Introduction,
wherein is Set Forth the Difficulty of this Question.
Is
it lawful to remove witchcraft by means of further
witchcraft, or by any other forbidden means?
It is argued
that it is not; for it has already been shown that in
the Second Book of Sentences, and the 8th
Distinction, all the Doctors agree that it is unlawful
to use the help of devils, since to do so involves
apostasy from the Faith. And, it is argued, no
witchcraft can be removed without the help of devils.
For it is submitted that it must be cured either by
human power, or by diabolic, or by Divine power. It
cannot be by the first; for the lower power cannot
counteract the higher, having no control over that which
is outside its own natural capacity. Neither can it be
by Divine power; for this would be a miracle, which God
performs only at His own will, and not at the instance
of men. For when His Mother besought Christ to perform a
miracle to supply the need for wine, He answered: Woman,
what have I to do with thee? And the Doctors explain
this as meaning, “What association is there between
you and me in the working of a miracle?” Also it
appears that it is very rarely that men are delivered
from a bewitchment by calling on God's help or the
prayers of the Saints. Therefore it follows that they
can only be delivered by the help of devils; and it is
unlawful to seek such help.
Again it is
pointed out that the common method in practice of taking
off a bewitchment, although it is quite unlawful, is for
the bewitched persons to resort to wise women, by whom
they are very frequently cured, and not by priests or
exorcists. So experience shows that such curses are
effected by the help of devils, which it is unlawful to
seek; therefore it cannot be lawful thus to cure a
bewitchment, but it must patiently be borne.
It is further
argued that S. Thomas and S. Bonaventura, in Book IV,
dist. 34, have said that a bewitchment must be permanent
because it can have no human remedy; for if there is a
remedy, it is either unknown to men or unlawful. And
these words are taken to mean that this infirmity is
incurable and must be regarded as permanent; and they
add that, even if God should provide a remedy by
coercing the devil, and the devil should remove his
plague from a man, and the man should be cured, that
cure would not be a human one. Therefore, unless God
should cure it, it is not lawful for a man to himself to
try in any way to look for a cure.
In the same
place these two Doctors add that it is unlawful even to
seek a remedy by the superadding of another bewitchment.
For they say that, granting this to be possible, and
that the original spell be removed, yet the witchcraft
is none the less to be considered permanent; for it is
in no way lawful to invoke the devil's help through
witchcraft.
Further, it
is submitted that the exorcisms of the Church are not
always effective in the repression of devils in the
matter of bodily afflictions, since such are cured only
at the discretion of God; but they are effective always
against those molestations of devils against which they
are chiefly instituted, as, for example, against men who
are possessed, or in the matter of exorcising children.
Again, it
does not follow that, because the devil has been given
power over someone on account of his sins, that power
must come to an end on the cessation of the sin. For
very often a man may cease from sinning, but his sins
still remain. So it seems from these sayings that the
two Doctors we have cited were of the opinion that it is
unlawful to remove a bewitchment, but that it must be
suffered, just as it is permitted by the Lord God, Who
can remove it when it seems good to Him.
Against this
opinion it is argued that just as God and Nature do not
abound in superfluities, so also they are not deficient
in necessities; and it is a necessity that there should
be given to the faithful against such devils' work not
only a means of protection (of which we treat in the
beginning of this Second Part), but also curative
remedies. For otherwise the faithful would not be
sufficiently provided for by God, and the works of the
devil would seem to be stronger than God's work.
Also there is
the gloss on that text in Job. There is no power
on earth, etc. The gloss says that, although the devil
has power over all things human, he is nevertheless
subject to the merits of the Saints, and even to the
merits of saintly men in this life.
Again, S.
Augustine (De moribus Ecclesiae) says: No Angel
is more powerful than our mind, when we hold fast to
God. For if power is a virtue in this world, then the
mind that keeps close to God is more sublime than the
whole world. Therefore such minds can undo the works of
the devil.
Answer.
