148. What sins against religion are. a. One can sin against religion by omission, by neglecting the precepts of religion, such as due adoration or prayer; and by commission, by positive acts against the negative precepts of religion. The positive sin generically opposed to religion is irreligiosity taken generically, which can be committed by excess and by defect. By excess indeed, not because God can ever be worshiped with greater worship than He Himself deserves, but because divine worship is exhibited viciously.

b. Sins against religion committed by excess are called by the proper name superstition (Aberglaube), which is defined: vicious worship of the true or of a false deity. Divine worship can be vicious in a twofold way: by reason of the object, when something is worshiped as God which is not God; or by reason of mode, when God is worshiped in an undue mode. Wherefore superstition is twofold: one by which God is worshiped with undue worship; another by which a creature (especially the demon) is worshiped with divine worship. This latter superstition, according to the different reason of the end on account of which divine worship is attributed to the creature, is threefold: idolatry, divination, and vain observance, to which magic and malefice are reduced.¹

c. Sins against religion committed by defect are signified by the name irreligiosity taken specifically. Irreligiosity taken in this sense consists in this, that God is affected with irreverence and injury, which can be done by tempting God, sacrilege, and simony. Therefore there will be eight articles of this question: a. on undue divine worship; b. on idolatry; c. on divination; d. on vain observance; e. on magic and malefice; f. on tempting God; g. on sacrilege; h. on simony.

By these are comprehended only sins committed against religion which are prohibited by the first precept of the Decalogue. To gather in one view all sins committed against religion, there must also be added sins against the second and third precepts of the Decalogue, which likewise are opposed to the virtue of religion, namely: blasphemy, perjury, violation of vows, omission of Mass, servile works.

Article First. On the Superstition of Undue Worship

The superstition of undue divine worship is one thing as superstition of false worship, another as superstition of superfluous worship.

¹ Simar, Der Aberglaube, 2nd ed., Cologne: Bachem, 1897, Vereinsschrift der Gorres-Gesellschaft; Walter, Aberglaube und Seelsorge, Paderborn: Schoningh, 1904.

149. 1. Superstition of false worship is committed if in the worship of the true God something of falsity or lie is contained, wherefore it is customarily called superstition of false worship.

This can be done in many ways: a. if God were now worshiped by ceremonies of the old law, for example by eating the paschal lamb; b. if someone proposed false miracles or false revelations for confirming faith, or if he exhibited false relics to be venerated; c. if one who is not a priest presumed to celebrate Mass or absolve; d. if someone wished to worship God by a dishonorable action; e. if someone fabricated a miracle for promoting the worship of some saint.

2. Superstition of false worship is for the most part a grave sin, because it is gravely injurious to God, who cannot be worshiped by falsity and lie, and because it is pernicious to religion, since it renders religion suspect of error.

It is said for the most part because it seems to be conceded that superstition of false worship can sometimes be a venial sin because of smallness of matter. Thus if a preacher in an otherwise true miraculous history added a false circumstance, or fabricated an entire history in order to move the people more, this could be a venial sin, both because the falsity is not employed immediately for worshiping God, and because this does not much prejudice true religion.¹

¹ Cf. Struggl, Theologia moralis, tr. 5, q. 5, n. 6; Lehmkuhl, I, n. 353.

150. 1. Superstition of superfluous or vain worship is committed if God is worshiped contrary to the custom of the Church by some superfluous and useless thing.

a. Worship of this kind is superfluous: to wish to hear Mass before sunrise with a certain number and order of candles, of a priest who is called John or who has the stature of Christ; not to eat from the head of an animal on the day of the beheading of St. John: for these things contribute nothing to the worship of God. To kiss the foot of the chalice when it is put down after the elevation in Mass; in the office or in Mass to add prayers, crosses, alleluias, or other things which are contrary to the rubrics. For all those things which disordered devotion devises contrary to the prescription and custom of the Church, although in themselves they are not vain, nevertheless because they are contrary to the decrees and usage of the Church, are useless, superfluous, and superstitious.

b. This sin of superstition is also committed through new worships and new devotions which, although they contain nothing unfitting, nevertheless are proposed to the faithful and propagated among them without the approval of the Church. In the constitution Officiorum (n. 13), it is expressly prohibited that devotions of this kind be introduced; therefore new devotions introduced without license of the Church have rather often been prohibited.¹

2. Superstition of superfluous worship of itself does not exceed venial sin, because it does not contain grave irreverence; but good faith and simplicity sometimes excuse entirely from sin. Yet by reason of scandal and notable defect against the ordering of the Church, even this superstition could become mortal sin.

¹ Cf. Bucceroni, Casus conscientiae, 3rd ed., Rome: Typographia Augustiniana, 1903, n. 40.

The Sins against Religion.—Inasmuch as religion is a moral virtue and therefore consists in the observance of a golden mean, the sins opposed to it are the extremes of excess or defect. (a) The sins of excess offend, not because they offer too much worship to God (a thing that is impossible), but because they exceed by giving worship where it is not due or in a manner that is not due (superstition). (b) The sins of defect offend by denying due religious reverence to God Himself (temptation of God, perjury) or to sacred things (sacrilege, simony).

St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 92 seqq.; St. Alphonsus, III, n. 1-29; ed. G., I, p. 370; Salmanticenses, tr. 21, c. 11; Billuart, Diss. VII, VIII; Aertnys, l. 3, n. 7; Lehmkuhl, I, n. 488; Tanquerey, I, n. 894; Ami du Cl., Study on Demonism, 1902, 1904; Walter, Der Aberglaube; Linz. Quart. Schr., 1907, p. 517; Schneider, Der neuere Geisterglaube.

Just as through the first precept acts are prescribed by which we subject to God soul, body, and goods as to the supreme Lord, so through it, on the contrary side, there are PROHIBITED both acts by which the honor of principality is carried to another or becomes excessive, as happens through various superstitions, and those acts of irreligiosity by which such honor owed to God simply fails. - Whence let us treat: 1. of superstition; 2. of irreligiosity.

