Vain Observance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. Lacroix, l. 3, pr. 1, n. 28.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² Cf. F. Walter, Aberglaube und Seelsorge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is vain observance? - Vain observance consists in this, that someone employs means neither proportioned by their nature nor instituted by God or by the Church for obtaining a certain effect. It differs from divination in that the latter is ordered to knowledge of hidden things, but vain observance to any effects whatsoever to be obtained. It agrees with divination because it also rests upon a pact, express or tacit, with a demon. It matters little indeed that a demon is not expressly invoked; for he is invoked equivalently. For since God does not mingle himself with vain things, the effect can be expected only from a demon. Since someone uses inept means, he uses them not as causes but as signs, and thus they pertain to pacts of significations entered into with demons. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 96, aa. 1, 2, 3; L. 24.

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

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

What kind of sin is vain observance? - As divination, so also vain observance is a grave sin, both because it attributes divine honor to a creature by expecting from it what ought to be looked for from God alone, and because it rests upon a pact, and consequently imports society with a demon. Yet many times that which contains only an implicit invocation of a demon can be excused from mortal sin by reason of ignorance and lack of consideration, or of very doubtful faith. L. 15; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 96.

You will resolve: 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 making themselves invulnerable, etc. Likewise those who wear certain prayers to St. Bridget or other prayers, expecting an altogether infallible effect from them. Yet they are not to be blamed, indeed they are very much to be praised, who wear pious medals, sacred effigies, or relics of the Saints, hoping that they will specially obtain divine help for themselves. Those also are guilty of superstition who hold some days as fortunate and others as unfortunate, so that they direct their actions from this; or who for expelling diseases require herbs gathered on such a feast, etc.

But it is not superstitious to observe the moon or the times more apt for gathering herbs, cutting trees, etc.; nor to wear sacred things or words of Sacred Scripture for the honor of God or of the Saints, and for imploring their help. Likewise it is not superstitious to recite a certain number of prayers, nor to do all those things which can increase devotion, provided that an infallible force is not attributed to them. 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 the worship of Our Lord, or of the Blessed Virgin, or of some Saint, by reason of indulgences which are attached to such a number of prayers, or by reason of mystical signification for increasing devotion; for example, a ternary in honor of the Most Holy Trinity, a quinary in honor of the five wounds of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a septenary because it recalls to mind the six days of creation and the seventh on which the Lord rested, a novenary in honor of the nine months in which Christ was in the womb of his Mother, etc., provided that infallible force is not attached to such a number, to a certain day, or to a fixed time. Struggl 33, 34; Cajetan, in q. 96, aa. 3, 4; L. 17-22; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 96.

In doubt concerning the natural cause of some effect, is it permitted to make an experiment? - Vain observance is discerned from the insufficiency of the cause, from some vain circumstance, and from the infallibility which is attributed to a fallible thing. L. 16. In doubt whether effects come from a natural cause or from a demon, they can be attributed to the powers of nature; for the possession of right prevails, since many things lie hidden from us which are altogether natural, and we can altogether investigate them. And therefore it is licit to procure those effects by experiment, since it is not established that the thing is evil. Yet a protestation against any intervention of a demon is deliberately made beforehand. Holy Office, 26 July 1899. But in doubt whether effects are produced by a demon or by God, if it is certain that they cannot come from a natural cause, they are to be attributed to a demon, unless the sanctity of the operator or other clear indications persuade the contrary; because it is rash to think that miracles are always being done. Whence then it is not licit to try whether the effect will follow or not. L. 20; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 96, aa. 1, 2; Struggl 32; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 28; E. M. 485.

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

What can be done to remove a malefice? - It is permitted to use natural remedies sought from medicine for correcting corrupt humors; exorcisms, sacraments, pilgrimages, invocations of Saints; and the destruction of the signs through which the demon harms, yet without another malefice. It is also permitted to place a contrary sign, provided it is honorable of itself. The reason is that this is nothing other than to remove the sign and dissolve the pact with the demon. If a sorcerer can remove the malefice in a licit way, it is permitted to summon him to this, to ask him, indeed even to induce him by money, and this even if it is established that he will do this through a new malefice, just as for a cause it is permitted to ask a usurer for a loan at usury. And the reason is that, since I have the right to ask what can rightly be furnished by him and is indifferent, it will be imputed to his malice if he does it badly.

If the sorcerer cannot remove the malefice except through a new malefice, it is not permitted to induce him to this, because this would be to induce him to sin and to cooperate in an intrinsically evil act. If it is doubted whether he can remove it without a new malefice, it is not permitted to ask it of him, because the presumption stands against it, that he knows no mode except an illicit one. But it can more easily be presumed that he who placed the signs can destroy them without a new malefice, than he who did not place them. Whence, if this latter offers his work, he must first be examined concerning the mode of dissolving it. Suarez, c. 17, n. 10; L. 24 seqq.; Struggl 44 seqq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

899. 1. General concept. Superstitious observances are called those modes of acting by which a vain and disproportionate means is applied so that some effect may be obtained. Therefore two things manifest a vain observance: the manifest insufficiency of the means for obtaining the effect, and the infallibility which is attributed to these means. For when these two concur, the intended effect can be expected only from a supernatural agent; and thus there is superstition, because such an effect is expected either from God or His angels, against the divinely instituted order, or from the demon, through a pact either explicit or implicit.

