Superstition, Idolatry, and Divination

151. Notions. 1. Idolatry is superstition by which divine worship is exhibited to a creature, whether this is an animate or inanimate thing, or finally the demon himself.

Therefore two things are required for true idolatry: first indeed, that the worship which is exhibited to the creature be truly divine worship owed to God alone, or a testification of supreme excellence; then, that this worship be exhibited to the creature seriously and truly, not fictitiously and by simulation or for the sake of jest.

2. A twofold idolatry is distinguished: formal, which is committed with the intention of adoring a creature; and material, which is done only externally without the will of adoring a creature, as when someone from fear of death adores an idol.

3. Formal idolatry again is twofold: perfect, if someone adores a creature which he in fact thinks to be God; and imperfect, if someone, knowing that there is nothing divine in the creature, nevertheless worships it with divine worship from hatred toward God or from desire of obtaining something from the demon.

152. Its moral malice. 1. All idolatry is a grave sin, indeed the gravest after sins which are opposed to the theological virtues, because all idolatry inflicts grave injury upon God, who alone is the principle of all things.

Therefore even material idolatry is a grave sin, although less grave than formal: for although it is not true idolatry, nevertheless it is an external denial of faith and a lie injurious to God against the virtue of religion.

2. Perfect idolatry is a sin against faith and religion; imperfect idolatry indeed is not against faith, yet (insofar as it is idolatry) it is graver than that, since it proceeds from mere malice, not from ignorance, and involves great contempt of God. The former can be without fault, as if someone adores an unconsecrated host which in good faith he believes to be consecrated.

The sin of idolatry is committed not only by gentiles and magicians, but also by those who so worship and invoke saints as if they could furnish natural or supernatural gifts by their own power. In a certain broader sense, they commit idolatry who: a. attribute to false saints or to the damned the worship owed to true saints; b. take care that worship owed to saints be exhibited to themselves by feigned sanctity, false miracles, and false revelations. Today among baptized faithful, those commit the sin of idolatry together with the sin of apostasy who, imbued with the principles of materialism, worship nature as God in the manner of pagans, or who attempt to restore the worship which the ancient Germans exhibited to mythological figures (Wodan).

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Acts 16:16.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Acts 2:17; Num. 12:6.

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

³ Deut. 18:10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. John 19:24.

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

³ Prov. 16:33.

⁴ Cf. Josh. 7:14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

159. Notions. 1. Vain observance (Zauberei) is a superstition by which the demon is invoked for obtaining some effect by his help.

2. Vain observance, like divination, is twofold: one with explicit invocation of the demon, the other with implicit invocation, namely by employing vain means which have power neither from nature nor from God to produce such an effect. These means are called sacraments of the devil, because, when they have been placed, he produces the intended effect, as it were, by promise.

Vain observance differs from divination in this, that the latter is ordered to knowing hidden things by the help of the demon, but the former to obtaining by his help any external effects whatsoever. He who for obtaining an effect employs a vain and useless means, which neither by nature nor by the Church nor by God has been instituted for producing this effect, cannot expect this effect except from the demon.

Note. 1. Among the diverse forms of vain observance there widely wanders the observance of healings (magical medicine), which is the art of curing diseases or of avoiding misfortunes by employing diverse signs, inhalations, prayers, charms (Besprechungen), sacred things, etc. This superstition, like the rest, is found no more among Catholics than among non-Catholics, nor more among the lowest populace than among the cultivated and learned; indeed among the pagans it was already spreading widely. Therefore only by calumny can it be affirmed that superstition has arisen from the Catholic religion, inasmuch as that religion teaches that divine effects can be obtained from the use of prayer and sacramentals.¹

2. Prayers of this kind are made especially in three ways. For either physical means are employed (touchings, inhalations, ointments, etc.), which nevertheless do not have a known power of healing; or besides physical means there are also employed moral means (prayers, charms, adjurations); or finally only moral means (sympathetic cures).² Not every use of means of this kind must be charged with superstition: for besides the fact that God can produce the effect of health by His special influence on account of prayer, there are natural remedies which can contain a power of healing still unknown to us; nor finally can it be denied that a man by moral influence (in whatever way this is effected, for example by suggestion) can produce various effects of cure in another man. Yet frequently the use of these means is either plainly superstitious, or something of superstition is mixed with the use of a natural or supernatural means.

3. Pastors of souls should strive to know the diverse forms of superstition which are in use among the faithful committed to them, and should endeavor to root them out: for superstitious uses do not foster true religion and its exercises, but harm them as much as possible; for they obscure the purity of faith, impede a truly religious life, and retard the perfection of Christian life. To obtain this end, let him collect and destroy booklets which teach superstition, and let him instruct the people concerning the mode of acting which God observes, concerning the vanity of superstition, and also concerning the dangers which arise from its exercise.

¹ Cf. concerning this matter Stohr-Kannamuller, Handbuch der Pastoralmedizin, Freiburg: Herder, 1900, p. 403 ff.; Walter, Aberglaube und Seelsorge, Paderborn: Schoningh, 1904, p. 92 ff.

² By this name (Sympathiekuren) are called those cures which are not effected by natural remedies, but through the moral influence of some person endowed with a hidden power, which power they call sympathy.

160. Concerning the moral and specific malice of vain observance, the same must be said as concerning divination:

a. Vain observance with explicit invocation is always a mortal sin; vain observance with implicit invocation is frequently excused from mortal sin, both because of ignorance, and because of defect of certain faith, and because of defect of serious will.

Thus those do not sin mortally who hold it as an indication of misfortune that a certain person (an old woman) meets them on the first day of the year; who are unwilling to be present at a banquet where thirteen sit at table; who do not undertake a journey on Friday. Indeed, properly speaking, a sin of superstition is not committed by these, since they think neither of the demon nor of some higher power. Yet these things are foolish and contrary to sound reason.

b. Its malice consists both in illicit commerce with the demon and in superstition, by which some worship is exhibited to the demon by recurring to him and by expecting from him what ought to be expected from God alone.

c. Divination and vain observance do not differ from each other in species: for in both the virtue of religion is injured in the same way, because in the genus of morals it makes no difference whether knowledge of a hidden thing or some external effect is sought from the demon.

Berardi well observes that those who expect certain effects from foolish things are not immediately to be charged with the sin of superstition. For often they act from simplicity and error, without thinking about the influence of the demon; but for a sin of superstition to occur, it is required that the agent advert to the invocation of the demon and intend it in some way. Therefore if the confessor detects that penitents otherwise pious, who do such things, are in good faith, let him not charge them with sin, but rather teach them how vain their means are for obtaining the effect, or, if the matter so requires, let him tell them that the means employed by them, with some vain circumstance and the infallible expectation of the event removed, are entirely licit.¹

¹ Cf. Berardi, Praxis confessariorum, I, n. 433 ff.

161. Criteria for discerning vain observance. 1. Signs of this kind are especially these three: a. the insufficiency of the cause for producing the effect, since it has no such power either from itself or from God; b. the addition of a vain or false circumstance as necessarily required for obtaining the effect, even if the signs or means in themselves are good and holy; c. the infallible expectation of the effect on account of the mere application of these signs, as if from the work having been worked.

a. Therefore if certain prayers, images, blessed things, etc., are employed in such a way that there is attributed to them an infallible power of obtaining some effect, for example of escaping death or disease, of not falling into misfortune, of not dying without confession, etc., they are superstitious; but if they are employed in honor of God without vain adjuncts, with pious confidence of obtaining, if it shall have pleased God, that which is asked, they are pious and religious.

b. The faithful must very especially be taught and instructed not to foster superstitions in the use of sacred things and the sacramentals of the Church, lest, for example, they think that the greater effect is produced in the use of holy water the more abundantly it is sprinkled, and things of this kind.

2. In doubt whether the means employed possess a natural or supernatural power of causing such an effect, this twofold rule must be attended to:

a. If there is doubt whether some effect proceeds from a natural cause or from the demon, it must be attributed to natural powers, because very many powers of natural causes are unknown even to wise men. Therefore a means about which it is doubted whether it has natural power of causing the effect or not may be employed, yet with a protestation added against the influence of the demon.

It is licit to employ a means of this kind, because it is not established that the thing is evil; on the contrary, from the circumstances it can rather be considered honorable. Hence, so that such a means can licitly be employed, there ought to be at least a probable reason, especially drawn from comparison with other effects certainly natural, which suggests that the effect is produced by a natural power. Besides, it is always advisable that in a case of this kind a protestation against the intervention of the demon be sent before: for as long as the matter is doubtful, the protestation removes the invocation of the demon.

b. If the effect certainly is not from a natural cause and there is doubt whether it is from God or from the demon, it must be attributed to the demon, because miracles are not easily presumed. Wherefore in this case it is not licit to employ the doubtful means, because it contains a tacit invocation of the demon.¹

Nevertheless, a means of this kind which is truly doubtful, with the certain expectation of the effect excluded, can be excused from mortal sin if it is employed only once or twice, both because of the imperfection of the act and because there is no grave danger of commerce with the demon.

¹ Cf. Lacroix, l. 3, pr. 1, n. 28.

162. Criteria for discerning the grace of healings. Sometimes it happens that men, even rude men who do not enjoy a reputation for holiness, by the sign of the cross or by sacred prayers and inhalations heal diseases and wounds. These are not all at once to be condemned of superstition: for it can piously be believed that God even at the present time confers on some men, although they are not saints, the grace of healings for the common good.¹ But the signs to which one must attend in particular cases, so that vain observance can be distinguished from the grace of healings gratuitously given, are especially these:

a. Whether he who heals is alone in producing the same effect by the same means, or whether others also produce it, and whether he himself learned such power from others: for God ordinarily confers the grace of healings in such a way that it is a personal grace conferred upon a certain person. b. Whether the means which he employs are vain and foolish: indeed it can happen that the effect of a grace granted by God depends on certain external signs as on a condition, but these signs are never vain. c. Whether he thinks that the power of healing is in the very words or signs employed: for God confers the grace of healing upon the person, not upon external signs. Nevertheless supernatural powers of this kind gratuitously given will be very rare.²

If there are found those who heal diseases and wounds, whether of men or of animals, which not infrequently happens, these things are to be noted for practice:

a. First of all it will have to be inquired whether the means employed by them can produce the effect by natural power. If by at least probable reason the effect can be attributed to powers of nature, their use can be permitted, with a protestation against the influence of the demon premised.

b. But if the effect can be attributed to the powers of nature by no probable conjecture, the matter is not immediately to be rejected a priori as superstitious and illicit, but the fact with all its adjuncts must be examined diligently.

c. If, when the examination has been instituted, it is established that the matter is not certainly superstitious, especially if the prayers and invocations contain nothing false or foolish, if an infallible effect is not expected, and finally if those who employ the means are in good faith and attribute no infallible power to the means themselves or to the invocatory formulas, it is not necessary that the use of those means be interdicted. Yet it must always be advised that before the use a protestation be premised for rejecting any effect which may be produced by the help of the demon.

¹ Cf. 1 Cor. 12:9; St. Thomas, II-II, q. 178, a. 2; St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 18.

² Cf. Laymann, l. 4, tr. 10, c. 4, n. 4.

163. Notions. a. Magic is generally defined as the art of working wonders through hidden causes. One kind is white or natural magic, which is defined as the art of working wonderful and unusual things through natural means; another is black or superstitious magic, which is defined as the art of working wonders by the help of the demon. Magic also can be done with explicit or implicit invocation of the demon.

b. Magic which is employed for harming others is called malefice (incantation, Behexung), which therefore is defined: the art of harming others by the help of the demon. A twofold malefice is distinguished: amatory (philtrum, from phileo), if by the help of the demon a most vehement affection of love or hatred toward a determinate person is excited in another; and poisoning (veneficium, from poison), if damage is brought upon some person or his goods.²

Magic differs from other species of superstition in this, that it intends to produce wonderful effects. Malefice differs from magic by reason of the end: for the magician intends to show the power of the demon, but the malefactor intends to harm others.

¹ Mart. Delrio, Disquisitiones magicae. Concerning this work Lehmkuhl notes (II, p. 830): "Although it also contains useless and fabulous things, nevertheless it hands down very useful things by which the malice of superstition may be thoroughly known."

² In canon law malefice is called sortilege, because an evil lot befalls him who is affected by malefice; for this reason magicians and witches are called sortiarii and sortiariae.

164. Its malice. 1. White magic is of itself licit: for it is exercised by the powers of nature, and by the sagacity and dexterity of men; but it can become dangerous, because the demon, even when not invoked, easily mingles himself in these matters and induces to superstitious magic.

2. Black magic of itself is a grave sin of superstition, which does not differ in moral species from divination and vain observance. Their common malice consists in association with the demon. Yet ignorance sometimes excuses magic from grave sin, if it is done with an implicit pact.

165. Malefice. a. It must be conceded that malefice can in reality be inflicted: for it cannot be denied that the demon, both by himself and through evil men, can, God permitting, harm the bodies and goods of men in various ways; and that God sometimes permits this by a most wise counsel is likewise certain.¹ Wherefore, although faith must not easily be given to malefices, nevertheless all would be imprudently denied.

b. One infected by amatory malefice ordinarily does not lose freedom, but can resist temptation with the grace of God; wherefore if he yields to it, he commits sin, grave or light according to the measure of deliberation and freedom.

c. Malefice contains a twofold malice, one against religion, the other against charity or justice, because evil is brought upon the neighbor.

Since by experience it is established that malefices are rare today, let the confessor be slow in believing malefices which are narrated by rude penitents; but for driving away the evils which are attributed by them to malefices, let him teach them to employ natural and supernatural means, especially those which consist in prayers, the use of sacramentals, and the reception of the sacraments.²

¹ Job 1:12. Cf. Ex. 22:18.

² Cf. Berardi, Praxis confessariorum, I, n. 458.

166. In what way malefice can be removed. a. Certainly it cannot be removed by another malefice, otherwise it would be licit to do evils that goods may come; therefore it is not licit to ask a magician to loosen a malefice, if he cannot loosen it except through another malefice, even if he is of his own accord prepared to loosen it. b. It can be removed by means both natural and supernatural, such as medicines, prayers, exorcisms, sacramentals, sacraments, and the destruction of signs by which the demon harms. c. It is also licit to consult the magician himself concerning the way of loosening the malefice, and likewise it is licit to ask that he himself loosen the malefice, if he removes it in a licit way, or if at least he can remove it in a licit way, even if it is foreseen that the magician will do this by the help of a new malefice.¹

¹ What a confessor ought to do with those who are guilty of superstition with an explicit pact St. Alphonsus teaches at n. 28.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Sins may be committed against the virtue of religion by excess or by defect in the same way as against other moral virtues. Sins against religion by excess come under the general term of superstition, of which there are several species. For the sin of superstition may be committed by worshipping the true God in the wrong way or by worshipping false gods. We will first briefly treat of the wrong ways of worshipping the true God, and afterwards of worship paid to false gods.

God may be wrongly worshipped either by false worship or by superfluous worship being paid him. Worship of God is false when its meaning is not in accordance with fact, or when the falsehood is in the person who performs the act of worship, as when a layman performs the duties of a priest, or when someone tries to gain credence for false miracles or false relics. The ceremonies and practices of the Jewish religion signified that the Messiah was to come, and so now, after the coming of our Lord, they could not be employed without superstition. Inasmuch as falsehood in religion is a grave injury to God, this species of superstition is mortally sinful.

Anything in the worship of God which does not tend to his honour and glory, or which is against the ordinances and practice of the Church, to whom the regulation of religious worship exclusively belongs, is superfluous worship and superstition. This sin is committed by attributing an infallible effect to a fixed number of prayers or acts of piety, or to the mere material wearing of scapulars or medals, or by unwarrantably acting against the rubrics while saying Mass or administering the sacraments or sacramentals of the Church. The intention of the Church is that scapulars, medals, and other pious objects should be used by the faithful with confidence in the goodness and power of God, whose aid is invoked on the wearers by the blessing of the Church. Ordinarily, however, this kind of superstition will not be more than a venial sin.

The sin of superstition is also committed by giving divine honour to false gods. This is done by idolatry, divination, vain observance, and magic.

By material idolatry divine worship is given to a creature through fear or for some other reason merely externally, without any intention of honouring it as God. It is a grave sin, for it is directly against the obligation of making external profession of the faith, and contains the grave malice of a lie in matters of religion.

Formal idolatry is perfect or imperfect. The former consists in honouring a creature as God, falsely thinking it to be God. The latter knowingly honours a creature as God, without any excuse of ignorance, out of hatred towards him, or wishing to obtain something thereby. Both are grievous mortal sins, but the latter is the more grievous on account of the greater knowledge and malice.

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

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

¹ Deut. xviii 10-12.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

Superstition is vicious religious worship. Now this vicious worship can regard both God and a creature. "For divine worship can be shown either to him to whom it ought to be shown, namely the true God, yet in an undue manner; and this is the first species of superstition: or to one to whom it ought not to be shown, namely to any creature whatever; and this is another genus of superstition, which is divided into many species" (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 92, a. 2; St. Alphonsus, III, 2).

I. Vicious worship of God is either false or superfluous.

1. It is false when someone worships God by signifying something false. This is done: 1. by one "who now offers worship to God through the ceremonies of the old law, for example circumcision, the immolation of the lamb, etc.," because these signify that Christ is still to come and has not yet come; 2. by a layman who worships God as though he were a public minister of the Church, for example by sacrificing, absolving, etc.; 3. by one who on his own authority proposes that certain things be done as though they had been ordained by the Church for the worship of God; 4. by one who proposes false relics, or pretends that he has had these or those revelations, whether to make profit or to increase devotion; 5. by one who, in order to move the people, pretends that some miracle or history is found in Sacred Scripture, etc." (St. Alphonsus, III, 3).

2. Superfluous worship according to St. Thomas occurs when in the worship of God something is done which either is in itself empty or ridiculous, or is apart from the institution of God or of the Church, or is opposed to common custom. "If," says the holy Doctor, "there is something which, so far as it is of itself, does not pertain to the glory of God, nor to this, that the mind of man be borne toward God, or that the disordered concupiscences of the flesh be restrained; or even if it is apart from the institution of God and of the Church, or against common custom, which according to Augustine is to be held as law, all this must be accounted superfluous" (II-II, q. 93, a. 2).

Hence St. Alphonsus: "Superstition of superfluous worship is, for example: 1. the ceremony of hearing Mass before sunrise, with a certain number, arrangement, or order of candles, or of a priest who is called John, or who has the stature of Christ, etc.; because this worship is in itself empty and useless for arousing the spirit; 2. to fast on Sunday when you do not fast on other days; 3. likewise in Mass, contrary to the rubric, to form more crosses, to say alleluia more times, to say the Gloria or Creed contrary to the rubrics, or to remove or add other ceremonies, even if they are done out of devotion; for this devotion must be corrected. Because these things are apart from the custom of the Church" (St. Alphonsus, III, 4).

II. False worship commonly involves grave sin, because it commonly contains grave irreverence (St. Alphonsus, III, 3). I said commonly, because sometimes smallness of matter is admitted, as if someone on one or another occasion were to narrate a fictitious miracle.

Superfluous worship is for the most part evil only venially; for since it exceeds only in the mode, it commonly does not contain grave irreverence toward God. It can, however, be gravely evil, for example by reason of scandal, or of a grave ecclesiastical precept violated, or of the baseness of the act, as if a lascivious song were inserted into the divine offices (St. Alphonsus, III, 4).

I. Notion. Idolatry occurs when divine honor is shown to a creature, for example to a demon. It is the same by what sign the honor is shown, whether by sacrifice or genuflection, etc., provided that the sign placed signifies divine honor either from the intention of the agent or from common estimation (St. Alphonsus, III, 12).