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.

574. Irreligiosity, or impiety, is a special irreverence which is inflicted upon God, either immediately in himself, or mediately in sacred persons or things. - It is inflicted upon God immediately through tempting God, through blasphemy, through perjury and perfidy in promises; but mediately through sacrilege and simony.

Moreover, of these various species of irreligiosity three pertain to the second precept of the Decalogue, insofar as it is negative: namely blasphemy, perjury, and perfidy in promises; but the other three, by which due subjection to God, or fidelity, is denied, pertain to this first precept.

Therefore there must be treated: 1. of tempting God; 2. of sacrilege; 3. of simony.

575. DEFINITION. Tempting God is a word or deed directed to taking experiment concerning God through an extraordinary effect rashly expected from him.

We say: 1. Through an effect expected, because temptation requires that, by desire and intention, divine help be at least tacitly implored. 2. Rashly, that is, without just cause; for if a grave cause is added, namely necessity, or pious utility, or divine inspiration, humbly to ask such an effect will not be to tempt God, but rather to honor him by an act of confidence (III, 29 and 31).

DIVISION. Tempting God, by reason of the perfection of the act, but not by reason of species, is twofold: 1. Formal (or explicit), when someone, expressly doubting concerning some perfection of God, wishes to try it: for example if someone from

from a tower casts himself down headlong, that he may test whether God is merciful and powerful, by preserving him immune from injury. 2. Interpretative (or implicit), when someone, even if he does not expressly intend to tempt God, nevertheless asks or does that which of its own nature seems to be referred to this: as if someone commits himself to a danger from which either in no way, or scarcely, he can be rescued unless miraculously; or if he omits natural means, hoping for the effect from God alone (III, 29, 32; cf. H. Ap., IV, 38).

576. PRINCIPLES. I. Formal tempting of God is a mortal sin from its whole genus. For it includes doubt concerning the divine perfections, which redounds to grave contempt of God; indeed it has the malice of heresy, if the doubt is positive; or at least it deals with God too curiously, as with a juggler: which is a great irreverence toward God (III, 29, 1).

II. Interpretative tempting of God is a mortal sin from its genus. The reason is that he who thus tempts God also denies him, of itself, reverence and due subjection. Yet it can happen that the disorder in one expecting the help of God without a just cause is not grave. This is established from those words (Ecclus., 18, 23): Before prayer prepare thy soul: and be not as a man that tempteth God. For thus one praying is considered to wish to test whether God also can and will assist one praying badly: which nevertheless the Doctors commonly judge to be only venial, on account of lightness of matter.

Many authors also teach this, that if someone, in a light matter and without danger of grave harm, should tempt God from mere curiosity of seeing some supernatural work, he likewise would sin only venially (cf. III, 30; ed. G., I, p. 389).

577. From these things you will resolve: 1. He sins gravely who absolutely asks from God, or offers, a miracle for the conversion of heretics, since the testimonies of our faith suffice. But otherwise, if he asks under the condition if it shall please God, on account of grave utility, for his own or others' salvation, or for fulfilling the divine will.

2. Likewise he sins who without just cause offers himself to martyrdom, to danger of death or mutilation. Otherwise, in a case of necessity, for example if otherwise the faith or the salvation of many would be endangered, or for avoiding blasphemies; and in a case of utility, for exalting the faith or promoting the glory of God.

3. He sins only lightly who, in a light illness, the remedies having been rejected, hopes for health from God; because there is not grave disorder there. Indeed, he is excused from every fault, if he hopes that he will be freed from a light illness of this sort without remedies, naturally, with God assisting (H. Ap., IV, n. 38).

4. A priest sins venially who, outside a case of necessity, wishes to preach without preparation, trusting in the help of God (III, 32); but he does not sin who, trusting in good fortune, subjects himself to an examination; because he expects nothing from God.

578. DEFINITION. Sacrilege (a violation of the sacred), taken broadly, is called any sin against religion; taken strictly, it is the violation of a sacred thing.

Violation, that is, violence brought upon, or unworthy treatment, which can be committed not only by action, but also by omission of the reverence due to sacred things; of a thing, in the broad sense, under which also person and place come; sacred, that is, dedicated to God, and considered as such (III, 33 and 48).

Therefore, to discern whether some action is sacrilegious or not, there must be weighed: 1. from what head the thing is sacred and specially worthy of reverence, whether from divine institution or from ecclesiastical law; 2. whether the action specially wounds this sanctity of the thing; for otherwise it will not be sacrilege. Thus, for example, a religious is consecrated to God by the vow of chastity as to cleanness of the flesh, and therefore if he fornicates, he is sacrilegious; but otherwise, if he becomes drunk, if he is proud, if he lies, etc., because he is not considered consecrated for avoiding these things.

DIVISION. Sacrilege, by reason of the thing violated, is threefold: personal, by which a sacred person is violated; local, by which a sacred place is violated; real, by which a sacred thing, distinct from persons and places, is violated. By reason of manner, it is direct or indirect according as the violation of the sacred thing either is intended or is only advertently committed.

579. PRINCIPLES. I. Sacrilege is a sin, now from its genus, now from its whole genus mortal. For irreverence toward sacred persons, sacred places, or sacred things redounds upon God. If sacrilege is direct, smallness of matter is never given in it. If it is only indirect, it is grave or light according to the measure of the irreverence which is committed (III, 33). Cf. Vind. Alph., P. III, q. 3, a. 1, end.

580. II. Sacrilege differs in species according as it is personal, local, or real. The reason is that formally diverse is the sanctity which is wounded in the person, in the place, and in the sacred thing. For sanctity is in sacred persons formally, as in a subject; in a sacred place it is as in what contains holy persons, and in which worship is to be exhibited to God; but in sacred things, insofar as they cause or signify sanctity, or are ordered to holy things in another way (Salmant., tr. 21, c. 12, n. 16).

