and promise the demon worship, pledging themselves to fulfill his wishes — a sacrilegious pact which they are accustomed to seal with a document signed in their own blood. Sometimes they enter into the pact with this solemnity omitted, but the demon prescribes certain formulas by which he promises to lend them help and assistance — either way, this is called an explicit pact. But when someone seeks to know things that lie beyond the grasp of the human mind by means of various vain and unsuitable methods forbidden by God — even though he does not wish to be instructed by a demon's agency — the demon nonetheless insinuates himself uninvited into such vain observances and signs, beyond the man's own intention; and this is called an implicit pact. St. Thomas explains the whole matter in a few words (II-II, q. 95, art. 4): "The counsel or help of demons is sought either explicitly or implicitly; a demon insinuates himself secretly, beyond man's intention, in order to foretell certain future things unknown to men."

VI. St. Thomas (loc. cit.) further enumerates various species of this divination, in which an explicit pact with a demon is involved. I cannot express these species more clearly than by citing the Angelic Doctor's own words. "Demons, when invoked, are accustomed to foretell future things in many ways. Sometimes indeed, by certain apparitions, they present themselves expressly to men's sight or hearing, in order to foretell future things: and this species is called prestige [illusion], because men's eyes are thereby deceived." The bodies, however, which are presented to diviners in this way are not true human bodies possessing real flesh, as Cajetan explains most excellently in his commentary on this article. Such simulated bodies, he says, fall short of true bodies in two respects. First, in the very substance of the flesh: for the father of lies himself confessed, when his flesh, as if made of ice, was exposed to touch, that he could not truly fashion human flesh — since he cannot combine natural elements without true human generation so as to produce real human flesh; and by similar reasoning he cannot produce human semen, but only transfer it. And from this it is made most clear how true was Christ's saying after his Resurrection: "Handle, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones," as a demon has not. Secondly, in the pleasure of touch and of intercourse: for the natural union of human persons is the more pleasurable, the more the real surpasses the merely apparent. Thus far Cajetan, with a few omissions. St. Thomas adds that the second species of divination is through dreams, and this is called the divination of dreams. The third species is through the apparition or speech of the dead, and this species is called necromancy. The fourth is that which foretells future things through living men, as through those possessed — and this is divination by "pythons," so called from the Pythian Apollo, who was said to be the author of divination. The fifth species of divination is when a demon makes use of signs or figures of inanimate bodies — wood, iron, or stone — to foretell the future; and this is called geomancy. If, however, he makes use of water, this is the sixth species, called hydromancy; if of air, there arises the seventh species, called aeromancy; if of fire, the eighth species, called pyromancy. The ninth, finally, is called haruspicy, when future things are foretold through signs appearing in the entrails of animals sacrificed to demons.

VII. Divination that occurs without an explicit invocation of a demon is divided into two kinds. The first is when, in order to foreknow future things, we consider something in the dispositions of certain things which have no power at all to produce such knowledge; this kind of divination contains six species under it. The first is genethlialogy, which pertains to the astrologers called "genethliac," when they foretell men's fates, and what is to come to them, from the motion of the stars at their birth. The second is augury, which is done from the chattering of birds. The third is auspice, in which future things are foretold from the flight of birds, or the movement of other animals. The fourth is called omen, which is a prediction drawn from words uttered by men without any such intention. The fifth is chiromancy, from the lines of the hands. The sixth, finally, is called scapulimancy, when divination is made from certain signs appearing on the shoulder-blade of some animal.

VIII. To the second kind of divination belongs that in which future things are foretold from the consideration of things which men seriously undertake in order to inquire into something hidden, without any express invocation of a demon. If future events are foretold from the drawing of points or marks, this is called geomancy, and is the first species. The other is called sortilege (casting of lots), when future things are investigated either by considering the figures that arise from molten lead cast into water; or from certain slips, written or unwritten, hidden away, and it is observed which one each person draws; or by observing who draws the greater or lesser number, whether by the casting of uneven sticks, or by the throwing of dice; or finally, when, upon reflection, it is determined which page of a book will fall open when one considers what is to be revealed. All these go by the name of "lots."

IX. St. Thomas concludes this matter in almost these very words (loc. cit.): "There is a threefold kind of divination: the first is through the manifest invocation of demons, which pertains to necromancers; the second is through the mere consideration of the disposition or movement of some other thing, which pertains to augurs; the third is when we do something ourselves so that something hidden may be made manifest to us, which pertains to lots. Under each of these, however, many further kinds are contained, as is clear from what has been said."

X. Question IV. Are all the aforesaid species of divination morally distinct, such that they must be explained individually in confession? Response: From what has been said, the answer is clear. St. Thomas reduces divination to three genera: namely, to necromancy, augury, and lot-casting. That not all the recognized species of divination are morally distinct is established by the fact that, in whatever manner divinations are carried out — whether by the use of the stars, of fire, of water, or of dreams — they are opposed, in the same way, to the worship owed to God and to the end of religion. This diversity, then, is a material, not a moral, one — provided we are speaking of all the species enumerated together.

XI. Question V. Does divination carried out by an explicit pact with a demon differ, in moral species, from that carried out by a tacit pact? Response: The more common opinion teaches that these divinations do not differ in moral species, since a tacit and an explicit pact do not differ in kind. From this not a few draw the conclusion that the circumstance of an explicit pact need not be disclosed in confession, since aggravating circumstances need not necessarily be specified. But — setting aside the more rigorous discussion of the strict specific moral difference — I hold that a pact explicitly entered into with a demon must indeed be disclosed [in confession]... This explicit agreement and solemn compact, mutually struck between man and demon, betrays a malice so distinct from that of a merely tacit pact that even common sense itself perceives it. I therefore cannot agree with the opinion of the theologians of Salamanca (tract. 21, ch. 11, punct. 3, §2, n. 45), who, with others, teach that this explicit pact need not necessarily be disclosed in confession in every case, since it is merely an aggravating circumstance. First, even if it were merely an aggravating circumstance, it would not follow, on the opinion I hold more probable, that it may be passed over in silence in confession. Second, it is by no means so well established that these two pacts do not differ in moral species that one could conclude, without qualification, that such a difference need not be disclosed in confession. Indeed, St. Thomas himself, in the words cited above (n. 9), seems to indicate a specific, not merely a physical, distinction; for he adds there: "In all these it is graver to invoke a demon expressly than to do something by which one exposes oneself to becoming the object of such [demonic] insinuation, whatever it may bring." The theologians of Salamanca reply that the Angelic Doctor is speaking of a physical, not a moral, diversity here — a claim so patently absurd that no one fails to see it, since St. Thomas is not discussing physical controversies here, but moral theology. They add that this must be understood of a greater malice within the same species — but this response seems no better than the last. The Angelic Doctor plainly says that the reason for sinning is not the same; therefore, if the reason for sinning is not the same, the formal grounds of sinning are different, and therefore there is a specific moral distinction here, and not merely a material one — which always falls under the same formal ground, whichever way one turns it. It should be added, moreover, that whether or not there is a specific distinction, when a confessor hears of an express and solemn pact, he necessarily forms an altogether different, and more severe, judgment of the penitent. It matters little, say the theologians of Salamanca, whether this judgment is distinct. To this I answer that their response misses the truth by a great deal, not a little. This difference in judgment is given great weight by Sánchez, Castropalao, and very many other Probabilists themselves.

