Hypnotism

747. Its nature. 1. Hypnotism actively signifies the art of producing in another an artificial sleep and peculiar phenomena connected with this sleep; passively it signifies the complex of phenomena which are produced during hypnotic sleep.

The name of hypnotism was recently invented (by James Braid, d. 1860). The thing signified by this name was already known long ago, and as regards the matter hypnotism scarcely differs from animal magnetism or mesmerism, which at the beginning served only for curing diseases, except in the mode of inducing the state of sleep.

2. Hypnosis is the state of sleep more or less deep, from which the whole complex of phenomena received the name hypnotism. Concerning the nature of hypnosis authors indeed think diverse things; nevertheless one must assent to those who judge that hypnosis agrees essentially with natural sleep, but differs chiefly in this: that the hypnotized person is "suggestible," that is, depends on the hypnotizer and lies open to his influence, while the deliberate activity of the intellect and will ceases.

3. These two phenomena of hypnotism are chiefly distinguished:

a. Hypnosis or the state of sleep. From this sleep, into which he is cast by the hypnotizer in various ways, the hypnotized person is ordinarily called back only by the hypnotizer; but if he is not called back, after some time he returns to himself spontaneously. During this sleep he can converse with the hypnotizer as if he were in the state of waking; but once awakened he retains scarcely any memory of those things which had happened during the time of hypnosis.

b. Suggestion, which is the influence which the hypnotizer exercises on the hypnotized person, so that the hypnotized person is subjected in all things to the will and command of the hypnotizer, and executes accurately the things enjoined on him not only in the time of sleep but also afterwards. By the senses he perceives nothing else, yet he sees and hears the hypnotizer; the intellect, and especially the will, depends on the hypnotizer, so that at his nod it obeys blindly in almost all things; but these powers do not exercise another deliberate activity. Nevertheless if the sleep is not deep, the hypnotized person does not receive suggestions which are contrary to his conscience, but preserves his own will.

4. The end because of which hypnotism is exercised is manifold: a. it is employed by physicians to cure various diseases, especially of the nerves, and to numb the senses before a surgical operation; b. by artists (for example, by painters) to obtain for themselves a model (Modell) which may retain the same position for a long time and express the same internal affection by the arrangement of the face; c. by judges in criminal causes, so that from defendants or witnesses they may fish out confessions useful to themselves; d. by parents and teachers to aid education: for those things which are suggested to the hypnotized person in the time of hypnosis, he afterwards in the state of waking diligently executes, at least for some time, by force of a certain inclination retained from hypnosis; e. finally, hypnotism is exercised publicly before many for the sake of recreation and for feeding curiosity.

¹ Finlay, Der Hypnotismus (Aachen: Barth, 1892); Schutz, Der Hypnotismus (Fulda: Aktiendruckerei, 1907); Haan, Uber Hypnotismus (Stimmen aus M. Laach, Freiburg: Herder, 1890); W. Wundt, Hypnotismus u. Suggestion (Leipzig, 1892); Rissart, Der Hypnotismus (Paderborn: Junfermann, 1902).

748. Its phenomena seem to be natural. 1. There are not lacking those who think that the phenomena of hypnotism cannot be produced by natural powers, but are effected by preternatural powers; and since it is impious to presume divine influence in this matter, they attribute the whole of hypnotism to the demon.

By the name of hypnotism, spiritistic phenomena are also sometimes comprehended: for since from hypnotic phenomena there is an easy passage to spiritistic ones, these in reality are not rarely connected with those, especially since the demon easily mingles himself in things of this kind and drives men from natural things to superstitious ones. Authors who call hypnotism superstitious and diabolical seem also to signify spiritistic phenomena by the name of hypnotism.

2. Although the Church has not yet resolved the question concerning the origin of these phenomena, nevertheless it is established by the judgment of the Church that they are not certainly superstitious.

For from the response of the Holy Office, July 26, 1899, it is clear that the Holy See did not wish to resolve the question concerning the liceity of hypnotism and hypnotic suggestion; therefore it only determines the conditions under which experiments of this kind can be made, namely after a protestation has first been made that the agents do not wish to have any part in preternatural facts.

3. Both the phenomena themselves considered in themselves and the means by which they are produced do not seem to transcend the powers of nature.

a. For the phenomena themselves are either altogether the same or at least very similar to those which are also found outside hypnosis in the sick, in sleepers, in sleepwalkers, in those hallucinating or delirious; and these, although for the greater part extraordinary, are nevertheless certainly natural.

b. The means which are employed for producing either hypnosis or hypnotic phenomena are natural, and the forces of those means suffice for producing these effects: for the chief of these effects is suggestion, which chiefly consists in the influence of the hypnotizer on the imagination of the hypnotized person. By natural necessity the imaginations of the imagination are followed by inclinations of the sensitive appetite and of other powers, and by external activities which are consonant with them. Now in the state of waking all these activities are governed by intellect and will; but in the hypnotized person, in whom the superior powers do not exercise deliberate operation, they follow spontaneous impulses and the influence of the hypnotizer, as we also find similar things in sleepwalkers.

749. On its liceity. 1. Hypnotism of itself is illicit. a. It harms health: for from the testimony of physicians, by any exercise of hypnotism whatsoever, danger to health is induced; but frequently the health either of mind or of body actually suffers detriment, since the whole nervous system is more or less affected by hypnosis.¹

b. It is of itself opposed to natural honesty, and this in many ways: a. it is not lawful without just cause to deprive oneself in a violent mode of the use of reason; b. it is not lawful to subject one's will plainly to the judgment of another, so that someone can use and abuse at will another's will; c. it is not lawful to provide another an occasion of sinning; but the hypnotizer can abuse the hypnotized person for sinning, can investigate the secrets of his heart, suggest to him the persuasion of a crime, etc.; d. the hypnotizer can suggest to the hypnotized person a crime to be committed afterwards, which the latter then in the state of waking will commit, with liberty scarcely preserved.

2. Nevertheless it seems that it can licitly be employed under certain conditions for curing diseases (and for promoting science).

a. The conditions are the following: a. that detriment of health, as far as can be done, be forestalled, and therefore that hypnotism be exercised only by a physician skilled in this art.

b. That no other more suitable means of recovering health is available: for since hypnotism is dangerous of itself, it cannot be licitly employed except for excluding a greater evil than that which hypnotism can induce.

c. That it be certainly established that the hypnotizer will not abuse his power, which he can exercise over the will of the hypnotized person: for not even for a brief time is it lawful to submit one's will to the judgment of another unless it is established that the danger of any abuse whatever is excluded.

d. That the consent of the sick person be present, who without consent cannot, apart from injury, be deprived of the use of reason and free choice, nor be exposed to danger to health.

b. For curing diseases. Without a just cause it is not lawful to expose either oneself or others to danger of damage of body or soul; but besides health (and science), no other end contains a sufficient cause because of which the danger of spiritual or bodily damage can be induced.

Note. The salutary effects produced through hypnosis are called more into doubt day by day by more recent physicians. Physicians had already long affirmed that by this remedy organic diseases cannot be cured, but only affected and impeded functions of the nerves; but now, taught by experience, they grant that even bad affections of the nerves are only partly and for a time somewhat lessened, while the disease itself almost always returns.

c. Most authors absolutely forbid the use of hypnotism, as Ballerini-Palmieri, Villada, Franco, Bucceroni, Aertnys, Marc, Capellmann, etc. Yet Berardi and Genicot permit it not only, like Lehmkuhl and D'Annibale, for healing diseases, but also "for investigating the powers of nature," therefore for scientific ends. This must be granted, supposing the consent of the person to be hypnotized, if it is morally certain that from hypnosis there threatens only the danger of damage which can easily be repaired.

Note. Let all these things be said concerning suggestion which happens in the state of hypnosis or artificial sleep: for suggestion which happens either in the state of waking or during natural sleep is immune from the damages about which there was discussion above, and therefore can be licitly employed, provided the things which are suggested are honorable and useful.

¹ Cf. Finlay, p. 52 ss. Therefore it has happened that public hypnotism has been wholly forbidden by most governments, and the use of private hypnotism restricted.

Many theologians hold that the phenomena of hypnotism are due to preternatural causes, and consequently they maintain that it is unlawful to induce the hypnotic state or to have any part in it. Others more probably think that the state itself and the susceptibility of the hypnotized subject to suggestion on the part of the hypnotizer, together with those phenomena which affect the bodily organs and the imagination, are due to natural causes. The rarer phenomena of clairvoyance by which scenes and passing events at a great distance are seen, or by which an ignorant medium shows knowledge which is not possessed in the normal state, must be attributed to preternatural causes. For it seems impossible that natural forces should be able to produce effects altogether beyond their range. Even if we admit that the hypnotic state and the bodily phenomena are due to natural causes, it does not follow that anyone may induce the hypnotic sleep merely for the sake of experiment or out of curiosity. Such a practice would be accompanied with grave dangers, moral and physical, and it is not lawful to permit one’s self to be deprived. of the use of reason, and to subject one’s self to another’s control, without good cause and proper safeguards. Medical men, however, and other persons of skill and experience cannot be precluded from using a means which is very probably innocent, with proper precautions and for a good reason,

I. Notion. Hypnotism, taken actively, is the art of producing artificial sleep or a state similar to sleep, in which the faculties of the hypnotized person, the faculties, I say, of the sensitive part of the soul, are subject to the direction of the hypnotizer. Taken passively, it is the sleep itself or the state similar to sleep.