¹ Besides the authors already cited, cf. Del Rio, S.J.; Ami du Clerge, Le Spiritisme, t. XXII, 1900, pp. 328, 488, 758; Le Demonisme, t. XXIV, 1902, pp. 289, 625, 849, 897, 977, 1057. Yet it seems to us that there more is attributed to the devil than is necessary, if the facts are critically inspected.

Thus these or similar things savor of superstition: to will to hear Mass before sunrise, or with a certain number and order of candles, celebrated by a priest whose name is John, etc., if there is the persuasion that by these various circumstances special and extraordinary effects of grace are infallibly obtained: for there is no proportion, either of itself or from divine institution, between these ridiculous things and the intended effect. - Generally this kind of superstition does not exceed venial sin, on account of good faith and simplicity; yet it must carefully be reprehended and corrected, because otherwise men who are little strengthened in faith are kept away from true religion.

900. But more often an extraordinary effect is expected from the devil or an evil spirit. Sometimes there is as it were an explicit pact (real or imaginary) with the demon, or at least he is expressly invoked; sometimes there is only tacit invocation, insofar as the agent knows that the cause applied is unfit for obtaining the effect, unless an evil spirit intervenes.

But experiments which are made by experts, for detecting new laws of nature hitherto unknown, differ altogether from these superstitions. For there are many hidden things which can be detected only by patient and long observation; and not a few phenomena which formerly were ascribed to magic are today explained naturally.

901. 2. Specifically concerning divination. Among superstitions is enumerated divination, by which the demon is expressly or tacitly invoked for knowing hidden things by his help.

It can be manifold: evocation of spirits, when these appear in a sensible form; necromancy, when the apparition of the dead is sought; oneiromancy, if the manifestation of hidden things is made through a dream; pythonism, if, through men or women, spirits teach hidden things; haruspicy, if secrets are sought from the entrails of animals immolated to the gods; augury or auspice, if the manifestation of hidden things is expected from the cries of animals, the song or flight of birds; chiromancy or physiognomy, when someone tries to detect future things from the lines of the hands or countenance; sortilege, if knowledge of hidden things is sought from arbitrarily chosen signs, for example from the cast of dice, etc.

902. 3. Vain observance. This differs from divination, because it is ordered not so much to detecting hidden things as to producing some effect.

A threefold kind is usually distinguished: (a) the notorious art, or the art of acquiring knowledge without labor, by means altogether unfit, for example by uttering certain words; (b) the art of healings,⁴ or the art of curing diseases by unfit means, for example by amulets hung on the neck, by diverse signs or words which are thought to produce their effect ex opere operato; (c) malefice, by which someone, through similarly unfit means, tries to inflict some evil upon the neighbor; it is called amatory if it tends to excite a most vehement love or hatred, and venomous if it tends to bring harm upon a person, family, or goods.

⁴ This superstition indeed ought altogether to be distinguished from the gift, natural or supernatural, of curing certain diseases, which belongs to certain men. When these do nothing ridiculous, and otherwise are honest, and have not entered into any pact with the devil, they are not to be prohibited from exercising this gift, especially if they protest that they will to reject whatever would be diabolical. Cf. Noldin, n. 161.

903. 4. Concerning the malice of superstitious observances. (A) It must first be noted that many of the phenomena which are called superstitious must be ascribed to fraud or imagination. For since it is very well known that there is in men an innate propensity for detecting hidden things or seeing marvelous things, in all ages and regions clever men have been found, greedy for money, who, in order to favor curiosity, feigned that they had commerce with supernatural agents, and by skillful industry deceived them.⁵ Besides, those who are endowed with a vivid imagination often take phantasms for true phenomena,⁶ especially when a third person suggests it. - Moreover certain other facts which formerly were attributed to the devil, when the matter has been better weighed, can be ascribed to natural forces: for recent discoveries show that there are many forces, formerly unknown, by which marvelous effects are obtained. - Yet, since there truly are evil spirits, who solicit men to evil, as was said in De Deo Creante, n. 91-99, it is not wonderful that, by their help, preternatural and prodigious things are sometimes accomplished, so that the unwary may more easily be deceived and drawn to illicit things. Therefore in individual cases all circumstances ought carefully to be weighed, so that it can be discerned whether the alleged facts are diabolical or not, and whether penitents had a superstitious intention or not.

⁵ Thus the famous Home, who in great cities, and especially in Paris, had exercised the magic art and had obtained responses from rotating tables, when near death declared that he himself had given responses of this kind. Cf. P. Davis, La fin du monde des esprits, le spiritisme devant la raison et la science, Paris, 1887, p. 287; Surbled, Spirites et Mediums, Paris, 1901, p. 93-105.

⁶ Malefactors, who were thought to gather to celebrate a sabbath, used narcotic medicines, and for the most part dreamed that they saw the things which they afterward narrated. Surbled, La morale, t. IV, ch. 19.