Since error is not consistent, false teachings are found that accept all the above-mentioned degrees of unbelief, or borrow impartially from all.

(a) Indifferentism or Latitudinarianism holds that all forms of religion are equally true, and that it makes no difference whether one is Buddhist, Jew or Christian. In a modified form, Indifferentism teaches that any form of Christian belief, provided it suits the inclinations of the individual concerned, may be followed, and hence it is left to each one to decide whether he prefers Catholicism or one of the bodies of the Orthodox Church or of Protestantism. Many who profess a denominational creed or confession are Indifferentists in belief.

(b) Syncretism holds that there are truths in all separate religions, but that none of them has all the truth, and hence that one must select what is good from each, rejecting the evil. Thus, the Judaizers of the first century borrowed from Judaism, the Gnostics and Manicheans from paganism, while today Freemasonry, Theosophy, Christian Science and Spiritism accept, along with the Gospel, ancient pagan, Buddhistic, Brahmanistic and Mohammedan theories; finally, Mormonism endeavors to unite characteristics of the Old and the New Testament dispensations. In a restricted form, religious Syncretism teaches the doctrine of Pan-Christianism—that is, that truth is scattered among the various Christian denominations, and that all should confederate as equals on the basis of more important doctrines to be agreed on by all.

Superstition.—Superstition is false religion, or a vice that offers improper worship to the true God or divine worship to a false god. Improper worship of the true God is either false or superfluous.

(a) False worship is opposed to the truth of religion (e.g., Old Testament rites which signify that Christ is still to come), or of rites (e.g., Mass by a layman, Mass according to a form disapproved by the Church), or of facts (e.g., fictitious revelations, ecstasies, mysticism, miracles, relies), or of morals (e.g., human sacrifice, praises of God to the accompaniment of lascivious words or music, etc.).

(b) Superfluous worship is offered when an external observance in no way serves the purposes of religion (viz., the glory of God, the elevation of the soul to Him, the repression of the passions), or is opposed to law or common custom. The purposes of religion are not served by actions foolish in themselves (e.g., the repeated mumbling of meaningless sounds) or in their intent (e.g., undue emphasis given to minor details of a religious act, such as color of the candles on the altar, the stature of the celebrant, the hour or condition of the weather, etc., as if weighty consequences depended on them). The chain prayer is another example of a superstition that places all the virtue of an act of worship in some small external circumstance. The law and custom are not followed in such superstitions as additional crosses, alleluias, credos, etc., made in violation of Mass rubrics, or a devotion consisting of fasts on Sundays, or new forms of piety that lack ecclesiastical approval. There is no superstition, however, in modes of worship approved by the Church (such as novenas, tridua, Gregorian Masses, and the like), for the Church recognizes no devotion or ceremony unless it is true and useful as an expression of religion.

The Sinfulness of Improper Worship of God.—(a) False worship is from its nature a grave sin; it is seriously insulting to God because it offers Him dishonor as honor, and it is also seriously harmful to man because it casts discredit by its falsity on the name of religion. (b) Superfluous worship is from its nature a venial sin, since it contains no notable irreverence towards God and, being outlawed, does not reflect on religion. Accidentally, however, it may be a mortal sin, as when it is performed in such a way as to cause great scandal.

Worship of False Deity.—Worship of a false deity is performed by offering a creature an act of homage due to God alone. Hence, there are three species of this superstition: (a) a creature is recognized as God, when it is offered a service (such as sacrifice) that testifies to supreme and infinite excellence (idolatry); (b) a creature is given the credit of divine knowledge, when instruction about hidden matters which only God could bestow is asked from it (divination), (c) a creature is treated as the supreme ruler, when assistance which only God can grant is sought from it (vain observance).

Definition of Idolatry.—Idolatry is the supreme worship of latria offered to a creature.

(a) It is supreme worship, and hence the inferior reverence of hyperdulia, dulia, or civil honor, offered respectively to the Blessed Mother, angels, saints, superiors, etc., is not idolatry. The external signs of worship that belong to God alone (such as sacrifice, temples, priesthood, altars, etc.), may never be used in the veneration of creatures; nor the signs that are common to God and creatures (such as genuflexions, prostrations, prayers, etc.), if the intention is to adore.

(b) Idolatry is offered, that is, by it an act of worship is intended or is at least performed in a serious manner. Hence, it would not be idolatry so to enact a pagan ceremony that the onlookers could understand that no religious rite was being performed (e.g., if it were done on the stage, or in a joking manner).

(c) Idolatry is offered to a creature, and hence the relative honor that is shown the images of the Trinity or of Christ on account of the persons represented by them is not idolatry. The creature to whom idolatry is shown is either a person (e.g., an Angel, the soul of a departed person, a living human being), or an irrational creature (e.g., the bull Apis, a sacred plant), or an inanimate substance (e.g., statues or pictures, the elements, the heavenly bodies), or a fictitious being (e.g., Jupiter and the other gods of mythology).

The Kinds of Idolatry.—(a) Idolatry is either internal or external. Internal idolatry has the intention to adore a creature, as when a Satanist offers sacrifice to demons. External idolatry performs an outward rite that signifies adoration of a creature, although there is no will to give adoration, as when a Christian out of fear of death reluctantly burns incense before an idol. (b) Internal idolatry is either perfect or imperfect. Perfect idolatry includes belief in a false god, as when an ignorant pagan prays to the sun and moon. Imperfect idolatry is committed when, without belief in a false god, there is the will to offer it divine worship on account of hatred of God, wish to obtain favors from demons, or the like.

The Sinfulness of Idolatry.—(a) Idolatry is a most grievous crime. It entails rebellion against the majesty of God, attack on the virtue of religion, unbelief or denial of faith, and scandal; and hence it is forbidden in the first commandment: “Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them” (Exod., xx. 3 sqq.).

(b) Idolatry in itself and in its highest degree is the most grievous of sins, for it includes both hatred of God (since it would deprive Him of His unique excellence by giving His honors to creatures) and blasphemous unbelief (since the idolater publicly professes that God is not above all). Now, it was said above that unbelief, hatred of God and blasphemy are the most enormous of sins (see 820, 895, 1301, 1302), and so it follows that the worst form of idolatry is graver than other sins.

(c) Idolatry, by reason of the dispositions of the person who commits it, may be less grievous than other sins. Thus, it is worse to hate or deny God internally than to worship an idol externally only; it is worse to blaspheme with great hatred and contempt than to practise idolatry with less malice. Imperfection of the act, as in cases of ignorance or want of consent, makes the sin venial, or no formal sin at all.

Comparison of Different Sins of Idolatry.—(a) Internal idolatry is worse than external idolatry, because the former, though not the latter, includes approval of the superstition committed. (b) Imperfect idolatry is worse than perfect idolatry, if both be considered precisely as idolatry, since the former proceeds from malice, and the latter from greater or less ignorance. (c) External idolatry is aggravated when its motive is more sinful or makes the act more voluntary (e.g., it is worse to pretend sacrifice to an idol if the motive is to ingratiate oneself with the idolaters or to spite the Christians, than if the motive is to escape death at the hands of the pagans).

Idolatry Possible in Christian Worship.—The guilt of idolatry may be incurred even by Christians offering worship to God. (a) Thus, in the adoration of the Eucharist there would be idolatry, at least material, if an unconsecrated host were exposed for veneration or given in communion. (b) In the veneration of the Saints there would be idolatry, if they were honored or invoked as if they possessed divine attributes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vain Observance.—Vain observance is a superstition that ascribes to certain things effects for which they have no natural or communicated power.

(a) It ascribes the effects to natural things, but it supposes that in some way supernatural forces, not of religion, are at work in or through these things. Thus, just as in divination, there is in vain observance either an express or an implied invocation of the spirits of evil. The alchemists, who thought there was a philosopher’s stone able to transmute base metals into gold or an elixir that could greatly prolong life, looked to natural causes, and hence to that extent seem to be guilty of false science, rather than of superstition. Scientific materialism, though, is a crasser form of ignorance than any superstition that trusts in super-material powers.

(b) The things which vain observance makes use of are persons, acts, objects, circumstances, happenings, etc. Even sacred things may be employed as the material for vain observance, as happens when some accidental and unnecessary circumstance of a sacred rite (e.g., the size or color of candles) is given the credit of the sacred results. Here again vain observance and divination are alike, since the same means are employed by both.

(c) The effects looked for in vain observance, or the purpose had in view, is some fact or event. It is this characteristic that distinguishes vain observance from divination: the latter aims at occult knowledge, the former at supranatural results. The expected fact or event is something that surpasses the natural powers of physical or human agencies (e.g., sensation without sense excitants, mind-reading without external indications, scientific knowledge without study, bodily feats without corresponding bodily powers, detection of secret and hidden things without human means for detection), or even of the invisible world of spirits (e.g., creation, generation of new substances, evocation of the dead, internal motion of man’s will).

(d) There is no natural power in the things used for producing the substance or mode of the desired effects, that is, no inherent and sufficient force or activity. Hence, vain observance is not to be confused with scientific marvels or natural wonders whose explanation is unknown to the general public, or which cannot be fully explained by scientists themselves. Thus, the baffling tricks of white magic are due to legerdemain, ventriloquism, ocular delusions, and the like; the physiological changes (e.g., convulsions, hysteria, somnambulism, bodily cures) produced in mesmerism, hypnotism, thought healing, etc., are explained by suggestion and the motor power of images excited to produce bodily motions, passions, or changes; the mental phenomena (e.g., hyperaesthesia, wondrous visions, increased vigor of mind) of certain drugs such as hashish, mescal and opium, are caused by properties of these drugs.

(e) There is no communicated power in the things employed, that is, no instrumental virtue bestowed by a higher cause. Hence, since Sacraments, sacramentals, and miracle-working relics have from God in a greater or less degree an efficacy for results above nature, there is no superstition in their proper use, But, as was noted just above, sacred things themselves may be used superstitiously, as happens when they are regarded as principal agents, or when, contrary to fact, they are deemed to act infallibly or independently of any human cooperation or disposition.

Forms of Vain Observance.—Among the forms of vain observance are the following:

(a) those by which one puts into use vain ceremonies or objects in the expectation that they will secure certain desired effects, or puts an exaggerated confidence in lawful rites or sacred objects;

(b) those by which one directs one’s life through fortuitous and impertinent happenings in the belief that they have the power to influence one’s fortunes favorably or adversely. This form of superstition is like divination by omens; the difference is that in using omens one chiefly seeks for knowledge of the future, while in observing chance events one chiefly intends the direction of one’s conduct. Examples are found in persons who fear to make a journey on Friday or to begin any important affair during the dark of the moon.

Vain Observances from which Desired Effects Are Expected.—(a) Useful results are sometimes expected, such as knowledge for the mind (notorious art) or health for the body (healing observances). The notorious art consisted in the repeating of certain formulas or the gazing upon certain figures, prayers and fasts at times being added, and it was supposed that these practices would obtain infused knowledge without the necessity of labor or study. Healing observances are remedies used for man or beast that manifestly have no natural curative properties (e.g., a buckeye or rabbit’s foot carried in the pocket to ward off rheumatism).

(b) Wondrous results are sometimes expected, such as the power to bring on storms, telekinesis, materialization, and levitation, through the use of incantations, theurgic sacraments, spiritistic rites, etc. This is known as the black art or black magic.

(c) Evil effects are sometimes expected, such as the power to blight another by a glance (evil eye or fascination), the power to cast a spell over another person by certain spoken words, to bring disease or misfortune on a person by piercing or striking his effigy, to excite impure love for a determinate person by the administration of love philtres or charms, etc. (sorcery, witchcraft).

Distinction between the Fact and the Sin of Vain Observance.—(a) The Fact.—The demons have naturally powers over our world that surpass those of human or physical agents, and it is not impossible for them to produce prodigies or seeming miracles. The magicians of Egypt by enchantments and certain secrets changed rods into serpents, etc. (Exod., vii. 12, viii. 7); the New Testament narrates that Simon the Magician bewitched the Samaritans by his magic (Acts, viii. 11), and it clearly foretells the lying wonders of Satan and Antichrist (Matt., xxiv. 24; II Thess., ii. 9). But there are limits to the power of the fallen spirits; for example, they cannot infuse knowledge, and occultism has contributed nothing to the advancement of science or civilization. Moreover, many effects that have been attributed to demonic intervention were due to natural causes or to fraud (e.g., a large proportion of spiritistic phenomena), or they were supposed to exist only because the popular mind was carried away by excitement or was bent on persecution (e.g., most of the witchcraft accusations of a few centuries ago).

(b) The Sin.—Vain observance in which there is no express invocation of evil spirits is common enough; even religious, educated and practical persons are found to act on superstitious hopes or fears or to put confidence in charms or amulets. But vain observance that includes an express invocation of demons is a comparatively rare sin. It is not impossible, however, that a person should come to such a pass of despair or malice as to wish to have dealings with Satan, or should be so carried away by curiosity, desire of wealth, power, fame, or honor as to be willing to barter his soul in exchange for them. That there were professional wizards from ancient times is a matter of history, and Scripture contains severe prohibitions against dealings with them (Levit., xix. 31, xx. 27; Deut., xviii. 10).

Superstition in Religious Observances.—Superstition is sometimes found even in religious observances. (a) Thus, there is superstition in the observance itself when vain additions are made to an approved usage (e.g., the addition to a prayer against sickness of gestures, breathings, gibberish, etc., that have no significance of reverence for God). (b) There is superstition in the manner of the observance when one attributes the virtue of a sacred rite or object to some unimportant circumstance (e.g., the shape of the reliquary in which a relic is carried, the “propitious” day on which a sacramental was received), or expects from a sacred thing an effect which it has no power to produce (e.g., infallible certainty of salvation from the performance of a certain devotion or the presence of a holy picture or blessed object). It is not superstition, however, to attach significance to circumstances that have a sacred meaning (e.g., holydays, figures that have a religious symbolism), or to put a confidence in sacred things that is based on their character or approved usage (e.g., the hope and trust that blessings will be impetrated and salvation itself through fidelity to an authorized devotion).

Sinfulness of Vain Observance.—The malice of vain observance is essentially the same as that of divination, for in both superstitions the same virtue of religion is offended by the sinful cult that is performed.

(a) Thus, there is mortal sin from the nature of the act, when vain observance is exercised with invocation of evil spirits or with false religious rites (for a serious injury is done to the honor due to God), or when a vain observance is meant to bring a curse or grave misfortune on a neighbor (for a serious injustice is willed).

(b) There is regularly only a venial sin, when a vain observance is of a non-religious kind, consisting in foolish heed given to chance happenings (such as a rabbit running across the road, the mention of death, the presence of a person regarded as a Jonah), or the use of improportionate means (e.g., to change one’s place at a card table in order to change the luck). For usually there is no irreverence in such practices, and at the worst they are foolish and idle acts. Often there is no sin at all, the vain observance being due to ignorance or the wish to joke.

(c) There is no sin at all, but rather subjective virtue, in religious practices to which on account of simplicity or invincible ignorance too much power is attributed, as when one who is faithful to the essential duties of religion has greater confidence in some personal devotion of his own than in them. But superstition of this kind, though in itself it is the least reprehensible form of superstition, may be very harmful and disedifying.

Cooperation in Divination or Other Form of Superstition.—(a) Formal cooperation is of course never lawful (e.g., to act as the medium or one of the deceivers at a spiritistic meeting). (b) Material cooperation is lawful only when there is a proportionately grave reason, no danger of sin, and no scandal. Thus, it seems that no sin is committed by a scientist who assists at a spiritistic seance in order to discover the frauds that are resorted to, or who makes experiments with table turning or planchette movements in order to examine into the theory that the phenomena are due to the action of the persons present.

Doubtful Cases of Vain Observance.—Cases in which it is a matter of doubt or dispute whether divination or vain observance is present.

(a) There is sometimes uncertainty whether an extraordinary fact is due to natural or supranatural causes, Thus, authorities commonly take the position, it seems, that certain phenomena of Spiritism (e.g., the apparently automatic movement of tables on which a group of persons rest their finger tips, the answers to questions that are rapped out by such tables), and of mental healing (e.g., the cure of bodily ailment by sympathy or moral influence), are accomplished through natural powers of matter or mind. But other authorities incline to a supranaturalistic explanation.

(b) There is also at times uncertainty whether a fact or practice has a religious or an irreligious character. As to facts, they sometimes appear to be so marvellous as to pass the natural, and yet it is difficult to determine whether their source is good or evil (e.g., when an ignorant person not noted for piety seems to have a remarkable ability for treating and curing all kinds of diseases). As to practices, they are sometimes susceptible of a religious or a superstitious interpretation. Thus, one who says, “God bless us,” at a sneeze may intend a prayer against sickness; one who knocks on wood after boasting may intend a prayer to Him who died on the wood of the cross, lest he be punished for boasting.

Licitness of Using Doubtfully Superstitious Means.—It is lawful to use means that are only doubtfully superstitious if the following conditions are present:

(a) internally or subjectively, there must be a good conscience about the use of the means. The rule can be followed that what is not certainly of a supranatural character may be regarded as natural, but that what seems to be supranatural is not to be ascribed to God unless it has the marks and fruits of a divine work. When lawfully using means of a dubious character, it is advisable to make an inner protestation that one acts from reasonable necessity, and has no wish to take part in superstition;

(b) externally or objectively, there must be nothing in the object or circumstances or results to make the use of the means illicit. Thus, even though a practice be not superstitious, it may be unlawful because of the immorality of its object or tendency (e.g., frauds used by psychical researchers, obscene messages given by laboratory telepathists), or of its purpose (e.g., table-rapping used as the instrument of pretended religious revelations), or because of the evil consequences for body or soul (e.g., devotees of the ouija board give scandal to others and often end in insanity or suicide).

What are the acts opposed to religion? - "Something is opposed to true religion in two ways: in one way by excess, when, namely, that which belongs to religion is exhibited unduly to another; this pertains to superstition. In another way, as it were by defect of reverence, when, namely, God is contemned; this pertains to the vice of irreligiosity.... But superstition impedes religion as to this, that God not be taken up for worshiping.... But through irreligiosity religion is impeded as to this, that God, after he has been taken up, not be honored." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 122, a. 3.

What is superstition? - "Superstition," says S. Thomas, "is a vice opposed to religion according to excess, not because it exhibits more in divine worship than true religion, but because it exhibits divine worship either to whom it ought not, or in the manner in which it ought not." 2. 2, q. 92, a. 1. "But the principal impediment of religion is that man adhere to a false god.... And therefore in the first precept of the law the worship of false gods is excluded.... But all other superstitions proceed from some pact entered into with demons, tacit or express; and therefore all are understood to be prohibited in this which is said: You shall not have strange gods." 2. 2, q. 122, a. 2 ad 1, 2, 3; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 1702.

Of how many kinds is superstition? - On the part of the thing which is given worship, the species of superstition are three: idolatry, divination, vain observance. For either a creature is worshiped as God, and this is idolatry; or from it, as from God, knowledge of hidden things is asked, and this is divination; or finally some help is implored, and this is vain observance. All these are mortal by their nature, since they inflict grave irreverence upon God, by attributing to a creature what is owed to God.

By reason of the mode in which worship is exercised, one superstition is that of false worship, if it signifies something false, for example if someone now offers worship to God through ceremonies of the Old Law; if a layman worships God as a public minister of the Church; if someone on the part of the Church exhibits worship to God contrary to the manner constituted by divine authority through the Church and customary in the Church. Another is the superstition of shameful worship, if it contains certain things injurious to God, for example if someone should introduce dishonorable and insulting words in his prayers. Another is the superstition of superfluous worship, if it contributes nothing to the true worship of God, for example the ceremony of hearing Mass before sunrise, with a fixed number, position, order of candles, etc.

