Summa Theologica Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 152

Obj. 2: Further, artificial bodies are subject to the heavenly bodies, just as natural bodies are. Now natural bodies acquire certain occult forces resulting from their species through the influence of the heavenly bodies. Therefore artificial bodies, e.g.

images, also acquire from the heavenly bodies a certain occult force for the production of certain effects. Therefore it is not unlawful to make use of them and of such like things.

Obj. 3: Further, the demons too are able to alter bodies in many ways, as Augustine states (De Trin. iii, 8, 9). But their power is from G.o.d. Therefore it is lawful to make use of their power for the purpose of producing these alterations.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 20) that "to superst.i.tion belong the experiments of magic arts, amulets and nostrums condemned by the medical faculty, consisting either of incantations or of certain cyphers which they call characters, or of any kind of thing worn or fastened on."

_I answer that,_ In things done for the purpose of producing some bodily effect we must consider whether they seem able to produce that effect naturally: for if so it will not be unlawful to do so, since it is lawful to employ natural causes in order to produce their proper effects. But, if they seem unable to produce those effects naturally, it follows that they are employed for the purpose of producing those effects, not as causes but only as signs, so that they come under the head of "compact by tokens entered into with the demons" [*Augustine, De Doctr. Christ.; see above Q. 92, A. 2].

Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 6): "The demons are allured by means of creatures, which were made, not by them, but by G.o.d. They are enticed by various objects differing according to the various things in which they delight, not as animals by meat, but as spirits by signs, such as are to each one's liking, by means of various kinds of stones, herbs, trees, animals, songs and rites."

Reply Obj. 1: There is nothing superst.i.tious or unlawful in employing natural things simply for the purpose of causing certain effects such as they are thought to have the natural power of producing. But if in addition there be employed certain characters, words, or any other vain observances which clearly have no efficacy by nature, it will be superst.i.tious and unlawful.

Reply Obj. 2: The natural forces of natural bodies result from their substantial forms which they acquire through the influence of heavenly bodies; wherefore through this same influence they acquire certain active forces. On the other hand the forms of artificial bodies result from the conception of the craftsman; and since they are nothing else but composition, order and shape, as stated in _Phys._ i, 5, they cannot have a natural active force. Consequently, no force accrues to them from the influence of heavenly bodies, in so far as they are artificial, but only in respect of their natural matter. Hence it is false, what Porphyry held, according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei x, 11), that "by herbs, stones, animals, certain particular sounds, words, shapes and devices, or again by certain movements of the stars observed in the course of the heavens it is possible for men to fashion on earth forces capable of carrying into effect the various dispositions of the stars," as though the results of the magic arts were to be ascribed to the power of the heavenly bodies. In fact as Augustine adds (De Civ. Dei x, 11), "all these things are to be ascribed to the demons, who delude the souls that are subject to them."

Wherefore those images called astronomical also derive their efficacy from the actions of the demons: a sign of this is that it is requisite to inscribe certain characters on them which do not conduce to any effect naturally, since shape is not a principle of natural action. Yet astronomical images differ from necromantic images in this, that the latter include certain explicit invocations and trickery, wherefore they come under the head of explicit agreements made with the demons: whereas in the other images there are tacit agreements by means of tokens in certain shapes or characters.

Reply Obj. 3: It belongs to the domain of the divine majesty, to Whom the demons are subject, that G.o.d should employ them to whatever purpose He will. But man has not been entrusted with power over the demons, to employ them to whatsoever purpose he will; on the contrary, it is appointed that he should wage war against the demons.

Hence in no way is it lawful for man to make use of the demons' help by compacts either tacit or express.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 96, Art. 3]

Whether Observances Directed to the Purpose of Fortune-telling Are Unlawful?

Objection 1: It would seem that observances directed to the purpose of fortune-telling are not unlawful. Sickness is one of the misfortunes that occur to man. Now sickness in man is preceded by certain symptoms, which the physician observes. Therefore it seems not unlawful to observe such like signs.

Obj. 2: Further, it is unreasonable to deny that which nearly everybody experiences. Now nearly everyone experiences that certain times, or places, hearing of certain words meetings of men or animals, uncanny or ungainly actions, are presages of good or evil to come. Therefore it seems not unlawful to observe these things.