904. (B) Whatever may be the case concerning the speculative question, the moral malice of superstitions ought to be judged especially from the intention itself of the agents, from the effects which they foresaw, and from the dangers of sinning to which they expose themselves.

(a) First, if there was an explicit pact with the demon, real or imaginary, or an express invocation of the same, it is certainly a most grave sin; for he inflicts a grave injury upon God who seriously enters, or wishes to enter, into society with the devil, the most bitter enemy of God: "Neither let there be found among you... any one that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead; for the Lord abhorreth all these things."⁷

⁷ Deut. 18:10-11; cf. Lev. 19:31; 20:27.

(b) Even when there is no explicit pact, if, from superstition, a means is knowingly applied which is unfit for the intended effect, a grave sin is committed of itself, because diabolical intervention is implicitly desired. Yet, in this case, many are excused from mortal sin on account of simplicity or ignorance, or because they act from mere curiosity, especially if there is not a certain expectation of the event, but only a certain hope. Nevertheless penitents are to be turned away from superstitions of this kind, which gradually divert the mind from true religion.

(c) If someone uses malefice, he sins besides against charity and justice; and if harm is truly inflicted upon the neighbor, there is an obligation of repairing it.

(d) In doubt whether phenomena are natural or diabolical, the principles concerning cooperation are to be applied (above, n. 185): therefore it is licit to posit an action which of itself is not evidently evil, provided there is a proportionately grave reason for acting, and the good effect is intended, not however the evil one, or diabolical cooperation.

905. (C) There are certain extraordinary phenomena which today are quite commonly held, or at least can be held, as natural, and therefore are licit from what has already been said: (a) Thus the use of the divining rod for detecting waters or certain metals cannot be condemned: for the movement of this rod is rather easily explained from a certain influence of water or metals; in truth pious Christians and priests use it without any fear of diabolical intervention.⁸

⁸ Revue du monde invisible, Oct. 15, 1898; July 15, 1899; Surbled, Le secret des Sourciers, in Science Catholique, Sept. 1902.

(b) Sometimes certain hidden things are manifested to those dreaming, and sometimes to those awake, either by God,⁹ or in a natural way through a certain, as they say, telepathy;¹⁰ on the other hand, it is commonly admitted that the demon can excite some phantasms in the mind of those sleeping.¹¹ Therefore from the circumstances it must be discerned whether these dreams or presentiments are sent by God, or are diabolical, or natural. If they proceed from God, the thing manifested bears nothing ridiculous before it, impels to good, leaves the soul tranquil and also more cheerful for performing works of piety. - But it would be rash to direct one's actions from those things which appeared in sleep, since hallucination frequently occurs in this matter. - Sometimes, however, to posit or omit some indifferent action on account of a dream is not prohibited, since warnings received in sleep are sometimes true.

⁹ Num. 12:6; Acts 2:17.

¹⁰ Facts of telepathy, which occur not only through sleep but also in the state of wakefulness, you will find set forth in the work Phantasms of the Living, by Gurney, Myers, and Podmore, rendered in French by L. Marillier under this title Hallucinations telepathiques, Paris, Alcan; Surbled, Morale, t. IV, ch. 14; C. Flammarion, L'Inconnu et les Problemes psychiques, Paris, 1900; J. Maxwell, Les Phenomenes psychiques, 2nd ed., 1904, Paris, Alcan, p. 183-191; Civilta cattolica, Serie XVII, vol. VII, p. 144, 411, 673, etc.

¹¹ This is also inferred from Deut. 18:10.

What sortilege is

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

Divination

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

Magic

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

Evocation of spirits?

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

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

Superstitions of this kind

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

When they are taught

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

Are commended?

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

Notable matter is required

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

What of hypnotism and magnetic phenomena, as they say?

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

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

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

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

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

And so, as pertains to our matter:

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

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

What of books of pagans

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

¹ Tr. 6, s. 1, n. 99.

² March 30-April 1, 1898.

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

1. By the name vain observance we understand usages, both negative and positive, of themselves inept for the intended end.

2. Morality. Those vain usages can be employed as sacred rites by which gods are worshiped or magical power is obtained or exercised: then a grave sin of idolatry or of express or tacit invocation of the devil is necessarily committed ¹. It can also happen that they are employed outside every sacred rite, without firm faith, but on account of a certain light fear lest it be so, or lest what is predicted happen. Concerning that use theologians are accustomed to answer more benignly, so that, scandal being set aside, they hold it for merely venial, unless someone wished to direct as it were his whole life by dreams and signs of this sort. But in order that they may answer thus, it is necessary that they deny that in those circumstances there is a tacit pact with the devil or implicit invocation of him, since every pact with the devil, or every invocation of him, cannot but be objectively a grave sin.