II. Morality. 1. Hypnotism, that is, both the exercise of it and recourse to it, as it is ordinarily practiced, is free from superstition. For it is sufficiently evident that the phenomena of hypnotism, as they commonly occur, are natural. So say almost all who have examined this matter more deeply. And indeed the aforesaid phenomena are similar or nearly similar to those which even outside hypnosis are sometimes detected in certain sick persons, sleeping persons, somnambulists, hallucinating persons, and delirious persons, etc. Moreover, the fact that the hypnotized person afterward does the things which were suggested or imposed upon him in the hypnotic state is easily explained. Namely, when the appointed time has arrived, the suggestion is aroused and the same state of hypnosis is induced wholly or partly, and thus it happens that he now fulfills the command imposed at the time of the former hypnosis.

I said as it is ordinarily practiced, because certain things are said sometimes to occur which, if they have place, seem to exceed natural powers; for example, distinctly to utter continuous words never heard in an unknown language. But the things which cannot be attributed to natural powers must certainly be ascribed to the demon, since God, the Angels, or the Saints do not involve themselves in foolish things of this kind.

2. Hypnotism, although free from superstition, is nevertheless unlawful without a grave cause; it becomes lawful for a grave cause, provided due precautions are applied. The reason for the former is that the hypnotized person, because the use of reason and free will has been removed or at least diminished, is plainly, or at least more than is fitting, subjected to the will of another. The reason for the latter is that there is an act not evil in itself, which equally immediately produces a good effect, that is, the capacity of receiving wholesome impressions or suggestions, and an evil effect; indeed the evil effect seems of such a kind that it would be lawful, even through its mediation, to obtain the good effect (n. 60). Moreover:

a) Grave causes are, for example, a disease to be cured when another harmless and equally secure means for curing it is lacking; the advancement of science; a depraved habit, or even scruples, to be put away. It is not lawful to use hypnotism for extorting the confession of a thing; cf. the duties of judges. Moreover, in order that it be lawful to cast someone into hypnosis, the consent of the person to be hypnotized is required; otherwise injustice is committed, namely because of the induced privation or diminution of the use of reason and free will.

b) The precautions to be used consist in this, that one approach a skilled and upright physician, who namely will not abuse his power. It is most strongly to be advised that a witness be present. But the physician should carefully weigh "whether the evils which are cured by hypnotism are greater than those which will naturally follow it. For it is established that through hypnotism the common system of the nerves suffers an anomalous and of itself harmful affection; this does not prevent a certain morbid condition of the nerves from being able to be removed by hypnotism, though with detriment to another part to arise."¹

Note. Animal magnetism or Mesmerism, Braidism (from their inventors Mesmer and Braid), and hypnotism do not differ formally, or at least under the moral aspect; so it suffices to have spoken about hypnotism.

¹ Lehmkuhl, I, 502.

Does ignorance cause the involuntary? - Ignorance with which someone acts either has itself causally in relation to that which is done, or has itself merely concomitantly with respect to that which is done. It has itself concomitantly "when ignorance concerns that which is done; nevertheless, even if it were known, it would still be done. For then ignorance does not induce one to willing that this be done, but it happens at the same time that something is done and unknown; as... when someone would indeed wish to kill an enemy, but, ignorant, kills him, thinking he is killing a deer. And such ignorance does not make the involuntary" (namely contrariwise), "because it does not cause something that is repugnant to the will; but it makes the non-voluntary" (or the involuntary merely privatively), "because what is unknown cannot be actually willed." S. Th. 1. 2. q. 6. a. 8.

But it makes the non-voluntary, whether that merely concomitant ignorance is involuntary, or whether it is not merely concomitant, but voluntary. Nevertheless there is a distinction between involuntary and voluntary ignorance in the case; because involuntary concomitant ignorance, since it simply takes away the voluntary, makes something simply non-voluntary. But voluntary concomitant ignorance, since it does not simply take away the voluntary, for it is voluntary, makes that which is done with that ignorance non-voluntary indeed in itself, but voluntary in some way in the cause. S. Th. de Malo, q. 3. a. 8.

Voluntary in the cause, namely insofar as the ignorance concerns a thing which ought to have been known, and perhaps someone knowing would not do what he does ignorantly. And if certainly he would do it even knowing, the voluntary is still had indirectly in the cause, by reason of that evil disposition which the willed ignorance leaves intact, and by reason of that action, for example hunting, which was the cause of the consequent act, for example homicide. To the point Suarez, on 1. 2, tr. 2, d. 4, s. 2, n. 19: "That ignorance does not excuse from fault; therefore neither does it take away the voluntary. He is bound to expel that ignorance in order to avoid the act, and voluntarily omits to do this; therefore he also acts voluntarily, at least indirectly. Therefore it matters nothing that this ignorance is not the cause of the act, and that if knowledge were present, the act would nevertheless take place; both because, although we grant that that act is not voluntary in ignorance as in a cause, nevertheless that ignorance will be a sufficient condition for that act to be voluntary indirectly, insofar as man is bound and can avoid it and does not do so; for what he would have done if knowledge existed does not excuse him, but rather in a certain way accuses him more, because that is an evil disposition and contrary to the obligation by which he is bound to avoid the act; and also because that effect is voluntary in another act directly willed, as, for example, the killing of a man in hunting. But voluntary ignorance, although it is concomitant, is the reason or condition that that prior act of hunting be done imprudently or incautiously, and consequently that in it the effect thence following is judged to have been willed."

Indeed, notwithstanding that evil disposition, he was still then bound, indeed much more, to know; and knowing, perhaps, notwithstanding that evil disposition, he would not have committed the monstrous crime with open eyes. S. Th. 1. 2. q. 6. a. 3; Billuart, de Act. hum., diss. 1, art. 6, I say 3.

If ignorance is not merely concomitant, or does not have itself merely concomitantly in relation to that which is done, but is causing, or has itself causally, namely is the cause of doing that which is done, then that ignorance is either voluntary, or consequent upon a free act of the will, or it is not voluntary, or antecedent to a free act of the will. A free act of the will, namely concerning the ignorance itself, not concerning that which is afterward done from that ignorance. "But consequently," says S. Th. ibid., "ignorance has itself to the will insofar as it is voluntary."

Therefore when ignorance of this kind is the cause of doing that which is done, "since it is itself voluntary... it cannot cause the involuntary simply" (that is, contrariwise; since that which is done is voluntary in the cause from which it proceeds, i.e. in that willed ignorance). "Nevertheless it causes the involuntary according to a certain respect, insofar as it precedes the movement of the will to doing something, which would not be if knowledge were present," ibid.; that is, although that movement of the will is voluntary in the cause, nevertheless in itself it is altogether involuntary, for it would not be if knowledge were present. L. 1. 5. n. 4.

But if the causing ignorance, or that which is the cause of doing what is done, is not voluntary, or is antecedent, then ignorance causes the involuntary simply, since that which is done, by the very fact that it is caused by ignorance, would not be if knowledge were present, and accordingly is against the will. Nor indeed is that willed in itself; nor in any way willed in the cause. Therefore it remains totally or simply involuntary. "But antecedently," says the Holy Doctor ibid., "ignorance has itself to the will when it is not voluntary, and nevertheless is the cause of willing what otherwise one would not will; as when some man is ignorant of some circumstance of the act which he was not bound to know, and from this does something which he would not do if he knew: for example, when someone, diligence having been used, not knowing that someone is passing along the road, shoots an arrow with which he kills the passerby. And such ignorance causes the involuntary simply."

S. Th. 1. 2. q. 76. a. 1. As regards the insane, it is certainly not always established that they are not sufficiently in possession of themselves in an act of sin. Nor likewise is it established whether those who are hypnotized, and in hypnotic sleep execute the evil commands of the one hypnotizing, are not also sufficiently in possession of themselves. But in these cases the voluntary can easily be in the cause.