This last species, scandal being excluded, ordinarily is judged only venial, because the matter is slight, and it ought rather to be called mere simplicity than positive irreverence. But the other two are regularly mortal, because they are gravely repugnant to divine honor and worship, which rests upon truth and sanctity. Regularly; for it does not seem grave if something slightly false is mixed into true worship from lightness, from lack of consideration. Lugo, de fide, d. 14, s. 3; d. 20, n. 23 seqq.; Struggl 2 seqq.; L. 3, 4; S. Th. 2. 2, qq. 92, 93; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., nn. 1702, 1707.

What is idolatry, of how many kinds is it, and what kind of sin is it? - Idolatry is defined: an action by which worship owed to God alone is exhibited to a creature. It is threefold: perfect, imperfect, and simulated. The first renders divine honor to a creature, falsely judging it really to be God. The second indeed renders divine honor to a creature, but either from hatred of the true God, or from desire of obtaining something from a demon or another creature, not being ignorant that the same lacks divinity. Finally the third exhibits that honor to a creature, from fear of death alone, without internal affection, as happened to certain Christians in times of persecutions. Each of these kinds of idolatry is a grave sin. It is proved: "Just as in an earthly republic it seems most grave that someone should bestow royal honor upon another than the true king... so among sins which are committed against God, which nevertheless are the greatest, it seems most grave that someone should bestow divine honor upon a creature; because, as far as in him lies, he makes another God in the world." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 94, aa. 3, 1; L. 12, 13.

What about other books of special subject matter? "Books are condemned in which God, or the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Saints, or the Catholic Church and her worship, or the sacraments, or the Apostolic See, are disparaged. Works in which the concept of the inspiration of Sacred Scripture is perverted, or its extension is too much restricted, are subject to the same judgment of reprobation. Books also are prohibited which deliberately afflict the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or the clerical or religious state, with insults." § 11. Books of any authors whatsoever, whether non-Catholic or Catholic. Disparage: namely speak ill, although not explicitly, but in grave matter. Inspiration of Sacred Scripture, which, "written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has God as author." Vatican Council, Constitution Dei Filius, chap. 2; Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, prop. 9. Is perverted: if, for example, the concept of inspiration were constituted in a subsequent approval of the Sacred Books by the Church; or in a certain concomitant direction of the Holy Spirit, if necessity demands; or in divine assistance for preventing errors. Cited Decree, props. 10, 12, 19, 20. Is restricted: namely to only some books of Sacred Scripture, not to all; or to only some part of the books, not to the entire books; or only to dogmas of faith and morals, not also to the remaining matters, to historical matters, to profane matters, to matters pertaining to the natural sciences; or only to matters concerning which they treat explicitly, not also to others said only incidentally. Cited Decree, prop. 11. Deliberately: and therefore not if there is only some injurious expression, but if either the whole book, or a notable part of it, or some entire chapter afflicts the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or the clerical or religious state with insults; not some private person, unless from this vituperation turns against the hierarchical order itself, or a part of it, or against the clerical or religious state itself. "Let it be forbidden to edit, read, or retain books in which sorceries, divination, magic, evocation of spirits, and other superstitions of this kind are taught or commended." § 12. Are taught, for exercising them. Are taught or commended: not if they merely narrate superstitious facts, or treat or discourse concerning them, for reproving them and showing their malice and danger. "Books or writings which narrate new apparitions, revelations, visions, prophecies, miracles, or which introduce new devotions, even under the pretext that they are private, if they are published without legitimate permission of the Superiors of the Church, are proscribed." § 13. Writings, although they are not books, but booklets or leaves; although they are manuscripts, for they are most properly writings. If they are published: therefore the prohibition does not affect books published before this Constitution. Without legitimate permission: if this is had, it now no longer seems to be required, by force of the present Constitution, that there be a protestation according to the Decree of Urban VIII. But cf. what is had here at the end of the number. Without legitimate, etc. All books concerning sacred things and morals are indeed to be subjected to ecclesiastical censure so that they may be licitly edited; but not for that reason are all prohibited if they have been edited without legitimate approval, § 41; while on the contrary books of which there is question in this paragraph, published without permission of the superiors of the Church, are proscribed, and consequently can neither be read nor retained. Cf. 1306. "Likewise books are prohibited which establish as lawful duel, suicide, or divorce; which treat of masonic sects or other societies of the same kind, and contend that they are useful and not pernicious to the Church and civil society; and which defend errors proscribed by the Apostolic See." § 14. Books of authors of any kind, non-Catholics or Catholics. Establish, contend, defend: therefore they do this not incidentally but deliberately. Errors proscribed by the Apostolic See, e.g., errors proscribed in the Syllabus. Sacred Congregation of the Index, May 23, 1898. E.M. "Concerning sacred Relics these things are to be held. If Bishops, who alone can in this matter, know certainly that a Relic is spurious, let them remove it from the worship of the faithful. If the authenticating documents of some Relic, perhaps because of civil disturbances or from any other case, have perished, let it not be proposed publicly unless duly recognized by the Bishop. The argument of prescription or of founded presumption will then only be valid if the cult is commended by antiquity; namely according to the decree issued in the year 1896 by the sacred Council for examining indulgences and sacred Relics, by which it is declared: Ancient Relics are to be preserved in that veneration in which they have been up to now, unless in a particular case certain arguments are present that they are false or supposititious. But when there has been a judgment concerning pious traditions, it is necessary to remember this: the Church uses so great prudence in this matter that she does not permit traditions of this sort even to be narrated in writing unless much caution has been employed and the declaration sanctioned by Urban VIII has been prefaced; and although this is duly done, nevertheless she does not assert the truth of the fact, but, unless human arguments for believing are lacking, only does not prohibit it from being believed.

Thus plainly the sacred Council for guarding legitimate rites, thirty years ago, declared by Decree of May 2, 1877: Apparitions or revelations of this kind have neither been approved nor condemned by the Apostolic See, but have only been permitted as piously believable by human faith alone, according to the tradition which they bear, confirmed also by suitable testimonies and records. He who holds this will be free from every fear. For the religion of any apparition, insofar as it regards the fact itself and is called relative, always has the implicit condition concerning the truth of the fact; but insofar as it is absolute, it always rests on truth, for it is borne toward the very persons of the Saints who are honored. Similarly it must be affirmed concerning Relics. Finally We entrust this to the Council of vigilance, that they assiduously and diligently keep their eyes also on social institutions and on any writings concerning the social matter, lest anything of modernism lie hidden in them, but that they correspond to the precepts of the Roman Pontiffs." Pius X, Encyclical Letter Pascendi dominici gregis, September 8, 1907.

Superstition is a vice opposed to Religion by excess, by which either undue worship is exhibited to the true God, or worship due to God alone is exhibited to a creature. - Thus commonly from St. Thomas 2. 2. q. 92. art. 1. ¹.

¹ Thus St. Thomas: Superstition is a vice opposed to religion according to excess; not because it exhibits more in divine worship than true religion; but because it exhibits divine worship either to whom it ought not, or in the mode in which it ought not. Now just as superstition is opposed to the virtue of religion according to excess, so another vice is opposed to the same virtue according to defect, namely irreligiosity, concerning which the Author speaks in the following article.

But the Doctors thus distinguish a twofold superstition of undue worship, that is, of worship furnished to the true God, but in a manner in which it ought not: one is superstition of false worship, another of superfluous worship; concerning which see St. Alph. (Lib. 3. n. 3.).

263. • Idolatry is an action by which worship due to God alone is attributed to a creature; and this is done not only by sacrifice, but by any sign of honor by which someone intends to submit himself to a creature as to God, for example by genuflection. - St. Lig. n. 12.

A twofold idolatry is distinguished, namely 1º Material or simulated, when someone, without internal affection, from grave fear, exhibits worship to an idol. It would also be called material if it proceeded from invincible error, for example if someone, falsely thinking that a Host was consecrated, adored it. In the 1st case it would be a mortal sin; in the 2nd none, as is clear.

2º Formal and proper, which is done 1º by adoring a creature as God; 2º by exhibiting worship to a demon or to another creature as if to God, or at least with the mind of obtaining something from such a creature which can be asked from God alone ¹. - St. Lig. n. 13.

¹ Others more clearly distinguish perfect and imperfect idolatry. They call that perfect which has infidelity taken strictly, namely an error of the intellect, annexed to it, and therefore exhibits worship to a creature because it attributes divinity to it. But imperfect they call that which, not from error, but either from hatred against God, or from the desire of obtaining something, exhibits external worship to a demon or to another creature, as to God.

But it is outside controversy among all, that any idolatry whatever, whether perfect or imperfect, or even only simulated and external, when, that is, someone exhibits worship to an idol as God not from error or evil will, but merely from fear, for example of a tyrant, is a mortal sin.

264. • Vain observance is superstition which employs means neither proportioned nor instituted by God for obtaining a certain effect.

It is of three kinds, namely 1º Notorious art, or the art of acquiring science without labor ¹. 2º The art of healings, or the art of healing by various signs or sacred things. 3º Observance of events, by which from consideration of some fortuitous event it is conjectured what will be favorable or unfavorable in the future. - St. Lig. n. 14.

¹ Notorious art differs from divination, because by disproportionate means the latter seeks knowledge and prediction of certain hidden things, but the former directly seeks the infusion of science. But observance of events, although, as St. Thomas says (2. 2. q. 96. art. 3.), in some way it pertains to divination which is made through the stars, according to which favorable and unfavorable days were distinguished; nevertheless there is a difference, because observances of this kind are without reason and art; whence they are more vain and superstitious. Add from the same St. Thomas (In Galat. cap. IV. Lect. IV.), that observance of events looks to disposing one's own acts according to vain indications; but divination intends more the speculative knowledge of hidden things.

Principles. - I. Vain observance is a grave sin, because it attributes divine honor to a creature, while it expects from it what must be expected from God alone; and because it rests upon an implicit pact with the demon ². Yet it can often be venial from imperfection of the act, from simplicity, from some ignorance, or from timidity, as happens especially among the uncultivated in the observance of events. - St. Lig. n. 15.

² Vain observance, as Theologians commonly hold, is made in one way with an express, in another with a tacit invocation of the demon. The former occurs when someone, wishing to procure something through disordered means, expressly invokes or desires the help of the demon, whether this is done with a pact or without a pact. But the latter occurs when someone employs disordered means, which neither of themselves nor from the institution of God have the power of effecting what is sought.

II. Vain observance is recognized especially 1º from the insufficiency of the cause for naturally producing the effect; 2º from the addition of a vain or false circumstance as if necessarily required; 3º from the infallibility which is attributed to means in no way infallible. - St. Lig. n. 16.

III. In doubt whether the effects come from a natural cause or from the demon, they can be attributed to the powers of nature; and consequently it is lawful to procure them, because it is not established that the thing is evil; nevertheless a protestation against any intervention whatever of the demon is advisedly premised. - But in doubt ³ whether the effects are produced by the demon or by God, if it is certainly established that they cannot come from a natural cause, they must be attributed to the demon, unless the sanctity of the one working or other clear indications persuade the contrary, because it is rash to think that miracles are always being done. Whence it is not then lawful to try whether the effect is to follow or not. - St. Lig. n. 20. - St. Thom. 2. 2. qu. 96. art. 1. and others commonly.

³ Understand doubt in the strict sense of the school, when, that is, there is present no probable or prudent reason concerning the insufficiency of natural powers, or the intervention of the demon; which also ought to be established concerning the first part of this principle.

265. Resolves. - 1º Those are guilty of superstition who wear bindings marked with certain characters; who invoke certain unknown names, or employ a certain number of crosses or prayers for healing wounds, for making themselves invulnerable..., etc. - St. Lig. n. 17.

2º Likewise those who wear certain prayers to St. Bridget or other prayers, expecting from them an entirely infallible effect. - Yet those are not to be blamed, indeed they are greatly to be praised, who wear pious medals, sacred likenesses, or Relics of Saints, hoping that they will especially obtain divine help for themselves. - St. Lig. ibid.

3º Likewise those are guilty of superstition who hold some days as favorable, but others as unfavorable, so that from this they direct their actions, or who for expelling diseases require herbs gathered on such a feast..., etc. - St. Lig. ibid.

4º But it is not superstitious to observe the moon or the times more apt for gathering herbs, cutting trees, etc., nor to wear sacred things or words of Sacred Scripture for the honor of God or of the Saints, and for imploring their help. Likewise neither to recite a certain number of prayers, nor to do all those things which can increase devotion, provided infallible force is not attributed to them. - St. Lig. ibid.

5º Nor is it in any way superstitious, indeed it is very religious and pious, to recite novendial prayers, or to repeat prayers so many times in honor of Our Lord or the Blessed Virgin, or of some Saint, provided infallible force is not annexed to such a number, to a certain day, or to a fixed time. - St. Lig. ibid. - V. Casus, n. 253.

266. • DEFINITION. Divination is an inquiry into hidden things by the help of the demon.

DIVISION. It is 1º express, if it is made by express invocation of the demon; 2º tacit, if that invocation is only in disproportionate means ¹.

¹ Namely it is not required that the demon at some time have made a pact that he would concur in the use of some vain means: for by the very fact that someone uses vain things, the demon mixes himself in, even if it is beyond the intention of the user to invoke his assistance. Nor is he excused who believes such means useful because of experiences: indeed the demon procures these, that he may gradually ensnare men and induce them to using similar things. Conf. Sanchez in Decal. Lib. 2. Cap. 38. And these things indeed must also be retained with regard to vain observance. From forgetfulness of these things indeed it has happened that, in passing judgment on certain phenomena of magnetism (as they call it) in these our days, some altogether most imprudently either remained uncertain or even pronounced that free from any fault which even a boy imbued with the first rudiments of catechesis would have pronounced manifestly to be ascribed to diabolical fraud.

Various kinds of divination are distinguished, of which kind especially are 1º Judicial astrology from the stars; - 2º Augury from the cry of birds; - 3º Auspice from their flight; - 4º Haruspicy from the entrails of animals; - 5º Chiromancy from the lines of the hand; - 6º Geomancy from signs in the earth; - 7º Omen from a fortuitous event; - 8º Necromancy from the invocation of a dead person; - 9º Oneiromancy from dreams; - 10º Sortilege from lots; - 11º Oracle from idols; - 12º Vaticination from seers or cards. - St. Lig. n. 5-6.

267. Principles. - I. Whatever hidden thing is known in another way than through revelation or through natural means must be attributed to divination; for there is no other means of investigating hidden things. - But in doubt whether knowledge arises from natural means or not, whether from a good or from an evil spirit, the rules set forth above concerning vain observance must be applied.

II. Express divination can never be excused from mortal sin, not even through ignorance; for it is clear that a pact with the demon is something most gravely illicit.

This is openly established from Sacred Scripture. For thus Deut. 18. 10: Let there not be found in thee one who consults soothsayers, and observes dreams and auguries. Neither let there be an enchanter, nor one who consults pythons, nor diviners, or seeks the truth from the dead: all these things the Lord abominates. - And Lev. 20. 6: The soul which shall turn aside to magicians, and shall fornicate with them, I will set my face against it, and I will cut it off from the midst of my people.

III. But tacit divination can sometimes be excused from mortal sin on account of simplicity or ignorance, or on account of defect of certain faith. - St. Lig. n. 7. - Voit, n. 416.

268. Resolves. - 1º He who, using disproportionate means for some knowledge, protests that he intends no commerce with the demon, is not free from grave fault ²; for he acts against his own protestation, and implicitly invokes the demon, since neither God nor the Angels mix themselves in such things. - Otherwise, however, in doubt whether the effect is had from a natural cause, as was said concerning vain observance. - St. Lig. n. 8. - Lacroix, - Bonacina, etc.

² Conf. the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary to the Bishop of Lausanne (below n. 280.), concerning knowledge of some secret to be drawn from a person who is induced into somnambulism by the help of magnetism.

2º Natural effects must be diligently distinguished from free effects; for the former can often be conjectured, as, for example, from the singing and flight of birds, or from the aspect of the stars, tempest, rain, or serenity of the sky, etc., is conjectured: for experience establishes that a natural connection is present among these things; but otherwise must be said concerning the latter.

3º Disposition or state of soul can sometimes in some way be conjectured from the color of the face or other external signs, although in practice one must for the most part abstain from such conjectures on account of the danger of rash judgment; but free acts, whether past or future, can never be known certainly.

4º They sin gravely who inquire from seers concerning their fortune or future life (in French: faire dire sa bonne fortune ou sa bonne aventure; faire tirer les cartes); unless they act from simplicity, jest, or curiosity, without applying faith to the things said. - St. Lig. n. 10. - Sanchez, etc. - But if they do this seriously, seers can with difficulty be excused from grave culpability in cooperation. - Thus Reuter, n. 43.

269. Questions. - Q. 1º Is the use of lots sometimes lawful?

Resp. 1º Divisory lots, by which it is discerned what is to be assigned to each in settling lawsuits, or in distributing things, certainly are lawful, if every trace of superstition is absent.

Resp. 2º Consultory lots, by which the divine will is investigated, that it may be known what is to be done, are not lawful, unless they are made by special impulse of God, or it is a matter of grave business in which other counsel is lacking. The reason is that according to ordinary providence God does not will that inquiry be made concerning his will in this way, but recourse must be had to prudent men, or to ecclesiastical Superiors.

Resp. 3º Divinatory lots, by which the manifestation of a hidden thing is sought, for example from the casting of dice, etc., are always gravely illicit, as containing at least a tacit invocation of the demon. Superstition of this kind is properly called sortilege, under which name also other kinds of superstitions commonly come. - St. Lig. n. 10.

270. • Q. 2º Is it lawful to conjecture future things from dreams?

Resp. Neg. ordinarily, because dreams almost always come from natural causes, for example from the commotion of humors, etc. On the other hand, dreams sent by God are very rare, and are joined with signs by which they can certainly be distinguished from natural or diabolical dreams. - St. Lig. n. 9. - Tamburinus, etc.

Q. 3º Is the use of the divining rod lawful?

Resp. 1º It is certainly to be condemned, whenever the rod is moved, or is not moved, at the mere intention of him who holds it by the hand, nor is it moved in the presence of another thing not sought, although it is of the same nature. For there is no proportion between a natural thing and the intention of a man. Hence they sin gravely who use the rod for seeking a thief, or for detecting the boundary stone of a field.

Resp. 2º The use of the rod for detecting waters or metals does not seem certainly to be condemned, if the rod over these is moved equally in every case, whether they are sought or not sought, provided a protestation is made against diabolical operation, which perhaps could be present, and every superstitious intention is excluded. - Thus commonly the more recent authors, against St. Lig. n. 8., where he reproves the use of the divining rod in every case ³. - V. Casus, n. 263. et seq.

³ ** It is not true that St. Alphonsus reproves the use of this rod in every case. He reproves it in the sense concerning which A. speaks in the first Response; but concerning the second hypothesis the Holy Doctor has not even a word.

271. • I. Magic taken broadly, or natural or artificial magic, which is called white magic, is the art of doing marvelous things, at least apparently, through natural causes or the industry of man, without any ministry of the demon.

Magic, strictly so called, is the art of doing marvelous things, which, although they are not supernatural, nevertheless surpass the powers of man, and consequently can be done by the help of the demon explicitly or implicitly invoked.

II. Maleficium is the art of harming with the intervention of the demon. A twofold maleficium is distinguished, namely amatory and poisonous. Amatory maleficium, or philtre, is a diabolical art by which wanton love or hatred is vehemently excited in some person toward another. Poisonous maleficium is precisely the art of harming the neighbor by the help of the demon, and this in various ways, for example by diseases, dullness, etc. - St. Lig. n. 23.

