Dist. 7, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 7
Quaestio III. Utrum quis magicis artibus uti possit absque peccato.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum aliquis possit uti ministerio daemonum in faciendis huiusmodi miraculis absque peccato. Et quod non, videtur:
Pro parte negativa — Fundamenta:
1. Non potest a daemonibus requiri consilium absque peccato: ergo nec recipi ministerium sive consilium. Prima probatur auctoritate et exemplo: auctoritate, quia Levitici vigesimo1 praecipitur occidi qui sciscitatur magos et ariolos; exemplo probatur ex quarti Regum primo, ubi reprehenditur et punitur rex Israel, qui misit ad consulendum deum Accaron.
2. Item, Augustinus de Doctrina christiana2 dicit, divinationes esse damnandas et fugiendas, quia ibi intercedunt pacta daemonum: si ergo plus est facere quam dicere, et primum non est sine pactionibus damnabilibus, ergo nec secundum.
3. Item, diabolus est dolosus, et constat nobis, quod nullum diligit nisi in malum suum, et ut ipsum pervertat: ergo qui suscipit ab eo obsequium committit se discrimini; et omnis talis peccat mortaliter: ergo etc.
4. Item, diabolus est inimicus Iesu Christi et Dei: ergo qui suscipit ab eo auxilium vel facit commercium, cum nulla sit conventio Christi ad Belial3, efficitur Christi inimicus. Sed hoc non potest esse sine peccato: ergo etc.
Ad oppositum:
1. Contra hoc videtur auctoritate. Apostolus tradebat incorrigibiles satanae in interitum carnis, sicut patet primae ad Corinthios quinto4: ergo utebatur ministerio daemonum ad adimplendam iustitiam: ergo pari ratione potest homo, quando indiget, uti ad alia obsequia.
2. Item, si indigeo eleemosyna5, non tantum a bono, sed etiam a peccatore et impio possum accipere et petere: ergo si indigeo pane et vino, possum hoc petere a daemonio, ut procuret, si non adest homo, qui statim tribuat.
3. Item, a malo servo potest quis exigere servitium et recipere: ergo si aliquis Sanctus diabolum superavit, potest ei licite imperare et eius obsequium in creaturis transmutandis accipere.
4. Item, esto quod huiusmodi artes solis characteribus exerceantur sine immolationibus et aliis commerciis, videtur, quod ibi nullum sit peccatum, quia ibi characteres aut habent aliquam virtutem compellendi daemones, aut nullam. Si nullam: ergo daemones nihil faciunt. Si aliquam; sed omnis virtus est a Deo, et uti aliquo ad id ad quod est, non est peccatum: ergo videtur, quod miracula ista daemonum possunt exerceri absque peccato.
5. Item, si aliquis suscipiat obsequium daemonis in his quae expediunt sibi, sive in miraculis sive in aliis, bene sciens, quantum potest; in quo peccat? Videtur, quod in nullo: quia in fide non peccat, quia nihil credit divinitatis esse in diabolo; in moribus non peccat: ergo nullo modo, ut videtur.
6. Item, si ego amisissem librum meum, non esset peccatum, si requirerem a quocumque qui sciret, ubi esset: ergo si aliquis amisit cappam, et ego scio bene, quod diabolus potest nosse; videtur, quod illud saltem sine peccato posset fieri.
Quaestio connexa: Quaeritur ergo, utrum huiusmodi artes vel divinationes possint esse absque peccato.
Conclusio.
Daemonum consilium vel auxilium non potest requiri absque peccato.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod huiusmodi artes magicae sive divinationes non possunt esse absque peccato: nec potest a diabolo requiri consilium vel etiam auxilium sive ministerium absque peccato, nisi fortassis in hoc casu, ubi Deus diabolum subiiceret homini iusto suo iudicio, et sicut de aliquibus viris sanctis audivi narrari; voluntario autem commercio non potest uti6 sine peccato. Triplex peccatum: Aut enim est ibi peccatum infidelitatis, utpote si daemonio credendo attribuat divinum aliquid; aut est ibi peccatum idololatriae, utpote in oblationibus et sacrificiis; aut inobedientiae saltem, quia facit contra prohibitionem divinam et Ecclesiae7.