But what, in reality, does the psychological analysis of those who thus abstain from a gathering where they would be thirteen in number, or from a journey to be undertaken on Friday, or who do certain indifferent things, as when they pour out prayers in a certain number, neither more nor less, or complete the recitation in such a position or gesture, demonstrate to us? That they avoid those things or do these with this mind: because, if perhaps what was feared should happen, they would not wish the misfortune or adverse things to be imputed to some negligence of their own; because, before the possible event, they desire to free themselves from some anxiety; because, after the wondrous inventions of this century, for example telepathy, they suspect perhaps some hidden natural power. Thus, if future contingents are known only to God, do not the mysterious preparations of facts seem to be demonstrated by many prior apprehensions (presentimenti)? And, however the matter may be, since by no precept are they compelled to sit at table with thirteen in number, or to make a journey on the sixth feria, or to abstain from such a gesture, they think they derive a certain greater security from observance, which moreover they will easily admit to be little reasonable. Therefore they are far distant from those who, conscious of the natural disproportion, will absolutely to produce some effect through observances of this sort: these indeed are guilty of a tacit pact with the devil, but not those others, for they manifest a fearful rather than strictly superstitious mind. Yet in their action is discerned a certain defect of trust in divine Providence, which venially derogates from divine worship. And greater is the disorder of him who positively employs certain things than of him who omits certain things from that fear. Indeed, constant use of those means, or of vain observance, would betray grave distrust, on account of which he is deservedly charged with grave sin. Hence he will not be gravely guilty who deliberately avoids those things which an augur gathered from the lines of his hand would be harmful to him.

Those are to be more gravely censured who positively, as happened in the recent war, carry certain ridiculous amulets. Although even these, if they yield to a certain timidity, are not to be said guilty mortally.

¹ Prat, art. cit., notes that idolatry is joined with a special ritual art.

A protestation by which someone excludes commerce with the devil is indeed ineffective if someone employs means which he certainly knows cannot be obtained without diabolical power in concrete circumstances, or if someone, suspecting such a power, nevertheless pursues the effect with absolute will. For he wills the effect, even if it is diabolical. But he who, in doubt concerning the nature of the cause, by a prevailing will rejects every diabolical participation, and does not cooperate, by formal or materially unexcused cooperation, with those who expressly or tacitly recur to the devil, cannot be guilty of tacit invocation of the devil.

Yet when there is grave suspicion of diabolical intervention, a grave cause, such as teachers of theology or of the sciences can have, is required that someone, even with a protestation premised, which must be made, licitly exercise such things. For if even ritual exorcisms do not have infallible efficacy for expelling the devil, much less will private prayer certainly prohibit the devil from intervention. Therefore in that exercise there is contained a certain active permission of diabolical intervention, which, from the motive of religion and for avoiding the danger of harm from probable commerce with a wicked and most cunning enemy, is forbidden to us without cause. Cf. d'Annibale, II, 54 fine.

A just and proportionate cause is also required for cooperation, even if it is merely material, with those who at least subjectively are guilty of superstition.

Corollaries. 1. It is not licit to exercise the art of pythons, even if no dishonorable means are employed and conjectures concerning future things are made without firm faith, for example from the lines of the right hand, unless the whole intention of joking is manifested externally. For not a few suffer scandal of superstition from this; not a few are harmfully deceived in their affairs, or, struck by fears, truly give cause why they undergo the feared evils.

But he who, without firm faith and scandal, from a certain curiosity or for raising laughter, goes to consult persons of this sort, does not sin, unless perhaps venially. Cf. Sanchez, Dec. L. 2, c. 38, n. 20; c. 10, n. 13; Ballerini-Palmieri, Op. Theol., II, 347.

2. The Sacred Scriptures themselves warn us that men are rightly taught certain things through dreams. But prudent discernment of spirits must be made here. Therefore, in order that you ascribe a preternatural and good origin to a dream, it is necessary that the thing in itself not be unworthy of God; that it impel to a good work; that it bring final peace at least to the soul and raise it to heavenly things. - But in order that someone fully trust a dream, he ought to be almost certain of its divine origin. For, according to the testimony of St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 9, God, while He sends such things, at the same time furnishes this certitude. - And with this case excluded, he who follows certain indifferent indications of a dream not sought without full faith, for example so that he buys those "numbers" of the lottery which he dreamed, or avoids a journey which was shown to him as dangerous, is not to be charged with certain sin, especially since there are sometimes at least confused mysterious previsions of future or distant things.

3. For a just cause, when other means of evacuating doubt are lacking, it is right, with humble prayer premised, to employ consultory lots, provided that the judgment is expected from God alone. As if someone placed at a crossroads does not know which way must be taken, and it somewhat matters that a good one be entered.

4. Certain usages of devotion, for example going around an altar or shrine three times, sowing or planting on the feast of such a Saint, are not superstitious, but are means of imploring the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of a Saint, unless those circumstances are thought to be infallible, or plainly necessary, or efficacious of themselves. Nor are novendial devotions to be disapproved, insofar as they are founded on some revelation, or honor some mystery, for example the months in which Christ was in the womb, or imitate the example of the apostles in preparation for Pentecost, or fulfill the condition of an indulgence; yet it would be superstitious to believe that those prayers are not profitable in a greater or lesser number.

5. As Cajetan already warned, in 2, 2, q. 96 art. 2, formal superstition is absent where, from ignorance, a natural or divine power is thought to be in certain remedies or usages. Thus the S. C. de P. F. itself pronounced exempt from superstition the Chinese custom of exploding a cannon during an eclipse, lest the dragon devour the moon. Wherefore missionaries, when they detect certain inept remedies employed by barbarians, for example certain objects hung around the neck, must not immediately think that they are superstitious, but must explore the genus of power which is thought to be in them.