Maleficium is commonly called sortilege, because through it an evil lot is cast upon those against whom vengeance is exercised through diabolical operation. Hence in Canon Law and in ecclesiastical history male and female magicians are called male and female sorcerers.

272. Resolves. - 1º Magic does not differ from vain observance, except that its effects are more marvelous, for example the alteration of bodies etc. But in moral species it differs neither from vain observance, nor from divination; because it matters little whether knowledge of hidden things or marvelous effects are sought from the demon.

2º But maleficium differs in species from other superstitions, because besides the sin opposed to Religion, it adds harm to the neighbor.

1. Renatus, a parish priest, from devotion toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, and to promote it more and more, often speaks to his parishioners about the Heart of Jesus doing penance for us, and counsels them this special devotion, namely toward the Penitent Heart of Jesus, and this frequent invocation: Penitent Heart of Jesus for us, have mercy on us.

2. Nicolinus, a parish priest, likewise to promote devotion to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, propagates among his parishioners certain new emblems of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist. For he asserts that worship toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist is more perfect than simple worship toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, since it embraces the Sacrament of the Eucharist itself, which is the Sacrament of love.

3. Nicolaus, a parish priest, propagates a special cult toward the adorable Face of the Divine Redeemer, and one diverse from that usual one, up to now attributed to the image of the Holy Face.

4. Lucianus, a parish priest, from devotion toward St. Joseph, propagates a special cult of this Saint under the title: of St. Joseph, friend of the Sacred Heart. But from devotion toward the Most Holy Virgin he preaches that she is to be worshipped under the title of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and distributes among his parishioners images of that Virgin which represent her standing with hands spread out, and the child Jesus standing likewise before her knees.

5. Lucas, with every effort, from devotion and love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, propagates devotion toward the Most Holy Soul of Jesus Christ, makes an image representing it, and institutes Confraternities in its honor. He likewise propagates devotion toward the Interior of the Blessed Virgin Mary; he also makes an image, and institutes a Congregation of nuns. Finally, among the faithful he propagates a certain formula of prayer "for obtaining that all men may recognize the supreme dominion of Christ and of Mary Immaculate over all creatures."

Q. What is to be held concerning these various cults?

R. Renatus does not act rightly, nor can he persevere in that practice. For the Holy Office, 15 July 1893, prohibited and condemned the titles: Penitent Heart of Jesus, Penitent Heart of Jesus for us, Penitent Jesus, Penitent Jesus for us. M. E., v. 8, p. 1, p. 175.

Nicolinus likewise does not act rightly, nor can he persevere in his practice. For by the Holy Office, 3 June 1891, it was decided: "The new emblems of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist are not to be approved by the Apostolic See. For fostering the piety of the faithful, the images of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus already used and approved in the Church are sufficient; because the cult toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist is not more perfect than the cult toward the Eucharist itself, nor another from the cult toward the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus." Monit. Eccles., v. 7, p. 1, p. 101. But when doubts had been proposed: "1. Whether the images of the Sacred Heart representing the Heart alone without the rest of the body can safely be distributed? 2. Whether they are approved at Rome? 3. Whether they must be withdrawn from the houses of the faithful, where they are an object of veneration?" The Holy Office, 26 Aug. 1891, responded: "To the first, second, and third: The image of the Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ, concerning which there is question, is permitted from private devotion, provided it is not exposed on altars to be worshipped with public veneration." M. E., v. 9, p. 1, p. 32.

Nicolaus likewise must abstain from the propagation of the aforesaid special cult, and one diverse from the usual one, toward the adorable Face of the Divine Redeemer. For, when the doubt had been proposed concerning approving or at least permitting a cult of this sort, the Holy Office declared: It is not expedient. Therefore Nicolaus may indeed propagate the cult toward the image of the Face of the Divine Redeemer, or copies of that image, but as it was already usual from ancient times, namely so that in the minds of the faithful, from veneration and contemplation of the aforesaid image, the memory of the sufferings of Christ may grow more day by day, and in their hearts sorrow for faults and an ardent desire of repairing the injuries inflicted on the divine Majesty may be increased. M. E., v. 7, p. 2, p. 221.

As regards Lucianus, concerning the cult of St. Joseph under the title Friend of the Sacred Heart, the Fathers of the S. I. C. "decreed, with the approval of Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, that there is not to be an interlocution concerning the matter proposed. Besides, they ordered that the Sacred Congregation of Rites be warned lest in the future decrees, rescripts, etc., be issued in which the new title mentioned above is approved in any way, or even in which mention simply is made of it." M. E., v. 7, p. 2, p. 220. But as regards that title and image of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the same S. I. C., 3 Apr. 1895, decreed "that the title indeed can be admitted, but the images are not approved and are to be removed from public veneration."

As regards Lucas, although that prior cult contains nothing false, nor even anything incongruous, nevertheless it is a new cult, as it is proposed, and is not to be propagated publicly without the approval of the Church. "The Most Holy One.... commanded... that the writers are to be warned who sharpen their talents over.... arguments which savor of novelty, and, under the appearance of piety, strive to promote unaccustomed titles of cult even through journals, that they desist from their plan, and weigh the danger which lies beneath of drawing the faithful into error even concerning dogmas of faith, and of giving an occasion to haters of Religion for disparaging the purity of faith, Catholic doctrine, and true piety." Holy Office, 15 July 1893, M. E., v. 8, p. 1, p. 175. And this especially, in this cult of the Soul of Christ, is to be noted: that in it the whole Humanity of Christ and Christ the Redeemer appear less clearly than in the cult of the Most Sacred Heart, the Most Precious Blood, the Five Wounds, and the other mysteries of the life and Passion of Jesus Christ; whence surely the cult seems less suitable to be spread among the people.

But concerning the other cult toward the Interior of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the following doubts were proposed: "1. Whether and how it is fitting to approve the title of the Interior of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which the new Institute of the Sisters A. of M. of the diocese of P. assumes? 2. Whether, the aforesaid title being admitted, it is fitting also to admit among the other feasts of the aforesaid Institute that of the Interior of the Blessed Virgin Mary?" The Holy Office, 13 Dec. 1893, responded: "To both, negatively." But as regards that prayer, the Holy Office, 12 June 1895, decreed: "the prayer concerning which there is question is not to be approved, nor propagated among the faithful, nor enriched with indulgences."

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

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

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

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

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

Gerafinia, perfectly restored to health from a grave illness of influenza, makes a vow of abstinence and fasting for her whole life, on all Sundays and the days of the Nativity and of Easter. For she has heard that it is an efficacious and infallible remedy for preventing a relapse. And she holds this as altogether certain, since in fact she has now persevered in perfect bodily health for three years.

Q. 1. What is vain observance? - 2. Is Gerafinia guilty of superstition; and is she bound by the vow?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 478 seqq. To the second: Gerafinia is guilty of superstition. The reason is that fasting, observed on the aforesaid days, is not of itself an infallible means for preventing a relapse into influenza. But she resolved to observe it with certain faith in the effect that would follow.

Besides, she is not bound by the vow. For the cult is superfluous, foreign to the custom of the Church, and bearing singularity before itself. Hence a vow of fasting ordinarily on Sundays and on the more solemn feasts of the Church is null, especially when the one vowing by no means observes fasting on other days. Nevertheless, superstition being excluded, of itself it would not exceed venial sin. Indeed it would not even be venial if someone fasted from mortification. But it is better to abstain from such a fast, and therefore the doctors commonly teach that a fast promised on Sunday can be fulfilled on Saturday; and, if someone has vowed to fast for a month, that he is not bound on Sunday. But if someone accustomed to fast on other days sometimes fasts, from some good end, on Sunday, he does not sin. - Reuter, p. 2, n. 427; Lig. 4; G. 258-260; I. M. 466.

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.

894. Superstition (from the word super-sto) etymologically designates that which is excessive (beyond that which is due); and as to the thing, a vice by which divine worship is exhibited to a creature to whom it is not due, or to God, yet in an undue manner.

We shall speak: 1. of idolatry; 2. of superstitious observances; 3. of modern facts of magnetism and spiritism, in which supernatural agents can intervene.

895. 1. Notion. Idolatry is situated in this, that divine worship is exhibited to some creature. When someone offers supreme worship to an idol, thinking that it is God, idolatry includes an error of the intellect, infidelity or heresy: such were the Gentiles and Manichaeans, such are modern pagans. But if someone, knowing that there is one God, exhibits divine honor to some creature, from hatred of God or cupidity of obtaining something from a demon, there is not indeed infidelity, but the greatest depravity of heart.

Under another respect, idolatry is true and internal, when someone has the intention of adoring a false deity; simulated or external, if someone, from fear or command, externally adores an idol, without internally wishing to offer this service: thus, in the time of persecutions, not a few, who were called the lapsed, sacrificed to idols.

896. 2. Malice. Idolatry is in itself a most grave sin. (a) It was most strictly prohibited by the first precept of the Decalogue, and indeed under most grave penalties; truly, from the whole history of the Jews it is clear that they were severely reproved and chastised with dreadful calamities whenever, having abandoned the Supreme Deity, they sacrificed to false gods. (b) In the first ages of the Church, idolatry was held as one of the most grave sins, on account of which public penance was imposed, often prolonged even to the end of life: hence reconciliation was not granted to the lapsed except a little before death, or when a new persecution arose.

(c) Truly, he who bestows divine honor upon a creature, "as much as is in him, makes another God in the world, diminishing the divine principality";² and, just as in the civil order, it is most grave to bestow royal honor upon another than the true king, because thus the whole order of the commonwealth is disturbed, so he who exhibits divine honors to a false deity overturns the authority of God.

² St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 94, a. 3.

897. But simulated idolatry is less grave than internal idolatry, although of itself it constitutes a mortal sin both because of the external denial of faith (above, n. 653), and because of the scandal given to others. Furthermore idolaters who ignorantly worship false deities sin less gravely than heretics who knowingly adulterate the faith which they have received.

898. Corollary. Those approach near to idolatry who so worship and invoke the saints, relics, and images, that they believe there is in them by their own powers the power of bestowing natural or supernatural gifts; for thus that which belongs to the Creator alone is attributed to creatures. Wherefore the faithful are carefully to be instructed, lest perhaps, while they indulge in these devotions, they gradually fall into superstition.

1. DEFINITION.—Superstition (δεισιδαιμονία, superstitio, falsa religio) is the vice of excess in religious worship. Not as if it were possible to give God too much honor, but we may honor Him in the wrong way (modo indebito) or give to other persons (or to things) the worship due to Him alone (cultus falsus).¹

¹ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 92, art. 1: “Superstition is a vice opposed to religion according to excess, not because it offers more in divine worship than true religion, but because it offers divine worship either to whom it ought not or in a manner in which it ought not.”

St. Thomas divides superstition into four classes, namely: worshipping God in the wrong way, idolatry, divination, and vain observance.²

² Ibid.

Superstition, therefore, not only involves a false religious belief, but adds to that belief (vana opinio) a misdirected act (vana observantia). In other words, it substitutes for the true faith and the right worship of God a false belief and a wrong worship. Therefore supersti- tion is directly opposed to the virtue of faith, like heresy and unbelief, and more generally, to the virtue of religion (virtus religionis),³ and is consequently called the false imitator of true piety (verae pietatis falsa imitatrix).⁴

³ Supra, Part I.

⁴ Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, Decr. de Observand. et Evitand. in Celebrat. Missae.—On the derivation of the word “superstition” see Walter, Der Aberglaube, pp. 11 sq.

2. NATURE OF SUPERSTITION.—Superstition as a false belief and a wrong worship is both an intellectual aberration and a moral fault. It is a grievous sin because it runs counter to true faith and right reason. It surrenders the substance of the true faith (fides quae creditur) as well as its theological motive (fides qua creditur) by substituting its own notions for the revealed truth and by rendering obedience, not to the legitimate divine authority, but to irrational human opinion.

Superstition, moreover, entails many evil consequences. Under the influence of fear and terror it produces fanaticism and fatalism, makes men hard and cruel, and thereby corrupts individuals and endangers society.

Superstition, when complete, that is, when consciously harbored and allowed to influence one’s moral and religious life, is ex genere suo a mortal sin because it contravenes the faith, religious practice, and reason.

However, not every kind or degree of superstition is eo ipso destructive of the Catholic faith and of the true worship of God, more particularly if, as is often the case, the false belief arises from invincible ignorance.⁵

⁵ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 257: “Vain observance is a grave sin of its kind, because it gives divine honor to a creature by expecting from it what ought to be expected from God alone, and because it rests upon an implicit pact with the demon. Nevertheless, it can often be venial because of the imperfection of the act, simplicity, some ignorance, or timidity, as happens especially among the uneducated in the observance of events.”

Pastors are in duty bound to acquaint themselves with the different forms of superstition current among their people. Superstition fears the light and is, therefore, hard to combat. The most effective weapon against it is instruction on the nature and operation of God, for the purer man’s knowledge of God, the less chance has superstition to grow in the soul. We must show that superstition is both foolish and dangerous.⁶ It is folly to assume that superstition, because it leads people to believe too much, is apt to strengthen religion and piety. Superstition means not merely to believe too much, but to believe what is false, and therefore is essentially inimical to true piety. On the contrary, the firmer the grasp a man has on his religion, the more energetically will he reject every kind of superstition and unhealthy craving for miracles.⁷

⁶ 2 Kings I, 2–4; Acts XIII, 8–11.

⁷ C. Krieg, Die Wissenschaft der Seelenleitung, Vol. I, pp. 248 sq., Freiburg 1904.

Faith does not engender superstition; contrariwise, superstition is a child of unbelief. As Pascal justly observes, “Unbelievers are the most credulous of men.” We have all known persons who boasted of their unbelief, yet were scared to death if they happened to be one of a group of thirteen sitting at table.⁸

⁸ J. H. Graf, Ueber Zahlenaberglauben, insbesondere die Zahl 13, Bern 1904.

Superstition may manifest itself in the natural, in the preternatural, and in the strictly supernatural sphere.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 92 sq.—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 1–11, 14–28.—Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v. “Superstitio.”—H. Th. Simar, Der Aberglaube, 2nd ed., Cologne 1879.—J. B. Wirthmüller, Die moralische Tugend der Religion, pp. 608 sqq.—F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. I, 6th ed., pp. 493 sqq.—F. Walter, Aberglaube und Seelsorge, Paderborn 1904.—W. Fischer, Aberglaube aller Zeiten, Paderborn 1906.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 163 sqq.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 275 sqq.—J. Wilhelm, art. “Superstition” in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 339 sqq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹³ Op. cit., pp. 268 sq.

¹⁴ Op. cit., p. 269.

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

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

¹⁶ Op. cit., pp. 24 sq.

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

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

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Liljencrants, Spiritism and Religion, p. 280.

²⁰ Op. cit., p. 281.

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

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

²² Liljencrants, op. cit., p. 281.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What sortilege is

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

Divination

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

Magic

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

Evocation of spirits?

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

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

Superstitions of this kind

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

When they are taught

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

Are commended?

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

Notable matter is required

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

What of hypnotism and magnetic phenomena, as they say?

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

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

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

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

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

And so, as pertains to our matter:

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

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

What of books of pagans

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

¹ Tr. 6, s. 1, n. 99.

² March 30-April 1, 1898.

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

Utility. In setting forth the negative offices of the virtue of religion, by which we are ordered to ward off all vices contrary to religion, questions occur which we can deservedly call at once very useful, delicate, and modern. How useful it is to separate superstition properly so called from vain but human arts will be confirmed by the missionary who knows by experience itself how great a ruin of souls an imprudent reprobation of usages can bring among less cultivated peoples. No one will deny that the question of spiritism is modern and very grave. In the chapter on blasphemies, it will be helpful to separate true blasphemous formulas from vulgar sayings; at the same time, however, the question concerning the subjective guilt of those who use those formulas will have to be examined a little more accurately than is sometimes done. Nor can the mind of the theologian be so occupied by trivial blasphemers that he can scarcely attend to worse blasphemers, who by their writings affect God and divine things with insults. Then the intimate ratio of sacrilege will have to be penetrated, by which those things which are sacred by divine right and those which are sacred by human right may be well distinguished. Finally, in the chapter on simony, the legitimate use of stipends and taxes must be clearly demonstrated, and all confusion must be removed, which, because of the obscurity itself which it begets, is accustomed to pave the way for illicit modes of gain.

Ratio of order. Although the things which we offer to God necessarily remain always below the dignity and merit of Infinite Goodness, and under this respect our religion cannot become excessive, nevertheless our mode of worshiping God can be vicious, or even the term which we pursue with religious affection. In this respect man is said to sin by excess against religion; and that vice is called by the common name superstition. This, therefore, must be divided into superstition by which the true God is badly worshiped, and superstition by which a creature is unduly honored or obtains services; whence two articles compose this chapter on superstition. In the latter article there will be discussion of modern spiritism.

By defect, however, one sins against religion by irreligiosity, which contrarily denies the worship owed to God, to His Name, and to a sacred thing. Its fuller ratio, by which every office of religion is deserted, is not customarily treated here, because if it remains from contempt, it is to be reduced to the genus of blasphemy and is easily joined with apostasy, concerning which above; but if it has been mere negligence, it demands no other explanation besides those things which have been said concerning sloth. Less complete irreligiosity derogates either from the reverence owed to God, by tempting God, by blasphemy, and by perjury; or from the reverence which is owed to sacred persons or things, by sacrilege and simony. We shall treat each successively, passing over the question of perjury, which was treated in the chapter on oath.

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

554. NOTIONS. Superstition is defined: Vain or false religion, exhibiting to God undue worship. - It is opposed to religion by excess, "not because it exhibits more divine worship than true religion, but because it exhibits divine worship either to whom it ought not, or in that mode in which it ought not" (2.2, q. 92, a. 1). Thus worship can exceed both on the part of the mode and on the part of the object; whence a twofold superstition is distinguished, namely: 1. superstition of undue worship; 2. superstition of the thing worshiped (III, 2).

I. Superstition of UNDUE worship is worship which is indeed exhibited to the true God, but in an incongruous mode; because, namely, the worship which is offered is either false or superfluous.

False worship is that which has a false signification, as if someone should worship God through the ceremonies of the old Law, for example circumcision, immolation of the lamb, etc., because these signify Christ as still about to come and not yet having come; or if someone, for increasing the devotion of the people, should narrate false miracles, or propose false relics. - Worship of this kind is a sin grave of itself, because it founds religion upon lies, indeed exposes true miracles, etc., to doubt.

But superfluous worship is that by which God is worshiped in a mode not approved by the Church, or plainly alien from her practice. Thus, for example, if you were unwilling to pray or hear Mass before sunrise; or if in Mass or in the canonical Office you added something not prescribed by the rubrics; or if candles had to be arranged in a certain order; or if you fasted on Sunday when you do not fast on other days, or abstained from certain indifferent works on Saturday, etc. Such superfluous worship, scandal, contempt, or vain observance being excluded, does not exceed venial fault, because the matter is light, and those actions are not evil in themselves.

555. II. Superstition of the THING WORSHIPED, or worship of a false deity, is had when worship owed to God is offered to a false god or to creatures.

This superstition, according to the diverse ends of divine worship, is subdivided into diverse species. For since, according to St. Thomas (2.2, q. 92, a. 2), divine worship looks to this, that man practically acknowledge the excellence, knowledge, and auxiliary intervention of God, that threefold end can be perverted by a threefold species of superstition, namely: 1. idolatry, when reverence of excellence owed to God alone is exhibited to a creature; 2. divination, when knowledge is investigated from the demon; 3. vain observance, when, for the sake of help, recourse is had to the same demon. And since recourse can also be had to him for inflicting harm on neighbor, hence, on account of the malice of injustice joined to it, there is had: 4. malefice.