Let it be noted. 1. The three aforesaid species of sacrilege, more probably, are not subaltern species, as some say, but lowest species; therefore other circumstances are only aggravating, as St. Alphonsus more probably judges with St. Thomas, against Suarez, Busenbaum, and others. Hence, for example, "if someone violates a nun by beating her, or by lying with her, he commits one sacrilege formally" (III, 34). Wherefore it suffices, in either case, to say in confession: I committed sacrilege against a sacred person; and then to confess separately the sin against justice, or against chastity (III, 224).

2. In sacrilege, the guilt of violation is graver in the measure that the consecration is more intimate; and therefore personal sacrilege is graver than real and local sacrilege, just as, among real sacrileges, unworthy communion is the graver sin.

3. TIME is not the object of sacrilege: for example, he is not sacrilegious who sins on a feast day, as is commonly taught. Except, unless notable irreverence is brought upon divine worship, as if someone on Good Friday should exhibit comedies, public games, etc. (III, 46 and 273).

581. Personal sacrilege is an act by which a sacred person is violated. Moreover, persons are called sacred who are dedicated to God, whether through sacred ordination or through religious profession.

Personal sacrilege is committed in four ways: 1. by striking a cleric or religious, or by any violence which is brought upon them, against the privilege of the canon (cf. n. 1329); 2. by dragging a cleric, or a religious person, before a secular tribunal, against the privilege of the forum (n. 1321); 3. by imposing a servile burden, for example military service or a tax, upon a cleric, against the current privilege of personal immunity (n. 201); 4. by the lustful violation of a person consecrated to God by the vow of chastity (cf. n. 787). Consequently, it is not sacrilege to detract from a priest, because only his person is sacred, but not his reputation. But otherwise, if sacred persons are put in mockery, as often happens in carnival revels (de Privil., 18-24; Kon., n. 347).

Questions. - QUES. 1. Whether the violation of any vow whatsoever is sacrilege?

Resp. It is disputed. The Salmanticenses affirm, because through any vow whatsoever a person is dedicated to God in order to fulfill the vow. But Suarez and others deny, saying that it is only a sin of perfidy, or against fidelity due to God (III, 47; Vind. Alph., P. III, q. 2).

Note. Many authors call the violation of vows, in general, sacrilege. This is said less rightly if we take the notion of sacrilege strictly.

QUES. 2. Whether the violation of the vow of chastity is sacrilege?

Resp. 1. In the affirmative, if it is a question of a vow emitted conjointly with sacred order or with religious profession in some Congregation; for through such a vow, which the Church recognizes, the person certainly and publicly becomes sacred to God. This holds also for vows which are emitted for a time before definitive profession.

2. If it is a question of a vow emitted privately, some deny, because no one becomes sacred to God unless the Church intervenes; others, perhaps more probably, affirm, because through such a vow also the body is dedicated to God and contracts a peculiar sanctity. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1910, p. 378.

Note. 1. According to the opinion of all, the violation of a vow is a circumstance to be declared in confession, because there is in it a peculiar sin of infidelity (III, 47).

2. If someone is at once a priest and a religious and violates the vow of chastity, he commits only one sacrilege, because the twofold obligation is imposed upon him from the same formal motive. Cf. n. 627, 787, 2160, 2199, where useful things which pertain to this matter are added.

3. He who sacrilegiously violates the vow of chastity does not commit a twofold sin against religion: one of sacrilege, the other of perfidy; because the malice of perfidy, or infidelity, is absorbed by sacrilege (Vind. Alph., I, p. 228).

582. NOTIONS. Local sacrilege is the violation of a sacred place.

Sacred places, in the strict sense, are those which, by the authority of the Bishop through consecration or solemn blessing, have been deputed for public divine worship. Such places practically are: 1. a church and public oratory, from the interior roof even to the pavement; 2. a public cemetery (III, 38, 460).

As regards semi-public oratories, there is a question whether they are sacred places in the strict sense (Noldin, II, 178).

Sacred places, in the broader sense, insofar as the right of asylum belongs to them, are those which are deputed to divine worship by ecclesiastical authority, as cemeteries, even if polluted, churches not yet consecrated or blessed, the sacristy, the tower, the atrium, the contiguous enclosure of the church; likewise religious places, that is, monasteries, the Bishop's palace, the parochial house, hospices erected by authority of the Church. But otherwise concerning private oratories (III, 460).

Local sacrilege is committed in four ways: 1. By all sins by which a church or cemetery is polluted by canon law, even if they remain hidden and the church does not need reconciliation; namely voluntary homicide, injurious and copious shedding of human blood, voluntary and illicit emission of human seed, and the burial of an excommunicate to be avoided, or of an infidel¹ (cf. n. 1629).

2. By all sins which are done against the sanctity of a sacred place strictly so called, such as: external acts gravely base (III, 459, 461), spoliation, theft, brawls, stabling of horses, and things similar to these, already prohibited by natural law itself.

3. By profane acts which are prohibited by the law of immunity, such as walks in a sacred place strictly so called, markets, meals, shouting, the noise of secular judgments; unless a just cause excuses, as, for example, if another suitable place is lacking. But some moderate walking in a church, or private eating, even without necessity, does not seem to be a grave sin, if scandal, shouting, and contempt are absent. Likewise the sale of candles or images in a cemetery or at the doors of the temple.²

4. By violation of the right of asylum, that is, if persons fleeing to that place and enjoying legitimate refuge are drawn out violently or fraudulently, for example by preventing others from bringing food, from a sacred place, even taken broadly, or interdicted or polluted (III, 36, 38; de Privil., n. 25, 28). Cf. n. 201.

From these things it seems that a place less strictly sacred is violated only in the manner indicated under 4.