What must be thought concerning more recent superstitions which are circulated? - Of superstitions of this sort there are various effects known to all: mechanical, physiological, psychological, spiritual effects. Likewise various causes are employed or are said to be employed for producing effects of this sort; whence various names are taken either from the effects or from the causes, namely magnetisms, animal magnetism, spiritism, rotating tables, somnambulism, hypnotism. But two things are to be noted in a matter of this sort: namely the proportion or disproportion of the effect with the natural cause; and the honorableness or shamefulness of the acts which are employed, or of the conditions which are required beforehand, for example, that the magnetized person subject himself wholly to the will of the magnetizing person and hand himself over to his judgment. From the former disproportion or proportion, superstition is had or not; from the latter honorableness or shamefulness, even without superstition, the thing will be able to be illicit, as immoral.

As to the preternatural character of the aforesaid effects, that must be carefully observed: whether, although some effect can absolutely be produced by a natural cause, it is in fact produced by this cause, or rather by another preternatural cause, all its circumstances being considered. Moreover magnetism, animal magnetism, spiritism, rotating tables, somnambulism, and hypnotism, according to those effects which commonly happen in their use, are not permitted; since either in reality they do not differ from divination, vain observance, magic, and malefice, since the effects, considering their intrinsic nature, the mode by which they are produced, and other circumstances, exceed the powers of natural causes; or they are excited by shameful and immoral acts; or certainly they often bear before themselves both that disproportion and this shamefulness. Therefore it is also illicit to be present at experiments of these effects, although merely passively, since it is a sin of cooperation in an intrinsically evil thing, especially in the evocation and consultation of spirits. Holy Office, 30 March 1898; S. Th. 2. 2, qq. 95, 96; C. G. l. 3, c. 114; Quodl. 12, a. 13; Ferraris, Supplem., v. Magnetismus.

But if the discussion is merely about magnetism or electricity and about hypnotism applied to certain diseases to be cured, and about effects altogether of an inferior and natural order, although wondrous, which are obtained in hospitals and in the care of other sick persons, and due cautions are employed in their use, nothing indeed appears which contains superstition, nor are they per se opposed in any way to honorable morals. For the same effects are obtained by several other natural causes, especially in natural somnambulism, in sleep and dream. Therefore as to merely natural effects, magnetism is not illicit. But it is illicit as to preternatural effects, considering the mode in which natural causes operate, such as rotating tables, at which consequently it is not permitted to be present. Animal magnetism is likewise illicit as to the extraordinary effects of magnetic sleep, somnambulism, and clairvoyance. Somnambulism is a certain state midway between wakefulness and sleep, in which certain wondrous effects are produced in the faculty both sensitive and intellectual of the soul, which is placed under the command of the magnetizer. Nor indeed, as regards hypnotism, can there be any difficulty from suggestion by which it is excited; for nothing is more common and natural than suggestion, either from other persons or from things themselves, affairs and occupations, by which a certain idea is excited in us, by which we are struck and then led, and which in sleep also, with its various changes, is represented to us. Yet unless due cautions are employed, and its use is altogether moderate, as much as the necessity of the disease requires, there is not absent danger of grave harm, both physical and moral. And it is altogether illicit as to other wondrous and altogether preternatural effects. For at the same time insensibility and a wondrous excitation of the senses are had. E. M.

Hedvigis, laboring under a grave illness, consults several physicians, but in vain. Hence she first approaches Pancratius, who prescribes to her that she wear an artfully fashioned necklace for exciting the electric, biotic fluid. When she had done this for some time and had experienced some relief, she consults Nicetas, another physician, indeed an honest man, who counsels her to be subjected to hypnotism for exciting magnetic sleep in her, in which a benign crisis of the infirmity will be had. And he asserts that he will do this with every superstition and every other illicit circumstance entirely removed. But Hedvigis, since she is a timorous woman, before she furnishes her consent, seeks the counsel of the confessor.

Q. Has Hedvigis, in the first case, sinned; and what ought the confessor to respond to her in the other?

R. Hedvigis, in the first case, sinned in no way. The reason is that in applying that remedy there was no superstition, and no other illicit circumstance. As regards superstition, there is no doubt that electric fluid exists in inanimate bodies, of altogether marvelous power and efficacy. Therefore nothing prevents that the same fluid exists in animate bodies, in plants, in animals, in man, and that in these it obtains a still special efficacy from the soul, which is the intrinsic principle of life; whence a fluid of this sort is also called biotic. And certainly, as electricity excited from without in man can be gravely harmful to man, like other elements, why also can it not, when excited in due manner, produce salutary effects, which also happens in other elements applied extrinsically to the organism? And thus in fact there are several who are well or badly disposed according to the various state of the electricity of the air. But there is nothing illicit and immoral in this, that someone should wear a necklace made from a determined metal, or from sealing wax, or from another similar material apt for exciting or extinguishing electricity.

As regards the other case, since there is question only of merely exciting sleep, which can be excited by several natural means, it does not seem that superstition must necessarily therefore be asserted. And every superstitious cause being removed, as, for example, if this were done by the mere command of the will, and likewise every immoral circumstance being removed, as, for example, if a dishonest touch were used, nothing is then had which appears illicit. Wherefore it does not seem that the confessor, in the case, can burden Hedvigis' conscience with grave sin. Indeed, the oracles themselves of the Holy See condemn not magnetism, but the abuse of magnetism. And it is well established among the doctors that those things are to be judged natural which are not established to exceed the powers of nature, whether from the effects themselves which followed, or from the causes applied, or from the manner of applying these. But, since this matter generally is not without grave danger, the confessor will indeed act prudently by exhorting Hedvigis that she apply another remedy and omit this one. D'Annib., ed. 3, p. 2, n. 53. Cf. G. 271 seqq.

It will not be beside the matter here to note that, just as in this matter of magnetism and hypnotism there are several who hold all things as natural and licit, so on the contrary there are not lacking those who hold all things as superstitious and illicit. The former and the latter err together. - Speaking of fascination, St. Thomas, 1 p., q. 117, a. 3, ad 2, says: "It must be said that from the strong imagination of the soul the spirits of the conjoined body are changed, which change of the spirits takes place especially in the eyes, to which the subtler spirits come.... Thus therefore, when some soul has been vehemently moved to malice, as happens especially in old women, her look is made poisonous and harmful according to the aforesaid mode, especially to children, who have a tender body and one easily receptive of impression. It is also possible that, by the permission of God, or even from some hidden pact, the malice of demons cooperates in this, with whom sorceress old women have some covenant."

When the aforesaid change has been produced in the body, as St. Thomas says in the same place, "the continuous air is infected up to a determined space." And this indeed is verified in contagious diseases, which are not always communicated by bodily touch, but also without touch, and therefore through infected air. And thus through this change of one's own body an exterior body can be changed. St. Thomas, ibid., ad 3. What, then, prevents some impression from being produced naturally by a look, for example, imagination also assisting? - And thus Scavini, 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 1, n. 247, commemorating this doctrine of St. Thomas concerning fascination, says: "One is natural, of which we have an example in magnetism, when from the fixed gaze of another someone easily receives impressions.... Another is superstitious and is called common fascination, which is believed by the common people, namely that those looking with an envious mind harm.... Here also we note that not all things which are believed to be deceits are such; for the sagacity and imagination of man can have many parts; for how very powerful it is, and of how many evils it is a cause, philosophers everywhere prove by inescapable arguments and facts." Besides, St. Thomas wisely warns, 2. 2, q. 60, a. 4: "Where manifest indications of someone's malice do not appear, we ought to hold him as good, interpreting for the better insofar as it is doubtful." - Yet it is rightly counseled then to premise a protestation of not willing the effect, if some superstition lies beneath. Cf. D'Annib., l. c.; St. Thomas, Quodl. 12, a. 13.

133. To these pathological states must be added hypnotic sleep, while which endures commands are suggested to be fulfilled either at once or after some interval.

² Charcot, Leçons sur les maladies du système nerveux, Paris, 1887; and Oeuvres complètes, t. V; P. Richer, Etudes cliniques sur la grande hystérie, Paris, 1885; Bernheim, De la suggestion et de ses applications à la thérapeutique, Paris, 1886; A. Moll, Der hypnotismus, a work rendered into English as Hypnotism, 1893; E. Morselli, Il magnetismo animale, la fascinazione e gli stati ipnotici; Coconnier, L'hypnotisme franc, Paris, 1897; Grasset, L'hypnotisme et la suggestion, Paris (Doin), 1903. - You will find a brief synopsis in Lelong, La vérité sur l'hypnotisme, and Guibert, Etude sur l'hypnotisme, Paris, Retaux, s. d.; Tanquerey, Synop. Theol. Dogmat., De Deo Creante, n. 108-115.

(A) The facts are described. Hypnotic sleep is induced by various means, by command of the voice, by the gaze of the eyes, by the handling of the hands, especially by pressing zones which are called hypnogenic, or even by simple mental suggestion. Generally it is asserted that no one, in the state of wakefulness, can be hypnotized unless he has first given consent at least implicitly; but natural sleep can be changed into hypnotic sleep without the consent of the sleeper. Not all can be hypnotized, but many can, and not only women but also men, especially those who are weak in will or labor under a nervous disease.