XII. Even the theologians of Salamanca themselves, however, along with other theologians, admit that this explicit pact must in practice be disclosed to the confessor — on the grounds that other sins commonly accompany such a pact: for there arises a grave danger of pernicious deception, both of the one who invokes the demon and of others, thus exposing oneself to grave danger of deception, whether of oneself or of others — a grave malice against charity. Likewise, the crime of idolatry is frequently committed in the express invocation of a demon, on account of the worship offered him. Heresy, too, is often contracted, whether by placing a certain trust in the demon, or by denying the true faith, religion, and the sacraments; and it not infrequently happens that an abuse of sacred things occurs in this invocation. On account of these crimes — of which at least one nearly always accompanies an explicit pact — all agree that such a pact must be disclosed in confession. I would add, following the more probable opinion, that this explicit pact must be disclosed in confession absolutely, even apart from these other crimes.

XIII. Question VI. Is it a mortal crime to divine by a pact, whether explicit or tacit? Response: The affirmative opinion is certain among all, and is clearly gathered both from Deuteronomy 18 — "Let there not be found among you anyone who consults soothsayers, or seeks oracles from spirits" — and from Isaiah 28: "You have said: We have entered into a covenant with death, and with hell we have made a pact." All likewise affirm that no invincible ignorance of an explicit pact can ever exist. For who could be ignorant that entering a covenant with the enemy [of mankind] is treacherous betrayal and monstrous treason? That invincible ignorance of a tacit pact can occur, several affirm; nor do I myself deny it — though I say this happens very rarely, especially once one has heard the aforesaid warnings. What, then, of those who make use of lots, of numerical calculations (commonly called "cabala"), and other such unsuitable means of divining the future, without any superstitious intention, indeed expressly professing that they place no faith in such vain signs? The theologians of Salamanca (loc. cit., n. 33), together with Sánchez, Bonacina, Navarro, De Lugo, and others, teach that these are excused from mortal sin when they do this once or twice. I myself would not dare to condemn them of mortal fault either. But what of those who indulge frequently in such nonsense with these vain signs? Let them consider, then, what danger they expose themselves to who indulge in such things not once or twice, but rather often, out of a certain vain and dangerous curiosity. What sort of speech is it, then, that requires the formula "once" or "twice" for the graver fault? Whoever plays at such games even once sins venially, all the surrounding circumstances lurking beneath. Why, then, should no one consider them safe from mortal guilt? What is it, then, that they ought not do, so that they might withdraw themselves from a certain light fault, and from the danger of a graver one?

XIV. Theologians commonly also teach that one must abstain from that pact whereby two people agree that whichever of them dies first will appear to the survivor and reveal to him the state of his soul's salvation. For although this pact, entered into with due submission to the divine will, is absolutely lawful in itself, yet on account of the danger of illusion — since a demon, aware of this pact, could deceive the survivor — it is more advisable to restrain such useless curiosity.

I. Theologians distinguish a twofold astrology: one natural, whereby men foretell, from the motion, rising, position, and setting of the stars, those things which occur naturally — such as rain, storms, and eclipses. This is acknowledged by all to be lawful, together with St. Thomas (II-II, q. 95, art. 5), who, after reviewing various views, concludes as follows: "If someone makes use of the observation of the stars in order to foreknow future bodily effects, caused by celestial bodies — such as drought or rain — this will be neither an unlawful nor a superstitious divination." Although this is absolutely true of those effects which necessarily follow from the position and aspect of the stars and planets, nevertheless, as to storms, droughts, rains, fair weather, and other such things to be foretold — such an astrology is generally vain and useless, though not harmful, both because the power of the stars is not fully known, and because of the obstruction of winds, vapors, and other things, which often impede the influence of the stars. This is well established and proven by experience. Nor do the almanacs published yearly certainly predict any outcome other than the emptying of the purses of the ignorant and unlearned, as the aforesaid theologians of Salamanca observe. I am often inclined to laugh at those who waste their time and money hunting down these trifling pamphlets, and who read and reread them with such curiosity and greed as to seem to place real faith in them. Such people do not escape a light fault of frivolity, rashness, and idle curiosity — not, indeed, for consulting such pamphlets as such, but for their excess and overcredulity.

II. The other astrology is judicial — whereby men divine, from the motion of the stars, the aspect of the planets, and the course of the heavenly bodies, certain future things that are contingent, occurring by chance, or depending solely on human will and choice. Theologians teach that this too is twofold. One is that whereby, from the aspects of the stars, the fertility or barrenness of the earth, the diseases and deaths of animals and men, are foretold — not with certainty, but only as probable; and this is not superstitious, provided these future things are foretold only as probable. The second is called genethlialogy, whereby dignities, ranks, the beauty or ugliness of one's future spouse, are foretold for individuals. The third is that of elections, whereby it is divined, in every undertaking, what is to be done, what omitted, when one should leave the house, so that fortunate outcomes may follow. The fourth is that of fabricated images, whereby astrologers construct figures, numbers, and characters, which they combine, by a supposed mutual sympathy, with figures they claim to find in the heavens; and from this combination they foretell fortuitous events. St. Thomas treats all these matters at length (II-II, q. 96, art. 2), which the reader may consult.

III. All persons of sound mind hold these last three practices to be forbidden — indeed, altogether disparate from reality — since heavenly bodies have no power whatsoever over the human will, which is spiritual, whose free acts, whether honorable or harmful, meritorious or blameworthy, can in no way be traced back to bodily causes. For celestial bodies neither influence the will by their natural power (which would violate freedom, since such influence would be necessary), nor can they serve as signs — since there is no connection whatsoever between such altogether disparate things that would allow them to concur in producing these effects. The Angelic Doctor teaches all this (II-II, q. 95, art. 3). And, setting aside the many prohibitions of Sacred Scripture against this astrology, let it suffice to cite the words of the constitution of Sixtus V, issued in the year 1586, beginning "Coeli et terrae Creator Deus" ["God, Creator of Heaven and Earth"], where, among other things, it is stated: "We ordain and command that... those who presume to affirm that anything will come to pass concerning nativities and the dependent judgments of men — even if they do not claim to affirm this with certainty, but merely assert or hold it as probable — concerning contingent events, successes, and chance occurrences, or actions proceeding from human free will, are to act and proceed against, and to punish more severely, in accordance with the canonical penalties." The objections astrologers commonly raise are too frivolous to merit a refutation.