Indeed, from the opinion of Cajetan, in art. 4, they generally either do not sin or sin only venially who with a simple heart observe certain rites not received by the Church, by which, especially if they have been taught by ancestors, they hope that some effects will follow by divine power: as those who against a definite disease carry the first coin offered to Christ on Good Friday. These things therefore should rather be held as foolish things not to be propagated, than scruples concerning grave guilt are to be thrown in.

6. It is plain of itself that no illicit divination is exercised by those who probably conjecture from the face, the disposition of members, the lines and parts of the hand, marks of writing, the temperament of the body, indeed even the propensities and affections of the soul.

Nor can the use of a divining rod be charged with superstition, which, by a certain inclination or agitation of itself, is judged to reveal where metals are to be dug or where a source of water lies hidden. For the effect is expected from a merely attractive natural power, whether it is truly present or falsely thought to be present.

In doubt concerning the quality of a power, an effect, provided that, because of analogy with effects certainly natural, it permits the natural causality to be probable, should rather be ascribed to natural powers. And the things which today have been discovered or even observed, for example concerning natural telepathy, are such as confirm the presumption of a natural power. Yet in a general ratio, a prudent conclusion by which all things would be declared natural cannot rest upon an unknown natural power. Cf. also what was said at n. 243.

On malefices. A malefice is a power of harming others acquired from a pact and cooperation of the devil. One is called amatory, or a philtre, whose use is for exciting carnal love or hatred, the devil moving man's phantasy, yet in such a way that liberty is not taken away: for the devil can do nothing upon the will. Another is a poisoning, by which harm is brought upon the person of another or upon his goods.

Although, not even today, the use of malefices seems to be altogether absent, and, in certain occult assemblies, horrible arts seem sometimes to be exercised; yet because these things are hidden from most, and because popular credulity is too inclined to suspicions of malefice, pastors and confessors ought rather to restrain those who by a rash accusation of malefice bring grave injury upon the innocent. Nor should they themselves be prompt to recognize supernatural effects. How often a preternatural explanation was demanded solely by an enlarged narration of the facts, so that serious inquiry detected either some fraud or nothing very wondrous! At the same time, let them prudently dissuade the rude from recurring to vain and superstitious arts in diseases, especially of animals, but let them require counsels from those skilled in medicine.

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.

514. Notion. Vain observance⁷⁷⁵ is a species of superstition in which, to obtain a certain effect, means are employed which are suited to that end neither from their own nature nor from the ordinance of God or of the Church.

Vain observance differs from divination in this, that the end of divination is knowledge of future or occult things, whereas vain observance is ordered to obtaining other external effects. The difference therefore exists only in the effects; the means employed, namely, the intervention of the devil, are the same.

⁷⁷⁵ Wahnbrauch, sorcellerie [superstitious observance, sorcery].

515. Division. A threefold vain observance is customarily distinguished by the older authors:

1. The notory art (ars notoria), which is a certain method of acquiring knowledge suddenly and without labor through means that are altogether inept.

For example, by inspecting certain figures, pronouncing certain unknown words, and other things of this kind. From these things the difference between divination and the notory art appears; for through divination knowledge of future or occult things is sought, whereas through the notory art the infusion of some science is sought.⁷⁷⁶ St. Thomas⁷⁷⁷ rightly inculcates the complete inefficacy of this notory art. For God alone can infuse knowledge in a supernatural manner: "It does not belong to demons to enlighten the intellect.... But the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom is made through the enlightenment of the intellect; and therefore no one ever acquired knowledge through demons."

2. The observance of health is a method of curing diseases by employing means that are altogether inept.

For example, through so-called sympathy, through amulets, through charms or incantations, etc.⁷⁷⁸ This magical medicine has flourished at all times and among all peoples, even cultivated ones, and still flourishes. In modern newspapers such magical physicians not rarely offer their assistance. In practice it is often most difficult to distinguish whether some mode of healing is natural or magical, since truly astonishing effects can be obtained in the human body through so-called suggestion. In a doubt, those criteria are to be employed which are indicated below in n. 517 for discerning every vain observance.

3. The observance of events is a method of conjecturing something favorable or unfavorable from the observation of a fortuitous event, and then of regulating one's actions from it.

For example, if someone thinks that something unfavorable is going to happen to him because an old woman met him in the morning, or because he sat at table with thirteen guests, etc. This observance of events is very closely related to the divination which is called an omen; nevertheless, it differs from it because in divination knowledge of future things is sought, whereas in the observance of events direction of one's actions is sought.

⁷⁷⁶ The notory art is practiced in our times by certain sects devoted to false mysticism. In their assemblies even uneducated men sometimes suddenly rise and, as though filled with the Holy Ghost, deliver discourses concerning moral and religious matters.

⁷⁷⁷ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 96, a. 1.

⁷⁷⁸ Most famous in this matter is the book published by Mary Eddy (d. 1906), Science and Health with Key to the Scripture.