The phenomena of hypnotism are distinguished into three kinds: somatic, intellectual, or mixed. (a) The first are so called because they especially affect the body (soma): catalepsy, lethargy, and somnambulism. In the cataleptic state, the body remains immobile, like a statue, and preserves that manner of bearing itself which is impressed upon it; it appears altogether inert and insensible. In the lethargic state, the eyes previously closed are opened and turn themselves almost necessarily toward the hypnotizer; the members acquire, as it were, waxen flexibility. If some motion is impressed upon the members, the hypnotized person performs or completes the same; thus if the hands are joined, as generally happens at the time of prayer, the whole body behaves just as if the mind were vacant for contemplation. Finally, in the state of somnambulism, the hypnotized person seems to be, as it were, awakened from sleep: he hears, sees, speaks, and acts; but he is not master of himself, for he obeys almost absolutely the command of the hypnotizer.

(b) In the intellectual order, the principal phenomenon is mental suggestion, which can happen especially in the state of somnambulism. Namely, the hypnotized person hears and executes all those things which are suggested and commanded by the hypnotizer; for example, he sees or does not see an object truly present in the room, at the nod of the hypnotizer; if the latter has ordered that a theft be committed, at first indeed he resists, but for the most part, conquered by the stronger will, the theft is perpetrated. Indeed, suggestions to be executed after a week or a month he faithfully fulfills at the appointed time.

(c) Mixed phenomena are called those which are produced in the body through the mediation of the imagination; for example, a bloody sweat, which someone suffers at the suggestion of the hypnotizer.

134. The cause of these facts is assigned diversely by diverse authors.¹ Many explain them through a certain analogy with natural sleep. For very often it happens to those sleeping that they take imaginary likenesses of things, which are represented in their phantasy, as real, and perform various acts under their influence; and this indeed proceeds from the fact that reason, in order to judge rightly concerning the truth of things, lacks the perception of the senses which is necessary to it. Now he who permits himself to be hypnotized by another submits himself to his command; in his phantasy he vividly perceives likenesses of things which are suggested by him, and, judging them to be real, acts in the same way as if he truly perceived the things themselves.²

¹ Cf. Wundt, Hypnotisme et suggestion, translated from the German by Keller, Paris, 1902.

² Coconnier explains this happily, op. cit., p. 347-380.

135. (B) Concerning the liberty of the hypnotized person.¹ (a) It is certain and admitted by all that the exercise of liberty is much diminished by hypnotic sleep and suggestion; indeed, according to all, it is almost entirely removed as long as the sleep endures; for if an honorable person first resists the suggestion of stealing something, this happens by force of a habit previously acquired; but if the hypnotizer orders the same thing again and again, soon the theft is carried out; therefore that liberty which suffices for moral imputability does not remain.

¹ Concerning this see J. Liégeois, De la suggestion et du somnambulisme, Paris (Doin), 1889, n. 507-575; Gilles de la Tourette, L'Hypnotisme, Paris (Plon), 1889; Mercier, Psychologie, 1904, n. 203.

(b) But if it is a question of a suggestion to be fulfilled afterward, in the state of wakefulness, the Parisian school contends that liberty is not wholly removed but only diminished; while, according to the school of Nancy, even in this case the hypnotized person cannot morally resist the suggestion. Wherefore, in practice, he must be interrogated carefully and cautiously, so that, from his own testimony, it can be discerned whether and to what extent he was free in performing the action.

(c) From this it is clear that the evil actions which the hypnotized person perpetrates are sometimes free in the cause, namely when he freely abdicated his own will and gave consent to hypnotic sleep, foreseeing that actions of this kind were to be suggested. - For this reason the use of hypnotism cannot be permitted indiscriminately, but only for most grave reasons, and with precautions applied lest anything morally evil be able to occur, as will be explained below, n. 916.

In this last lecture of our course I propose to make a brief excursion with you into the border-land of science, a region chiefly occupied by imposture and superstition. To show there is such a territory, we have only to name a few of its inhabitants, such as mesmerism, animal magnetism, odylism, hypnotism, mind-reading, faith-cures, clairvoyance, spiritism, including table-rapping, spirit-rapping, most of which have been used in connection with medicine. I do not maintain that all of these are mere vagaries, empty shadows, without the least reality, mere ghosts and hobgoblins, mere phantoms of the heat-oppressed brain, or cunning devices of impostors to deceive a gullible crowd of the ignorant public. Yet most of these are such beyond a doubt, and as such are totally unworthy of our attention.

Medicine is a science; it deals with undoubted facts and certain principles, and with theories in so far as they are supported by well-ascertained realities. The border-land of which I speak presents to our investigation few certain facts. It is chiefly the domain of imposture. Charlatans and showmen and medical quacks call things facts that are not facts. Among all the inhabitants of the shadowy region that I have enumerated, there is only one considered to-day by the science of medicine as worthy of its attention. It is hypnotism. As its first origin is connected with the history of mesmerism, and the latter, though itself a phantom, has been used as the chief patron of all other phantoms, I will premise a few words about mesmerism itself.

I. Mesmer was born about 1733, studied in Vienna and there became a doctor of medicine in 1766. Soon after, he began to speculate upon the curative powers of the magnet, and claimed to have discovered the existence of a force in man similar to magnetism and the source of strong influence on the human body.

In 1775 he published an account of the medical powers of this animal magnetism, which from his name was afterward called mesmerism. Paris was then the centre of attraction for scientific discoverers and pretenders. Thither Mesmer betook himself and there he soon created a lively sensation by the exhibition of mesmeric trances, some of which were accompanied by clairvoyance—that is, the power of seeing objects concealed from the eyes. He was also supposed to work some inexplicable cures.

The secret of his art he could not be induced to reveal even for the sum of 340,000 livres, which was offered him in compensation. People began to doubt whether he had a real secret, or whether he was a rank impostor. A royal commission was appointed to examine into the matter. Our Benjamin Franklin, then in Paris, was one of the commissioners. Their report was unfavorable. They found no proof of the existence of a fluid such as animal magnetism, and thought that all that was not imposture could be accounted for by the power of imagination. In a secret report they pointed out very strongly the dangers likely to arise from this unhealthy stimulus to the imagination. Their verdict does honor to their learning and their common-sense. Mesmer left Paris, and he died in obscurity in 1815.

But his pretended discovery did not die with him. It was a mine of resources to charlatans and impostors generally. There were strange effects produced, and at the sight of the inexplicable men lose their wits. The gullible public wondered, restless minds experimented, and many pondered thoughtfully on facts, most of which were not facts at all. But after eliminating all the elements of imposture and exaggeration there seemed to remain a residue of phenomena that were strange and unaccountable.

About 1840 the vaunted claims of the many clairvoyants were exposed before the French Academy of Medicine, which passed a resolution rejecting mesmerism altogether as unworthy of notice on the part of scientific men. The theory of a mesmeric fluid, until then the only one advanced, had evidently to be abandoned. Science with all its tests could find no such cause of the results produced. But in 1842 an English physician, Dr. James Braid, hit upon a more plausible theory. He conjectured that the actions of the mesmeric subject could be explained without a fluid by the suggestion of phantasms to him on the part of the mesmerizer. Dr. Carpenter, then a great authority, defended his theory; but the medical branch of the British Association disdained to consider the matter. Dr. Braid thought the mesmeric trance was only a state of somnambulism artificially brought about, and he coined the word hypnotism to indicate the artificial sleep. Other attempts to promote the cause of hypnotism were made in the United States and other lands, but no very definite or scientific results were reached until 1878, when the celebrated Prof. Charcot and others made its nature and possibilities the subject of a thorough study and abundant experimentation at the Paris hospital of La Salpétrière and in other places. At present it is admitted by distinguished medical scientists that hypnotism is a reality, capable of being utilized for important purposes. Many effects have been demonstrated to be produced by it as real as any ordinary phenomena of nature. But on the explanation of their causes there hangs still a cloud of obscurity.

The Paris School of Doctors attribute the effects to physical causes, chief among which are diseases of the nerves. Those of Nancy trace the phenomena to a psychical source, namely, to suggestion—that is, action on the subject through his imagination excited by words, signs, or in any other manner. This appears to be, in the main, the theory of Dr. Braid vindicated by modern science. Probably enough, both schools are right in their way, the suggestions not taking effect except where nervous affections have prepared the way. The beneficial results claimed for hypnotism by the scientific men who have made its study a specialty are chiefly as follows:

1. It acts as a temporary sedative, quieting the excited nerves of the patient. It was thus employed, for instance, on an old woman who was near her death, and who had not been able to make necessary preparations for that important event, being beside herself with nervous agitation. She obtained by this means a calm condition for some seven or eight hours. Hypnotism was for her like the visit of a good angel from heaven.