IV. Question I. Is it superstitious to divine free future events, not with certainty, but probably? Response: The affirmative opinion is common and true. The reason is that a probable assent is a determinate one, even though it admits some fear of the opposite. But no determinate influence of the stars upon the will can be given, even probably. Therefore even a merely probable foreknowledge of future things from the stars is superstitious. Wherefore, whether astrologers foretell free future events with certainty or with probability, they are always superstitious, since there is no connection whatsoever between the stars and human freedom.

V. Question II. Is a prediction that is merely conjectural free of superstition? Response: Fr. Castropalao (tract. 17, disp. 1, punct. 4, n. 8) teaches the affirmative, citing Vázquez and De Lugo in support; he seeks to prove this, first, on the grounds that Sixtus V did not prohibit this merely conjectural and slight prediction, since the Pontiff only forbade that foreknowledge of the future which had already been forbidden by divine and canon law, as is gathered from the preamble of the constitution. Secondly, he adds that this conjectural and doubtful prediction of a contingent future event is not an absolute prediction, but only a prediction resting on some rather slight conjecture — which is more a prediction of a contingency than of an effect.

VI. Against this opinion one could object that in the Sixtine constitution prediction is forbidden even if they do not assert or profess it as certain. Therefore even conjectural foreknowledge seems to be forbidden. What of the fact that this conjectural divination is as pernicious to the commonwealth and to divine worship as the probable kind? Indeed it is scarcely distinguished from it, except by a greater or lesser degree of probability. For if the lawful use of that conjectural divination were admitted, men inclined to the knowledge of hidden things would devote themselves to this vain science as though it were certain; since they would flatter themselves that they could advance beyond conjectures, and approach the bounds of probability, and from these reach the summit of certainty: and so under this most slender veil of conjectural prediction the crime of superstitious divination would be hidden and fostered. What of the fact that Castropalao himself concedes that such diviners are to be punished in the external forum? Why should they be punished, if once any prediction of contingent future things from the stars were lawful? Indeed scarcely anyone could be punished, the opinion of Castropalao once admitted: for anyone could excuse himself under the pretext of a conjectural prediction. Therefore Pope Sixtus, as we have seen, forbids divination whether certain or conjectural: which conjectural prediction has always been forbidden both by divine and by natural law, for the reasons alleged.

VII. These objections I have raised, however, are not so pressing as to render Castropalao's opinion false in every sense. For St. Thomas teaches that astrologers can, in general, conjecturally predict wars and other chance events — because heavenly bodies, though they do not act upon the intellect and the will, do nevertheless influence the passions; and since few people resist these, astrologers can in general conjecture certain future events, though not with respect to this or that particular case. For the Angelic Doctor says (II-II, q. 95, art. 5, ad 3): "The greater part of men follow their passions, which are movements of the sensitive appetite, to which celestial bodies can indeed contribute; but there are few wise men who resist such passions. And so astrologers can, for the most part, predict truly, especially in general matters, though not in particular ones — since nothing prevents some individual man from resisting his passions by free choice. Whence astrologers themselves say that the wise man will rule the stars, insofar, that is, as he rules his own passions." If, therefore, one considers the nature of these things — namely, celestial bodies, and bodily or sensory passions — a connection does exist between them, since the former really do influence the latter; and although all men can master their passions, few in fact do so; hence, if this is what is considered, astrologers can conjecturally foretell, from the common influence of the stars upon bodily appetites, various general movements of the passions. But nothing regarding matters that depend on free choice can they foretell with any certainty in particular cases — since any given man can, by conjectural reasoning, resist several bodily impulses of appetite. Indeed, not even the common prediction of astrologers, which alone can be lawful, is worth attending to, but rather to be wholly disregarded — for although astrologers might, from the motion, aspect, and position of the stars, and their influence upon the passions, be able to divine something, since this can nonetheless be impeded and the passions restrained by countless accidental circumstances, all such divination — whether general or particular, probable or conjectural — with respect to matters depending on free choice, is altogether to be despised, as Jeremiah says (ch. 10): "Be not afraid of the signs of heaven, which the heathens fear; for the laws of the people are vain."

VIII. Question III. Are astrologers permitted to predict a person's temperament, inclination, and bodily characteristics from the sign of their nativity? Response: Theologians dispute much on this point; I will settle the matter briefly. It is established from what has been said that astrologers cannot, in any way — whether probably or conjecturally — predict free future events. Moreover, that astrologers cannot certainly predict an infant's temperament and inclinations from the horoscope of its nativity is likewise clear. For the exceedingly rapid motion of the heavens, the aspects of the stars, their retrogradations and oppositions, escape the grasp of the mind, as even the most expert mathematicians themselves admit. It should be added that the precise moment of nativity is exceedingly difficult to determine, on account of the exceedingly rapid revolution of the heavens. What, moreover, of the fact that the influences of the heavens at the time of conception contribute more to temperament and human inclinations than those at the time of birth? And this moment is altogether unknown to astrologers. Finally, men's temperaments are changed by diet, by upbringing, and by very many other factors. All these considerations, taken together — along with many others I pass over — prevent astrologers from being able even probably to predict children's temperaments and inclinations.

IX. Having shown the uselessness of astrologers' divination, it remains to say whether such divination is superstitious. It has been established above that natural astrology is lawful with respect to those events which necessarily follow from the motion and aspect of the stars. But that astrology which divines a person's future constitution, temperament, and inclination from the horoscope of their nativity, we hold — and maintain — to be unlawful. The theologians of Salamanca cite Trullench, who asserts that this divination is by its very nature unfit, and a mortal sin; they themselves, however, with Suárez, Layman, Fagundez, and Tamburini, deny this, saying that by its very kind it is only a falsehood and a rash error, not superstition. Now to lie in the abstract is not a mortal sin, but only venial. It will therefore be only a venial fault, against prudence and truth, to divine a future temperament from the horoscope of a nativity. They add (loc. cit., n. 43) that this divination is lawful, provided the astrologer predicts future inclinations only probably and conjecturally. But once it is granted that there exist no grounds at all upon which a probable judgment about a future temperament and inclination could be formed, it follows immediately that this divination is altogether useless and false — as the aforesaid theologians themselves readily admit. Now if such divination is useless and false, I do not see why it should be called free of superstition.