516. The moral and specific malice of vain observance is the same as that of divination.

The reason is that in each the virtue of religion is injured in the same formal manner, since an effect is sought through an explicit or implicit invocation of the devil. No moral difference is introduced by whether knowledge of an occult thing or some other external effect is sought. Hence the things said above concerning the moral malice of divination also apply to vain observance. In practice great patience and prudence are needed to deter the faithful from vain observances, since many faithful, and pious ones at that, perceive nothing evil in actions of this kind. Therefore they are prudently to be instructed concerning the vanity of such actions, without, however, its being said at once that they are gravely sinful in themselves.

517. The criteria for recognizing vain observance are chiefly three:

1. The insufficiency of the cause employed to produce the effect. Hence it is manifest superstition if someone thinks that by reciting a brief formula he will recover health from it.

2. The addition of a vain or false circumstance as though necessarily required for obtaining the effect, for example, to cut seven hairs from the neck in order to obtain health.

3. An infallible expectation of the effect from those vain means.

In a doubt whether some effect proceeded from a natural cause or not, it is ordinarily to be attributed to natural powers, because nothing preternatural is to be asserted unless it is established. Moreover, the efficacy of natural causes is very often unknown to us. But if it is established that the effect was not produced by a natural cause, and a doubt arises whether it is from God or from the devil, a miracle is not to be presumed, but rather a diabolical intervention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vain observance is chiefly recognized from three things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRINTED BY BENZIGER BROTHERS, NEW YORK

Vain observance is superstition which employs means neither proportioned nor instituted by God for obtaining a certain effect. But it is of three kinds, namely: 1st, notory art, or the art of acquiring knowledge without labor; 2nd, the art of healings, or the art of healing by various signs or sacred things; 3rd, the observance of events, by which from consideration of some fortuitous event someone conjectures what is going to be favorable or unfavorable, and thence moderates his actions. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 14.

I Say 1st. Vain observance is a grave sin, because it attributes divine honor to a creature, while it expects from it what is to be expected from God alone, and because it rests on an implicit pact with the 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 rude in the observance of events. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 15.

I Say 2nd. Vain observance is discerned especially: 1st, from the insufficiency of the cause for producing the effect naturally; 2nd, from the addition of a vain or false circumstance as if necessarily required; 3rd, from the infallibility which is attributed to means in no way infallible.

I Say 3rd. In doubt whether effects proceed from a natural cause or from the 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 advisedly a protestation against the intervention of the demon is premised. But in doubt whether effects are produced by the demon or by God, if it is certainly established that they cannot proceed from a natural cause, they are to be attributed to the demon, unless the holiness of the one operating or other clear indications persuade the contrary, because it is rash to think that miracles are always being done. Hence it is not licit then to test whether the effect is going to follow or not. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 20. - St. Thom. 2-2, q. 96, art. 1, and others commonly. - Hence:

1st. Those are guilty of superstition who wear amulets marked with certain characters; who invoke certain unknown names, or employ a certain number of crosses or prayers for healing wounds, for making themselves invulnerable, etc.

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

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

4th. But it is not superstitious to observe the moon or times more suitable for gathering herbs, cutting trees, etc., nor to carry 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 an infallible force is not attributed to them. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 16 and 17.

5th. Provided every vain observance and the danger of falling into it is removed, it is licit to swallow small paper images of the Blessed Virgin Mary dissolved in water or rolled up after the manner of a pill for obtaining health. Holy Office, Aug. 3, 1903.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Vain observance is the third species of superstition, which attempts to produce some external effect by the consideration of vain things. St. Thomas treats this question fully in four articles (q. 96). From the first article it is gathered that this vain observance is a kind of superstition, since it employs instruments unsuited, and not instituted by God or by nature, to produce some external effect. He divides this observance into three species. The first is the notory art; the second, the observance of health; the last, the observance of future events. In these, as in the other species of superstition, a pact with a demon — tacit or explicit — may be involved.