2. It is used as an anæsthetic in place of chloroform, which in many cases cannot be applied without great danger to health, or even life. Thus perfect insensibility may be procured and long continued, allowing sometimes of the performance of protracted surgical operations that would otherwise be almost impossible.

3. At other times it is employed as a mere pain-killer without depriving the patient of consciousness, so that the hurt is felt indeed, but not attended with keen suffering.

4. It is claimed that the skilful application of hypnotism can at times not only alleviate the pain of an injury, but even cure nervous affections more or less permanently, removing, for instance, the defect of stammering.

5. There are not wanting cases in which even moral improvements are claimed to be produced, at least in the removing of bad habits, such as drunkenness. If hypnotism can cure intoxication permanently, or even for a season, it deserves to be encouraged. Yet even then it must be used with great caution, for there may be very evil consequences resulting from its use. To realize fully the dangers and the evils attendant upon hypnotism you must understand the three stages through which the patient is made to pass—those of lethargy, catalepsy, and somnambulism.

Each of these is a disease in itself, and thus it is seen at once that a treatment which employs diseases as its means of cure must be of a dangerous kind. After the patient has been hypnotized by any of the various processes—the chief are mesmeric passes of the hypnotizer’s hands, his eyes fixed into the eyes of his subject, or the latter’s on an object so held as to strain his eyes—the first stage of hypnotism is obtained, that of lethargy. In the lethargic state, the subject appears to be sunk in a deep sleep; his body is perfectly helpless; the limbs hang down slackly, and when raised fall heavily into the same position. In this condition all the striated or voluntary muscles react on mechanical excitement. Without an accurate knowledge of anatomy, much harm may be done by the experiment.

The second stage is that of catalepsy, certainly not a healthy condition to be in. Its grand feature is a plastic immobility by which the subject maintains all the attitudes given to his body and limbs, but with this peculiarity, that the limbs and features act in unison. Join the hands of the patient as if in devout prayer, and his countenance assumes a devout expression; clench his fist, and anger is depicted in his features.

The third stage is that of somnambulism. The skin is now insensible to pain, but excessive keenness is manifested in the sight, hearing, smell, and muscular sense. Here the impostor can play off his pretended clairvoyance or second sight; for the subject will discover objects hidden from sight by the sense of smell and other senses affected with abnormal power. The somnambulist will now exhibit the utmost sensibility to suggestions made to him by the hypnotizer, so that he seems to be almost entirely controlled by the influence of the latter’s will. This is what chiefly favored the early theory that a mesmeric fluid emanated from the mesmerizer by means of which he could act in his subject as he pleased. The experiment by suggestions seems to succeed best with hysterical patients, which fact confirms the morbid character of the hypnotic trance.

If any distinguished scientist or Doctor who can afford it wishes to make a special study of hypnotism, which is still so imperfectly understood, he may render a valuable service to humanity, and in particular to the science of medicine. But if any ordinary physician asked my advice about devoting attention to this pursuit. I would emphatically tell him, “Leave it alone: you are not likely to derive real benefit from it, and you are very likely to inspire your clients with distrust of you when they see you deal with matters which have deserved a bad name on account of the charlatanism and the superstitious abuses usually connected with them.” This is not my opinion alone, but also that of distinguished writers on the subject.

When there is question of hypnotic séances or exhibitions such as are designed to feed the morbid cravings of the public for what is mysterious and sensational, I would call special attention to the following objections against such practices.

1. Medical authorities maintain that it requires at least as much knowledge of therapeutics to use hypnotism safely as it does for the general practice of medicine, and requires of a physician who engages in it a more thorough mastery of his profession than many other branches of the healing art, and therefore that it is as objectionable to allow non-professionals to deal with hypnotism as it would be to allow medical practice promiscuously to all persons without a Doctor’s diploma. In fact, in Russia, Prussia, and Denmark none but licensed physicians can lawfully practise hypnotism. Aside from a variety of accidents which may result to the subject hypnotized from the ignorance of physiology in the hypnotizer, there is this general injury sustained, that even strong subjects frequently experimented upon contract a disposition to be readily thrown into any of the three morbid states of the mesmeric trance. All these states are real diseases and are allied to hysteria, epilepsy, and a whole family of nervous troubles, any one of which is sufficient to make a patient very miserable for life, and even to lead him to an early grave.

2. The moralist has still stronger objections against the use of hypnotism, except when it is used as a means to most important results. He maintains that one of the greatest evils that can befall a man is the weakening of his will-power; this leaves him a victim to the cravings of his lower appetites. Now the frequent surrender of one’s will to the control of another is said (very reasonably, it would seem) to bring on a weakening of the will or self-control. We see this exemplified in the habitual drunkard. He loses will-power to such an extent that he can scarcely keep his most solemn promises or withstand the slightest temptations. There is a very serious question asked by the moralist upon another resemblance of an hypnotic subject to a drunkard. He asks whether any man has a right for the amusement perhaps of the curious lookers-on to forfeit for awhile his manhood, or the highest privilege of his manhood—his powers of intellect and free-will. He admits that we do so daily in our sleep. But then he argues that sleep is a necessity of our nature directly intended by the Creator, a normal part of human life. Besides it is a necessary means for the renewal of our strength, and on the plea of necessity the moralist may admit the use of hypnotism when it is needed for the cure of bodily diseases. But for the mere amusement of spectators he maintains that it is wrong for a man thus to resign his human dignity, as it would be wrong for him to get drunk for the amusement of lookers-on. Still, in this latter case the evil would be greater, for in drunkenness there is contained a lower degradation, inasmuch as the baser passions are then left without all control, and are apt to become exceedingly vile in their licentious condition. The hypnotic subject has at least the mind and will of the hypnotizer to direct him. Here, however, appears the need of another caution, namely, that the hypnotizer should be known to be a virtuous man; else the evil that he can do to his subject, as is readily seen, may be even worse than that resulting from a fit of drunkenness. And as men who occupy even respectable positions may yet be vile at heart, it is very desirable for prudence’ sake to have no one hypnotized in private without the presence of a parent, close relative, or some other party, who will see to it that nothing improper be suggested during the trance. For the scenes gone through during the hypnotic state, though not remembered by the subject upon his return to consciousness, are apt to recur to him afterwards like a dream, showing that they have left traces behind them.

3. Legal writers and lawyers have serious charges against hypnotism. This practice, they maintain, if publicly exhibited to old and young, begets dangerous cravings for sensational experiments. Turning away men’s attention from the sober realities and duties of social life, it prompts them to pursue the unnatural and abnormal. It was this craving that in less enlightened ages led men to the superstitious practice of astrology and witchcraft. At present it leads to such vagaries and unchristian and often immoral practices as are connected with spiritism, faith-cures, mind-reading, and similar foolish or criminal or at least dangerous experimentations which dive into the dark recesses found in the border-land of the preternatural. The atmosphere of that region is morally unhealthy and should be barred off by the guardians of public morals.

The most common objection of legal writers is directed against the various crimes to which hypnotism is apt to lead men of criminal propensities. They point to the statements of Dr. Luys, a respectable authority on hypnotism, who says: “A patient under the influence of hypnotism can be made to swallow poison, to inhale noxious gases. He can be led to make a manual gift of property, even to sign a promissory note or bill, or any kind of contract.” Indeed, how can notaries or witnesses suspect any fraud when even the Doctor needs all his experience and all his skill to avoid falling into error? In criminal matters a man under suggestion can bring false accusations and earnestly maintain that he has taken part in some horrible crime.

After considering the objections to the use, or rather abuse, of hypnotism, I may add some further explanation of hypnotism itself—of its nature so far as it is known to science. Science has ascertained the reality of the phenomena and facts—not single facts only, scattered here and there, but groups of facts uniformly obedient to certain laws of nature. It has not yet discovered the exact cause or causes of all these phenomena, but it gives plausible explanations of them, both in the physical theory of the Paris School and in the psychical theory of the Nancy School of Physicians. Science has discarded the original theory of a mesmeric fluid as the cause of these phenomena, just as it has discarded the formerly supposed fluids of electricity and magnetism. Of electricity the “Century Dictionary” says: “A name denoting the cause of an important class of phenomena of attraction and repulsion, chemical decomposition, and so on, or, collectively, these phenomena themselves.” The true nature of electricity is as yet not all understood, but it is not, as it was formerly supposed to be, of the nature of a fluid. Similarly we may define hypnotism as the collection of peculiar phenomena of a trance or sleep artificially induced, or the induced trance or sleep itself.