Whether it is afterward always a mortal sin, I would not venture to decide. As for practice, Christians are to be advised to abstain from seeking such divinations, and from listening to such astrologers who whisper their falsehoods and fables through tubes into the ears of the ignorant and foolish in public squares, and thereby extract their money. For although they profess with their mouths to place no faith in such things, their actions indicate the contrary: for it is hard to believe that they would spend their money merely out of curiosity to hear things they themselves regard as fables. Let them, then, keep their money, and mock this most ignorant and worthless breed of men, wholly ignorant of letters and of the astrological art.

X. Those who consult astrologers to reveal to them some hidden crime — a theft, a murder, or other crimes, whether committed or merely alleged — sin most gravely, because such things cannot be discovered without the art of a demon; and thus those who consult them induce astrologers to practice superstition. What, moreover, of the fact that it is not even lawful to induce a man who truly knows of an altogether hidden crime to reveal it, bypassing the due order of justice?

XI. Question IV. Is it lawful to ask that hidden treasures, underground waters, or corpses hidden beneath tombstones be revealed by those who boast of knowledge of such things? Response: That waters flowing within the veins of the earth can be discerned by natural signs — vapors, and other emanations given off — no one denies. Metals too, present in mines, can be discerned by natural power through several signs, chiefly from the character of the plants that tend to grow there. The knowledge of both, then, can be sought without superstition, since knowledge of either can be obtained without the fault of superstition. But treasures, or corpses hidden beneath tombstones, cannot be discovered without a pact with a demon. Those, therefore, who demand that these be revealed sin gravely, since they induce diviners to commit superstition. What deep roots of folly are these! If God, in his providence, rarely permits a demon to reveal such things, it is so that the endless evils which wicked men are accustomed to perpetrate, once furnished with an abundance of riches, might be prevented. What, then, if others were disappointed of their hope of treasure?

XII. Question V. Are diviners bound to restore the price received for their divination? The singular opinion of Fr. Sánchez is here refuted. Response: When diviners foretell things that escape natural knowledge — as when they predict things that depend solely on free will — they are bound to restore the price received for such prediction, because those who received it were unjustly deceived by such impostures; and if others were led by them into this same practice through foolish credulity in such deceptions, they must compensate the resulting damages, since they were the cause of the loss.

XIII. Fr. Thomas Sánchez (Bk. II, On Decalogue, ch. 38, n. 36) holds a singular opinion on this matter. Lest I seem to misrepresent him, I transcribe his own words. He says: "If we speak of the price received for rendering this judgment, Gratian (ch. Qui habetis, 14, q. 1) teaches that it must be restored to the poor as base gain. But a distinction must be drawn here. If that astrologer employed no effort at all, and knew, by the diabolical art, what could be known by no other means, then — whether or not the predicted effect came to pass — he is bound to restore the price to the giver, since he applied no diligence of his own, but the effect happened by chance, or did not happen. But money is given on account of the labor expended by him, labor useful for achieving the effect — just as, if someone entirely ignorant of medicine applied useless remedies to a sick person, he would be bound to restore the price of the cure to the patient, even if the patient happened by chance to recover from the illness. And although the one who consulted the astrologer erred in this, offering a price for a shameful thing, the truer opinion holds that the price must be restored to him, until he is condemned by a judicial sentence to forfeit it. But if that astrologer, or diviner, applied his own effort, and BY THE ART OF THE DEVIL... he is not bound to restore the price received, because the thing so happened; for he applied his own effort, however base, and it is not subject to restitution according to the truer opinion." Manuel (Bk. 1 of the Summa, 1st edition, ch. 7, n. 4), and Salas (Bk. 3, q. 12, art. 5, tract. 5, disp. 22, sect. 8, n. 79 at the end) teach the same. Navarro (ibid., n. 163–164) adds that the price must be restored without distinction, when the thing does not turn out as predicted. But this I do not believe, when he himself applied the diligence necessary for that effect through the art of the devil: just as a physician who treats a patient according to the rules of his art is not bound to restore the price to a patient who dies, since the diligence applied by that sorcerer [N.B.] is to be valued at a price. Nor in this case is he bound to compensate for damages and expenses to the one who consulted him; but [he is bound] when he applies no effort at all, or is himself ignorant of the DIABOLICAL art.

XIV. Is the diabolical art, then, to be valued at a price? If diviners have no dealings whatsoever with the devil, they are bound to restore the price received for divination, whether or not the effect occurs — because in that case they are ignorant of the divinatory art, and deceive their clients, to whom they render no effort at all, and undergo no trouble in learning the secrets of their supposed art. On the contrary — if they consult the devil, and learn the secrets of the art from so great a master, then, as skilled practitioners of the divinatory art, they are free of the obligation of restitution, and may lawfully keep the price received, whether or not the predicted effect follows — just as a physician who treats a patient according to the rules of his art is not bound to restore the price received, whether the patient recovers or dies. This seems to me a monstrous paradox, repugnant to common sense. In the end, an opinion has been devised that teaches that dealing with the devil can be useful and profitable, and that the profit acquired from such diabolical commerce may be retained. What an erroneous fabrication!

I. St. Thomas treats this question (II-II, q. 95, art. 7). "Augury" is commonly understood in reference to the chattering of birds. It is threefold. When future things are foretold from the flight, song, and number of the chattering, it is called, absolutely, augury. If this prediction is made from the flight, feeding, cry, or movements of birds, it is called auspice. If, however, the divination is made from the entrails, organs, or innards of birds sacrificed or slaughtered, it is then called haruspicy. When, however, divination is made from words uttered by men without any intention regarding the future, it is called an omen. Marcus Tullius writes much on this art in his books on divination, and praises the Etruscans as most skilled in it, whom he says the Romans often summoned to instruct them. I could transcribe much more from this source for erudition's sake; but I think it better to touch only briefly upon those points that pertain to the formation of our own moral conduct.

II. Question I. Is it lawful to foretell the future from the song, flight, or cry of birds? Response: If the discussion concerns certain future effects that depend on natural causes — such as rains, storms, droughts, and the like — it is lawful to conjecture such things from the song, flight, and movement of birds, since these are natural signs of such effects. For the senses of these animals are more strongly affected than those of men by changes in the air and the influences of the stars; and for this reason these creatures are accustomed either to sing or to fly more swiftly when such changes in the weather are impending. There is, then, no superstition, but a prudent observation, in gathering from the song, chattering, and flight of birds indications of rain, fair weather, and storms. The Angelic Doctor explains all this (loc. cit.): "The cause of the actions of brute animals is their instinct, by which they are moved, in a certain natural manner: for they do not have dominion over their own acts. This instinct, however, can proceed from a twofold cause. In one way, from a bodily cause: for since brute animals have only a sensitive soul, all their acts must be the acts of bodily organs, and consequently of animal bodies, and primarily of celestial bodies. And so nothing prevents some of their operations from being signs of future things, insofar as they conform themselves to the dispositions of the celestial bodies and of the surrounding air, from which certain future events arise." Hence it is, adds the Angelic Doctor, that when the crow caws frequently, it indicates coming rain; other creatures give similar signs foretelling such effects.