Ratio: Ratio autem huius prohibitionis est, quia talis peccat in se ipsum, dum se committit discrimini; peccat in Ecclesiam, dum habet commercium cum illo, qui est omnino praecisus et Ecclesiae adversarius; peccat etiam in maiestatem divinam, dum recurrit ad diabolum, quasi non sit omnipotens et omnino sufficiens et benignus Deus christianorum. Et ideo prohibitum est et sine peccato fieri non potest. Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.
Ad argumenta in oppositum:
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Paulus utebatur ministerio diabolico in puniendo malos; dici potest, quod hoc non erat diabolico commercio, sed magis divino iudicio, et ipsius Apostoli imperio, cui subiiciebantur spiritus maligni, non confoederabantur, sicut8 magis et divinis. — Aliter: Vel dicendum, quod illud tradere non erat aliud quam exponere vexationi daemonum.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de eleemosyna, quam possum accipere ab impio; dicendum, quod non est simile duplici ex causa. Primum quidem, quia etsi membrum non sit actualiter unitum, non tamen est membrum omnino praecisum, sicut daemonium, et possunt recipi et impendi ex caritate pietatis officia; non sic est de diabolo et angelis eius, quorum certa est damnatio. — Amplius, eleemosyna, quam habet impius, tempore necessitatis est viri iusti: ergo vir iustus, cum exigit eam et recipit, quod suum est accipit; et ideo iuste facit. Non sic est de ministerio diaboli in faciendis miraculis: Deus quadrupliciter subvenit — nunquam enim diabolicis miraculis vel praesidiis indigemus, quia aut Dominus subvenit per se, aut per Angelum suum, aut per proximum nostrum, aut tribuit patientiae meritum.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod diabolus est servus; dicendum, quod eius servitium et ministerium non est ad hoc deputatum a Deo, nisi fiat speciali privilegio, sed potius deputatus est ad tentandum et exercendum; et sic servit, licet intendat expugnare, quia de malo suo Deus facit bonum nostrum.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod quaeritur, quod peccatum sit in characteribus; dicendum, quod magnum peccatum est, quia ad hoc fiunt, scilicet ad ministerium daemonum implorandum, quod non licet, et ideo malo fine fit. — Quod autem quaeritur: aut habent virtutem, aut non; dicendum, quod ex se non habent virtutem, sed solum ex diabolica pactione; Notandum: sic enim pepigit diabolus cum illis qui fuerunt ei familiariores, quod talia signa recognosceret et ad talia se praesentem offerret. Ostendit autem, per illa se cogi, ut ostendat, aliquid veritatis esse in huiusmodi artibus, in quibus sunt multa nefanda, per quae abducitur homo et a fide et a cultu Dei. Unde nullo modo credendum est, quod tales characteres aliquid possint, maxime super spiritus, nisi ex pactione eorum; et ideo omnia talia carmina vana sunt et perniciosa, nec facit diabolus, quia in illis delectetur, sed in infidelitate facientium.
Ad 5. Ad illud quod quaeritur: in quo est peccatum? dicendum, quod si aliquis hoc faciat, non credens, eos habere posse9, nec offerens quidquam, peccat peccato inobedientiae et peccato morum, quia ex hac ipsa invocatione daemonum facit contumeliam Deo suo et coetui christiano; et dum iungit se schismatico et mendaci, se periculo committit. Notandum: Sed vix aut nunquam ex hoc solo diabolo satisfacit, nisi aliqua infidelitas vel idololatria immisceatur. Sicut enim ad divina miracula plurimum facit fides recta, sicut sonant Evangelia10; sic ad daemonum miracula multum facit fides perversa, quoniam diabolus perversus imitator est Dei.