The true cause of these phenomena is not yet understood, but there is no apparent reason for attributing them to a special fluid; they seem to be peculiar ways of acting, belonging to man’s physical powers when his nerves are in an abnormal condition. By laying down these definite statements we gain the advantage that we isolate hypnotism from the frauds and empty shades, from the ghosts and hobgoblins with which it used to be associated in the border-region which we have undertaken to explore. Science deals with well-ascertained facts. Now of mesmerism, animal magnetism, and its kindred, odylism, we have seen that we have no reliable facts. We have done with those unsubstantial shades. But of hypnotism we have well-known facts, and we have shown it to be placed on a scientific basis.

Of clairvoyance, mind-reading, palmistry, spiritual science cures we have no certain facts, but we have many impostures connected with them. If ever we get real and undoubted facts proved to be connected with them, we ought to examine them with care. Science is not afraid of any portion of nature; all it dreads is ignorance, and what is worse, error. Error with regard to facts may be committed in two ways—by admitting as facts what are not facts, and by denying facts. Now, there are facts certain and well ascertained, numerous and widely known, connected with some other portions of the border-land of science that we have not yet looked into, though I have mentioned their names. He who would assert that spiritism, table-turning, spirit-rapping, and so on are mere idle talk, sheer impostures, is not well read in the literature of the present day. By denying all reality to these phenomena he strays as far from the truth as if he allowed himself to believe mere fabrications. They are not impositions, but they are worse; they are superstitions. By superstitions I mean here the practice of producing results which cannot possibly proceed from the powers of nature, and which could not without absurdity be attributed to the interference of the Creator or His good angels.

Some persons strenuously object to introducing any reference to God into scientific works. Science consists in tracing known effects to their true causes. If there were no God, He could not be a true cause and it would be unscientific to introduce His agency. But if there is a God and He acts in the world which He has made, we must take His actions into account when we study His works. Some say, “I do not believe in a God.” That may be, but that does not prove that there is no God. Belief is a man’s wilful and fine acceptance of what is proposed to him on the authority of some one else. Students have most of their knowledge on the authority of their professors and other men of learning. If a medical student would say, “I do not believe in microbes nor in contagion by disease germs,” that would not kill the germs nor protect him against contagion. Nor would it show his superior wisdom, but rather his extravagant conceit and ignorance. So with those who believe not in God.

There are others who believe not in the existence of devils or fallen angels. That is not so bad; but yet they must remember that their refusal to believe in devils does not prove that there are none. The greatest enemies of science are those who blindly maintain false statements and false principles of knowledge. Let us look for the truth in every investigation. Even Huxley, in the midst of his attacks on dogmatic religion, protests also against dogmatic infidelity. Science, he says, is as little atheistic as it is materialistic. All this must be remembered chiefly when we undertake to explore, as we are now doing, the unknown region which we have called the border-land of science. There we find many strange phenomena, and we are trying to discover their true nature and true causes. If we can explain some of them by natural causes, as by the powers of the imagination when it is in an abnormal or hypnotic state, very well, let us explain them. But let us not rashly conclude that all other phenomena can be thus explained. Do not reason this way, as some writers have done: “Some effects,” they say, “were formerly attributed to witchcraft or deviltry and can now be explained by hypnotism. Therefore all other mysterious effects can also be thus explained. Therefore there is not and never was such a thing as witchcraft or deviltry. So, too, some events often reputed miraculous can be explained by natural causes, therefore no miracle has ever happened.” That is the reasoning of rash and ignorant men, and not of scientific minds. It does not follow from the fact that God usually works by natural causes, that He cannot on special occasions and for very important reasons show His hand, as it were, and act so manifestly against the course of nature as to show us that it is He who is at work and He wants us to mind Him. History furnishes many instances of this kind.

Least of all have Christians a right to deny this, and we must remember that the civilized world is Christian, almost entirely. Christians believe in the reliability of the Bible, and in it we are constantly informed of countless miracles in various ages. If all these accounts are false, then Christianity is a vast imposture. Christ appealed to them as to His credentials in His mission to the world. “If you do not believe Me,” He said, “believe My works, for they give testimony of Me. The blind see; the lame walk; the dead are raised to life.” If He spoke falsely, He was a deceiver; if He worked those marvels by hypnotism, or any other natural cause, He was an impostor. There is no middle way. Either by working true miracles He proved Himself to be what He claimed to be, the Son of God, or He was the most bold and detestable impostor that has ever appeared on earth. This no Christian can suppose, this no historian would admit; therefore, we must grant that He worked miracles, and miracles are realities to be taken into account by the writers of history, and scientific workers must not sneer at them.

Scientific men in their investigations need not expect to come into contact with miracles; but they may and do find in the border-land of science facts which reveal the agency of intellectual beings distinct from men, and too vulgar in their manifestation to be confounded with God or His blessed angels. Such agents in the book of the Scriptures are called devils, and intercourse with them is styled superstition, seeking their assistance is magic or witchcraft, and consulting them is divination or fortune-telling. All these practices are directly and strictly forbidden in the Scriptures, and yet they are commonly enough in use in our own day to procure effects that gratify the curiosity of such, especially, as have no settled belief in supernatural religion.

Some of these effects are connected with bodily cures and thus are of interest to physicians. For instance, spiritualistic mediums, whether connecting their practices with magnetism or not, though entirely ignorant of medicine, are at times able to state the exact bodily indisposition of sick persons living at a great distance, put into communication with them by holding some object belonging to them. They will indicate the seat of the disorder, its nature and progress, its complications. They propose simple and efficacious remedies, using not infrequently technical terms which are certainly unknown to them before. They manifest the thoughts of others, reveal family secrets, answer questions put in languages of which they know nothing. To deny facts attested by thousands of witnesses of various nations belonging to various religious denominations or professing no religion whatever, is not the spirit of science. It it estimated that 100,000 spiritist books and pamphlets are sold yearly in the United States alone. It is certain that much, very much imposture is mixed up with many undeniable facts, but that does not dispose of the real facts mixed up with the impostures. Tyndall once caught an ill-starred spiritualistic impostor at his juggling. He concluded that all other spiritists were impostors. The world now laughs at him for his foolish reasoning.

Of course, I do not suppose that spiritism is mainly employed in such matters as would directly interest the physician. It has grown into a system of religion and morals, very peculiar and at variance with the Christian religion, a system rather resembling the religion of Buddha, with its reincarnations and transmigrations of souls while struggling after eternal after-progress. This is fully and clearly explained in an article on “Spiritism in its True Character” in the English publication called “The Month,” for September, 1892. But with this phase of it we are not now concerned. As to the facts, it is enough to remark that spiritists claim a following of 20,000,000. Suppose there are only one-half that number. 10,000,000 people are not readily deceived about matters of their daily observation, for their meetings or séances consist chiefly of those manifestations which others call impostures.

Their adherents are chiefly among the educated classes, I believe. Certainly they include multitudes of doctors, lawyers, professors, scientists, magistrates, clergymen, close students, keen intellects, even such men as Alfred Russell Wallace, Profs. Morgan, Marley, Challis, William Carpenter, and Edward Cox. If one has still lingering doubts on this matter let him read the four learned articles written by my predecessor in this chair of Medical Jurisprudence, Rev. James F. Hoeffer, S.J., the former president of Creighton University. They are found in the “American Catholic Quarterly Review” for 1882 and 1883.

What must we think of the nature of spiritism, with its spirit-rappings, table-turning, spirit-apparitions, and so on? Can such of the facts as are not impostures and realities be explained by the laws of nature, the powers of material agents and of men? All that could possibly be done by the most skilled scientists, by the most determined materialists who believe neither in God nor demon, as well as by the most conscientious Christians, has only served to demonstrate to perfect evidence that effects are produced which can no more be attributed to natural agency than speech and design can be attributed to a piece of wood. One principle of science throws much light on the nature of all those performances, namely, that every effect must have a proportionate cause. When the effect shows knowledge and design, the cause must be intelligent. Now many of these marvels evidently show knowledge and design; therefore the cause is certainly intelligent.

A table cannot understand and answer questions; it cannot move at a person’s bidding. A medium cannot speak in a language he has never learned, nor know the secret ailment of a patient far away, nor prescribe the proper remedies without knowledge of medicine. Therefore these effects, when they really exist, are due to intelligent agents, agents distinct from the persons visibly present; invisible agents, therefore, spirits of another world.