III. Manifest superstition, however, is committed when one attempts to foretell free future contingent events from the aforesaid signs of birds or other animals. The reason has already been given several times: namely, that free future events depend on the will. Hence God commands (Deut. 18): "Let there not be found among you one who observes auguries." Certain scriptural authorities that are commonly cited in opposition are interpreted by St. Thomas (loc. cit.) — as when Joseph said (unaware [of the true reason]): "Do you not know that there is no one like me in the science of augury?" — Augustine likewise teaches that this was said by Joseph merely as a pretext.

IV. Question II. Is it lawful to foretell future things from words uttered by chance, or from fortuitous events? Response: The negative conclusion is certain and common. For human words uttered by chance are signs at will, having no relation to, and no influence upon, any future thing whatsoever. It is therefore in no way lawful to predict anything from such a chance utterance of words. That Eliezer observed the girl's words, and [that St. Thomas cites] the case of Gideon (loc. cit., ad 3), is to be explained by a special revelation from God, as Augustine also teaches. Similar observations, then, are tainted with superstition: as, for instance, interpreting it unfavorably if alms are requested on the first day of the week; if a dog or cat crosses one's path first thing in the morning; if one sneezes in the morning; if one's clothes are gnawed by mice; if one bumps one's head against a doorway; and six hundred other similar observances, handed down from the pagans to ignorant and unlearned Christians. For because something sad or unlucky sometimes happens by chance after similar signs, men, prone to superstition and deceived by a demon, immediately establish such signs as ill omens.

V. Question III. Is it superstitious to foretell the future from parts of the human body? Response: There are three principal parts of the body commonly observed in divination: the hands, the head, and the feet. Divination whereby a person's future is predicted from the lines of the hands is called chiromancy; that whereby something is foretold from the lines of the feet is called podomancy; that which conjectures from the lines of the forehead and the character of the face is called metoposcopy; and that, finally, which draws auguries from the whole body and its members, is called physiognomy. Each of these is twofold: one natural, the other astrological. The astrological kind predicts free and altogether contingent future events from the features of the members; the natural kind, on the other hand, conjectures health, temperament, and disease from the body's disposition and the size of the hand. With these preliminaries noted, we say...

[Physiognomy, which conjectures from the body's habitual bearing the signs of weakness, courage, strength, or timidity, is lawful — as Ecclesiasticus 19 says: "A man is known by his look, and a man of understanding, when thou meetest him, is known by his countenance. A man's attire, and excessive laughter, and gait, shew what he is." Just as the strength, agility, and speed for racing of other animals — horses, oxen, and the like — are gathered from the excellent disposition of their bodies, so too men's natural inclinations, temperaments, and the like are discerned from the variety of their features and other bodily members. And this no one doubts to be lawful. But to divine, by astrological physiognomy, future contingent, chance, and free events is superstitious, as all agree, for the reason so often given: namely, that the body's disposition and that of its members has no influence at all upon future contingent and free events, which depend on the will alone. What has been said of physiognomy is likewise to be said of natural and astrological chiromancy, and of the other two. Though what authors commonly teach concerning the lines of the hands I consider a fabrication, from which I think no probable conjecture at all can be drawn regarding natural inclinations, or a longer or shorter lifespan.]

VI. Question IV. Do the Egyptians — those called by the common name of Gypsies — sin gravely by predicting good or bad fortune from the lines of the hand? Response: If they do this seriously, they undoubtedly sin mortally: for, as we have often said, this is a species of superstition, since no natural cause can be assigned that could produce such effects. If it is done merely for amusement, the more probable authors teach that only a venial sin of curiosity is committed. But in practice this is scarcely done without grave fault, both on account of the scandal involved, and on account of the credulity that people — women especially — place in such charlatans. All, therefore, ought to be urged to abstain altogether from consulting them. For while such fortune-tellers ply their predictions, they support a wicked art, and provide wicked men the occasion to sin.

I assume here that Astrology, which argues from the motion of the stars and their various influxes that effects of the same kind follow from purely natural causes, is a true and lawful science; for it is natural to deduce effects from causes. Therefore most holy Sixtus V, in the Bull by which he condemns judicial astrology, speaking of those who conjecture free effects from the motions of the stars, says: Excepting only future events arising from necessary natural causes, or occurring frequently, which do not pertain to divination.

That astrology, however, which predicts free effects from natural causes is not a science but a superstitious fable, as the Doctors note. Since the stars cannot produce effects of a higher order, namely of free will, as I showed in my Treatise on the heavens, disputation 2, question 17, no one can divine those from them. For these lie hidden in the secrets of God. Hence the Saintly Doctor admonishes, ad 8. Eccl., that while we have time we should do good, because man cannot know future things by any announcement, as is said there; and Fagundez also subjoins this, lib. 1. on the first precept of the Decalogue, cap. 38.

I assert, therefore, that natural astrology is lawful, while judicial astrology alone is illicit. So D. Bonaventure and D. Thomas, here; Less. Tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 43. d. 6. circulo de superstit. 2. part. cap. 3. and 4. Suarez Tom. 1. de Relig. lib. 2. de superstit. cap. 11. Sanchez Tomo primo Decal. lib. 2. cap. 38. a num. 17. Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 38.

The former part is proved by the Saintly Doctors, because like cause, like effect; but the stars were created as causes of sublunary natural things, as is said in Genesis 1. Deuteronomy 4. Therefore from them conjectures can be drawn.

Moderately, however, must these things be predicted, because since they depend on many causes, which can be impeded, they often fail. But things that are casual fail more, as that a passing lightning bolt should strike someone, etc.

I assert secondly, that to divine voluntary events from the stars is superstitious.

It is proved first by the Saintly Doctor. That which is subjected to another does not predominate; but the stars and other natural causes were made in the service of man, as is said in Deuteronomy 4. Therefore they do not predominate over their free wills.

It is proved secondly. Whoever uses the light of the intellect for free works does not depend on the extrinsic determination of natural things, but determines himself; such is man, above all the Wise man. Therefore Ptolemy says:

The wise man will rule the stars:

It is proved thirdly, because what is rightly ordered always tends toward good: Therefore either all will always do good; or they will not move their free will.