Obj. 3: Further, human actions and occurrences are disposed by divine providence in a certain order: and this order seems to require that precedent events should be signs of subsequent occurrences: wherefore, according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:6), the things that happened to the fathers of old are signs of those that take place in our time. Now it is not unlawful to observe the order that proceeds from divine providence. Therefore it is seemingly not unlawful to observe these presages.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 20) that "a thousand vain observances are comprised under the head of compacts entered into with the demons: for instance, the twitching of a limb; a stone, a dog, or a boy coming between friends walking together; kicking the door-post when anyone pa.s.ses in front of one's house; to go back to bed if you happen to sneeze while putting on your shoes; to return home if you trip when going forth; when the rats have gnawed a hole in your clothes, to fear superst.i.tiously a future evil rather than to regret the actual damage."

_I answer that,_ Men attend to all these observances, not as causes but as signs of future events, good or evil. Nor do they observe them as signs given by G.o.d, since these signs are brought forward, not on divine authority, but rather by human vanity with the cooperation of the malice of the demons, who strive to entangle men's minds with such like trifles. Accordingly it is evident that all these observances are superst.i.tious and unlawful: they are apparently remains of idolatry, which authorized the observance of auguries, of lucky and unlucky days which is allied to divination by the stars, in respect of which one day is differentiated from another: except that these observances are devoid of reason and art, wherefore they are yet more vain and superst.i.tious.

Reply Obj. 1: The causes of sickness are seated in us, and they produce certain signs of sickness to come, which physicians lawfully observe. Wherefore it is not unlawful to consider a presage of future events as proceeding from its cause; as when a slave fears a flogging when he sees his master's anger. Possibly the same might be said if one were to fear for child lest it take harm from the evil eye, of which we have spoken in the First Part (Q. 117, A. 3, ad 2). But this does not apply to this kind of observances.

Reply Obj. 2: That men have at first experienced a certain degree of truth in these observances is due to chance. But afterwards when a man begins to entangle his mind with observances of this kind, many things occur in connection with them through the trickery of the demons, "so that men, through being entangled in these observances, become yet more curious, and more and more embroiled in the manifold snares of a pernicious error," as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ.

ii, 23).

Reply Obj. 3: Among the Jewish people of whom Christ was to be born, not only words but also deeds were prophetic, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. iv, 2; xxii, 24). Wherefore it is lawful to apply those deeds to our instruction, as signs given by G.o.d. Not all things, however, that occur through divine providence are ordered so as to be signs of the future. Hence the argument does not prove.

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 96, Art. 4]

Whether It Is Unlawful to Wear Divine Words at the Neck?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not unlawful to wear divine words at the neck. Divine words are no less efficacious when written than when uttered. But it is lawful to utter sacred words for the purpose of producing certain effects; (for instance, in order to heal the sick), such as the "Our Father" or the "Hail Mary," or in any way whatever to call on the Lord's name, according to Mk. 16:17, 18, "In My name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents." Therefore it seems to be lawful to wear sacred words at one's neck, as a remedy for sickness or for any kind of distress.

Obj. 2: Further, sacred words are no less efficacious on the human body than on the bodies of serpents and other animals. Now certain incantations are efficacious in checking serpents, or in healing certain other animals: wherefore it is written (Ps. 57:5): "Their madness is according to the likeness of a serpent, like the deaf asp that stoppeth her ears, which will not hear the voice of the charmers, nor of the wizard that charmeth wisely." Therefore it is lawful to wear sacred words as a remedy for men.

Obj. 3: Further, G.o.d's word is no less holy than the relics of the saints; wherefore Augustine says (Lib. L. Hom. xxvi) that "G.o.d's word is of no less account than the Body of Christ." Now it is lawful for one to wear the relics of the saints at one's neck, or to carry them about one in any way for the purpose of self-protection. Therefore it is equally lawful to have recourse to the words of Holy Writ, whether uttered or written, for one's protection.