Now discourse must be instituted concerning each.

556. DEFINITION. Idolatry is superstition by which honor is attributed to a creature as to God.

But this is done by any sign of honor by which someone intends to submit himself to a creature as to God, for example by genuflection, incense-burning, uncovering of the head before an idol. Thus the idolatry of the Gentiles was the worship of demons, as is said (Ps. 95:5): All the gods of the Gentiles are demons.

DIVISION. Idolatry, by reason of affection, is twofold: one MATERIAL or simulated, as when someone, without internal affection, from fear of death, exhibits worship to an idol; the other FORMAL and proper, and this is either perfect, as when someone adores an idol which from infidelity he thinks to be God; or imperfect, when someone, either from hatred of God, or from affection for obtaining something from a demon or another creature, offers worship to it as if to God.

Hence you will deduce: 1. Idolatry, even material and feigned, is a grave and mortal sin; because it is a pernicious lie, and against religion, and often also against the precept of externally professing the faith (cf. n. 429). 2. Imperfect idolatry, on account of malice of the will, is a graver sin than perfect idolatry (III, 12, 13).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

567. DEFINITION. Vain observance "is superstition by which, through some disproportionate means not instituted by God, some effect is procured, for example health, knowledge" (III, 14). It is called observance because it is some veneration or worship with respect to the demon; and it is called vain because those effects are either not obtained, or often are harmful rather than salutary.

But because there are not lacking those who think that hypnotism, employed for curing certain diseases, is to be numbered among vain observances, we shall speak: 1. of vain observance in general; 2. of hypnotism in particular.

Vain observance does not differ specifically from divination; because in the genus of morals it does not matter whether knowledge of a hidden thing is sought from the demon, or some external effect. By reason of material object, it is threefold: 1. the notorious art, or the art of acquiring knowledge without labor; 2. the art of healings, or the art of healing by various signs or sacred things, as efficacious for this as from the work worked; 3. observance of events, by which from consideration of some chance event it is conjectured what favorable or unfavorable thing will be.

568. PRINCIPLE. Vain observance is a mortal sin from its whole genus. "It cannot be excused from mortal sin from smallness of matter: because simply and in every matter the power proper to God is usurped" (III, 15). Yet it can be excused from mortal sin from imperfection of the act (cf. n. 560, 563).

Vain observance is perceived from various signs: 1. From insufficiency of the cause employed for producing the effect; namely if it has neither natural force for the intended effect, nor is the supernatural legitimately established.

2. From addition of a false or vain circumstance, for example apocryphal words, a certain hour, a certain number, foreign characters, etc. 3. From the effect itself, if this at once vanishes. 4. From infallible expectation of the effect, the insufficient cause being posited.

This can especially be observed in certain modes of curing diseases (magical medicine). The remedies employed are commonly touchings, ointments whose elements and healing force lie hidden under mystery; sometimes prayers, ridiculous adjurations, are added; finally even that sympathy alone, or magnetic force which is said to pass from the operator into the sick person, is employed. It cannot be said a priori that vain observance is present in all these things. For it is certain that in certain families there remains secret knowledge of certain plants, together with the composition of some remedy. It is also certain that the grace of healings can also be conferred by God upon an uneducated man: for it is one of the graces gratuitously given. But this grace of healings is personal and does not use vain means. Therefore if he who pretends that he possesses this grace says that he received the art from others, employs wonderful signs, and firmly believes that the force of curing exists in the signs themselves, he is not to be given credence. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1909, p. 1146, General Table, v. Healers; Noldin, II, 159 and 162.

From these things you will resolve: 1. Those are guilty of vain observance: a) Who wear amulets or bindings marked with certain characters. b) Who invoke certain unknown names, or employ a certain number of crosses or prayers for healing wounds, for rendering themselves invulnerable, etc. c) Who spread certain chains of prayers to be written by one's own hand and sent to others, or wear certain prayers to St. Bridget, or other prayers, expecting an entirely infallible effect from them. d) Who hold certain days as favorable, but others as unfavorable, as, for example, Tuesday or Friday, and order their actions according to this credulity. e) Who refuse to sit at table in the number thirteen, as if this were a sign of death; etc. (III, 17; Croix, l. 3, P. I, n. 29).

2. But it is not vain observance: a) To observe the moon or the times more suitable for gathering herbs or cutting trees. b) Nor to wear sacred things or words of Sacred Scripture in honor of God or of the Saints. c) Nor to swallow little paper images of the Blessed Virgin Mary dissolved in water or wrapped in the manner of a pill, for obtaining health. From this use practically every appearance of vain observance is removed if the faithful are admonished that honor and love toward the Mother of God are thus expressed, and that it is in no way a question of receiving communion of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or of obtaining an effect infallibly (cf. Decree of the Holy Office, July 2, 1903, in A. S. S., 37, p. 237; Linz Quart. Schr., 1906, p. 361 and 1907, p. 253; Ami du Cl., 1899, p. 359; 1908, p. 574).

PRACTICAL RULES. 1. Superstition is contagious; wherefore a prudent parish priest or catechist should have discourse only concerning those superstitions which are known in the region.

2. In many vain observances there is good faith, and therefore rude persons are sometimes to be left in their simplicity, since they are with difficulty drawn away from that which in good faith they received from their ancestors.

3. Let the parish priest see whether the matter can be turned to a good sense, or changed into another, almost similar, but pious and good use. Very appositely to the matter: "When you are pressed by miseries and troubles," says St. Alphonsus (Inst. cat., P. I, c. 1, n. 54), "have recourse to the most holy Sacrament, to the Crucified, to the Virgin Mary, to Blessed Anthony of Padua, to Blessed Vincent Ferrer; use the oil of their lamps; use little papers with figures of Mary Immaculate or of some Saint; and in this mode, without sinning, you will be able to obtain grace. If you act otherwise, you will not obtain grace, and you will sin." Cf. Linz. Quart. Schr., 1907, p. 517.

Cf. Coconnier, L'hypnotisme franc; Antonelli, Med. past., II, c. II; Lehmkuhl, I, n. 502; Genicot, I, n. 272; Schneider, L'hypnotisme; D'Annibale, Noldin, etc.

Hypnotism differs from magnetism only in name. The latter has Mesmer (d. 1815) as its inventor, from whom it is also sometimes called mesmerism, and is the art of producing certain phenomena which appear prodigious insofar as a cause proportioned to the effects cannot be assigned.

569. NOTIONS. Hypnotism, considered in general, is defined: The art of producing a sleep in which the hypnotized person, by obeying the hypnotizer, effects things plainly singular.

DIVISION. By reason of comparison instituted with the powers of nature, hypnotism is rightly accustomed to be divided into scientific, namely if a positive doubt can be present that all things proceed from a natural cause; and into prodigious, namely when such a doubt is not given.

1. Scientific hypnotism can be defined: The art of producing a sleep in which the hypnotized person obeys the hypnotizer only in those things which are suggested to him through oral suggestion; or, it is the art of obtaining a sleep by which someone becomes fit to be so affected by an image suggested to him by words that he has it as objective, and translates into practice, more or less perfectly, what is represented by it (Coconnier, l. c., p. 257). It is called scientific because, as a remedy in therapeutic science, it is employed by those physicians who are led only by "licit study of science," as the Encyclical Letter of the Holy Office, Aug. 4, 1856, has it (A. S. S., I, p. 177).

Therefore two things must be distinguished: the sleep and the phenomena which accompany it. - As regards the SLEEP, a great controversy rages among experts whether it must be called simple artificial sleep or a nervous disease. Yet it is certain that in that sleep the functions of the brain are interrupted, consciousness of self ceases, and blind obedience is easily furnished. - As regards the PHENOMENA, behold the principal things which are commonly and certainly noted, yet not all in every subject nor all in the same degree: a) the absolute relation of the hypnotized person to the hypnotizer, whom the former believes altogether and obeys, while he seems to perceive the rest standing by neither with eyes nor ears, nor in any way to be affected by them. This fact always happens; b) hallucinations, whether positive, if the hypnotized person sees by imagination things which are not, or negative, if he does not see those things which are present; c) illusions, namely the hypnotized person confounds objects, taking one for another, or considers in them qualities or properties which are lacking; by this reason all the senses can be disturbed, immobility, insensibility of members, whether partial or of the whole body, can be obtained; suggestions can also be given as regards the person of the hypnotized one, which he has as reporting the truth, for example that he is a soldier, priest, old man, young man, etc.; d) suggestions which must obtain their effect only after a fixed time, for example after several months; e) effusion of blood, or of humor, in that part of the body which the hypnotizer shall have suggested, etc.

2. Prodigious hypnotism can be defined: The art of producing a sleep in which the hypnotized person obeys the hypnotizer not only in those things which are orally suggested to him, but also furnishes other things which, suggestion being omitted, are asked of him by way of consultation and certainly go beyond the powers of nature.

To scientific hypnotism it adds portentous facts certainly pertaining to divination, as, for example, at the nod of the hypnotizer to foresee future things, disclose things unknown and far away, solve most difficult questions concerning physiology or mathematics, speak an unknown language, and other things of this kind which certainly surpass the powers of nature. We say: which certainly surpass; for facts only doubtfully preternatural, until their nature is established, are to be ascribed to scientific hypnotism and, a protestation having been premised, can licitly be produced, as we said n. 560, 2.

570. PRINCIPLES. I. Prodigious hypnotism is altogether illicit. For the phenomena which it contains are altogether preternatural and are to be attributed only to the demon. Whence the Holy Office in the Encyclical Letter, Aug. 4, 1856, against the abuses of magnetism: "Hence by the tricks of somnambulism and of clear intuition, as they call it, those little women ... babble that they see all invisible things ... presume by rash daring to disclose unknown and distant things, and to exercise other superstitious things of this kind ... In all these things, whatever art or illusion they finally use, since physical means are ordered to effects not natural, there is found a deception altogether illicit and heretical." And on July 26, 1899: Experiments of hypnotism, "if it is a question of facts which certainly go beyond the powers of nature, are not licit" (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 31, p. 699).

II. Scientific hypnotism, exercised with the due conditions, is licit. Thus the more common opinion, which, besides almost all physicians, even Catholic ones, many theologians also uphold. Cf., besides those alleged, Tanquerey, II, n. 133, 906; Ami du Cl., years 1899, 1900; Willems, Inst. phil., II, n. 322.

IT IS PROVED: For scientific hypnotism involves neither superstition nor anything else intrinsically evil; and from elsewhere, the inconveniences which can be feared are wholly removed through the conditions applied. Therefore there is nothing by which it becomes illicit.

1. It involves no superstition. This would have to be proved certainly. But this has not been done up to now.

The adversaries contend that the note of superstition is demonstrated from the defect of the nexus of causality between the means and the effects.¹ Hypnosis, they say, arises and ends by means altogether inept, produces most diverse and portentous phenomena which seem to transcend the efficacy of the cause. It is answered: a) Although the intrinsic reason of hypnotic sleep is not yet perfectly known, various indications nevertheless suggest that it does not proceed by preternatural force. For it is sometimes produced without the intervention of a hypnotizer and is more easily induced in some than in others, indications which bear before themselves nothing certainly preternatural.² b) The Doctors assign as a likely cause of the phenomena the imagination most vehemently excited by the words of the hypnotizer.³ See many more things in Antonelli (Med. past., II, n. 22). - Nor from the fact that in the phenomena of hypnotism preternatural facts sometimes are mixed in can it be deduced that the cause of all the phenomena is preternatural.

2. Nor does it admit anything else intrinsically evil. For of the various elements which are distinguished in hypnotism, none can be called evil: neither suggestibility, nor suggestion, nor exaltation of the imagination, nor likewise the momentary suspension of the use of reason and liberty; otherwise chloroformization, which is reproved by no one, would be illicit.

The absolute dependence of the hypnotized person upon the will of the hypnotizer, which seems to be repugnant to right reason, could raise a difficulty. But it is answered: a) This dependence, according to some, is not so absolute: "Most of the hypnotized resist suggestions displeasing to them. Natural or acquired inclination is as it were a primordial suggestion, which impedes subsequent suggestions" (Schneider, l. c., p. 376). b) The sole dependence which is had in hypnosis is dependence of the imagination, but not of liberty. But man is not bound always to exercise dominion over his own imagination; otherwise it would not be licit to be occupied with natural sleep, since in it the imagination frequently forms several images which induce various motions of the soul and actions even altogether unusual, as in sleepwalkers.

3. All dangers are removed. Dangers of dishonesty are removed by the conditions indicated below; dangers of health are not those which are exaggerated by some. Cf. Antonelli (l. c., 44, 51).⁴

The REQUIRED conditions and cautions to be employed are several: 1. On the part of the cause, it is required that this be relatively grave, because in hypnosis there is privation of the use of reason and a certain abdication of one's own will, and for this to be licit a grave cause is demanded. Of this kind will be: a) a disease which cannot be cured in another way, or is of such a nature that by this remedy solace can be obtained, as is, according to Willems, hysteria, rheumatism; b) an evil propensity which impels a man to crimes more or less necessarily (for example alcoholism, masturbation), and which can be removed or diminished by hypnotism; c) the progress of sciences, for example of medicine or psychology, to be promoted by these experiments. It will not be licit, of itself, for the sake of joke or gain to make experiments of hypnotism or assist at them. 2. On the part of the hypnotized person, full consent is required; for it is not licit to deprive anyone unwilling of the use of reason and liberty. 3. On the part of the hypnotizer, let the physician be skilled in this matter, for forestalling inconveniences which otherwise could come to the health of the hypnotized person; let him be conspicuous in probity for removing the dangers threatening morals; and besides, if it is a question of facts which doubtfully go beyond the powers of nature, let him premise a protestation that he wishes to have no part in preternatural facts, as the Holy Office decreed, July 26, 1899. 4. On the part of the hypnotization, it is required that hypnosis be obtained by licit and honorable means; that suggestions be honorable and adapted to the end licitly intended; and that hypnotization and suggestions be made before a third person honorable and trustworthy, for example before a parent, by which caution all dangers of dishonesty will be wholly driven away. Yet sometimes this assistance can be superfluous, namely if the physician's probity is certainly established.

THE WHOLE THESIS IS CONFIRMED: 1. From the Encyclical Letter of the Holy Office, Aug. 4, 1856. For the Sacred Congregation well distinguishes between licitness and illicitness, use and abuse of magnetism; it condemns those who, the licit study of science having been neglected, pursuing curious things, boast that they have acquired a certain principle of divining; it renews the rule already handed down on July 28, 1847: "Every error, sortilege, explicit or implicit invocation of the demon being removed, the use of magnetism, namely the mere act of applying physical means otherwise licit, is not morally forbidden." But scientific hypnotism is such.

2. From the Response of the same Congregation given on July 26, 1899, where it is said: experiments of hypnotism, if it is a question of facts about which it is doubted whether they go beyond the powers of nature, a protestation having been premised, are to be tolerated. Therefore the Holy Office implicitly acknowledges that there are given in hypnotism certain phenomena which do not certainly transcend the powers of nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

573. MODE OF REMOVING MALEFICE; PRACTICAL RULES.

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

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

2. Shepherds, blacksmiths, rustics who heal draught animals or cattle are to be questioned; likewise certain old women rightly suspected. "Besides various superstitions, they are to be examined: a) for what end they attached themselves to such superstition, for example whether by reason of vehement passion, sadness, vengeance, avarice, or of procuring the name of sanctity; which would be sacrilegious hypocrisy; b) concerning apostasy, idolatry, and heresy: for they deny Christ and God and renounce the sacraments; they hold the demon as God or a Saint, and do not think him damned or wretched, and consequently that his followers are not to be damned; c) concerning blasphemies against God and the Saints, and concerning sacrileges: for they abuse sacred things, as holy water, Eucharist, etc.; d) concerning lust and commingling with the demon; e) concerning harms inflicted upon neighbor (III, 28, resp. 1).

3. "They are to be admonished that they ARE BOUND: a) To abjure and dissolve an express pact, if they have one with the demon, or commerce with him. b) To burn their books, papers, bindings, and other instruments of the art. c) To burn the handwriting, if they have it; but if the demon alone has it, he is not necessarily to be compelled to return it, because the pact is sufficiently dissolved through repentance. d) To repair harms inflicted" (III, 28, resp. 2).

4. Especially, although prudently, the faithful are to be turned away from superstitions of whatever kind; for they are AS IT WERE SACRAMENTS OF THE DEVIL. Moreover, the Doctors note that to enter into society with the devil is a probable sign of eternal reprobation; because, just as conversation in this life with God and the angels through prayers, etc., belongs to the beginning of eternal happiness, so society and conversation with demons belongs to the beginning of damnation (Laymann, l. 4, tr. 10, c. 3, n. 4).

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

"Superstition," says St. Thomas,² "is a vice opposed to religion according to excess; not because it shows more in divine worship than true religion, but because it shows divine worship either to whom it ought not, or in the manner in which it ought not."

334. • Idolatry is an action by which worship owed to God alone is rendered to a creature; and this happens not only by sacrifice, but by any sign of honor by which someone intends to submit himself to a creature as to God, for example by genuflection.

Idolatry is distinguished as twofold, namely: 1° Material or simulated, when someone without internal affection, from grave fear, shows worship to an idol. It would also be called material if it proceeded from invincible error, for example if someone, falsely thinking a host to be consecrated, were to adore it. - In the first case it would be a mortal sin; in the second, none, as is clear.

2° Formal and proper, which is done 1° by adoring a creature as God; 2° by showing worship to a demon or another creature as if to God, or at least from the mind of obtaining something from such a creature which can be asked from God alone.³

335. • Vain observance is superstition which employs means neither proportioned nor instituted by God for obtaining a certain effect.

It is of three kinds, namely: 1° Notory art, or the art of acquiring knowledge without labor. 2° Art of healings, or the art of healing by various signs or sacred things. 3° Observance of events, by which from consideration of some fortuitous event it is conjectured that something favorable or unfavorable will be in the future.¹

Principles. - I. Vain observance is a grave sin, because it attributes divine honor to a creature, while it expects from it what must be expected from God alone; and because it rests upon an implicit pact with a demon. Yet it can often be venial from imperfection of the act, from simplicity, from some ignorance, or from timidity, as happens especially among the uneducated in the observance of events.²

II. Vain observance is discerned especially: 1° from the insufficiency of the cause for naturally producing the effect; 2° from the joining of a vain or false circumstance as if necessarily required; 3° from the infallibility which is attributed to means in no way infallible.³

III. In doubt whether effects proceed from a natural cause or from a demon, they can be attributed to the powers of nature; and therefore it is licit to procure them, because it is not established that the thing is evil. Yet Doctors counsel a previous protestation against any intervention of a demon. - But in doubt whether effects are produced by a demon or by God, if there is present a certain probability that they cannot proceed from a natural cause, they are to be attributed to the demon, unless the sanctity of the one working or other clear signs persuade the contrary, because it is rash to think that miracles are always occurring. Hence it is not then licit to try whether the effect is going to follow or not. - St. Alph.,¹ St. Thom.,² and others commonly.