It is proved fourthly. If the variety of morals were caused by the motions and influxes of the stars, it would follow that we act all moral things of necessity, and liberty would be wholly taken away: the consequence is Manichaean: Therefore. The consequence is proved; every cause produces according to what it is in act, and not beyond its order; but the stars are natural causes, determined to effects: Therefore all effects of the will would be produced of necessity: Therefore liberty would be taken away, counsels would be removed, merits destroyed, there would be no work worthy of praise or blame, which are absurd.

It is proved fifthly in the body by the Saintly Doctor, because many good works are commanded to us, many urged by counsel, many forbidden: of these eternal punishments are intimated: to those the rewards of glory are promised, as is clear from the Holy Scriptures: But all these are taken away if the stars cause these works in us determinately: for since they would then be necessary, they have neither law nor counsel; nor can they merit either reward or punishment. Thus even grace assisting our operations would be taken away, and glory too. Thus the Justice of God perishes, while our good and evil works are poured back into the stars; and honor and veneration are hurled at the stars, and thus men are snatched away to Idolatry.

It is proved sixthly by experience. For Esau and Jacob were born of the same birth under the same Horoscope, etc., and yet they were so different in morals in life and death. Under the same constellation also there are born the rustic and the king's son; there are born a man and an ass.

It is confirmed against certain observations of the astrologers, for instance, that those born under Aquarius should be fishermen, and those under the sign of Libra, money-changers; and yet in Getulia under the sign of Aquarius they are not fishermen, and in the kingdoms under Libra no money-changers are found.

It is proved seventhly. That which is lower does not predominate over what is above; but the body is lower than the spirit: Therefore the spirit is not subject to the stars.

PROVED eighthly from the inconvenience which they bring in, that the stars are therefore to be venerated. For either the stars induce their effects on man inevitably of necessity, or not. If not, why are they to be venerated or feared? If of necessity; what due service, or what supplications?

PROVED ninthly. Constellations are to be observed from birth, or not. If from birth, as the Genethliaci hold: Therefore also in the following times. Why then do they observe the Horoscope at the nativity? why the royal house? why the Anaphoras and Cataphoras of the houses? If in the first constellation they are not to be observed. Therefore neither in the following ones. Indeed they seem to be observed rather at conception, where the formation of the fetus takes place: for birth is often hastened, delayed, etc. But who knows the moment of conception, in the animation?

The Saintly Doctor draws these arguments from D. Augustine in the places cited, from D. Gregory, homil. 10. on the Gospel, from Damascene lib. 2. de fide, cap. 7. And so it is concluded that hence heresies are brought in.

Finally the Saintly Doctor urges it from the faith, Isaiah 47. it is said: Stand now, and let the diviners of the heavens save thee, who gaze upon the stars, that from them they might announce to thee things to come. For it is a kind of imprecation. Where in the place of Augurs, the LXX have Astrologers. And D. Jerome says of them, who are called Mathematici, and believe that human affairs are governed by the course and fall of the stars.

JEREM. 10. Learn not according to the ways of the nations: and be not afraid of the signs of heaven, which the nations fear: For the laws of the peoples are vain.

These things are prohibited also in the Council of Toledo, first, in the assertion of the faith, and in the chapter Non liceat, 26. quaest. 5., and finally by Sixtus V, motu proprio 21, which begins: Moderator caeli, et terrae. See Suarez Tom. 1. de Relig. lib. 2. de superstit. cap. 11. Delrium lib. 4. disquis. mag. cap. 3. quaest. 1. Fagundez cap. 38.

ADD Suates num. 31. Sanchez Tom. 1. Decal. lib. 1. cap. 38. num. 33. Less. lib. 2. de Iust. cap. 43. dub. 6. num. 42. Fagundez num. 8., that even if the astrologer believes inwardly that the judgment from the stars is not certain but only probable, he is still superstitious. The reason of D. Bonaventure which they use is, because from the stars no such cause can be had as would make a probable indication, but only one that is most remote, and yields doubtful and uncertain judgments.

I ASSERT thirdly, that it is not forbidden to conjecture from the constellations one's temperament and in some degree one's inclination. The reason of D. Bonaventure is, because natural causes communicate an inclining temperament. Hence the choleric are irascible; the sanguine benign, the melancholic spiteful, the phlegmatic sluggish; yet this is not of necessity; for the soul dominates the affections, especially when aided by grace. For we have seen many choleric men gentle, etc. And so, although from natural causes the organization and mixture of the body be such as to incline, yet not so much that you could even probably divine from it; Therefore St. Augustine, lib. 5. de Civit. cap. 2., cited by D. Bonaventure, relating a certain case of two brothers who fell ill together and were cured together, praises rather the answer of the physician, who said this happened from a symmetry of complexions; than that of the astrologer, who said it happened from the same constellation.

Nor is such conjecturing forbidden by Sixtus V in the motu cited, as Fagund. notes, num. 10. Yet this conjecture, since it comes from afar, cannot assert anything with probability, as Fagund. says with D. Bonaventure, in the body.

YOU OBJECT first from Boethius, lib. 4. de consol., prose 6: Fate is an inherent disposition in movable things, by which the Divine Providence weaves each thing into its own orders: But fate, according to D. Augustine, 5. de Civit. cap. 1., is the force of the position of the stars, which, when it exists at the time one is conceived or born, makes known what he will be. If therefore fate is truly real, and consists in the influxes of the stars, and in this consists the whole governance of life: Therefore the diversity of morals depends on these.

The Saintly Doctor answers that Boethius takes fate as it truly is a disposition of divine providence, binding all genera of causes to act according to their proper orders; but D. Augustine takes fate in the sense of the philosophers' estimation, and shows it to be nothing. Whence he adds: If anyone calls fate the order of causes which God has instituted, in so doing he holds the true opinion, and corrects the word. And so it is not permitted to infer from fate as truly real, which consists in the sweet yet firm providence of God, that it consists in the force of the stars, and that the governance of life hangs on these.

YOU OBJECT secondly, from the various constellations various effects are produced in men, even free ones. Thus Aristotle relates, lib. de propriet. elem. and 5. Polit. cap. 7.: Kingdoms have been made empty, and lands depopulated, at the conjunction of two great stars, namely of Jupiter and Saturn. To this tends what the astronomers say, that the transit of Saturn from one sign to another always causes something extraordinary, especially in the conjunction which they call the Great, with Jupiter; and when that took place on the twenty-first of October 1663, Piscator Clarevallensis and others predicted a comet for the following year, which appeared in that same month of December, at which time Saturn was passing from the fiery sign of Sagittarius to the earthy sign of Capricorn; and about that comet indeed many have written many things: but especially in those kingdoms over which it was vertical, it produced, they say, its various influxes, namely under Virgo, Leo, Gemini, Cancer, and Aries. And to prove this they bring forward many examples of events in those regions in which comets, or certain violent stars, were made vertical.