Ad 6. Ad quaestionem connexam: Ad illud quod quaeritur11, quod sit peccatum quaerere de perditis; dicendum, quod peccatum est, quia contra prohibitionem; et prohibitum est praedictis de causis. Potissima tamen causa est, quia ipse mendax est et pater eius12, et frequentissime veris immiscet falsa. Et ideo periculum magnum est credere sibi, quia posset hominem de facili inducere in errorem et dicere, quod ille habet rem, qui non habet, si videret, per hoc posse oriri mala; et quia etiam ad se tallicit per huiusmodi revelationes, ad suam societatem, quae perniciosa est valde, et quam desiderat diabolus, ut decipiat. Et ideo, ut homines minus caveant, in suis divinationibus quaedam honesta praetendit, utpote quia puero virgini suas divinationes ostendit, cum tamen in occultis ad turpissima incitet. Et ideo dicit Augustinus secundo super Genesim ad litteram in fine13: « Bono christiano sive mathematici, sive quilibet impie divinantes, maxime vera dicentes, cavendi sunt, ne consortio daemoniorum animam deceptam pacto quodam societatis irretiant ». Et sic patet totum.
Scholion.
Solutio quaestionis approbatur communiter a doctoribus. Cfr. S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2; S. II. II. q. 96. a. 2, q. 98. a. 4; S. c. Gent. III. c. 103. seqq. — B. Albert., hic a. 12. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.
---
Question III. Whether one may use magical arts without sin.
Thirdly it is asked whether one may use the ministry of demons in making such miracles without sin. And that one may not, it seems:
On the negative side — Fundamenta:
1. Counsel cannot be sought from demons without sin: therefore neither can their ministry or counsel be received. The first is proved by authority and example: by authority, since in Leviticus 201 it is commanded that he be killed who consults magicians and soothsayers; by example, from 4 Kings 1, where the king of Israel is rebuked and punished who sent to consult the god of Accaron.
2. Likewise, Augustine in De Doctrina christiana2 says that divinations are to be condemned and shunned, because in them pacts of demons intervene: if therefore to do is more than to say, and the first is not without damnable pacts, then neither is the second.
3. Likewise, the devil is deceitful, and it is well known to us that he loves no one except for his harm, and to pervert him: therefore one who receives service from him commits himself to peril; and every such person sins mortally: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, the devil is the enemy of Jesus Christ and of God: therefore one who receives help from him or makes commerce with him, since there is no agreement of Christ with Belial3, is made an enemy of Christ. But this cannot be without sin: therefore etc.
To the opposite:
1. Contra this it seems by authority. The Apostle handed over the incorrigible to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, as appears in 1 Corinthians 54: therefore he was using the ministry of demons to fulfill justice: therefore by parity of reason a man, when he is in need, may use it for other services.
2. Likewise, if I need alms5, I can receive and ask not only from a good man but also from a sinner and an impious one: therefore if I need bread and wine, I may ask this from a demon, that he may procure it, if there be no man at hand who may give it at once.
3. Likewise, one may demand service from a wicked servant and receive it: therefore if some saint has overcome the devil, he may lawfully command him and accept his service in the transmuting of creatures.
4. Likewise, granted that such arts are performed by characters alone, without immolations and other dealings, it seems that there is no sin there, since the characters either have some power to compel demons, or none. If none: then the demons do nothing. If some — but every power is from God, and to use something for that for which it exists is not a sin: therefore it seems that those miracles of demons may be performed without sin.
5. Likewise, if someone receives the service of a demon in things which are useful to himself, whether in miracles or in other matters, well knowing how much he can do; in what does he sin? It seems, in nothing: because he does not sin in faith, since he believes nothing of divinity to be in the devil; in morals he does not sin: therefore in no way, as it seems.
6. Likewise, if I had lost my book, it would be no sin if I were to ask of anyone who might know where it was: therefore if someone lost a cloak, and I well know that the devil can know it, it seems that this at least could be done without sin.
Connected question: It is therefore asked whether such arts or divinations can exist without sin.
Conclusion.
The counsel or help of demons cannot be sought without sin.