II. Question I. Is the notory art lawful? Response: St. Thomas answers this question thus (loc. cit.): "It must be said that the notory art is unlawful, because it makes use of certain signs to acquire knowledge — but not signs divinely instituted... Whence it remains that these are empty and vain signs, and consequently pertain to certain pacts of signification, agreed upon and struck with demons. And so the notory art is to be altogether repudiated, since it does not use these things" as effective causes, but as vain signs "...and so this art is also ineffective for acquiring knowledge. For since through such an art the acquisition [of knowledge] is not intended in a manner connatural to man — namely, by discovery or by learning — it follows that this effect is expected either from God or from demons. Now it is certain that some have had wisdom and knowledge from God through infusion, as is read of Solomon (3 Kings 3)... The Lord also said to his disciples (Luke 21): 'I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist.' But this gift is not given to whomever, or by means of a fixed observance, but according to the will of the Holy Spirit, as is said (1 Cor. 12): 'To one indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit'; and it is added afterward: 'But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will.' It does not, however, pertain to demons to illuminate the intellect... Now the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom occurs by the illumination of the intellect; and therefore no one has ever acquired knowledge through demons. Whence Augustine says (Bk. X, City of God) that Porphyry admits that nothing of purification accrues to the intellectual soul from the theurgic arts — that is, the operations of demons — that would render it fit to see its God, and to discern truly the things that are true, such as the theorems of all the sciences. Demons could, nevertheless, in conversing with men, express certain teachings of the sciences; but this is not what is sought through the notory art." Though it has been rather lengthy to transcribe all this, it seemed worth doing, given its usefulness on many points. It should be observed that demons, being angels of darkness, cannot illuminate the intellect toward God, since this illumination is directed toward manifesting truth in relation to God; every truth, indeed, is from God. But it is the demon's aim, on the contrary, to separate men from God, not to lead them to him. Wherefore those who enter into a pact with a demon for the acquisition of knowledge, beyond the most grave crime of superstition, are also defrauded of their hope. As for what is related of the Anabaptists — namely, that after partaking of the sacrilegious morsel at their supper, they discourse on the Scriptures — if this is true, it must be said that a demon takes possession of their bodies, and speaks through their mouth and tongue, as in those possessed. And this is so true that, once they have abjured their heresy, they remain as stupid and ignorant as before. But if they retained this knowledge even after abjuring the heresy, its use would then be lawful — provided it were certain and established that its continuation did not depend on the demon. Vain observance, then, or the notory art, is unlawful, and all agree that this is a certain and grave crime of superstition.

III. Question II. Is the observance of remedies for health lawful? Response: It is called the observance of health when unsuited instruments — ceremonies, prayers, astronomical images — are employed to cure diseases, soothe pains, stop the flow of blood, and ward off other such afflictions. Since, in fact, the aforesaid means and similar things of this kind have no power at all to produce such effects, either by their own nature or by divine institution, it follows that every effect that such things are wont to produce is from a demon. There intervenes, then, a pact — either explicit or implicit — with a demon; and thus the crime of superstition is committed. Guilty of superstition, likewise, are those who carry with them written charms, wrappings, amulets, or prayers, with the firm conviction that they will not die without confession, or that they will not be wounded by a firearm or cannon-shot. The reason is the same: for these signs have, of themselves and by no institution of God, any power to produce such effects. As for relics, however, it must be observed, with St. Thomas (II-II, q. 96, art. 4, ad 3): "If it is expected from faith in God, and the veneration of the Saints whose relics they are, this will not be unlawful. But if something else is attended to in this regard — as if the relic were, say, triangular in shape, or something of this sort, that had nothing to do with reverence for God and the Saints — it would be superstitious and unlawful." The Angelic Doctor further warns that, when sacred images or pages on which the Gospel is written are carried, care must be taken, first, that they contain nothing false, contrary to Sacred Scripture, the custom, and the tradition of the Church; and second, that nothing be written that pertains to the invocation of demons, and that no unknown names, characters, or figures be mixed in — the sign of the Cross excepted. In a word: the carrying of relics and sacred images is lawful when hope is placed in God alone, and in the intercession of the Saints; and honor and reverence is shown to sacred things on this account alone, and for no other vain observance.

IV. It is superstitious to utter sacred words in order to move a ring off a suspended thread — since these words have no power at all to produce such a motion. If, therefore, motion occurs, it is from a demon. Superstition is likewise committed by those who wear phylacteries, or bound-up remedies, suspended from the neck, which are by their very nature unfit to drive away illnesses; likewise those who cast images of the Saints into a river, and keep them there until they obtain rain from God. If you wish to read more on this, consult Del Rio (Bk. III, Disquisitiones Magicae, part 2, q. 4).

V. The observance of future events is the prediction of good or bad fortune from signs altogether unsuited to foreknowing such things: as if someone observed days, seasons, chance encounters with people, and other similar things, by which he was moved to do, or to omit, something as though it were ill-omened. It is worth transcribing a few things here from St. Augustine, who, in Book II On Christian Doctrine, gives a full account of many examples of this superstition. I will pass over for now what pertains to the other species of superstition, and briefly present some of what pertains to vain observance. Augustine writes as follows (ch. 20 and following): "To this class belong also all amulets and remedies, which the discipline of physicians also condemns — whether in incantations, or in certain marks which they call characters, or in certain things to be hung up and bound on, or even in a kind of dancing not for the tempering of the body, but for certain significations, either occult or even manifest, which they call, by a gentler name, 'physics' — as though these things were not superstitiously entangling, but seemed to be of benefit by nature; such as earrings at the top of each ear, or rings of ostrich bones on the fingers, or telling you, when you hiccup, to hold your left thumb with your right hand. To these are joined a thousand vain observances: if some limb twitches; if, while walking together, a stone, or a dog, or a boy comes between two friends. And that stepping on the stone, as though it were a divider of friendship, is less troublesome than that they strike the innocent boy with a blow, if he happens to run between them while walking together. But it is a fine thing that boys are sometimes avenged by dogs — for many are so superstitious that they even dare to strike the dog that came between them, not without being bitten in turn. For a vain remedy will sometimes quickly send the striker to a real doctor. Hence come also these: stepping on the threshold when one passes in front of one's own house; returning to bed if one sneezes while putting on one's shoes; returning home if one, having set out, stumbles; fearing a future ill omen more than one grieves over a present loss, if one's garment is gnawed by mice. Whence that remark of Cato is elegantly said: when consulted by someone who told him that his boots had been gnawed by mice, he replied that this was no portent — but it would indeed have been a portent if the mice had been gnawed by the boots." Very much else that Augustine pursues in this place I pass over, since from the reasons already given it can be understood by anyone what is to be condemned as superstitious, and to be purged from this vice.