Who are these agents? God and His good angels cannot work these wretched marvels, the food of a morbid curiosity, nor could they put themselves at the disposal of impious men to be marched out as monkeys on the stage. The spirits which are made to appear at the séances are degraded spirits. Spiritualists themselves tell us they are lying spirits. Those lying spirits say they are the souls of the departed, but who can believe their testimony if they are lying spirits, as they are acknowledged to be? This whole combination of imposture and superstition is simply the revival in a modern dress of a very ancient deception of mankind by playing on men’s craving for the marvellous. Many imagine these are recent discoveries, peculiar to this age of progress. Why? This spirit-writing is and has been for centuries extensively practised in benighted pagan China, while even Africans and Hindoos are great adepts at table-turning. It is simply the revival of ancient witchcraft, which Simon Magus practised in St. Peter’s time; which flourished in Ephesus while St. Paul was preaching the Gospel there. It is more ancient still. These were the abominations for which God commissioned the Jews in Moses’ time to exterminate the Canaanites and the other inhabitants of the Promised Land. In the Book of Moses called Deuteronomy, or Second Law, admitted as divine by Catholics, Protestants, and Jews alike, we have this fact very emphatically proclaimed by the Lord. He says: “When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee, beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations; neither let there be found among you any one that ... consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune-tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead.”

Is not this just what spiritualists pretend to do? Many may call it only trifling and play. The Lord does not. The Scriptures continue: “For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations He will destroy them at thy coming.” I certainly do not mean to say that all that passes for spiritualism is thus downright deviltry to-day, nor was it so in pagan times. Much imposture was mixed with it. The oracles of the pagan gods and goddesses were not all the work of the pythonic spirits. Much was craft of the priests of idols; and yet all were abominations before the Lord, on account of the share that Satan took in the deceptions.

What must be the attitude of the scientific man towards all such matters? It should be an attitude of hostility and opposition. Science should frown down all imposture and superstition. Medicine in particular, intended to be one of the choicest blessings of God to man, should not degrade its noble profession by pandering to a vulgar greed for morbid excitement. Not only will you personally keep aloof from all that is allied to quackery and imposture, but in after-life your powerful influence for good will be most efficient in guarding others against such evils, and even perhaps in withdrawing from such associations those who have already got entangled in dangerous snares. At all events the enlightened views you shall have formed to yourselves on all such impostures and impieties will be a power for good in the social circle in which your mental superiority and your moral integrity will make you safe guides for your fellow-men.

PRINTED BY BENZIGER BROTHERS, NEW YORK

520. Magnetism is either mineral or animal. The former is a certain physical force, very similar and closely related to electricity, inhering in certain minerals and metals. Although the intimate nature of this magnetism is still hidden from us, nevertheless from day to day it is employed more and more for the utility of the human race. To treat of this magnetism pertains to the natural sciences, not to moral theology. Animal magnetism, which is also called mesmerism after the physician Francis Mesmer (d. 1815), is a certain force, perhaps subsisting in the nerves of man, suited to curing diseases and producing other material effects by external contact alone. Animal magnetism in our days is often practiced by so-called magnetopaths, and, considered in itself, contains nothing unlawful. For it is nothing other than one of the diverse modes of curing diseases; and just as electrotherapy, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, etc. are objectively lawful, so also is mesmerism, which truly, according to experts in the art, sometimes produces good effects. Per accidens, however, mesmerism is not rarely unlawful, because it is practiced by men who lack due knowledge, good morals, and a right end in acting. Concerning the use of magnetism the Holy Office⁷⁸³ established the following as a general rule: "With every error, sortilege, and explicit or implicit invocation of a demon removed, the use of magnetism, namely, the mere act of employing physical means otherwise lawful, is not morally forbidden, provided that it does not tend toward an unlawful or in any way depraved end. But the application of purely physical principles and means to things and effects truly supernatural, so that they may be explained physically, is nothing but an altogether unlawful and heretical deception." Magnetism is not to be confused with hypnotism, which will be treated below. For in magnetism the use of reason and liberty is never lost; nevertheless, this sometimes happens in hypnotism.

⁷⁸³ On 28 July 1847.

521. On turning tables. Perhaps "turning tables" can also be explained through the assistance of animal magnetism. Behold their manner of operation: several persons, whether men or women (it happens rather rarely that one person alone can produce the same effects), touch some table with the tips of their fingers, arranged in a determined manner. After some time the table begins to move and especially to be agitated by its feet. If it is then established among those present, for example, that one knock signifies affirmative and two knocks signify negative, the table responds by knocks of its foot according to the responses established. These responses are true provided that one of those touching the table knows what ought to be answered; otherwise, they always speak falsely. Certain authors assert that the table suddenly ceases to turn when a blessed object is placed upon it, or that the table gives responses also concerning things altogether occult; this, however, is rightly denied by others, since men above every suspicion firmly contend from their own experience that the table never gives a true response when no one touching it knows the matter asked, and a fortiori that the table never reveals anything altogether unknown.⁷⁸⁴ The phenomena narrated, for example, by Gury-Ballerini⁷⁸⁵ certainly do not occur in six hundred experiments performed; and if they happen in a rare case, they are often nothing other than effects produced by the greatest dexterity of the magnetizer. Therefore, since it is not yet certainly established what precisely is produced through turning tables, they must be judged with great caution. The following seem to be said:

1. The simple rotation of the table can in some measure be explained from the natural powers of nerves and muscles or of some fluid, whose nature, however, is still hidden from us.

2. The response of the table to questions known to one or several of those touching it need not be attributed to preternatural powers; for just as the nerves of those touching it can probably produce the rotation itself, so nothing seems to prevent the same nerves from also causing, according to the will of those touching it, a determined number of knocks.⁷⁸⁶

3. If the table truly gives responses concerning things truly occult, then this is to be attributed to the devil. For without any doubt a material table can give no response of itself; moreover, those present cannot give the response, since, as is supposed, the matter is altogether occult; finally, neither God nor a good angel gives responses of this kind to questions that are often frivolous. It remains, therefore, that the devil mingles himself in it.

4. Even with responses of the table concerning things altogether occult excluded, the faithful are to be deterred from experiments with turning tables, because, even if more probably no diabolical intervention is present, nevertheless experiments of this kind, far from producing any utility, are accustomed rather to cause several harms; for they excite unhealthy curiosity, foster superstition, and not rarely injure decency and charity.

⁷⁸⁴ Cf. C. Gutberlet, Der Kampf um die Seele (1903), p. 582.

⁷⁸⁵ Comp. theol. mor. I, n. 273ff.

⁷⁸⁶ Thus also Tanquerey, De virt. relig. n. 913.

522. Hypnotism. Although certain authors (for example, Marc) would have hypnotism to be nothing other than a higher degree of animal magnetism, it is more correctly distinguished from it in reality. For animal magnetism can be effected by bodily contacts alone; hypnotism, however, is produced in many other ways, for example, by a fixed gaze upon a shining object, by suggestion, and by other mechanical means; indeed, there are men who, by a certain autosuggestion, are able to transfer themselves into hypnotic sleep. To hypnotism is reduced the so-called suggestion in the waking state (Wachsuggestion), through which hypnotic sleep is not indeed produced, but a man nevertheless necessarily performs the commands of the hypnotizer or suggester.

The effects produced through hypnotism are many and diverse. Dr. Joire,⁷⁸⁷ professor of the Psychological Institute of Paris, enumerates five categories of effects, namely, active suggestion, passive suggestion, somnambulism, catalepsy, and lethargy; but he himself admits that all these categories are not altogether diverse, but are often intermixed. An altogether astonishing effect of hypnotism is somnambulism, in which the hypnotized person is subjected in all things to the will and command of the hypnotizer and, although he seems to be deprived of the external senses, nevertheless sees and hears the hypnotizer, whom he obeys at a nod.

In our days hypnotism is employed for obtaining diverse ends, namely:

1. by physicians to cure various diseases, especially those of the nerves;

2. by artists, for example, by a painter to procure for himself a model,⁷⁸⁸ who for a long time retains the same posture immovably, or for a long time expresses the same vivid internal affection by the arrangement of the mouth and countenance;

3. by judges, that they may elicit useful or necessary confessions from the accused or from witnesses;

4. by parents and teachers to assist education and eradicate depraved habits; for those things which have been suggested to a hypnotized person, even when the hypnosis has ceased, he is accustomed for at least some time to carry into execution by the force of a certain inclination implanted in him (posthypnotic states);

5. by curious persons for their own recreation and that of others.

Although certain phenomena of hypnotism are most difficult to explain, nevertheless it is by no means necessary to have recourse to diabolical intervention. The things narrated by certain authors concerning the speaking of unknown languages and concerning wholly extraordinary sciences and notions possessed by hypnotized persons are mere fables, or at least are not certainly established. A certain physician, most distinguished both for knowledge and for good morals, who himself very often employed hypnotism with good effect and who often saw it employed by others, told me that neither he nor anyone else had ever been able through hypnotism to obtain any effect exceeding the natural powers of the hypnotized person; and that, if such exceeding effects are narrated, they are to be attributed solely to the credulity and simplicity of the hearers and to the exceedingly great dexterity of the hypnotizer.⁷⁸⁹ I can assert the same from my own experience.

⁷⁸⁷ Handbuch des Hypnotismus, German translation (1908), p. 31ff.

⁷⁸⁸ Modell [model].