Here are two weighty opinions which, it seems, are at
complete variance with each other.
For there are
certain Theologians and Canonists who agree that it is
lawful to remove witchcraft even by superstitious and
vain means. And of this opinion are Duns Scotus, Henry
of Segusio, and Godfrey, and all the Canonists. But it
is the opinion of the other Theologians, especially the
ancient ones, and of some of the modern ones, such as S.
Thomas, S. Bonaventura, Blessed Albert, Peter a Palude,
and many others, that in no case must evil be done that
good may result, and that a man ought rather to die than
consent to be cured by superstitious and vain means.
Let us now
examine their opinions, with a view to bringing them as
far as possible into agreement. Scotus, in his Fourth
Book, dist. 34, on obstructions and impotence caused by
witchcraft, says that it is foolish to maintain that it
is unlawful to remove a bewitchment even by
superstitious and vain means, and that to do so is in no
way contrary to the Faith; for he who destroys the work
of the devil is not an accessory to such works, but
believes that the devil has the power and inclination to
help in the infliction of an injury only so long as the
outward token or sign of that injury endures. Therefore
when that token is destroyed he puts an end to the
injury. And he adds that it is meritorious to destroy
the works of the devil. But, as he speaks of tokens, we
will give an example.
There are
women who discover a witch by the following token. When
a cow's supply of milk has been diminished by
witchcraft, they hang a pail of milk over the fire, and
uttering certain superstitious words, beat the pail with
a stick. And though it is the pail that the women beat,
yet the devil carries all those blows to the back of the
witch; and in this way both the witch and the devil are
made weary. But the devil does this in order that he may
lead on the woman who beats the pail to worse practices.
And so, if it were not for the risk which it entails,
there would be no difficulty in accepting the opinion of
this learned Doctor. Many other examples could be given.
Henry of
Segusio, in his eloquent Summa on genital
impotence caused by witchcraft, says that in such cases
recourse must be had to the remedies of physicians; and
although some of these remedies seem to be vain and
superstitious cantrips and charms, yet everyone must be
trusted in his own profession, and the Church may well
tolerate the suppression of vanities by means of others
vanities.
Ubertinus
also, in his Fourth Book, uses these words: A
bewitchment can be removed either by prayer or by the
same art by which it was inflicted.
Godfrey says
in his Summa: A bewitchment cannot always be
removed by him who caused it, either because he is dead,
or because he does not know how to cure it, or because
the necessary charm is lost. But if he knows how to
effect relief, it is lawful for him to cure it. Our
author is speaking against those who said that an
obstruction of the carnal act could not be caused by
witchcraft, and that it could never be permanent, and
therefore did not annul a marriage already contracted.
Besides,
those who maintained that no spell is permanent were
moved by the following reasons: they thought that every
bewitchment could be removed either by another magic
spell, or by the exorcisms of the Church which are
ordained for the suppression of the devil's power, or by
true penitence, since the devil has power only over
sinners. So in the first respect they agree with the
opinion of the others, namely, that a spell can be
removed by superstitious means.
But S. Thomas
is of the contrary opinion when he says: If a spell
cannot be revoked except by some unlawful means, such as
the devil's help or anything of that sort, even if it is
known that it can be revoked in that way, it is
nevertheless to be considered permanent; for the remedy
is not lawful.
Of the same
opinion are S. Bonaventura, Peter a Palude, Blessed
Albert, and all the Theologians. For, touching briefly
on the question of invoking the help of the devil either
tacitly or expressedly, they seem to hold that such
spells may only be removed by lawful exorcism or true
penitence (as is set down in the Canon Law concerning
sortilege), being moved, as it seems, by the
considerations mentioned in the beginning of this
Question.
But it is
expedient to bring these various opinions of the learned
Doctors as far as possible into agreement, and this can
be done in one respect. For this purpose it is to be
noted that the methods by which a spell of witchcraft
can be removed are as follows: - either by the agency of
another witch and another spell; or without the agency
of a witch, but by means of magic and unlawful
ceremonies. And this last method may be divided into
two; namely, the use of ceremonies which are both
unlawful and vain, or the use of ceremonies which are
vain but not unlawful.