"Through merely internal acts the sanctity of a place is not violated; and therefore he does not commit sacrilege who in a church has the will of killing a man outside it. Otherwise, if someone outside the church proposes to kill in the church" (III, 43). Nor is theft committed in the sacristy, in cloisters, in an oratory of a private house, local sacrilege.

It is asked. Whether the theft of a profane thing in a CHURCH is sacrilege?

Resp. It is disputed. Lugo and others probably deny, unless the thing has been loaned to the church or received into custody. Many others more probably affirm, because it is said absolutely in canon law (Can. Quisquis, caus. 17, q. 4): "Sacrilege is committed by taking away a sacred thing from a sacred place, or a non-sacred thing from a sacred place, or a sacred thing from a non-sacred place" (III, 39). Cf. n. 903. - In practice, because the thing is doubtful, accusation of that circumstance is not to be urged.

The vices opposed to Religion are: 1° superstition by excess; 2° irreligiosity by defect.

"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.

Irreligiosity is special irreverence which is inflicted on God, either immediately in Himself, or mediately in persons or sacred things. Its principal species are tempting God, sacrilege, simony, blasphemy, and perjury. Of the two last there will be discussion in the second precept.

345. • Temptation of God is a word or deed for taking an experiment about God through an extraordinary effect rashly expected from Him. - Thus the common doctrine with St. Thom.³

But it proceeds from a twofold vice, namely either from infidelity, when someone doubting about some perfection of God says or does something with the mind of obtaining from God a manifestation of that perfection, and this is called formal or express; or from mere presumption, when someone, doubting nothing about the perfections of God, without necessity wills to obtain either the manifestation of the divine will or special help of God through wonders, and this is called implicit or interpretative.

It is certain that formal or express temptation of God is always a mortal sin against Religion. - But if it is only implicit, often because of ignorance or inadvertence it can be venial, although of itself it is more probably mortal.¹

You will resolve. - 1° Those formerly sinned gravely against Religion who demanded that their innocence be proved by duel, by burning iron, etc., or who without a just cause freely offered themselves to martyrdom, unless they were excused by good faith or divine inspiration. - Nevertheless it is licit to ask from God a miracle under the condition, if it has pleased Him, as often as there is a grave cause for our own or others' salvation, or for fulfilling the divine will, or, as St. Thom.² says, when there underlies a just necessity or pious utility and the other things which ought to concur for this. For then it is not to tempt God, but to request the help of God at an opportune time.

2° Likewise he sins gravely who, without a just cause, exposes himself to danger of death because he expects divine help; but if he acts only rashly, without certainly trusting in divine Providence, he does not sin against Religion, but only against the fifth precept of the Decalogue.

3° He sins only lightly who in a light illness, with remedies rejected, hopes for health from God; because there is not a grave disorder there. Indeed he is excused from all fault if he hopes that he will be freed naturally from such an illness with God's help.³

4° Likewise he sins of himself venially who from negligence approaches unprepared to preaching the word of God, hoping for special help from God.

346. • Sacrilege is the violation or unworthy treatment of sacred things. It is distinguished as threefold: 1° personal; 2° local; 3° real.

Principles. - I. Sacred here is called whatever is deputed to divine worship from divine or ecclesiastical institution, and therefore deserves special reverence. - St. Thomas.¹

Hence 1° Sacred persons are those who are deputed to divine worship through Sacred Tonsure, or through religious vows, or more probably also through any vow of chastity.

2° Sacred places are those which by the authority of the Church are dedicated to worship, as temples and public chapels (not private ones), yet consecrated or blessed; likewise blessed cemeteries. L. IV. 460.

3° Sacred things are those which pertain to divine worship or are proximately referred to it, as Sacraments, consecrated vessels, Relics or images of Saints; likewise those things which pertain to the adornment of the Church or of ministers; finally ecclesiastical goods, even movable ones. - St. Thom.²

II. Sacrilege is a mortal sin from its genus, because it is opposed to the most excellent moral virtue, namely Religion, and for the most part regards grave matter. - Yet it can become light by reason of smallness of matter or imperfection of the act.³

III. Sacrilege differs in species according as it affects a person, place, or sacred thing; hence in confession those circumstances must be explained. - St. Alph.⁴ St. Thom.⁵

347. You will resolve. - 1° Personal sacrilege is committed: 1) by inflicting violent hands on a Cleric or Religious; 2) by any sin of luxury perpetrated by or with a person bound by a vow of chastity; 3) by violation of personal immunity. - But it will not be sacrilege to detract from a priest, because his person alone is sacred, but not his reputation.⁶

2° Local sacrilege is committed: 1) by all sins by which a Church is polluted by Law, namely by illicit shedding of human blood or seed, homicide, or burial of an excommunicated person or infidel in the Church; 2) by all sins which are done against the immunity and sanctity of a sacred place, as breaking in, despoiling, theft, quarrels, and similar things; 3) by actions unbecoming the sanctity of the place, as are markets, assemblies, and the din of judgments, unless a grave cause excuses.¹

3° Real sacrilege is committed: 1) by unworthy administration or reception of the Sacraments; 2) by unworthy treatment of sacred Relics, images, etc.; 3) by profanation of sacred vessels, instruments, or ornaments; 4) by theft of a thing pertaining to divine worship or to the Church; 5) by abuse of Scripture, for example by twisting its words to vain things, etc.; 6) by neglect of sacred vessels, corporals, etc., in those who ought to care for these things religiously.²

348. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Is violation of a person bound by a simple vow of chastity outside Religion sacrilege?

Resp. It is controverted. The more probable opinion of St. Alph.³ affirms, because through any vow of chastity man is truly consecrated to God. For one's own will suffices for consecrating one's own acts to God, while for public consecration public authority is required.⁴ See p. LXXXIX. 7.

Besides, whoever is bound by a vow of chastity, as often as he violates this, certainly commits a twofold sin: namely one against chastity, and the other against Religion. - Lacroix.⁵

Quaer. 2° Are all sins of luxury committed in a Church or cemetery sacrileges?