In Europe they note very many cases. Thus they note that a star of the second magnitude in the right arm of Auriga, made vertical as the sygnet of Mercury and Mars, brought that horrible contagion upon Milan and the neighboring cities, but especially Brescia, where of 45,000 only fourteen thousand survived, besides innumerable others laid low in the vast surrounding territory; and at Bergamo there was nearly the same calamity. Thus they say that a star in the head of Medusa, the sygnet of Saturn and Jupiter, of the third magnitude, made vertical over Polyflipponus, in the year 1640, stirred up that great revolution in which, casting off the scepter of King Philip IV, they acclaimed John Duke of Braganza as King. The boreal star in Ursa Major, like Mars, of the third magnitude, in the zenith of the royal city of the Venetians, in the year 1643, is said to have brought innumerable evils upon our most serene republic (may God grant it eternal life) from the Turkish tyrant; thus an ill-formed star in Helice, not unlike Mars, of the second magnitude, in the zenith of the royal city of Parthenope, which is Naples, is said to have stirred up dark seditions under the leader Thomas Aniello (who is also called Masaniello): but the bright star in the head of the Dragon, connected with Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars as its sygnet, while it brooded over the vertex of the royal city of London in England, in the year 1648, is said to have wickedly inflamed that people, like a Fury roused by the Dire Ones, into rebellion against its most clement King Charles Stuart, into horrible parricide, so that, by an example unheard of for centuries, the King himself was most unjustly condemned to death by judges sitting on the tribunal of the filthy rabble, Fairfax acting, and in the broad square of the city, from the lofty scaffold, with his head struck off at the feet of the executioner, his body was laid down. And that monarchy was rolled into the turbulent tyranny of a Democracy and Aristocracy, with the sons of the kingdom, the heirs, sought out for extermination. Likewise the star on the right side of Perseus, friendly to Saturn and Jupiter, in the zenith of that region of the world, the city of Paris, set high, in the year 1650, was believed to have loosed those savage tempests upon the young King Louis the Great XIV, unconquered Firstborn of Louis XIII the Just, now happily reigning, bursting forth in bloody vortices even to the stars to be belched forth.

NUMBERLESS other things they report that happened under stars or comets made vertical, or treading the horizon.

To these, and other such things, the Saintly Doctor answers that the Philosopher attributes to the constellations, etc., only certain dispositions arising from temperament, which indeed can be repelled by the soul; yet because the majority follow them, therefore the astrologers often predict truly, especially concerning men living in the manner of animals; but concerning men who use reason they can say very few things truly.

YOU OBJECT thirdly from Scripture. The Magi, from the star that rose, knew the Lord to be adored, Matth. 1. and Christ, Ioan. 8.: My hour is not yet come: Therefore if Christ hung upon Horoscopes and the stars, much more the rest.

The Saintly Doctor answers that that star was created as a sign of the newborn Messiah, whom they recognized as from the sign of his nativity, with divine revelation irradiating them, and that Christ did not depend on the stars, but awaited the predestined time to fulfill the figures and to redeem the world.

YOU OBJECT fourthly: Stars and comets often appear at the death of Kings, and the astronomers divine many true things from them, and these notable signs of wars, revolutions, etc., as I said in my Treatise on the heavens, disputation 9. question 9., where I described many comets in various centuries together with the gravest calamities, even the downfall of Princes; and most recently, in the year 1664, in the month of December, there appeared a remarkable comet, which was struck by the rays of the sun from behind, out of the East, and these, refracted (not otherwise than when, refracted in a crystal sphere, they are shot forth toward the opposite farthest part) showed a bearded shape toward the west, and that radiant coma persevered as long as the comet, between the penultimate flexure of Hydra, below the Vase, all the way to the tree of the Argonauts, and thence above the prow toward the Dog, not far from the belt of Orion, preceding the sun, was struck by the vibrating sun from the East; but the rays were rolled toward the summer Tropic, since the sun, near the opposite winter Tropic, was making his way toward the Antarctic. But when it grew toward the belt of Orion, where it was seen stationary for several days, before it passed across the equinoctial, it was seen to be comated and shorn. For when it stood directly opposite the sun, it shot its rays upward; but when, withdrawing from the belt of Orion, fleeing beneath the eye of the Bull, and rising above the high head of the Whale toward the joining of the Fishes, it made its way between the equinoctial and the Ecliptic, where it also placed its station; drinking in the rays of the sun from the west it poured them out toward the East, and little by little it perished as it came to the Zodiac, where comets cannot long remain, since they approach the sun too nearly.

And so it was seen by me even after the Easter feasts. But I always observed that it scarcely appeared greater with the spyglass than without it, although the moon through the same glass appeared far greater. From which I deduced, according to the rules of Perspective, that the comet existed far above the moon, much higher than it, emitting a sharper pyramid, appearing far thinner in proportion than the moon. Now at this time the opinion of Tycho Brahe is most flourishing, that comets wander not in the air, but in the Spheres of the heavens. Nor indeed could this one have been concocted from terrestrial exhalations, since it extended over 22 degrees of longitude in its orb, which are 1980 miles, which, translated into the supreme region of the air, would constitute a corresponding globe far larger than the whole terrestrial globe. This one seems to have been concocted from the great preceding conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn; more proximately indeed from a universal conjunction of almost all the Planets, which at this time, when the comet first appeared, were moving under the sign of Capricorn; and Saturn himself, after the greatest copulation with Jupiter, was joined first to Mars, then to Venus, to the Sun, and finally to Mercury; according to P. Cabeo, in meteoris. And so it was rolled about within the ambit of the Moon and of Mercury, and it would have received from both those Planets, and from its parent Saturn, a cognate organization; malignant births from it were augured; in color too, similar to Saturn, leaden mixed with some varied and sub-white, with other Planets indicated by the Gemini, the birth was seen to be most similar. Wherefore they ominously predicted malignant diseases, sudden deaths, exiles, and straits. And because it ran against the order of the signs, according to the doctrine of Cardano, they argued a change of Laws and of Kingdoms, a Tyranny; and according to the sayings of Origani, the death of those Princes whose states are subject to the signs which the comet traverses: And in our case under Virgo, Leo, Cancer, Gemini, Taurus, Aries, but especially under Leo, Gemini, and Aries, where it placed its station; but the long horse-like tail indicates lasting seditions, according to text 54. in the second Book of the quadripartitum of Ptolemy. — not indeed to all, but to those over which it was vertical, or whose horizon it grazed; otherwise, since that comet traversed a greater area of the signs of the Zodiac, whether by reason of the signs, or by reason of the responding Trigon, almost the whole world would be shaken.