I respond: It must be said that such magical arts or divinations cannot be without sin: nor can counsel, or even help or ministry, be sought from the devil without sin, except perhaps in this case where God might subject the devil to a just man by his own judgment — as I have heard told of certain holy men; but by voluntary commerce one cannot use6 him without sin. Threefold sin: For either there is the sin of infidelity there — namely, if by believing the demon one ascribes something divine to him; or there is the sin of idolatry — namely, in offerings and sacrifices; or at least of disobedience, since one acts against the prohibition of God and of the Church7.
Reason: Now the reason for this prohibition is that such a one sins against himself, while committing himself to peril; he sins against the Church, while having commerce with one who is altogether cut off and the adversary of the Church; he sins also against the divine majesty, while having recourse to the devil as though God, the God of Christians, were not omnipotent and altogether sufficient and gracious. And so it is forbidden, and cannot be done without sin. Whence the reasons brought forward for this must be granted.
To the arguments in opposition:
Ad 1. To that which is objected, that Paul used a diabolical ministry in punishing the wicked; it can be said that this was not by diabolical commerce but rather by divine judgment and by the command of the Apostle himself, to whom the evil spirits were subjected — they were not confederated with him8 as with magicians and diviners. — Alternatively: Or it may be said that the handing over was nothing else than exposing them to the vexation of demons.
Ad 2. To that which is objected about alms, which I can receive from an impious man; it must be said that the case is not similar, for a twofold reason. First, because although the member is not actually united, it is nevertheless not a member altogether cut off, as a demon is, and the offices of charity and pietas can be received and bestowed; it is not so with the devil and his angels, whose damnation is certain. — Furthermore, the alms which an impious man holds in time of necessity belongs to the just man: therefore the just man, when he demands it and receives it, takes what is his own; and so does justly. It is not so with the ministry of the devil in performing miracles: God comes to our aid in four ways — for we never need diabolical miracles or aids, since either the Lord comes to our aid through Himself, or through His Angel, or through our neighbor, or He grants the merit of patience.
Ad 3. To that which is objected, that the devil is a servant; it must be said that his service and ministry is not deputed by God for this, unless it be done by a special privilege; but rather he is deputed to tempt and to exercise; and so he serves, though he intends to overcome — because of his evil God makes our good.
Ad 4. To what is asked, that the sin lies in the characters; it must be said that it is a great sin, because they are made for this — namely, for imploring the ministry of demons — which is not lawful, and so is done for an evil end. — But as to what is asked: either they have power, or they do not; it must be said that of themselves they have no power, but only from a diabolical pact. Note: For thus the devil pacted with those who were more familiar to him, that he would recognize such signs and would present himself when they were used. He shows, however, that he is compelled by them — to show that there is some truth in such arts, in which there are many nefarious things, by which a man is led away both from faith and from the worship of God. Whence in no way is it to be believed that such characters can do anything, especially over spirits, except by their pact; and so all such charms are vain and pernicious; nor does the devil do this because he delights in them, but in the infidelity of the doers.
Ad 5. To what is asked: in what is the sin? it must be said that, if anyone does this — not believing them to have the power9, nor offering anything — he sins by the sin of disobedience and by the sin of morals, because by this very invocation of demons he does insult to his God and to the Christian community; and while he joins himself to a schismatic and liar, he commits himself to peril. Note: But scarcely or never does he by this alone satisfy the devil, unless some infidelity or idolatry be mixed in. For just as upright faith does much for divine miracles — as the Gospels declare10 — so does perverse faith do much for the miracles of demons, since the devil is the perverse imitator of God.
Ad 6. To the connected question: To what is asked11, that it be a sin to inquire about lost things; it must be said that it is a sin, because contrary to a prohibition; and it is prohibited for the aforesaid reasons. The strongest reason, however, is that he himself is a liar and the father thereof12, and most frequently mixes false things with true. And so it is a great danger to believe him, because he could easily lead a man into error — saying that this one has the thing who does not have it (if he were to see, evils might arise from this); and because also he draws men to himself by such revelations, to his own fellowship, which is exceedingly pernicious, and which the devil desires, that he may deceive. And so, that men may be less on their guard, he puts forward in his divinations certain honorable things — as that he shows his divinations to a virgin boy, while nevertheless in hidden things he incites to the most shameful. And therefore Augustine says in book II Super Genesim ad litteram at the end13: « To a good Christian, mathematicians, or any who divine impiously — most of all when they speak true things — are to be shunned, lest by the fellowship of demons they ensnare the deceived soul in a certain pact of society ». And so the whole is plain.