Resp. 1° Merely internal sins are not to be held as sacrileges, because they do not seem specially to affect the sacred place, unless there is a desire of sinning externally in the sacred place itself. - Thus commonly.⁶

Resp. 2° As to external sins, it is certain that sacrilege is committed through consummated acts, namely through voluntary pollution, fornication, etc. This is openly clear from Canon Law. But whether it is also committed through other grave external sins, for example gravely impure touches, is controverted. St. Alph.,⁷ Collet, etc., more probably affirm.

Quaer. 3° Is every theft in a Church sacrilege?

Resp. 1° It is established that every theft of a sacred thing is sacrilege, and also theft of a non-sacred thing nevertheless committed to the custody of a sacred place, as is clear from Canon Law.¹

Resp. 2° As to things which by chance or by accident are found in the Church, as purses, a watch, etc., it is probably controverted on both sides.

349. • Quaer. 4° Does the injury of any goods whatever belonging to Clerics constitute sacrilege?

Resp. Negatively, but only injury of goods which Clerics possess not in their own name but in the name of the Church, and of which they cannot dispose, and of those which pertain to the adornment of the church, because these alone are sacred.² (II) p. 479.

Quaer. 5° To whom is it licit to touch sacred vessels?

Resp. If they actually contain the Blessed Sacrament, outside a case of necessity or danger of profanation, it is licit for no one, without grave sin, to touch them, even mediately, except for a priest or deacon; otherwise, for all Clerics without special permission. The same is licit for sacristans, whether regular laymen, or oblates of secular congregations, or nuns; likewise for those who in clerical dress serve churches. For other laymen it is prohibited under venial sin to touch them immediately, unless a reasonable cause excuses.³

But it is licit for all to touch other sacred things, of which sort are, for example, Agnus Dei, at least from modern custom, Relics of Saints, sacred ornaments, except those which immediately touch the holy Eucharist, as, for example, corporals, palls, purificators after use and before washing. But the first washing of these must be performed by a cleric in sacred orders, yet probably it can also be performed by a tonsured cleric; but it cannot be done without venial sin by a layman, or even by a nun or pious women living a common life under rule;⁴ but the second and third washing, although more suitably done by a cleric, can nevertheless be done without sin even by a layman. It would also be venial not to throw the water of the washing into the sacrarium.⁵

350. Definition. - Simony, so called from Simon Magus, is the studied will of selling or buying for a temporal price something spiritual, or something annexed to the spiritual. It is said studied will, not only because, no differently from other sins, it demands deliberation, but also because for its essential malice it is not required that the pact be completed by mutual consent or in reality; but the interior affection even of one suffices, namely the simoniacal will of making a pact or of obligating.

A temporal price is distinguished in Canon Law¹ as of three kinds: 1° a gift from the hand, or recompense of any temporal thing estimable by price; 2° a gift from the tongue, or patronage, under which name come praises, commendations, prayers, etc., to be interposed from pact in favor of the one conferring the spiritual thing; 3° a gift from service, or any servitude, or offices furnished to another, for example servitude or any similar office.

351. • Likewise, the temporal thing annexed to the spiritual is threefold: 1° antecedently, to which the spiritual thing accedes, as the right of patronage inhering in land; 2° consequently, which depends on the spiritual, as the fruits of a benefice or office; 3° concomitantly, as labor in sacred functions. But labor of this sort is annexed to the spiritual thing either intrinsically or extrinsically. It is called intrinsically annexed if it is not easily separable from the thing itself; otherwise it is called extrinsically annexed. Thus celebration of Mass is labor intrinsically annexed to a spiritual thing; but extraordinary fatigue, as singing, delay until midday, a long or difficult journey to be undertaken for celebrating, and other similar things pertain to labor extrinsically annexed.

Division. Simony is distinguished as:

1° Mental, if it is done merely internally or without pact, as if someone recommends a son to the collator of a vacant parish, and meanwhile under the appearance of a liberal gift sends silver vessels to him with this internal intention, that he move and oblige him to nominate his son.

2° Conventional, if a pact indeed intervenes, but is in no way carried into execution, at least by both parties.

3° Real, if the pact is fulfilled by each party, at least inchoatively.

To this is added confidential Simony, which is done by any pact, or confidence, in election or presentation to benefices, or in resigning them, etc.¹

Simony is also distinguished as of divine or natural law, and of ecclesiastical law. The former is had if the thing simoniacally exchanged is spiritual from its nature, as are indulgences, Sacraments, etc.; but the latter, if something is done against some law which has been made by the Church because of either the danger or the appearance of simony.

352. Principles. - I. For Simony it is required that the temporal thing be given or accepted, either formally or virtually, for the spiritual thing itself and in exchange for it, so that an equating of the spiritual thing with the temporal thing is made, or a commutation, from the primary motive of having one thing for the other as a price or just compensation. The reason is clear from the very definition of Simony. Hence if some honest motive intervenes, by force of which the temporal thing is given, and in turn the spiritual, one would no longer be the motive of the other, but only its impelling cause, and therefore it would not be Simony.

I said: 1° formally, that is, that someone directly intends to receive the spiritual in place of the temporal thing and because of its estimation.

I said: 2° virtually, namely that someone wills to obtain the spiritual thing proximately and immediately through the temporal thing, and no other true and honest motive intervenes. For in this will there is virtually included the intention of commuting one thing with the other.

II. It is licit to give for a price the temporal thing annexed to the spiritual antecedently and concomitantly extrinsically, provided the price is not increased because of the spiritual thing annexed. But in no way is it licit to give for a price what is annexed to the spiritual concomitantly intrinsically, or inseparably, nor what is annexed consequently.

The first reason is because the thing and the labor of the action are truly estimable in themselves by price. Yet by Canon Law the sale of balsam which is contained in Chrism is prohibited, although it preexists the consecration; because since it is of small price, the Bishop would seem to sell Sacraments.²

Nevertheless, as to blessed Oil or Sacred Chrism, Scavini observes that in some cathedral Churches the use has prevailed that something is accepted from particular Churches for compensating the expenses made in obtaining the matter.