336. You will resolve. - 1° Those are guilty of superstition who wear ligatures marked with certain characters; who invoke certain unknown names, or employ a certain number of crosses or prayers for healing wounds, for rendering themselves invulnerable, ... etc.²

2° Likewise those who wear certain prayers, expecting an effect altogether infallible from them. - Yet those are not to be blamed, indeed are very much to be praised, who wear pious medals, sacred images, or Relics of Saints, hoping that they will specially obtain divine help for themselves.³

3° Likewise those are guilty of superstition who regard certain days as favorable and others as unfavorable, so that they direct their actions from this; or who for expelling diseases require herbs gathered on such a feast, ... etc.⁴

4° But it is not superstitious to observe the moon or times more suitable for gathering herbs, cutting trees, etc.; ... nor to wear sacred things or words of Sacred Scripture for the honor of God or the Saints and for imploring their help. Likewise neither to recite a certain number of prayers, nor to do all those things which can increase devotion, provided that an infallible power is not attributed to them.⁵

5° Nor is it in any way superstitious, indeed it is very religious and pious, to recite novena prayers, or to repeat prayers so many times in worship of Our Lord, or of the Blessed Virgin, or of some Saint, provided that an infallible power is not attached to such a number, to a certain day, or to a fixed time.⁷

337. Definition. - Divination is the inquiry of hidden things by the help of a demon.

Division. It is 1° express, if it is done through the express invocation of a demon; 2° tacit, if that invocation is only in disproportionate means.

Various kinds of divination are distinguished, of which sort are especially: 1° Judicial Astrology from the stars; 2° Augury from the song or flight of birds; - 3° Auspice from the song of birds; - 4° Haruspicy from the entrails of animals; - 5° Chiromancy from the lines of the hand; - 6° Geomancy from signs in the earth; - 7° Omen from a fortuitous event; - 8° Necromancy from invocation of a dead person; - 9° Oneiromancy from dreams; - 10° Sortilege from lots; - 11° Oracle from idols; - 12° Vaticination from prophets or cards.¹

338. Principles. - I. Whatever of hidden things is known in another way than by revelation or by natural means must be attributed to divination; for no other means is given for investigating hidden things. - But in doubt whether knowledge arises from natural means or not, whether from a good or from a bad spirit, the rules set forth above concerning vain observance must be applied (n. 335, II).

II. Express divination can never be excused from mortal sin, not even through ignorance; for it is clear that a pact with a demon, or to invoke him, even without a pact, is something most gravely illicit.

This is clearly established from Sacred Scripture, Deut. 18. 10; Lev. 20. 6.

III. But tacit divination can sometimes be excused from mortal sin because of simplicity or ignorance, or because of defect of certain faith.²

339. You will resolve. - 1° He is not free from grave fault who, using disproportionate means for some knowledge, protests that he intends no commerce with a demon; for he acts against his protestation, and implicitly invokes the demon, since neither God nor the Angels mix themselves with such things. - Yet otherwise in doubt whether the effect is had from a natural cause, as was said concerning vain observance³ (n. 335, II).

2° Natural effects must be carefully distinguished from free effects; for the former can often be conjectured, as, for example, from the song and flight of birds, or from the aspect of the stars, one conjectures storm, rain, or serenity of the sky, etc.; for by experience it is established that there is a natural connection among these things. But one must speak otherwise of the latter.

3° Character or state of soul can sometimes in some way be conjectured from the color of the face or other external signs, although in practice for the most part one must abstain from such conjectures because of the danger of rash judgment. But free acts, whether past or future, can never be known with certainty.

4° Those sin gravely who inquire from diviners about their future fortune or life (in English: to consult fortune-tellers; card-cutting); unless they act from simplicity, jest, or from cause of curiosity, without giving faith to the things said.¹ - Yet if the diviner does this seriously, they can with difficulty be excused from gravely culpable cooperation.

340. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Is the use of lots ever licit?

Resp. 1° Dividing lots, by which it is discerned what is to be assigned to each in settling lawsuits or in distributing things, are certainly licit, since they are entirely free from all superstition.

Resp. 2° Consultory lots, by which the divine will is investigated so that it may be known what is to be done, are not licit unless they are made by a special impulse of God, or there is question of a grave affair in which another counsel is lacking. The reason is that, according to ordinary providence, God does not will that inquiry be made in this way about His will, but recourse must be had to prudent men or ecclesiastical Superiors.

Resp. 3° Divinatory lots, by which the manifestation of a hidden thing is sought, for example from the casting of dice, etc., ... are always gravely illicit, as containing at least tacit invocation of a demon. Superstition of this sort is properly called sortilege, by which name also other kinds of superstitions commonly come.²

341. • Quaer. 2° Is it licit to conjecture future things from dreams?

Resp. Negatively, ordinarily, because dreams almost always proceed from natural causes, for example from the stirring of humors, etc. ... Besides, dreams sent by God are very rare, and are joined with signs through which they can be certainly discerned from natural or diabolical dreams.³

Quaer. 3° Is the use of a divining rod licit?

Resp. 1° Certainly it is to be condemned as often as the rod is moved or not moved according to the mere intention of him who holds it in his hand, and is not moved in the presence of another thing not sought, although of the same nature. For there is no proportion between a natural thing and the intention of man. Hence those sin gravely who use a rod for seeking a thief, or for detecting the stone marking the boundary of a field.¹

Resp. 2° To some the use of the rod for detecting waters or metals does not seem certainly to be condemned, if the rod is moved over these things in every case equally, whether they are sought or not. Yet a protestation against diabolical operation, which perhaps can be present, will prudently be made, and every superstitious spirit must be excluded.³

342. • Quaer. 4° Is Magnetism licit?

Preliminary note. A threefold principal effect or degree is attributed to Magnetism: a) the state of sleep, by which the senses are lulled, as in natural sleep, but often so that "neither the greatest crash reaches the ears of the one lulled, nor can any violence of iron or fire excite him." Thus the Postulate of the Bishop of Lausanne, 19 May 1841; b) the state of somnambulism, in which someone, although he is altogether destitute of the use of the senses, nevertheless sees, hears, speaks, and responds to all things about which he is interrogated; c) the state of clear intuition, or wonderful knowledge of one's own or another's state, and of remedies suitable to illnesses, as well as vision of the actions of other men, even far distant, and of all things which are done both near and far.

Resp. Theologians formerly went off into three opinions, of which the first ascribes all, the second none, the third some of its effects to the devil. This third opinion can no longer be approved practically, and the first seems altogether to have to be admitted. For the simple will, or intention of the magnetizer, or even the consent of the magnetized person joined to this will, is declared to be either the sole or certainly the primary cause of all and individual of these three effects; but this cause is altogether disproportionate to individual effects. For that cause cannot be called proportionate: 1) the will with its immanent acts, because the whole power of an immanent act is consumed in the will itself, and does not pass over to an effect extrinsic to itself; nor 2) the will using the ministry of another power, because thus it is circumscribed by the faculty of that other power, so that the effect cannot exceed the faculty itself of this other power. (In what way, for example, will a Magnetizer who endeavors to know some matter which he is ignorant of be able to transmit knowledge of this thing into the magnetized person?) - nor 3) a fluid, because between a spiritual and a material substance there is no medium. Therefore these words of the Encyclical of the Holy Congregation of the Inquisition, dated 4 Aug. 1856 (see p. XLIX), can be applied to each degree: "In all these things, whatever art or illusion" (namely the magnetizers) "may use, since physical means are ordered to non-natural effects" (of which sort is also sleep, as described above), "there is found deception altogether illicit and heretical, and" (which ordinarily is present in the manner of magnetizing) "scandal against uprightness of morals." Wherefore we think that one must altogether subscribe to these words of the illustrious Perrone:¹ "Although not a few Catholics have judged and still judge that in general the use itself of magnetism was proscribed and eliminated by the Church, yet there are not lacking those, and learned and pious ones, who deny this. Nevertheless we are persuaded that, if not theoretically, yet practically, magnetism of this sort was and is disapproved by the same Apostolic See."

Nor does the declaration of the same Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, 28 July 1847, stand in the way: "With every error, sortilege, explicit or implicit invocation of a demon removed, the use of Magnetism, namely the mere act of employing physical means otherwise licit, is not morally forbidden." For the Sacred Congregation, as consultants of the same Holy Congregation have often holily testified, never instituted any examination about the physical question of this magnetism.

Hence precisely it will not be licit to consult magnetizers even about the nature of illnesses, so that it may be discerned what cure is to be applied to them. For unless, as we saw in n. 335. III, there is present a certain probability that certain effects proceed from a natural cause, it is not licit, not even with protestation against any intervention of a demon, to employ means even only doubtfully superstitious; but the effects of magnetism, far from being certainly or probably to be said to proceed from a natural cause, rather are to be attributed to a demon according to things commonly happening. Therefore practically, etc. - It is added that, as will soon be said, it cannot be asked from a magician that he remove a spell unless it can reasonably be presumed that he knows natural means for this. Therefore likewise remedies for illness must not be sought from magnetism unless it can reasonably be presumed that they are to be known in a natural way; but certainly the contrary must be presumed. Therefore. Cf. Capellm. p. 37 sqq.

Quaer. 5° What about Spiritism?

Resp. It is certain today that turning or knocking tables and the other means which Spiritism uses are partly deceitful tricks, partly diabolical superstitions,¹ and therefore that it is illicit either to try the operations of Spiritism, or to approve them, or to favor them in any way, for example by being present.

343. I. - Magic, taken broadly, or natural or artificial magic, which is called white magic, is the art of doing wonderful things, at least apparently, through natural causes or the industry of man, without any ministry of a demon.

Magic, strictly said, is the art of doing wonderful things which, although they are not supernatural, nevertheless surpass the powers of man, and therefore can happen by the help of a demon alone, explicitly or implicitly invoked.

II. Malefice is the art of harming with the intervention of a demon. It is distinguished as twofold, namely amatory and venomous. Amatory malefice, or a love potion, is a diabolical art by which lubricous love or hatred in some person toward another is vehemently excited, by changing the imagination and exciting it more vividly, by showing more beautiful appearances, and by moving libidinous humors. Venomous malefice is precisely the art of harming the neighbor by the help of a demon, and this in various ways, for example by illnesses, stupidity, etc.²

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

344. You will resolve. - 1° Magic does not differ from vain observance except in that its effects are more wonderful, for example the changing of bodies, etc. But in moral species it differs neither from vain observance nor from divination; because it matters little whether knowledge of hidden things or wonderful effects are sought from a demon.

2° But malefice differs in species from other superstitions, because beyond the sin opposed to Religion it adds damage to the neighbor.

3° Amatory malefice does not induce one necessarily to perpetrating a sin of luxury, because it does not remove liberty, but only vehemently excites to lust toward some determined person, by changing the imagination and exciting it more vividly, by presenting more beautiful appearances, and by moving libidinous humors.¹

Quaer. Can it be asked from a magician that he remove a malefice?

Resp. Negatively, unless it can reasonably be presumed that he knows natural means for this. - Thus commonly Theologians.² Cf. n. 319.

501. Notion. Superstition⁷³⁸ is "a vice rendering divine worship either to one to whom it ought not, or in a manner in which it ought not." Thus St. Thomas.⁷³⁹ This definition indeed becomes clearer if one attends to the diverse species of superstition.

There are two species of superstition, which, however, again admit several subdivisions.

1. The first species of superstition is the undue worship of the true Divinity, or God. In this superstition, therefore, the true God is indeed worshiped, but with a worship and in a manner unsuitable and contrary to the custom and law of the Church. This species of superstition is carried out in two ways, namely, a) through false or pernicious worship; b) through superfluous worship.

a) False worship of the true God can be carried out in diverse ways, for example, if someone wishes to worship God with Jewish ceremonies which signify Christ as still to come, such as by eating the paschal lamb, circumcision, etc.; if someone who is not a priest presumes to celebrate Mass or absolve from sins; if someone proposes false miracles or false revelations to confirm the faith; if someone exhibits false relics for the veneration of the faithful. This superstition of false worship is from its genus a grave sin, because it inflicts a grave injury and irreverence upon God, the First Truth; but it admits slightness of matter. Thus, for example, a preacher who knowingly narrates certain exaggerations in a miraculous story, or even one who invents an entire story in order to move the people more strongly toward a good work, sins only venially, both because this does not greatly prejudice true religion, at least if the falsity is not discovered, and because the falsity itself is not employed immediately for worshiping God.⁷⁴⁰ Nevertheless, such narratives (which are sometimes called pious lies) are to be avoided altogether, since it is utterly unbecoming that a preacher of truth should lie even in a small matter.

b) Superfluous worship of the true God is that which is not suited to the end of religion. Now the end of religion is that man give glory to God, to whom he subjects himself in mind and body. Hence, "if there is something which, so far as it is in itself, does not pertain to the glory of God, nor to this, that the mind of man be borne toward God, or that the concupiscence of the flesh be moderately restrained; or even if it is outside the institution of God and the Church, or contrary to common custom, ... all this is to be accounted superfluous and superstitious, because, consisting only in externals, it does not pertain to the interior worship of God."⁷⁴¹ Such superfluous worship is, for example, to wish to pray with a fixed number, arrangement, or color of candles; to wish to hear the Mass of a certain priest who is named Peter; and six hundred other modes of vain worship.⁷⁴² The superstition of superfluous worship is from its genus a venial sin, because the matter is light and the action is not evil in itself. The good faith and simplicity of the agent sometimes excuse altogether from every sin; on the contrary, because of scandal, contempt of the Church, or the agent's evil intention, this superstition can become a mortal sin. Those modes of worshiping God which are approved by the Church, however, such as novena devotions, tridua, Gregorian Masses, etc., are free from every stain of superstition.

2. The second species of superstition is the worship of a false divinity, or divine worship rendered to some creature and especially to the devil. It is subdivided into three species, namely, idolatry, divination, and vain observance, to which magic and malefice are reduced. Each of these must now be treated individually.

⁷³⁸ Aberglaube, δεισιδαιμονία. Authors do not agree concerning the etymology of the word superstition. Some derive this name from superstare, because superstition stands above or outside true worship; others think that this name is taken from the word superstes, because superstition is a surviving part of paganism. Cf. Wirthmüller, Die moralische Tugend der Religion § 87.

⁷³⁹ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 92, a. 1.

⁷⁴⁰ Thus Noldin, De praeceptis n. 149.

⁷⁴¹ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 93, a. 2.

⁷⁴² Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 22, De observandis et evitandis in celebratione Missae; cf. also the constitution Officiorum ac munerum of Leo XIII, n. 13.

S. Th. II-II, q. 92.

770. Superstition (bijgeloovigheid) is said from that which stands over, and therefore etymologically signifies every excess; but chiefly in the most excellent matter, namely, religion. Whence it is religion observed beyond measure. It is opposed to religion by excess, not indeed according to quantity, as if it exhibited more in divine worship than true religion, or as if God could be worshiped sufficiently or too much, or with greater honor than He is worthy of, for however much man worships, it is less than is owed to Him; but according to the object of worship or the mode of worshiping, and therefore it is defined: a vice exhibiting divine worship either to one to whom it ought not, or in a mode in which it ought not (a. 1).

This consequently contains two species: for divine worship can be exhibited 1. to Him to whom it is to be exhibited, namely, the true God, but in an undue mode, and this is undue worship of the true God; or 2. it can be exhibited to him to whom it ought not, namely, to a creature, and then it is worship of an undue thing. This in turn is threefold in species: for divine worship is directly ordered a) to exhibiting reverence to God (by sacrifice, vow, oblation), and therefore the first species of worship of a false deity is idolatry, which exhibits divine reverence to a creature; it is directly ordered b) to this, that man be instructed by God (by prayer, meditation, reading), and therefore the second species is divination, which seeks instruction from a demon; it is directly ordered c) to the direction of human acts (by sacraments, blessings, feasts) according to the institutions of God, and therefore the third species is vain observance, which seeks direction and assistance from a demon for obtaining certain effects, to which magic is reduced, by which someone seeks marvelous things (a. 2).

Superstition, according to St. Thomas, is a vice opposed to religion according to excess, not because it exhibits more for divine worship than true religion, but because it exhibits divine worship either to one to whom it is not owed, or in a manner in which it is not owed. Wherefore a twofold superstition must be distinguished: one by reason of mode, and the other by reason of object. Again by reason of mode it is distinguished according as the worship which is furnished to the true God is either false, as it would be to observe ceremonies of the old law which signified Christ to come, or superfluous, as it would be, for example, to hear Mass before sunrise with a certain number, position, or order of candles, or of a priest who has the age of Christ dying. Yet the Doctors attend more to superstition by reason of object, which can be committed in many ways, as will be clear from the following. - Cf. St. Thom. 2-2, q. 92, art. 1. - St. Alphonsus, n. 3.

I. In resolving all the cases we are about to discuss, this must always be kept before our eyes: that superstition occurs in some action whenever a cause is employed to produce an effect which it can, by no means whatsoever — neither by its own power nor by divine institution — actually influence. The connection between the cause and the effect must therefore be examined; and where none appears, but the two are altogether unrelated, there the crime of superstition creeps in. For the sake of clarity, I will append a few examples to confirm this teaching.

II. Guilty of superstition are those who ring a bell at a pregnant woman's waist, so that her delivery may go well — since no connection at all exists between this cause and that effect. Superstitious too is the casting of some Saint's image into a river, or hanging it upon the riverbank, to obtain rain, for the reason already given. There would, however, be no superstition if a sacred object were cast into a river or into fire in the hope that God, through that Saint's intercession, might be moved to extinguish the fire, or to keep a swollen river within its banks. Superstitious, likewise, are the prayers by which witches bless rosaries for women in labor. It is likewise superstition to recite certain fixed verses of some psalm to stop dogs from barking, to check a flow of blood, or to cure some other ailment, with a vain confidence in an infallible outcome — unless one recites them devoutly, imploring divine aid. Superstitious equally are the words that are customarily whispered into horses' ears to expel intestinal pains.

III. Those who fast on bread and water on the feast of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, with the fixed conviction that, even if struck by grave illness that year, they will not die — do not sin, provided they do not place excessive trust in such prayers, but rather also offer prayers to God to be delivered from a sudden death; in this they commit no fault at all, but rather render worship to God and perform a good work.

IV. It is a manifest superstition to observe certain days, months, or seasons as fortunate or unfortunate, as the Apostle says (Gal. 4): "You observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have labored in vain among you." That such observance of days is indeed superstitious is sufficiently clear from experience: for among the Hebrews, Monday is held unlucky, because they believe Cain was born on that day; among the Athenians, Tuesday is unlucky; among the Medes, Wednesday; among the Phrygians, Thursday; among the Trojans, Friday; among the Persians, Saturday — while each of these very days is held lucky among other nations. The same days, then, are both lucky and unlucky. All days are of the same nature, and it is by our own idleness or industry that they turn out well or ill for us. What of those who observe the feast-days of the Conversion of St. Paul, of St. Urban, and of St. Vincent, to divine the outcome of the coming year? All this is expressed in the well-known verses: "A clear day of Paul betokens a good season of the year; if there be snow or rain, it points to a dear season; if there be winds, they portend war among the people; if there be mists, the flocks will perish." The more common opinion teaches that no superstition is contained in these verses, and that those who observe them are not superstitious — provided they do not presume to draw any certain conclusion from such observance. For these are but idle popular observations, deserving no attention at all, but rather to be wholly disregarded. For what has the feast of Paul, or of Urban, to do with the other days of the year? Yet such conjunctions of the stars can indeed occur at these times, making the sky cloudy or clear.

V. The observance of the days called "critical" involves no superstition, since it rests on natural causes. Physicians call "critical" those days on which they are accustomed to form a judgment about the nature of a disease — namely, the fifth, seventh, and eleventh. If a fever worsens on these days, they predict death; if it abates, recovery. It would, however, be superstitious if these days were observed for the purpose of obtaining an inheritance.