⁷⁸⁹ Tanquerey rightly says (l.c., n. 916): "The hypnotic phenomena which are certainly established do not seem to exceed the powers of the natural order."

523. The liceity of hypnotism. Principle. Hypnotism is not unlawful in itself; often, however, it becomes unlawful because of abuse.

Thus holds the more common opinion today.

The first part is proved: The means employed in hypnotism (and its end) are lawful. Therefore hypnotism is not unlawful in itself. The means employed are suggestions, shining objects, etc., which certainly contain nothing unlawful. Likewise, the ends of hypnotism enumerated above (except perhaps the ends indicated above under nn. 3 and 5) are not necessarily evil and repugnant to right reason. Nor should anyone say that it is not lawful to deprive oneself violently of the use of reason, and much less to subject one's will to the judgment of another. For although these things are true if a sufficient cause is not present, nevertheless, when a reasonable cause exists, nothing prevents someone from renouncing for a time the use of reason and will. Thus, for example, when a man gives himself to natural sleep or when a sick person is placed under narcosis, he also renounces the use of reason and will. There is, however, some difficulty concerning the so-called posthypnotic states. For even after the hypnotism is completed, the will of the hypnotized person remains in some manner under the power of the hypnotizer, whose commands (even from a distance) he is accustomed to fulfill without resistance. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the hypnotized person has entirely lost liberty, since he not only is able to resist but sometimes in fact resists the command of the hypnotizer. Therefore a more or less vehement inclination is impressed through hypnotism, but liberty is not customarily removed entirely in the posthypnotic state.

The second part is explained: Hypnotism is a land still sufficiently unknown and full of dangers. For sometimes bodily health is not merely not cured by it, but rather is ruined; moreover, the hypnotizer can easily abuse that subjection of the will which remains in some manner even after hypnosis in order to perpetrate crimes. Since these things are so, it is not lawful to use hypnotism except from a proportionately grave cause and with all precautions employed so that abuse may not be possible. There are several authors who absolutely forbid the use of hypnotism, such as Ballerini-Palmieri,⁷⁹⁰ Bucceroni,⁷⁹¹ and Aertnys;⁷⁹² but several others, such as Berardi,⁷⁹³ Génicot,⁷⁹⁴ Lehmkuhl,⁷⁹⁵ D'Annibale,⁷⁹⁶ Noldin,⁷⁹⁷ and Coconnier,⁷⁹⁸ hold it lawful under certain conditions. The response of the Holy Office concerning hypnotism, dated 26 July 1899, is to be noted: "As regards experiments already made, they can be permitted, provided that the danger of superstition and scandal is absent, and that in addition the petitioner is prepared to abide by the commands of the Holy See. As regards new experiments, if there is question of facts which certainly exceed the powers of nature, they are not lawful; but if this is doubted, they are to be tolerated after a protestation that one wills to have no part in preternatural facts, provided that the danger of scandal is absent." From this response it plainly appears that the Holy See does not condemn hypnotism as simply unlawful, but determines only the conditions under which experiments of this kind can be performed lawfully.

Note. The salutary effects of hypnotism are being called more and more into doubt by more recent physicians, at least if it is carried as far as somnambulism. For it is now sufficiently established that the salutary effects obtained through hypnotism are often of brief duration, but that afterward the apparently cured disease returns, and indeed in a more vehement degree.

⁷⁹⁰ Opus theol. II, tr. 6, n. 101 (ed. 1890).

⁷⁹¹ Theol. mor. I, n. 485.

⁷⁹² Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 32. Aertnys nevertheless permits hypnotism to be employed by a trustworthy physician for producing natural effects alone.

⁷⁹³ Praxis confess. I, n. 484. Nevertheless, the author's mind is not so clearly established.

⁷⁹⁴ Theol. mor. I, n. 273.

⁷⁹⁵ Theol. mor. I, n. 502.

⁷⁹⁶ Summula theol. mor. II, n. 43.

⁷⁹⁷ De praeceptis n. 749.

⁷⁹⁸ L'hypnotisme franc, p. 260ff. Above the others, this author is to be consulted in this matter.

524. Spiritism (which is also sometimes called spiritualism) is taken either in a broad sense, and then also the phenomena of turning and responding tables pertain to spiritism; or in a strict sense, and then it is unlawful conversation with spirits of another world. When this conversation takes place by means of hypnotism, then the phenomena of hypnotism and spiritism are present together. Sufficient has already been said above concerning hypnotism. In spiritism strictly so called, spirits of another world are evoked, especially known deceased persons. The spirits evoked sometimes produce the so-called "materialization," that is, they appear in a sensible and visible form, so that their photograph can be taken. In present times spiritism is spreading widely. It is said that a special chair of spiritism has been established at the University of Philadelphia, and several periodicals spread spiritism daily. So-called spiritistic mediums, that is, persons having a special aptitude for conversing with spirits, are customarily employed; by falling into a certain artificial sleep (which is called trance), they produce a materialization of spirits. It has been proved several times that the most celebrated spiritistic mediums⁷⁹⁹ were base impostors who with great dexterity produced astonishing effects, but by natural powers alone. There are those who call all spiritistic phenomena fabrications and deceptions; and indeed a strong suspicion of deception ought to arise from the fact that all spiritistic sessions are customarily held under uncertain and unclear light. But why do spirits so fear full light?

⁷⁹⁹ For example, Slade, Florence Cook, Rothe, Eusapia Palladino, etc.

525. Morality. Spiritism strictly so called, that is, artificial and vain conversation with spirits of another world, is altogether unlawful.

For the phenomena of spiritism are either true or fictitious. In either case, however, spiritism is unlawful. For in the first case spiritism is nothing other than vain observance joined with divination, namely, with pythonism or necromancy. It is established with moral certainty that those apparitions and responses are not to be attributed to a natural cause, but to a preternatural being. Now that being most certainly is neither God, nor a good angel, nor a saint, since these do not cooperate with spiritistic vanities and impieties, especially since things contrary to religion and good morals are not rarely uttered. Therefore spiritistic apparitions, if they are true, are in fact diabolical, and consequently cause unlawful commerce with a demon. But if the phenomena are false, as happens in most cases, spiritism still seems to be unlawful, because it is accustomed to provide grave scandal, to lead many into error, to harm true religion, and to bring altogether no utility; nor has it brought any true utility up to the present. Therefore it is never lawful to conduct spiritistic experiments, although every agreement with a demon is excluded and only commerce with a good spirit is intended. To this pertain the responses of the Holy Office dated 1 April 1898 and 27 April 1917.⁸⁰⁰

A fortiori, it is not lawful to serve as a medium in spiritistic experiments. When scandal and cooperation are absent and every approval of spiritism is excluded, it is indeed unlawful, but does not seem to be a grave sin, sometimes to watch spiritistic experiments, even from mere curiosity; indeed, attendance seems lawful if it is done with the intention of detecting the frauds of spiritists.⁸⁰¹ For it is established that very many of those experiments are effects produced by the dexterity of men; on the contrary, it is not certainly established that even one phenomenon has been produced by the devil. Therefore, according to the rule given above by the Sacred Congregation, in a doubt whether some effect is from a natural or a preternatural cause, the phenomena of spiritism can be ascribed to natural causes.

⁸⁰⁰ "Titius, with every agreement with an evil spirit excluded, is accustomed to evoke the souls of the dead. He proceeds thus: while he is alone, without first doing anything else, he directs a prayer to the leader of the heavenly host, that through him he may obtain the faculty of communicating with the spirit of such a determined person. He waits a little; then, while he presents his prepared hand for writing, he perceives it to be moved, from which he becomes more certain of the presence of the spirit. He sets forth what he desires to know, and the hand writes responses to these questions. These responses all accord with the Catholic faith and the doctrine of the Church concerning the future life. For the most part they regard the state in which the soul of some deceased person is found, its need of receiving suffrages, its complaints concerning the ingratitude of relatives, etc. Is the manner of acting of Titius lawful? Response: As it is set forth, it is not lawful. The Most Holy Father approved" (Collect. de Prop. Fide n. 1994). To the question: "Whether it is lawful ... to be present at any spiritistic communications or manifestations whatsoever ... whether by questioning souls or spirits, or by hearing responses, or merely by looking on, even with a tacit or express protestation that one wills to have no part with evil spirits?" the Holy Office responded on 27 April 1917: "Negative in all things" (Act. Ap. Sed. 1917 [IX], 268). The Second Council of Baltimore, n. 41, prudently decreed: "We exhort them in Christ that they favor spiritism in no way, even indirectly, and that they never attend its circles even from curiosity."

⁸⁰¹ Thus also Noldin, De praeceptis n. 170, and Vermeersch, Theol. mor. II, n. 248.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vain observance is chiefly recognized from three things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. What is to be said of the case?

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

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

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

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