The second reason is because what is intrinsically annexed to the spiritual is inseparable from it; hence the thing itself or the action would be judged to be sold. Yet, even apart from extrinsic labor, something can licitly be accepted for sacred ministry by reason of a stipend or support, as is established from the practice of the Church. For natural equity demands that honest support be granted to those who are vacant for the utility of others. Hence Christ:¹ The laborer is worthy of his hire. And the Apostle:² Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they who serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel.

The third reason is because that which is consequent is judged spiritual, or bound to the spiritual. It is also derived from a special disposition of Canon Law.

III. Simony is a most grave sin; and if it is of divine and natural law, it does not admit smallness of matter. But if the Simony is of ecclesiastical law, there can be smallness of matter in it according to St. Alph.³ - The reason is that any spiritual thing, from comparison with a temporal thing, is treated as vile with great injury against God Himself. This is established also from the words of St. Peter to Simon Magus:⁴ Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be possessed with money.

353. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Is it Simony to give principally indeed a temporal thing for a spiritual, but not uniquely?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that even thus there is present a comparison of the temporal thing with the spiritual. For the motive which is added, however honest it may be, does not destroy the malice and impiety of the prior motive because of which the temporal thing is principally given. This is established also from propositions 45 and 46 condemned by Innocent XI (p. XVI).

Quaer. 2° Is it Simony to give or procure for a Superior a temporal thing for conciliating him to oneself with a view to obtaining a benefice or office?

Resp. Negatively, if the primary intention is of giving the temporal thing gratuitously; because then the immediate comparison is made of a temporal thing with a temporal thing, namely the benevolence of the Superior. But otherwise if the spiritual thing is intended as a due recompense, not, however, as the effect of gratitude of soul. This intention, unless the opposite either is established or can be gathered from adjuncts, for example from the smallness of the gift, etc., is to be presumed to exist virtually, if another title is lacking, for example of removing an unjust vexation, etc.¹

Quaer. 3° Is it Simony to perform sacred functions principally because of a stipend, or to receive something for sacred doctrine?

Resp. to the first. Negatively, at least more probably, because the stipend is not received as the price of the sacred thing, but as something owed to the person who is occupied for the sake of the neighbor. - Lacroix and others commonly,² against some. Therefore if some inordinate affection intervenes (for there will be no fault if need or another honest cause impels one to seeking stipends of this sort), it will not be the vice of Simony, but of avarice.

Resp. to the second. Affirmatively, if the instruction tends to the spiritual good of others, because it is a spiritual thing, unless nevertheless it is accepted by title of stipend or support. But otherwise if the instruction is merely temporal, for example in handing on an explanation of Sacred Letters or Theology.³

354. • Quaer. 4° Is it Simony to redeem oneself with money from unjust vexation concerning benefices, or another spiritual good, for example Sacraments, etc.?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably, because liberation from vexation, which alone is directly intended, is something temporal. - Hence you can give money to your enemy if he tries through fraud to impede the collator from favoring you. - St. Alph.⁴ and others commonly. Indeed Doctors agree in the same, even if he wishes to impede by prayers alone. But you cannot give money to those who can harm or benefit by electing or presenting to a benefice or by conferring it; for to offer money to them lest they harm would be the same as to offer it so that they benefit, that is, so that they not deny consent.⁵

Quaer. 5° Is it Simony to give or accept something for entrance into Religion?

Resp. 1° It is certain that it is not licit to give or accept something for entrance alone; because this would be a commutation of a sacred thing, of which sort Religion is, with a temporal thing.

2° It is certain also that it is licit for a poor monastery to exact something for the support of the one entering, because then the spiritual thing is not commuted with the temporal; and otherwise equity demands that something be received, lest the monastery fall burdened by expenses.

3° It is likewise certain that it is licit for a monastery to exact something for the support of Novices, because since they do not yet pertain to Religion, and can depart at will, and often in reality do depart, it is not equitable for the monastery to undergo so grave a burden for them. Yet the Religion of Friars Minor can receive nothing from a special decree.

4° But if there is question of a wealthy monastery, it is controverted. St. Alph.¹ denies, unless the one to be received is old or infirm. Besides, now all doubt vanishes because of the difficulty of the times. For no monasteries are found so wealthily founded that they need no alien help at all for the present and the future. Besides, as is established from several decrees, Nuns always can exact the established dowry, and for choir nuns they ought to [n. 1188. II. 3)].

355. • Quaer. 6° Does a priest commit Simony who promises a Mass to a layman for the outcome of a game, while the companion puts up a temporal price?

Resp. Negatively of itself, because by this reason a spiritual thing is not properly equated with a temporal thing, just as it is not equated when Mass is said for a stipend; but only the execution of a spiritual thing is offered in place of a temporal thing which would otherwise have to be handed over. For he does not sin who offers to a creditor 100 Masses to be celebrated for him, so that he remit a debt of $100; therefore by parity neither does he sin who promises a Mass for the outcome of a game, while the other puts up $1. - Thus Voit² against others. - Besides, a game of this sort rarely lacks some scandal, and therefore must always be dissuaded from.

Quaer. 7° Does a priest commit Simony who for Mass exacts a stipend above the usual tax or one established by the Bishop?

Resp. Negatively, unless he acts with a simoniacal mind; because, since he has another title of exacting remuneration, comparison between the spiritual and the temporal is lacking. He would indeed sin against obedience or justice by exacting more than is equitable, but not at all against Religion. - Yet Voit¹ contradicts, with others, because (he says) then every just title of exacting the temporal thing is lacking.

356. • Quaer. 8° What about so-called stole fees?