VI. The observation of the days of the moon, for the preservation of natural things, is entirely free of superstition — contrary to what certain modern philosophers contend. Nor indeed is it vain, since experience confirms that timber cut on a certain phase of the moon is more quickly eaten away, while that cut on another day remains sound. Many other effects could be recorded, were they not all so well attested. These same philosophers admit these effects, but attribute them to other causes. I recall once reading in a certain pamphlet that plague is in no way contracted by contact, and that it is a vain precaution to separate the healthy from those infected with the plague; I judged that this author deserved nothing but to be placed among plague-victims himself, so that he might confirm, at the risk of his own body, the doctrine he had spread to the ruin of others. A similar refutation is deserved by those who deny that the moon has any influence at all upon things here below.

VII. Likewise lawful is the observance of the dog-days for the reduction of blood [by bleeding], and of the climacteric years — since the human body undergoes a particular change at these times, as physicians maintain. The observance of these years is therefore not superstitious, since it rests on natural causes. The "climacteric years" are certain sets of seven years, during which — as some hold — the body may perhaps undergo some vain and empty change. This much, in my own opinion, may be true.

VIII. It is superstitious to gather herbs on the feast of St. John the Baptist, if this is done out of the conviction that the herbs will have greater power and efficacy for being gathered on that day. If, however, it is merely believed that herbs gathered at that time of year have a stronger effect, without ascribing this to the sanctity of the day, there will be no superstition. It is more advisable, however, for a preacher to caution the common people against such credulity. The same must be said of dew gathered on that same feast of St. John the Baptist. It is likewise a superstitious delusion for women to believe that eggs laid by a hen on Good Friday possess a particular power to extinguish fire when thrown into it; or that vegetables touched on certain days with a broom, or spun on a Saturday, are preserved from worms. It likewise smacks of superstition to refuse to cut one's nails on a Friday, or to cut down a tree on the feast of St. John the Baptist; or to make a ring from coins offered to a Crucifix on Good Friday, so that a child afflicted with a wasting disease of the limbs might pass through it three times to regain health.

IX. Those invited to a banquet who refuse to sit down at table if there are thirteen at the gathering, fearing that one of the company will die that year, are guilty of superstition — since this odd number can in no way have any bearing on death. What, then? Are we to condemn such observers of vain omens for mortal fault? If they acted from some vain fear, led on by popular rumor, without any firm conviction that the event would actually occur, then ignorance would excuse them from grave fault — especially if the diners are simple, uneducated people. But if they were persons of standing, under a particular obligation to root out such vain observances, I would scarcely excuse them from the offense.

X. Guilty of superstition are those who treat with medicines the very sword by which someone was wounded, so that the wounded man may recover his health; likewise those who use a thread hung from the fingers, from which a ring is suspended within a glass vessel or jar, to strike and count the hours; and those who firmly believe that some evil is impending for them because they hear birds chattering, wolves howling, or oxen lowing. There is, however, no superstition — or at least none that is grave — if someone, moved by popular rumor and only a slight fear, took precautions against such events, without any firm conviction, but merely indulging a certain innate tendency to nervousness.

XI. Superstitious are certain fixed prayers which some are accustomed to offer with the express purpose, and firm conviction, that the Blessed Virgin will appear to them at the moment of death — both because such a request is a rash presumption, and because a demon is capable of transforming himself into an Angel of light, and, under the appearance of Christ the Lord or his Mother, of deceiving them. Those who charm cattle by the utterance of certain fixed words, to protect them from wolves, likewise commit a manifest superstition — since such an outcome cannot occur except through the art of a demon.

I. Question I. What, and of how many kinds, is superstition? Answer. Superstition is a vice opposed to Religion by way of excess — not because it shows more toward the divine worship than true Religion, but because it shows divine worship either to that to which it should not, or in a manner in which it should not, as St. Thomas says, II-II, q. 92, art. 5.

II. First, it is divided into two species. The one worships God in an undue manner; the other attributes to a creature the worship owed to God. The first superstition is divided into other superstitions. The first consists in this, that a false, or pernicious, worship is attributed to God — as if someone should now worship God with the ceremonies of the Jews, or if someone should intend to confirm the catholic Religion with false miracles, or should mix shameful things with the divine offices. The other species of superstition, on the part of the undue manner of worshipping God, is when superfluous worship is attributed to God — as if someone should establish, at his own pleasure, certain manners of praying, such as wishing to pray only after sunset, or only after sunrise; or to hear Mass only of a Priest called Anthony, and no other name; or with just so many candles, no more and no fewer; or of this color, and no other; or if, neglecting the ceremonies prescribed by the Church, he should invent others for himself at his own pleasure — he would be guilty of superstition.

III. The second species of superstition, on the part of the thing worshipped, is when worship is shown to that to which it ought not to be shown — as if worship instituted for divine reverence be attributed to any creature whatever; then it is called idolatry. If, God being spurned, someone consults demons, some pact being entered into either expressly or tacitly, there is had, on the part of the thing worshipped, another species of superstition, which is called divination. The third species of superstition, on the part of the object worshipped, is when the divine worship, which is ordered to the direction of human acts according to the institutions of God, who is worshipped, is offered to the demon, from whom help is sought, and is called vain observance.

IV. Superstition on the part of the manner of worshipping God, by showing him false worship, is by its nature a grave sin. Likewise it is a sin to mix profane and shameful things with divine worship. A most grave crime too is perpetrated by those who preach fictitious miracles, and propose false relics to be adored.

V. Several cases occur in which superstition lurks. 1. Guilty of superstition are those who ring a bell with a pregnant woman's belt, that the delivery may turn out prosperous — as are those who throw an image of a Saint into a river, or hang it on the riverbank, that they may obtain rain, since there is no connection given between cause and effect. It is otherwise if a sacred object were thrown into a river or fire in the hope that, by that Saint's intercession, God might be moved to extinguish the fire, or to check the flooding waters. 2. Superstitious are the prayers by which witches bless Rosaries for women in labor; similarly, to recite certain fixed verses of some Psalm to check a dog's barking, or to stop a flow of blood, or another disease, with a vain credulity of a certain outcome, savors of superstition; it is otherwise if someone recites prayers to implore divine help. 3. Superstitious are the words that are breathed into horses' ears to expel intestinal pains. 4. Superstitious is the gathering of herbs on the day of St. John the Baptist, if it is done with the credulity that these herbs are reckoned to have more virtue because they were gathered on the day of such a Saint. 5. It is superstition to refuse to sit at table if there are thirteen, with the persuasion that one of them will die within that year; and to refuse to cut one's nails on a Friday. 6. Guilty of superstition are those who anoint and treat with medicaments the sword with which they wounded an enemy, that the wounded man may recover his health; likewise those who use a thread hung from the fingers, from which hangs a ring inside a glass vessel or jar, for striking and distinguishing the hours. Finally, the general rule is: when there is no connection between cause and effect, then such actions are at the very least suspect of superstition.

VI. Question II. What is idolatry, and in how many ways is it perpetrated? Answer. It is divine worship shown to a creature, not as it is an image of God, but as it is a creature. There are five ways of perpetrating idolatry: 1. the adoration of simulacra; 2. the adoration of creatures, for instance of the sky, the earth, etc.; 3. the adoration of dead men; 4. the adoration of demons; 5. the adoration of the world, as though animate. The crime of idolatry is most grave.

VII. Question III. What, and of how many kinds, is divination? Answer. Divination is the foretelling of future things. Future things can be foreknown in one way in their causes, in another way in themselves. Of causes, some are natural and necessary, which necessarily produce effects. He who knows these causes cannot be ignorant of the effects. Other causes produce effects not necessarily, but probably, or for the most part. These effects can only be foreknown by probable conjecture. The contingent effects of free causes are known by God alone. The prediction of future things from divine revelation is called prophecy. The prediction of future things by force of natural causes is called natural divination. The prediction of future things which is made neither by force of natural causes, nor by God revealing, but by the help of the demon alone, is properly divination, which constitutes a species of superstition, and is defined as the foreknowledge of future things by the help of the demon. Demons know all the effects that necessarily depend upon natural causes; those that do not necessarily depend upon them they can only conjecture. But they can in no way know what depends upon the sole will of God, or the free choice of man. Yet because in man the order of liberty is in some way connected with natural causes, demons are wont to predict conjecturally some things that pertain to free causes. Demons instruct their diviners in various ways: namely either with express words, or by producing words in the air, and sometimes with the voice of animals. Similarly diviners sometimes expressly invoke demons, renouncing Religion; sometimes they invoke the demon with certain formulas prescribed by that same demon. In both ways the pact is express. The pact is implicit when someone tries to know things that flee the keenness of the human mind, and uses vain, incongruous means forbidden by God, even though he does not wish help to be brought him by the demon: since, by the very fact that he applies the aforesaid vain and insane things, he wills in very deed to be taught by the demon. For the demon of himself mixes himself into such vain signs and chimerical observations, beyond the man's intention. All these things pertain to the implicit pact.

VIII. St. Thomas recounts various species of divination, II-II, q. 95, art. 3, which are made by an express pact. 1. There is prestige, accomplished by certain apparitions: for by these specters the eyes of men are struck. 2. It is done through dreams, and is called the divination of dreams. 3. It is through the apparition of some dead person, and is called necromancy. 4. It foretells future things through living men, and is called divination through pythons. 5. It uses iron, wood, stone, and other inanimate things, and is called geomancy. 6. It uses water, and is called hydromancy. 7. It uses air, and is called aeromancy. 8. It applies fire, and is called pyromancy. 9. It foretells future things through the entrails of animals sacrificed to demons, and is called haruspicy.

IX. Divination which is made without an express invocation of the demon...

*is divided into two kinds. The first kind foreknows future things in causes altogether disparate, and is divided into six species. 1. There is genethlialogy, which pertains to astrologers called genethliac, who from the movement of the stars predict the births of men and their outcomes. 2. There is augury, which is done from the chattering of birds. 3. Auspice, by which future things are predicted from the flight of birds, or from the movement of other animals. 4. It is called an omen, and is a prediction from words of men uttered without intention. 5. There is chiromancy, from the lines of the hands. 6. It is called spatulamancy, when divination is made from certain signs appearing in the shoulder-blades of animals.

X. To the second kind of divination without express invocation of the demon pertain two other species: through the consideration of figures. The first is geomancy, which foretells future things from the drawing of points. The other is called through figures which arise from lead melted and thrown into water, or from certain slips of paper written and hidden secretly, or from unequal straws set out, or from the throwing of dice — all of which go under the name of "lots."

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

XII. Question IV. What is judicial astrology? Answer. It is divination through the stars; and the Theologians distinguish a twofold kind. One natural, by which men, from the position, rising, movement, and setting of the stars, foretell things that happen naturally, such as rains, storms, eclipses. That this is licit no one denies. Yet this astrology can only predict effects that necessarily follow. For if the discourse be of storms, of drought, of rain, of fair weather, this astrology is for the most part vain, on account of the unknown force of the stars, and on account of the obstacles of winds and vapors, which often impede the influences of the stars. The Ephemerides, which come out each year, and which bewitch the unlearned and empty their purses, show by experience the fallacy of their predictions.

XIII. The other is judicial astrology, by which men, from the movement of the stars, the aspect of the planets, and the course of the heavenly bodies, divine certain future things — namely contingent and fortuitous events depending upon liberty alone. And this is fourfold. 1. That which from the aspect of the stars foretells the sterility of the earth, the abundance of goods, the diseases and deaths of men. This is superstitious, if such things are predicted not as certain, but only as conjectural. 2. There is the genethliac, which foretells the dignities and grades of men. 3. There is that of elections, by which in every business it is divined what is to be done, what to be omitted, when one should go out of doors, that fortunate outcomes may correspond. 4. There is that of fabricated images, by which astrologers make figures, numbers, and characters, and compare them with the figures which they fancy are found in the sky, and from the comparison and mutual sympathy predict future events.

XIV. That these last three divinations are superstitious and forbidden, all Catholics affirm. To predict future free things even probably is a sin: because probable assent is determinate. Nor can astrologers predict future free things even conjecturally.

XV. Diviners are bound to restore the price received, for the reason that they predicted future contingent free things. Too lax is the opinion which Fr. Sanchez defends, book 2 on the Decalogue, chapter 38, number 96, saying: "But if that astrologer or diviner applied his labor, and by the devil's art the thing so came to pass, he is not bound to restore the price, because he applied his labor, even though shameful," etc. The diabolical art, then, is to be valued at a price!

XVI. Question V. Is it licit to divine future free things through dreams? Answer. All deny it, because future free things depend upon the will alone. Physicians licitly observe dreams which proceed from natural causes, that they may search out the causes of diseases from the abundance of humors, from the quality of the temperament. He who from dreams he has had takes occasion sometimes to moderate his morals, without placing faith in them, commits no superstition. Care must nevertheless be taken lest this happen frequently, because then there would be danger at least of superstition. Extremes are to be avoided.

XVII. Question VI. Is it licit to predict future things from the song, flight, and movement of birds? Answer. That natural effects can be gathered from this without the mark of superstition, all affirm. For the song and flight of birds are sometimes signs of natural effects. But it is manifest superstition to predict future contingent free things from the aforesaid signs of birds and of any animals whatever.

XVIII. Superstitious too is the prediction of future contingent things from human voices uttered by chance, or from the members of men. There are three, namely the head, the hands, and the feet, which astrologers are wont to observe. Prediction from the observation of the lines of the hand is called chiromancy; that from the lines of the feet, podomancy; that from the quality of the forehead and countenance, metoposcopy; that from the whole body is called physiognomy. To divine future contingent free things from all these is superstitious. It is otherwise if from the aforesaid someone should conjecture, by mere natural astrology, temperament, health, diseases. Wherefore those sin gravely who place faith in Egyptians, commonly called Gypsies.

XIX. Question VII. Is the use of lots licit in the election to ecclesiastical benefices or secular dignities? Answer. There is a threefold lot: divisory, consultative, divinatory. Divisory lots are licit, since they are nothing else than a mutual pact by which men agree that, from the outcome of the lots, it be decided to whom honor, dignity, or property is owed. Wherefore lay dignities, when merits are equal, can licitly be conferred by lots; not so ecclesiastical benefices, because this is guarded against in the chapter Ecclesia, extra, On lot-casting. Yet this election to ecclesiastical benefices by lots is illicit only, not invalid. But the election of a Prelate of the Church, who has jurisdiction both in criminal and in civil matters, made by the ministry of lots, is null: because this is so determined in the chapter Quia propter, On elections. It is similarly licit to settle lawsuits about temporal goods by force of lots; not so lawsuits about elections to ecclesiastical benefices, unless this be done by public authority to declare an obscure matter.

XX. Question VIII. Is consultative lot-casting licit? Answer. There is a twofold cause of consultative lot-casting, namely God, or the demon. If the outcome of consultative lot-casting is awaited from the demon, it is called divinatory lot-casting, which is superstitious. If the knowledge of a future event is implored from God, it is licit, as is established by many testimonies of divine Scripture, the conditions of urgent necessity, obedience to God, and the exclusion of anything profane being kept.

XXI. Question IX. What, and of how many kinds, is vain observance? Answer. Vain observance is a superstition which uses vain and inept instruments to produce some exterior effect. This is threefold: 1. notorial; 2. observance of health; 3. observance of future events. The notorial is both illicit and vain, because it uses inept means for acquiring knowledge, as St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 96; and so it needs the help of the demon, and an implicit pact intervenes with the demon. The healing art, or observance of health, similarly applies disparate means — namely ceremonies, astronomical images, arbitrary prayers for curing diseases, no hope being had in God; and therefore it is full of superstition. For if sacred images and the relics of Saints are applied to the sick, and prayers are recited to implore divine aid, any vain observance being excluded, then the matter is not only licit, but even commendable.

XXII. It is a superstitious thing to utter sacred words for...

moving a ring hanging from a thread, because these words have no virtue for producing such a movement. Wherefore if movement occurs, it is from the demon. Superstition is also committed by those who wear hung about the neck amulets, or ligatures of remedies, which are by their own nature inept for driving away diseases.

XXIII. Observance of future events is the prediction of prosperous or adverse fortune from signs altogether vain for foreknowing such things — as if someone should observe days, times, chance meetings with men, and things of that kind, and be moved by these to do or omit something as ill-omened. St. Augustine, book 2 On Christian Doctrine, recounts several species of this kind of superstition.

I shall now treat of the sins and vices opposed to Religion, which indeed on both sides lie at the extremes, whether by excess or by defect; in excess the first place is occupied by Superstition: For since, according to the saying of Tertullian, the Daemon presents himself as the Ape of Divine worship, he strives above all that men, under the appearance of piety, should abuse the Most Sacred names, rites, and mysteries in his own worship; whence the sense of true Religion will often degenerate into the most wicked abominations, and he strives to take all creatures into the ministry of wickedness. Hence have arisen several species of superstitions, which I shall run through in order below.

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

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

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

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

1. What is divination and wherein lies its malice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. What is to be said of the case?

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

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

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

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

2 Vol. xiii, p. 243.

3 Vol. xv, pp. 310, 311.

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

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.

1. Superstition is the abuse of religion. It is superstition, either to worship false gods, or to worship the true God with unauthorized rites, or to have dealings with wicked spirits, whether those spirits have once animated human bodies or not. Of the first head, the only avowed instance within our civilization is the Positivist worship of the Great Being, that is, of the collective Worthies of Humanity, if indeed it amounts to worship. The second head might have been meditated by Archbishop Cranmer with advantage, when he was drawing up the Edwardine Ordinal. Under the third head comes Spiritualism, which we shall here not discuss in detail, but merely indicate certain principles upon which it must be judged.

2. "There is nothing superstitious or unlawful in simply applying natural agencies to the production of certain effects, of which they are supposed to be naturally capable…. We must consider whether there is a fair appearance of the cause being able to produce the effect naturally. If there is, the experiment will not be unlawful: for it is lawful to use natural causes in order to their proper effects." (2a 2æ, q. 96, art. 2, in corp., ad 1.) But this we must understand under two provisos. First, that the "fair appearance" spoken of be not opposed by a considerable force of evidence, whether of authority or of reason, tending the other way: for in this matter, which is not a mere matter of legality, it is not permissible to run risks of becoming familiar with God's enemies. Secondly, that the cause, though natural, be not morally prejudicial. Not even a natural cause, brandy for instance, may be used to all its effects. Thus for the mesmeric sleep, though that should be proved to be purely natural, yet the weakening of the will thence ensuing, and the almost irresistible dominion acquired by the operator over his patient, render it imperative that such a remedy should not be applied without grave necessity, and under an operator of assured moral character.

3. St. Thomas continues in the place last quoted: "Wherefore, if there is no fair appearance of the causes employed being able to produce such effects, it needs must be that they are not employed to the causation of these effects as causes, but only as signs, and thus they come under the category of preconcerted signals arranged with evil spirits."

The modern Spiritualist is only too forward to avow his understanding with the unseen powers; but he will have it that the spirits that he deals with are good and harmless. We must prove the spirits by the general effects of their communications—whether they be in accordance with the known laws of morality, and the assured teachings of religion, natural and revealed. Also we must consider, from what we know from approved sources concerning God, and His holy angels, and the spirits of the just, either already made perfect, or still suffering for a time, whether they are likely to respond to such signs as Spiritualists commonly employ. Also we must not ignore, what revelation tells us, of an "enemy," a "father of lies," who "changes himself into an angel of light," and who is ever ready, so far as it is permitted him, to eke out curiosity, folly, and credulity, such as he found in Eve.

Readings.—St. Thos., 2a 2æ, q. 93; ib., q. 95, art. 4, in corp.

P. Lodiel, S.J., published, in the Etudes des Péres Jesuites (Oct. 5, 1900, p. 49), a very interesting treatise on telepathy. The author states first of all that in recent times telepathy has again received much attention, and refers for France to the Annales des Sciences Psychiques, for Italy to the Civilta Cattolica, for England to the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, etc. The most important work on telepathy is that by Gurney, Myers and Rodmore (Phantasms of the Living), which appeared in London in 1890. Scholars of various philosophical and religious views are of the opinion that the phenomena recorded in this work, probed most thoroughly and confirmed by reliable witnesses, can not be doubted. Of the many phenomena there recorded we can, for lack of space, only quote a few.