The first
remedy is altogether unlawful, in respect both of the
agent and of the remedy itself. But it may be
accomplished in two ways; either with some injury to him
who worked the spell, or without an injury, but with
magic and unlawful ceremonies. In the latter case it can
be included with the second method, namely, that by
which the spell is removed not by the agency of a witch,
but by magic and unlawful ceremonies; and in this case
it is still to be judged unlawful, though not to the
same extent as the first method.
We may
summarize the position as follows. There are three
conditions by which a remedy is rendered unlawful.
First, when a spell is removed through the agency of
another witch, and by further witchcraft, that is, by
the power of some devil. Secondly, when it is not
removed by a witch, but by some honest person, in such a
way, however, that the spell is by some magical remedy
transferred from one person to another; and this again
is unlawful. Thirdly, when the spell is removed without
imposing it on another person, but some open or tacit
invocation of devils is used; and then again it is
unlawful.
And it is
with reference to these methods that the Theologians say
that it is better to die than to consent to them. But
there are two other methods by which, according to the
Canonists, it is lawful, or not idle and vain, to remove
a spell; and that such methods may be used when all the
remedies of the Church, such as exorcisms and the
prayers of the Saints and true penitence, have been
tried and have failed. But for a clearer understanding
of these remedies we will recount some examples known to
our experience.
In the time
of Pope Nicolas there had come to Rome on some business
a certain Bishop from Germany, whom it is charitable not
to name although he had now paid the debt of all nature.
There he fell in love with a girl, and sent her to his
diocese in charge of two servants and certain other of
his possessions, including some rich jewels, which were
indeed very valuable, and began to think in her heart
that, if only the Bishop were to die through some
witchcraft, she would be able to take possession of the
rings, the pendants and carcanets. The next night the
Bishop suddenly fell ill, and the physicians and his
servants gravely suspected that he had been poisoned;
for there was such a fire in his breast that he had to
take continual draughts of cold water to assuage it. On
the third day, when there seemed no hope of his life, an
old woman came and begged that she might see him. So
they let her in, and she promised the Bishop that she
could heal him if he would agree to her proposals. When
the Bishop asked what it was to which he had to agree in
order to regain his health, as he so greatly desired,
the old woman answered: Your illness has ben caused by a
spell of witchcraft, and you can only be healed by
another spell, which will transfer the illness from you
to the witch who caused it, so that she will die. The
Bishop was astounded; and seeing that he could be healed
in no other way, and not wishing to come to a rash
decision, decided to ask the advice of the Pope. Now the
Holy Father loved him very dearly, and when he learned
that he could only be healed by the death of the witch,
he agreed to permit the lesser of two evils, and signed
this permission with his seal. So the old woman was
again approached and told that both he and the Pope had
agreed to the death of the witch, on condition that he
was restored to his former health; and the old woman
went away, promising him that he would be healed on the
following night. And behold! when about the middle of
the night he felt himself cured and free from all
illness, he sent a messenger to learn what had happened
to the girl; and he came back and reported that she had
suddenly been taken ill in the middle of the night while
sleeping by her mother's side.
It is to be
understood that at the very same hour and moment the
illness left the Bishop and afflicted the girl witch,
through the agency of the old witch; and so the evil
spirit, by ceasing to plague the Bishop, appeared to
restore him to health by chance, whereas it was not he
but God who permitted him to afflict im, and it was God
Who properly speaking restored him; and the devil, by
reason of his compact with the second witch, who envied
the fortune of the girl, has to afflict the Bishop's
mistress. And it must be thought that those two evil
spells were not worked by one devil serving two persons,
but by two devils serving two separate witches. For the
devils do not work against themselves, but work as much
as possible in agreement for the perdition of souls.
|