Resp. 1° By common law it has been established: a) that their payment not be a condition without which sacred functions are not performed, and therefore that it not be exacted before those functions; b) that after the sacred functions to which they are annexed by diocesan law or laudable custom, they can be exacted, and indeed from justice,² except from the poor; c) that those who maliciously strive to alter laudable custom are restrained by the Bishop, not by the priest.³ - But a custom cannot be called laudable when it is forbidden by the Holy See or by the Ordinary (cf. Conc. Pl. Balt. II, p. 290, Doc. VI), or has proceeded from the exaction of priests.

Resp. 2° According to the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, it belongs to Bishops "in ... diocesan synod, or otherwise, as it shall have seemed to them in the Lord, with the counsel of priests also employed, to establish a just" manner "by which among priests dwelling together ... the alms which the faithful spontaneously confer on occasion of the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism or Matrimony are distributed, with consideration not neglected of the stronger right and the graver burdens of the pastor."¹

Moreover, in various dioceses it has been established that stole fees which proceed from functions exercised in another's parish or for the sake of another's parishioner are remitted to the proper pastor. Yet this must not be understood of offerings altogether voluntary, or of those to which the faithful are obliged neither by diocesan law nor by custom; nor even of that part of the owed offering which exceeds the tax established by law or custom; for as to that part it is altogether voluntary.

Resp. 3° As regards specifically the administration of Sacraments, on the occasion of:

a) Confirmation, if it is joined with a pastoral visitation, as is customary, "let it be ... in the choice of those who are visited whether they prefer to pay that which was previously customarily paid by them, a certain sum of money having been fixed, or rather ... to furnish provisions" to the Bishop.¹

b) Eucharist, nothing is customarily accepted.

c) Penance, confessors "should not apply pecuniary penances to themselves ... nor should they ask or accept anything from penitents as a reward of their ministry."² "Even things offered spontaneously," the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore³ warns, "under whatever name, let them refuse; nor let them allow even the Mass alms itself to be offered in this sacred tribunal."

d) Extreme Unction, nothing is accepted. "But if a priest has made a long journey for visiting them, nothing forbids that the necessary expenses of the journey be given to him; but let it be absent that they be exacted from the poor."⁴

e) Orders, "let Bishops and other collators of orders, or their ministers, accept nothing ... even spontaneously offered, under whatever pretext."⁵ Yet a Bishop conferring Orders in place of another or outside the cathedral in favor of some convent or college will be able to accept expenses of the journey.

f) Baptism and Matrimony. It is certain: 1) that nothing can be exacted where there is not diocesan law or laudable custom. But this cannot be called laudable if it had proceeded not from the piety of the faithful, but from the exaction of priests, as Canonists explain.

2. "Those things which, from the zeal of piety after baptism or matrimony has been conferred, are spontaneously offered by the faithful under the name of alms" a priest, if he wishes, can accept.⁶

Resp. 4° Around burial it has been established:

I. By common law: 1° a) For ground to be deputed to burial (for the word burial comes also in this sense), not yet blessed, something can be exacted or accepted; b) but not for ground already blessed, c) unless either custom is present, or something is offered liberally, or something is sought by reason of the location or more honorable place.

The first part of the response is clear from the fact that ground of this sort is something profane, and therefore can be sold and bought without any stain of simony; the second from L. III, Decr. T. XXVIII, c. 13; the third from the fact that the custom is not called depraved in the cited law, except in the case in which "the digging of a grave is not first permitted for the deceased before a certain price is paid to the Church for the ground in which they are to be buried"; - that a free offering is prohibited by no law; - and that location or a more honorable place is something profane, estimable by price.

2° For the act and office of burial, things spontaneously offered, as is clear of itself, can be accepted, and, where custom is in force, something can also be exacted by title of support.

3° For the burial of the poor, whether as to place or act, nothing can be exacted by pastors.¹

II. By our law, or by the statutes of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore,² the price paid for a place of burial is to be employed for preserving, restoring, and adorning cemeteries, and, if anything remains, for promoting works of charity or religion by the judgment of the Ordinary. "But we strictly forbid," say the Fathers, "that ever, under whatever pretext, without permission of the Ordinary, ecclesiastical men dare to make their own the monies which are derived from cemeteries; but if they shall have attempted this, let them be punished with most severe penalties."

"Where there is custom," says De Angelis,³ "it is admitted ... that for a common place in a cemetery a tax be paid, which is called of burial; and the reason for paying this tax is a partial reintegration of the sum expended for the building of the cemetery, and of the expenses which are made for the preservation and custody of the same place; just as here at Rome there is also such a tax, and it is noted in the said Statutes of the Clergy, chap. 6" (the Statutes of the Roman Clergy are denoted). "But for the poor, burial ought to be gratuitous; and what is rightly reprehended in these exactions is the vexatious mode by which they are made, so that permission for burial is not given unless the sum of money has been paid; ... concerning which last case, as Doctors observe, the disposition of Chap. 13, h. t."⁴ is to be understood. See this above under 1°.

357. You will resolve. - 1° He does not commit Simony who exchanges Relics with Relics;¹ because thus the spiritual is not given for the temporal. The same must be said of other sacred things, if you except benefices, whose exchange, lest it be done by proper authority, is prohibited by the Church.

2° He does not commit Simony who sells blessed wax, rosaries, crosses, or medals to which indulgences are annexed, or sacred Relics enclosed in precious cases, or other similar things; because these are not sold by reason of the sacred thing, but by reason of the price of the temporal thing annexed; but otherwise if, because of the sacred thing itself, these were sold for a greater price. It must be observed besides that by several decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences it has been forbidden that blessed rosaries, crosses, or medals be exposed for sale.¹

3° He does not commit Simony who pays money to a heretical prince, lest he be impeded from entrance to the Church or from frequenting religious assemblies of Catholics; or to a malevolent man, lest he be unjustly defamed by him and barred from a benefice to which he has or can have a right. The reason is that in this way the temporal thing is not given for a spiritual right, but for removing or impeding injury, which is something temporal.