Scholion.
The solution of the question is commonly approved by the doctors. Cf. St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 2; S. II. II. q. 96. a. 2, q. 98. a. 4; S. c. Gent. III. c. 103ff. — B. Albert, here a. 12. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4. q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 3. a. 3. — Dionysius Carthusian, here q. 6.
---
- Vers. 6. — Sequens textus est loc. cit. v. 2. seqq.Verse 6. — The text that follows is from the cited place, v. 2ff.
- Libr. II. c. 23. n. 36. — Deinde primum intellige divinationes, secundum artes magicas. — Vat. docere pro dicere.Book II, c. 23, n. 36. — Then understand the first as divinations, the second as magical arts. — The Vatican edition reads docere ['to teach'] for dicere ['to say'].
- Epist. II. ad Cor. 6, 15: Quae autem conventio Christi ad Belial?2 Corinthians 6, 15: And what agreement hath Christ with Belial?
- Vers. 5. — Vat. cum pluribus codd. auctoritate Apostoli, qui pro auctoritate. Apostolus. Circa finem argumenti cod. cc et ed. 1 post uti subiungunt eo.Verse 5. — The Vatican edition with several codices reads auctoritate Apostoli, qui ['by the authority of the Apostle, who'] for auctoritate. Apostolus ['by authority. The Apostle']. Toward the end of the argument, codex cc and edition 1 add eo ['it'] after uti.
- Cod. cc et ed. 1 hic et infra in solutione obiectionis eleemosynam.Codex cc and edition 1 here and below in the solution of the objection read eleemosynam [accusative].
- Ex cod. aa supplevimus uti. Idem cod. paulo inferius epula. — Post attribuat interserit ei, cod. cc cum ed. 1 legit attribuat diabolo dominium in aliquod; aut etc.From codex aa we have supplied uti ['to use']. The same codex a little below reads epula ['feast']. — After attribuat it inserts ei; codex cc with edition 1 reads attribuat diabolo dominium in aliquod ['ascribe to the devil dominion over something']; or etc.
- Cfr. Corp. Iur. Can. 14. XXVI. q. 5. et August., VIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 19.Cf. Corpus Iuris Canonici 14, XXVI. q. 5, and Augustine, VIII de Civ. Dei, c. 19.
- Supple: confoederantur.Supply: confoederantur ['they are confederated'].
- Accipiendum esse videtur ut substantivum. Aliter supplendum esset: quidquam divinitatis.It seems to be taken as a substantive. Otherwise it would have to be supplied: quidquam divinitatis ['anything of divinity'].
- Matth. 8, 13; Marc. 5, 34; Luc. 18, 42. — Paulo superius cod. aa satisfit pro satisfacit, et plures codd. diabolus pro diabolo.Matthew 8, 13; Mark 5, 34; Luke 18, 42. — A little above, codex aa reads satisfit ['it is satisfied'] for satisfacit ['he satisfies'], and several codices read diabolus [nominative] for diabolo [dative].
- Vat. obiicitur quod non sit etc. Dein multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 de praesentibus pro de perditis, perperam. Post prohibitionem, cod. F addit Ecclesiae.The Vatican edition reads obiicitur quod non sit etc. ['it is objected that it not be etc.']. Then many codices with editions 1, 2 read de praesentibus ['concerning present things'] for de perditis ['concerning lost things'], wrongly. After prohibitionem, codex F adds Ecclesiae ['of the Church'].
- Ioan. 8, 44. — Aliquanto inferius Vat. et videret ipso si videret, quae dein cum cod. aa post revelationes addit et.John 8, 44. — Somewhat below, the Vatican edition reads et videret ipso si videret ['and he would see by him if he saw'], which then, with codex aa, adds et ['and'] after revelationes.
- Cap. 17. n. 37.Chapter 17, n. 37. ---