S U P E R S T I T I O N of vain observance differs from divinations, because divination is ordered to obtaining an undue knowledge of hidden things; but superstitious observance to obtaining certain advantages, or to harming others. It is done by an explicit or implicit invocation of the Demon.

And indeed, if the pretended effect surpasses natural power, it is superstition, because honor due to God alone is shown to the devil; but if it does not surpass it, it seems a sin against charity toward oneself, as Valencia says quaest. 13. tertio puncto.

Moreover the means are known to be superstitious because they are inept, such as Astronomical images, Amulets, characters on tablets, inept words mixed with sacred things, which little women frequently mutter ought to be drunk down. Such are the cures of Ensalmators by certain words. So Fagundez in primum praeceptum Decal. lib. 1. cap. 36. et in secundo Ecclesiae, lib. 8. cap. 4. num. 16. for although by a gift freely given some may have the power of healing from some infirmity, nevertheless the force does not reside in the words, but in the persons. So the Kings of France by divinely favored contact of the right hand cure swollen swellings in the Throat, as Less. notes lib. 2. cap. 43. d. 10. Tanner. d. 5. quaest. 7. d. 2. n. 40.

Ensalmators indeed would be tolerable if they added permitted prayers to natural remedies, for prayers add nothing evil. So Suarez Tom. 1. de Relig. lib. 2. de superstit. cap. 15. Sanchez. lib. 1. Decal. lib. 2. cap. 50. num. 39. Fagundez in primum Decal. lib. 1. cap 36. and others cited by them.

Tannerus adds d. 5. quaest. 7. dub. 2. num. 37. that these Salvators, or Ensalmators, seem to some to have a grace freely given; this however is uncertain, since otherwise these men are reprobate.

But concerning the Psylli of Africa, and the Marsi of Italy, who drew out poisons by drinking them, Delrius ascribes it to diabolical magic lib. 1. disquis. mag. cap. 3. quaest. 4.

Tannerus however warns that not all ceremonies are to be condemned outright, for instance leading beasts of burden around near the temple of some Saint, e.g. St. Pancras; or applying to the sick bread or fat pressed to the Crucifix on Good Friday, on which Greiferus de cruce, lib. 2. cap. 62. See other things in Tannerus and Fagundez.

Indications are commonly brought forward here when things are superstitious; but I have reported these above.

One thing however is wont to be noted as especially important, that one not easily believe apparitions: for the Demon is wont to transform himself into an Angel of light, and to feign himself to be the soul of someone believed saved, so that he may defame it; or another soul, thought to be damned, that he may expose it to veneration, as D. Thom. notes p. p. quaest. 113. art. 4. and others:

Note also that Demons cannot at will bring it about that souls come forth either from Purgatory or from Hell: for they are in the prison of God. Whence that Rich Man in Luke 16. could not come forth from the nether world, as D. Bonavent. notes there, and with him Fagundez n. 9. But that they sometimes go forth from their receptacles with God willing, I shall show in the Third part, Tom. 1. d. 39. with D. Bonavent. in 4. d. 45.

One must nevertheless beware of fallacies. There will be two principal signs for knowing them. First, if they fear the sign of the Cross, or the name of Jesus, of the Virgin Mary, and of the Saints, or flee, or shrink from the relics of Saints, or blessed wax, or holy water. Second, if importunately they seek once and again, mixing in inept things. So Thyraeus lib. de spirituum apparitionibus, cap. 16. Delrius lib. 2. disquis. quaest. 26. sect. 3. Fagundez num. 12.

Against this, that souls appear by the aid of the Demon, they object that Samuel appeared to Saul at the command of the Witch 1. Reg. 28. as I shall say with D. August. 3. part. loc. cit. and many Fathers teach: Iustinus in Dialogo cum Tryph. ad calcem, Lyra, and Caietanus ad primum Reg. 28. Tostatus quaest. 18. D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 174. art. 5. et p. p. quaest. 89. art. 6. and many expositors cited by Fagundez num. 18. Suarez Tom. 1. de Relig. lib. 2. de superstit. cap. 16. Pererius in cap. 7. Exodi, 18. Cornelius a lapide in Eccles. p. 3. cap. 46. who favor this opinion. Nor was it done at the command of the Pythoness, but before her incantations, at the command of God.

Fagundez cap. 37. further warns that there are other superstitions in sacred things, as in the Masses of St. Amator; and the Masses of the Counts, where superstitious things are mixed in. From money first offered to the Crucifix on Good Friday they make a ring for health, which however is not entirely condemned: They gather herbs on the day of St. John the Baptist; which is no hindrance, if they attend to a natural cause. Images of some saint are tied and submerged in a river, until it rains. See him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. What is to be said of the case?

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

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

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

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