4° Those are not to be accused of Simony who serve gratuitously or for an inadequate wage, so that by this occasion they may demonstrate their probity or dexterity with hope of sometimes obtaining some benefice; because they do not expect that spiritual thing as the price of their labors. - Elbel.²

5° Nor are those culpable of Simony who from gratitude furnish a temporal thing for a spiritual thing received, and vice versa. Thus a Chaplain would not sin who more gladly furnished services to a Bishop from whom he obtained a benefice, nor a Bishop who conferred a benefice on a Cleric in recognition of services; because these are not furnished as a price. Besides, it is honorable and laudable to show oneself grateful for an accepted service. Yet one must carefully beware lest disguised Simony lie hidden under the title of gratitude; but this would happen where there intervened an implicit pact of giving a benefice for temporal service, or vice versa.³

6° But it would be Simony to perform sacred ministries precisely because of the price to be received as such, for example to accept money for absolution from sins, from censures, or for dispensation in a vow, oath, irregularity, and matrimonial impediments. The reason is that it is a spiritual act both by reason of the principle or spiritual power and by reason of the end or salvation of souls. Yet money is licitly accepted on occasion of dispensations, especially when another just cause is not present, by title namely of commutation or alms, or of support of the burdens of the Pontificate, for coming to the aid of the necessities of the Church, for example of Temples, Missions, etc., or for other pious uses, for example for relieving the poor, for endowing hospitals, for the expenses of tribunals by which dispensations are granted, etc. For a suitable stipend must be assigned to the various officials or ministers employed for expediting causes.

358. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Must the spiritual thing acquired simoniacally be restored?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively, as to benefices; thus the common and certain opinion of Doctors. The reason is that laws, as a punishment for the delict, stand in the way, so that the one receiving can acquire dominion of neither the price nor the benefice. And since the acquisition of the benefice is invalid, by that very fact dominion of the fruits cannot be acquired; and therefore these also must be restored.

Resp. 2° Negatively, as to the rest, although the judge can enjoin restitution as a penalty of the crime. Thus the common opinion with Schmalzgrueber.¹ The reason is not only because certain things cannot be restored, for example Sacred Order, but also because for the transfer of a spiritual thing to be valid by divine law, for example of most holy Relics, nothing more is required than the power of transferring in the one and of receiving dominion of the thing in the other; but, unless there is some defect from elsewhere in either, this power is present in both as to a spiritual thing. Therefore. But if the transfer is valid by divine law, it will also be valid by human law, since by this law simoniacal provisions alone of benefices, almost only, are decreed invalid.

Quaer. 2° Must the price accepted simoniacally for a spiritual thing be restored?

Resp. 1° If only the crime of simony intervened, but no injury of justice, there is no obligation of restoring the simoniacal price before a condemnatory sentence of a judge, unless the price itself exceeds the estimation of the temporal advantage which is transferred with the spiritual thing to another. Thus Suarez, Lessius, Laymann, Reiffenstuel apud Schmalzgr.¹

Resp. 2° But where the simoniacal pact is also opposed to commutative justice, the price must be restored before every sentence of a judge. Thus the common opinion. The reason is that, from the injury of commutative justice, the obligation of restoring arises by the very law of nature.

Quaer. 3° To whom must the simoniacal price be restored?

Resp. 1° If the price has been given, but the spiritual thing has not yet been handed over, the common opinion teaches that the price must be restored to him who gave it, unless the judge shall have decreed otherwise. The reason is that laws establish vindicatory penalties only against real simony.

Resp. 2° But if the handing over has followed on both sides, before sentence it can probably be restored either to the giver, or to the church, or to the poor.²

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.¹

By this precept there is prohibited any irreverence toward God, whether by the vain usurpation of His Most Holy Name, or by blasphemy, or by an oath or vow either illicit or violated.

500. Preliminary note. Irreligion, or irreligiousness, which is opposed to religion, is taken either in a broad or in a strict sense. Irreligion in the broad sense includes all sins against religion, whether by omission or by commission. Sufficient has been said above in the preceding chapter about sins against religion by omission, that is, about the omission of acts prescribed by religion, for example, the omission of devotion, prayer, adoration, the sanctification of Sunday, etc. It remains to speak of sins of commission against religion, which indeed are perpetrated either by excess, that is, through diverse superstitions, or by defect, that is, through irreligion strictly so called. Yet when superstition is said to be opposed to religion by excess, this is not to be understood as though God, who is of infinite majesty, could be worshiped too much by a creature, for that is impossible; rather, the excess consists either in the circumstances of worship, namely, if God is worshiped in an unsuitable manner, or in the object of worship, namely, if false gods are worshiped. Irreligion in the strict sense contains all those sins which pertain to contempt or irreverence toward God and sacred things, for example, blasphemy, sacrilege, etc.

The present chapter is divided into ten articles, of which the first six pertain to superstition, but the last four to irreligion strictly so called. There will be treated: 1. superstition in general; 2. idolatry; 3. divination; 4. vain observance; 5. magic and malefice; 6. magnetism, hypnotism, and spiritism; 7. the tempting of God; 8. blasphemy; 9. sacrilege; 10. simony.

526. Preliminary note. Thus far there has been discussion of sins against religion by excess; now irreligion strictly so called must be treated, which is opposed to religion by defect, insofar as from its own nature it contains something contrary to divine worship, namely, irreverence and contumely. Certainly superstition and its species also inflict irreverence upon God, but not so immediately and directly as irreligion strictly so called, which is directed immediately either against God Himself or against sacred things (at least if one excepts idolatry). Against God are temptation and blasphemy; against sacred things are sacrilege and simony. Each must be treated separately.

769. To the virtue of religion there is opposed a twofold genus of vices: one by excess in divine worship, namely, superstition; the other by defect, because it posits something contrary to divine worship and exhibits contempt or irreverence toward God or divine things, namely, irreligiosity.