In the year 1855 Captain Colt, whose brother Oliver took then part in the siege of Sebastopol, had the following apparition: “In the night of September 9,” so Colt relates, “I was suddenly awakened, and beheld by the window of my room, quite close to my bed, my brother in a kneeling posture. I thought at first it was an illusion, caused perhaps by moonlight. But as I glanced at my brother again I saw that he was looking at me with a loving, yet sad and imploring expression in his eyes. Thereupon I arose and stepped to the window to investigate. I convinced myself that there was no trace of moonlight, on the contrary it was quite dark and rain lashed the windows. I turned around and had my brother again before me, looking sad and imploring help. I noticed then a wound in his right temple, whence blood flowed copiously. His face was pale as wax. It was a vision,” says Mr. Colt, “which I shall never forget to the end of my days.” A fortnight later news came from the Crimea that in an assault Oliver Colt was struck by a bullet in the right temple; thirty-six hours after his fall he had been discovered among a heap of corpses, in a kneeling posture.

A similar occurrence was reported during the Mexican war. One morning the mother of a young officer was seen to weep bitterly. When asked the reason of her grief she said: “Alas! I am to lose my son. This morning, as I greeted his portrait, as was my daily custom, I saw that one of his eyes had been shot out and blood was streaming over his whole face.” Soon after they were informed of this officer’s death. He had fallen at the siege of Puebla, shot in the left eye, at the very time that his mother had had the apparition.

Still more remarkable is the following occurrence: Young Philip Weld was a pupil at St. Edmund’s College, near Ware. He was a well behaved, good boy, and for this reason greatly beloved by his teachers and fellow students. On April 16, 1845, in vacation time, some of the boys went for a row on the Ware. Philip had finished a retreat and received Holy Communion that morning. He gladly joined those who made up the boating party. On the return trip of the boat Philip asked for an oar to do his share of the work, when a sudden turn of the boat threw him into the water, and all efforts to rescue him were in vain. Philip’s corpse was carried back to the college. Dr. Cox, the rector, was inconsolable over the accident; he had loved the boy dearly and he thought of the anguish of the family at losing so beloved a son. He decided to go and break the sad news to the bereaved parents. The following morning he drove

"for this purpose over to their home at Southampton. As he neared the house the father came out to meet him. Dr. Cox alighted and was about to address him, when Mr. Weld anticipated him, saying: “It is useless to conceal anything from me, I know that my son Philip is dead.” “How is that possible?” asked the priest. “Last evening,” replied Mr. Weld, “I went for a walk with my daughter Catharine. Suddenly I beheld my son, passing on the opposite side of the street in company with two persons, one of whom was garbed in black. My daughter saw him first. She exclaimed: ‘Oh, father! did you ever see any one who so closely resembled our Philip?’ ‘Resembled Philip? said I; ‘why, it is Philip himself.’ We crossed over toward the three men and I saw Philip happily smiling at the one dressed in black. As we came closer all three suddenly vanished. On my return to the house I said nothing to my wife about the apparition so as not to frighten her, but the following day I awaited with great anxiety the mail. To my great joy there was no letter for me and my fears began to be allayed. Then I saw you coming toward the house. Now I know that you have come to tell me of my dear son’s death.” One may imagine Dr. Cox’s amazement! He asked Mr. Weld if he had ever before seen the man in black. “Never,” replied Mr. Weld, “but his features are so impressed upon my mind that I should certainly recognize him, if I were to meet him again.”

Dr. Cox then related the story of the sad event, which had occurred precisely at the hour in which the father and daughter had seen the vision. The remembrance of the glad smile of their loved one afforded them great consolation. Mr. Weld arranged for his son’s funeral, and at the burial he closely examined the faces of ‘the clergy; but none of them resembled the black figure of the vision. Four months later Mr. Weld went with his daughter to visit a brother who dwelt at some distance. Incidentally he called on the local clergyman. While waiting in the reception room he inspected the pictures on the walls. Suddenly he stopped before one of them —there was no name on it—and exclaimed: “This is the man who was walking with Philip!” The priest, who now entered, said the picture was that of St. Stanislaus Kostka. Mr. Weld was deeply moved; he remembered his son’s special devotion for St. Stanislaus; he thought also of how his late father had been a great benefactor of the Jesuits and hoped that the saints of that order would in a special manner protect his family.

It should be noted that both father and daughter asserted they had never before in their lives had visions or hallucinations; furthermore the apparition did not occur at night, not in a dream, but in bright day light, in a public street, to two different persons, thoroughly credible, at one and the same time.

In the year 1898 there took place in New York a double apparition, the same person showed himself in two different remote places, at the same hour. H. M., as is related, awoke suddenly one night and saw before him his brother (who lived at a distance). The latter greeted him and said: “I am dying; you are to dispose of my fortune in the following manner,” then, having given full particulars of the disposition, the vision vanished. H. M. informed his wife of what happened. A few hours later a telegram was received announcing the death of the brother; it had occurred at the time of the vision. H. M. started out at once to carry out the wishes of the departed brother. On the way he meets another brother, from another town. He, too, had had the same vision, at the same hour and with the same details. Arrived at the place of death they were told that the departed shortly before his demise had, as if in delirium, conversed for some time with absent persons.

How are we to explain these and similar phenomena? Some seek to explain them as a morbid, nervous, hysterical condition. But the persons to whom these apparitions happened were in perfect health.

How can the sick, the dying, at such distances produce perfectly plain pictures, intelligible conversations?

Still less does the matter admit of explanation through hypnotism, suggestion, or magnetism. No one was near to influence the persons who have had these visions, and who could exert any such influence at such great distance? Nor has spiritism any explanation to offer. In all these cases no one asked for information, or did anything to obtain it, such as is done in spiritism; the information was offered unsolicited. Nor was there any medium to negotiate connection parties. Moreover the dead have not the gift of speech, and the Catholic Church rightly teaches that there is no natural connection between the dead and the living. For this reason she has at all times

\ constantly discountenanced the summoning of departed to satisfy curiosity. Even ardent spiritists like Allan Kardec, Eliphaz, Levi, Alexandre Aksakoff, admit that the dispositions of summoned spirits often are treacherous and immoral, a fact which demonstrates a co-operation of evil spirits.

Others, like Mr. Cookes, who attempt to explain everything by matter, presume that from the human brain innumerable vibrations are propagated in all directions and that these vibrations bring about such visions. But, let us ask what healthy person has ever had the power to produce such visions? How could the sick and dying alone have it? And how is it that the vibrations just reach the concerned person and none other?

There must, therefore, be supposed something supernatural. Only thus the image of living persons and their conversations can be explained. What then is this supernatural element? In spiritism evil spirits without doubt participate; this is admitted even by spiritists themselves, as stated above. In telepathy this is not the case, as frequently something good, providential, sacred even, proceeds therefrom. We are confirmed in this view when we see in the Lives of the Saints that such visions occurred to them. Thus, for instance, in the life of St. Francis de Chantal we read that at the time when the Baron was dying, his sick father, many miles from the Baron’s deathbed, beheld a number of fine looking youths leading his son into a distant country. The son approached the father, and touched him gently upon the shoulder, as if to take leave from him. The venerable old man said under tears: “My son is dead!” A servant, despatched to make inquiries, met the messenger bringing the news of the death. It was found that the son had died precisely at the moment when the vision appeared to the father.

At one time when St. Alphonsus Liguori was preaching in the small town of Arienzo, he suddenly interrupted his discourse and said to his congregation: “Let us pray an Our Father at the peaceful passing away of Bishop Lambertini of Caserta.” A few days later news came that the bishop had died exactly at the time when St. Liguori interrupted his sermon.

In the process of beatification of St. Philip Neri various instances were vouched for by credible witnesses, that the saint had beheld friends and disciples ascending into heaven.

In the year 1570 forty Jesuits embarked at Lisbon to go to Brazil as missionaries. Near the Island of Patmos they were captured by Calvinistic pirates and cruelly put to death on account of their faith. At the same hour St. Theresa beheld forty martyrs with palms in their hands and surrounded with glory (among them was a cousin of hers) ascending to heaven. She mentioned this vision to several persons.

Similar visions are found in lives of many saints. The intention of God in them is probably the glorification of His faithful servants, the consoling of the bereaved and the strengthening of them in the faith. These visions are incontestible proof that there is a higher immaterial world and that between the higher and the lesser world there exists relation, as even the English Society for Psychical Research is forced to admit. The materialists of our day would deny the existence of the soul after the death of the body. Telepathy offers facts which can not reasonably be doubted, and which not only prove that with death not everything is at an end, but even give us some information about the fate of souls after death.

J. Raef.

Peter, a man of excellent character, though somewhat ingenuous, has been present several times at private spiritistic séances. He was led by curiosity alone. He took no active part in the experiments, nor did he sit in the “circle.” He was a passive spectator only. For this, however, he was severely taken to task by some friends, who maintained that even passive assistance at spiritistic manifestations is sinful, because it is a communing with evil spirits. Peter, however, maintains that the nature of these spirit manifestations is not known, and, therefore, can not be condemned as unlawful or evil, and he does not see why he may not continue to assist at them.

Answer.—I. Briefly, the phenomena of spiritism may be summed up as follows: The earliest phenomenon that takes place when a number of persons gather together to hold a spiritistic séance is the movement of the table around which the persons are seated and on which they lightly place their hands. The table is moved in a jerky and undecided way at first, and, to all appearances, unconsciously by one of the sitters. But after a time the movement becomes regular and seems to indicate a force operating independently of the sitters. When this force is fully developed, three or four strong adults, deliberately exercising all their physical strength, can not control it. Even a very heavy dining-room table, on which many heavy objects have been placed, may rise up bodily in the air, and remain suspended for some seconds, and then descend to its normal position, without disturbing anything on it. The same phenomenon takes place with desks, chairs, boxes or other furniture. When these physical manifestations have reached a certain degree of what is called “development,” the phenomenon passes into a farther phase, and instead of the vibrations and tiltings of the table, clear percussive sounds, like tapping on wood with some solid object, such as a pencil, become perceptible. At first these tappings are very faint, but under favorable conditions become very distinct and amazingly emphatic and intelligent in character, a means in fact by which questions put by a sitter are answered and information conveyed, sometimes wholly unknown to anyone present.

A third phase of these physical manifestations is the lifting and shifting of heavy objects and pieces of furniture, without any contact or co-operation of the sitters. Grand pianos and heavy dining-room sideboards are made to change places, chairs with persons seated on them are raised to the ceiling and lowered again, without even a wish or suggestion on the parts of the sitters, in fact very often to their very great alarm and discomfort.

Luminous appearances, or “spirit lights,” are another manifestation of spiritism. These “lights” are unlike any other kind of light known at present. Investigators like Sir William Crookes, have endeavored to reproduce them artificially, but have failed. These lights resemble glow worms or lightning bugs on a dark summer’s night. If the room is darkened it will seem to be full of these glow worms rapidly passing from point to point, now showing their light, now hiding it, occasionally settling on an object and remaining stationary, and then again moving on. Sometimes these “spirit lights” are followed by the appearance of a luminous hand or head or face or body. Sometimes a phantom form will carry a “spirit light” in its hand and pass it up and down its form, in order to make themselves distinctly visible to all present. According to investigators of spiritism, these “spirit lights” are unquestionably controlled by independent spirit intelligences.

The final stage of physical manifestations is the “materialization” of human forms and faces. These are visible to all the persons assisting at the experiment. For these materializations a “sensitive” of highly developed power is required. The “sensitive” goes into a deep trance or state of insensibility. The trance is not produced by the hypnotic action of any one present, but takes place naturally after the circle is formed. This trance is generally preceded by some extremely unpleasant and repulsive manifestations, the “sensitive” apparently enduring a great deal of pain and discomfort, and laboring under some kind of physical oppression. After a time, however, these symptoms disappear and the “sensitive” passes into a state of profound insensibility. Now, in the darkened room, hands not belonging to anyone in the room, or the dim outline of faces or of human forms become visible and gradually seem to grow solid and clear. In some instances the entire form, enveloped in light drapery, is materialized, moves about the room, speaks to the sitters in an audible voice or whisper, and after a while “dematerializes,” and melts away before their eyes. The form seems to fall to pieces, as if a wax form were melting away, leaving only a white cloud or vapor behind, which lasts for a moment or two on the carpet or floor, through which it seems to pass. If the psychic conditions are favorable, these forms may have all the characteristics of human beings. The pulse or heart may be felt to be beating, and they seem to hear and to speak and to see, and they remain materialized for a considerable time.

II. The purpose of all these manifestations and phenomena is to prove to the persons assisting at them that there are extraneous and independent spirit intelligences present, and that under certain conditions, they can and do hold communion with the living. Thus they will in many instances do things wholly contrary to all expectation or suggestion. They will propose experiments which never entered the minds of the investigators and which would seem to them difficult if not impossible of execution. They will display a sharpness and intelligence and ingenuity which amaze and bewilder the student, and force him to the conclusion that only supernatural spirit forces or intelligences can account for the phenomena. Efforts have been made to explain these manifestations on the subliminal mind theory. The psychologists assert that there is going on beneath the threshold of our ordinary waking consciousness a secondary, and far more mysterious process of mind-action, which is in many respects entirely distinct and independent of the normal and conscious working of the mind. In fact, man, they say, is possessed of two minds, each having its own particular sphere of operations. By means of this secondary or subliminal mind, the psychologists have endeavored to explain all the so-called spiritistic phenomena. Up to the present, the endeavor has failed. Many spiritistic phenomena may be satisfactorily accounted for by the subliminal mind theory, but there are many also which, according to the masters of the science, can not possibly be explained except on the theory of spiritism. Unless it be admitted that there are separate and independent spirit intelligences at work in these manifestations and materializations, they remain wholly unaccounted for on any theory up to the present known to science. Full allowance being made for fraud and deception and for the workings and vagaries of the subliminal mind, it can scarcely be denied with any show of reason, upon a thoughtful consideration of the evidence, that many of these spiritistic phenomena are the direct work of separate and independent spirit intelligences. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

The universal evidence of these materialized beings themselves is that they are the spirits of departed men and women, some of whom have learned the art of manipulating the delicate matter abstracted from the organism of the sensitive (astral substance) and of shaping it into bodies resembling those of their past earth life, and that they do this for the purpose of giving evidence that they have survived the shock of death and are able to communicate with the living. But are they really the spirits of the dead? Thus far no investigator has ever been able to establish the identity of any communicating spirit. When put to the test all attempts at identification utterly break down. In their efforts to identify themselves with certain dead persons, the intelligences have been detected in all kinds of lying and deception and skilful subterfuge. After years of effort with what seemed the same intelligence to establish the earth-identity that it claimed for itself, some communication is made, or some fact alleged, which shows conclusively that the intelligence has been fraudulently impersonating some dead person. Inconsistencies, incoherencies and contradictions in a communicator’s account of himself; oblivion and error about things which it seems inconceivable that the real person should have forgotten or be mistaken about, and an intellectual standpoint inferior to his in life, are some of the reasons why the investigator will doubt the identity which the intelligence claims for itself. The real ultimate aim of the intelligence seems to be the control of the sensitive. The entire complicated machinery of mediumship is set in operation with this one end in view. Once full control of the sensitive is obtained, the masquerading intelligence seeks to accomplish the moral and physical ruin of its victims. “The ingenuity displayed in attaining this end, the tricks and subtleties resorted to in order to escape detection and to continue ‘in possession,’ were in one or two instances of a kind passing all human comprehension and imagination, and the wonder is that anything like an escape from such toils is ever effected at all. In some instances this is only accomplished after the physical constitution of the victim has been completely ruined, in others the termination of the experiment is reached in the asylum, or in some institution for the cure of nervous disease.” (Raupert, Modern Spiritism.)

“Ten thousand unfortunate people are at present (1877) confined in lunatic asylums on account of having dabbled in spiritism. Not a week passes that we do not hear that some of these unfortunates destroy themselves by suicide or are removed to a lunatic asylum. The mediums often manifest signs of an abnormal condition of their mental faculties, and among certain of them are found unequivocal indications of a true demoniacal possession. The evil spreads rapidly, and ‘it produces frightful results.” (Dr. Forbes Winslow, Spiritual Madness.)

When one considers the moral and intellectual confusion and chaos that flow from these spirit communications, one is driven to the conclusion that the intelligences are not the spirits of the dead, but evil and malign spirits, masquerading as the spirits of the dead, to accomplish the moral and physical and psychical ruin of their victims.

The “creed” of spiritism, as gathered from its most authoritative literature and from the disclosures of the spirit intelligences, is anti- Christian. However diverse their teaching may be on secondary matters, there is absolute agreement on the following points:

1. Christianity is not a special and unique revelation. It is one of many forms of high spirit manifestation, designed to enforce on man the binding obligation of the moral law, inherent in his nature.

2. Christ is not divine in the sense of the Catholic Church. He is a purely human being, who possessed wonderful psychic powers.

3. The teaching of the Church regarding the passion and death of Christ is all wrong, due to human error and weakness.

4. There is no priesthood especially set aside and ordained by Christ to continue His work.

5. The Church with her Sacraments was never instituted to perpetuate the work of saving men’s souls. She is purely human in her origin, her growth and her work.

6. The notion of retribution after death for sin committed in the flesh is folly. Man is daily and hourly preparing his own heaven and hell. There is no heaven or hell as taught by the Church. Man is in very truth his own saviour.

With this “creed” of spiritism before him, a Catholic can have no difficulty in determining the nature of the intelligences at work in these spirit manifestations. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. i, 8). These are evil spirits, bent on evil. Since the days of our blessed Lord their works and pomps have been known and resisted by the Church. They are lying spirits. They impel their victims to the most loathsome immoral abominations. They teach false and immoral doctrines. They abhor the presence of holy things. They deny Jesus Christ. “Every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is anti-Christ of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world” (I John iv).

III. As regards the case of Peter, we would say that since he was ignorant of the nature and purpose of these spirit manifestations and materializations, his assistance at the séances was not sinful. He was led merely by curiosity. But for the future he is bound under pain of mortal sin to abstain from all participation, even passive, in spiritism. Even if it were granted that the nature of the forces at work in spiritism is not sufficiently established to pass a final judgment on them, still sufficient is known to make it clear to every Catholic that these spirit intelligences are demonic in nature, and that all commerce with them is immoral and sinful and strictly prohibited by the law of God and of the Catholic Church.

Melania asks her confessor Claudius whether she is allowed to practice a treatment of which she has often made use before. If someone has received an injury causing the flow of blood, and she be present or called, Melania confidently says over the wound the words: “Blood, cease to flow, through the Sacred Blood and in the name of Jesus,” then making the sign of the Cross over the wound, and she claims that as result the blood ceases flowing at once. Father Claudius answered: If nothing else takes place, you may continue doing this. Did Father Claudius give the correct answer?

This is a case of the vana observantia, especially of the question, whether prayers and invocations to cure illness are to be considered superstitious. According to the theologians (S. Alph. Th. M. 1, 4, n. 20, 21; Miller, Th. M. 1, II., §71, 5; Lehmkuhl Th. M. 1, 357) there is to be distinguished: (1) If such prayers contain anything untrue, useless, undignified, ridiculous, even if in other parts true and proper, then such prayers are prohibited.

(2) If the prayers or exorcisms are of themselves good and correct, their use is allowed, if there is not demanded of them infallible efficacy (ensalmus invocativus).