THENCE, step by step, they deduced that this comet, which on the 16th of December, across the Tropic of Capricorn by seven degrees, and 18 above our Horizon, was finally raised 58 degrees above our Horizon, had already been made vertical over many kingdoms, as below the Tropic of Capricorn in Tibiquiri of the Island of St. Lawrence, and many others of the AEthiopian sea, and between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Equator in the kingdoms of Peru, Brazil, Cephalae, Madagascar, Mozambique, Quiloa, Manicogni, Caphatae, Quarz, Damus, Cemae, Melinda, Vanguae, Janz the greater and lesser, and New Guinea. Above the Equator by 12 degrees, the kingdoms of Tangar, Madagazo Mechae Diasar, etc., Bexin, Melgetae, Giuper Mapan with all Guinea, Zocorote, Calicut, Cochin, Onori, Marsingae, Goa, Zelandae, Malaccae, Samonae, Siam, Baloan, Borneo, Molucci, Mindanao; it was also Horizontal over the kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, Finmark, Lapland, Scriphinia, Bodiae, Finland, Novgorod, Volgdae, Bernia, Corelia, Braimia, Sarmatia, Condorae, Iceland, Greenland, up to the Zenith of the arctic pole, to which the Equinoctial is the Horizon. So has the book published at Milan, in the year 1664.

This scaffold of narrations unveils the vanity of the astrologers with regard to free operations. And so the Saintly Doctor answers that comets are produced by God, and moved by Angels, to deter men from vices, but not to strike only those over whom they were vertical or horizontal. But this the here-and-now experiment teaches; for in this year, in that region, nothing new came of it; but on the contrary, in the regions of Europe the Princes of Austria died, the Emperor fell sick unto death, indeed even the Supreme Pontiff Alexander VII died, as did also the Duke of Mantua, Charles II. There rested in peace also the heroic Queen, most worthy mother of Louis XIV King of France: the King of Spain passed away. Also at the same time died P. Matc. Antonius Galitius, General Minister of our Religion, the Oracle of Rome, and constantly at the side of the Supreme Pontiff in counsel. And so the comet sent into the world threatened these losses to Christian lands, but not to the kingdoms of Madagascar and Finland, nor was it going to aim any operations at free will.

You object lastly: The most excellent Governance of God directs lower things through higher, and earthly things through the heavenly, as St. Dionysius says in de cael. Hier.; and what is governed ought to be subject to its perfect governor.

It is answered, that God governs the lower bodies through the higher; but not spirits through bodies; for although spirits inhabit the earth, they are far higher than bodies. Therefore the heavenly bodies serve these in ministry, not in dominion.

The Demon has devised a thousand ways of doing harm, so that men might abuse the creatures, founded for their use. And not only did he arm the stars, as it were the Militia of Heaven, so that, fighting against God, they might prostitute to senseless lights the honor owed to the creative Majesty, but he packed the elements for our ruin. Thus he instructed the magi, so that they might hold the luminaries of heaven sacred. But first Sazoba Zoroaster the King began to worship the Sun, as Porphyry relates in de Nympharum antro. His subjects the Persians imitated him, and among the Assyrians Nemrod was adored under the name of the Sun, as Salianus relates, in the year of the world 1931. The Egyptians also, the Phoenicians, and the Greeks began to invoke the militia of heaven, as many relate, cited by Serlogus, analog. 5. sectione 5.

At almost the same time among the Persians and Assyrians fire was invoked. Hence they relate that Abraham was cast into the fire, which he had refused to worship, as D. Jerome narrates in de traditionibus Hebraeis, where he mocks that fable. The cult shown to the other creatures is treated in the law in Serlogo.

XI. Divination with a pact, whether express or tacit, is a mortal sin, as all teach. What must be said of those who set up computations of numbers and verses, and practice what is commonly called the Cabala in games, that they may divine future numbers? That these sin mortally when, with faith placed in it, they practice this Cabala, no one can deny.

Caius, a young Catholic, reads in a Catholic newspaper a notice (advertisement) concerning a certain man who was prepared to teach hypnotism and similar things to all who paid the price. Caius wrote to the man and bought his book, in which the method of hypnotizing, of writing with a planchette, and so forth, was described. For the sake of curiosity, recreation, or acquiring knowledge, he began to hypnotize his brothers and sisters and to ask the planchette for messages concerning absent friends. Julius, his parish priest, found him occupied in this way one day when he was visiting the family, and, asking whence Caius had learned those things, heard what has been narrated above. Hence it is asked:

1. What is divination, and what is its malice?

2. Is it lawful to practice or to undergo hypnotism?

3. What is to be said of the newspaper, of Caius, and of Julius in the case?

1. What is divination and wherein lies its malice?

Divination is the express or tacit invocation of the devil to gain knowledge of the occult. We obtain knowledge lawfully by using natural means or by studying the revelation given by God. If we try to obtain knowledge of occult matters from the devil, we commit sin by associating ourselves with the enemy of God and of ourselves, an enemy who is certain to do us harm, and to whom we offer a sort of worship by attributing to him knowledge of the occult. Such communication with the devil is specially prohibited in Holy Scripture.¹ By the very fact of employing means which are altogether incapable of themselves to give us the knowledge which we seek, we invite the intervention of the devil and tacitly invoke him.

1 1 Cor. x. 20; Deut. xviii. 10.

2. Is it allowed to exercise or to undergo hypnotism ?

Experts, for good cause, with proper precautions, may practise hypnotism as the Holy Office answered July 26, 1899. Under similar restrictions, therefore, one may undergo hypnotism. In other circumstances it is not lawful either to practise or to undergo it. It is obvious that it is not lawful for the purpose of divination, but neither is it lawful as a means of recreation, or for the sake of satisfying curiosity. At the lowest it is the induction of an abnormal state in which the nervous system is interfered with by one who is, as we suppose, no expert. Thus it is trifling with a very delicate machine and in a matter which is still mysterious to a great extent. There is considerable danger to morals while one person in a state of unconsciousness is to a great extent in the power of the hypnotizer. A rapport is established between the hypnotizer and the subject, which to a greater or less extent puts the latter in the power of the former.

3. The case. From what has been said it is clear that the Catholic newspaper should not have admitted the advertisement offering to teach all who would pay for it how to hypnotize others and write with the planchette. Caius did wrong in buying the book, and in practising hypnotism on his sister and automatic writing out of curiosity, or for recreation, or to gain knowledge. He should devote himself to less objectionable means of gaining knowledge. Julius, the parish priest, who catches them at their game, should warn them and their parents of the danger of meddling with occult matters, and tell them to throw the book and the planchette into the fire.

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

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

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

3. What is to be said of the case?

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

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

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

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

2 Vol. xiii, p. 243.

3 Vol. xv, pp. 310, 311.

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