Obj. 4: On the other hand, Chrysostom says (Hom. xliii in Matth.) [*Cf. the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum, among St. Chrysostom's works, and falsely ascribed to him]: "Some wear round their necks a pa.s.sage in writing from the Gospel. Yet is not the Gospel read in church and heard by all every day? How then, if it does a man no good to have the Gospels in his ears, will he find salvation by wearing them round his neck? Moreover, where is the power of the Gospel? In the shapes of the letters or in the understanding of the sense? If in the shapes, you do well to wear them round your neck; if in the understanding, you will then do better to bear them in your heart than to wear them round your neck."

_I answer that,_ In every incantation or wearing of written words, two points seem to demand caution. The first is the thing said or written, because if it is connected with invocation of the demons it is clearly superst.i.tious and unlawful. In like manner it seems that one should beware lest it contain strange words, for fear that they conceal something unlawful. Hence Chrysostom says [*Cf. the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum, among St. Chrysostom's works, falsely ascribed to him] that "many now after the example of the Pharisees who enlarged their fringes, invent and write Hebrew names of angels, and fasten them to their persons. Such things seem fearsome to those who do not understand them." Again, one should take care lest it contain anything false, because in that case also the effect could not be ascribed to G.o.d, Who does not bear witness to a falsehood.

In the second place, one should beware lest besides the sacred words it contain something vain, for instance certain written characters, except the sign of the Cross; or if hope be placed in the manner of writing or fastening, or in any like vanity, having no connection with reverence for G.o.d, because this would be p.r.o.nounced superst.i.tious: otherwise, however, it is lawful. Hence it is written in the Decretals (XXVI, qu. v, cap. Non liceat Christianis): "In blending together medicinal herbs, it is not lawful to make use of observances or incantations, other than the divine symbol, or the Lord's Prayer, so as to give honor to none but G.o.d the Creator of all."

Reply Obj. 1: It is indeed lawful to p.r.o.nounce divine words, or to invoke the divine name, if one do so with a mind to honor G.o.d alone, from Whom the result is expected: but it is unlawful if it be done in connection with any vain observance.

Reply Obj. 2: Even in the case of incantations of serpents or any animals whatever, if the mind attend exclusively to the sacred words and to the divine power, it will not be unlawful. Such like incantations, however, often include unlawful observances, and rely on the demons for their result, especially in the case of serpents, because the serpent was the first instrument employed by the devil in order to deceive man. Hence a gloss on the pa.s.sage quoted says: "Note that Scripture does not commend everything whence it draws its comparisons, as in the case of the unjust judge who scarcely heard the widow's request."

Reply Obj. 3: The same applies to the wearing of relics, for if they be worn out of confidence in G.o.d, and in the saints whose relics they are, it will not be unlawful. But if account were taken in this matter of some vain circ.u.mstance (for instance that the casket be three-cornered, or the like, having no bearing on the reverence due to G.o.d and the saints), it would be superst.i.tious and unlawful.

Reply Obj. 4: Chrysostom is speaking of the case in which more attention is paid the written characters than to the understanding of the words.

_______________________

QUESTION 97

OF THE TEMPTATION OF G.o.d (In Four Articles)

We must now consider the vices that are opposed to religion, through lack of religion, and which are manifestly contrary thereto, so that they come under the head of irreligion. Such are the vices which pertain to contempt or irreverence for G.o.d and holy things.

Accordingly we shall consider: (1) Vices pertaining directly to irreverence for G.o.d; (2) Vices pertaining to irreverence for holy things. With regard to the first we shall consider the temptation whereby G.o.d is tempted, and perjury, whereby G.o.d's name is taken with irreverence. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) In what the temptation of G.o.d consists;

(2) Whether it is a sin?

(3) To what virtue it is opposed;

(4) Of its comparison with other vices.

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 97, Art. 1]

Whether the Temptation of G.o.d Consists in Certain Deeds, Wherein the Expected Result Is Ascribed to the Power of G.o.d Alone?

Objection 1: It would seem that the temptation of G.o.d does not consist in certain deeds wherein the result is expected from the power of G.o.d alone. Just as G.o.d is tempted by man so is man tempted by G.o.d, man, and demons. But when man is tempted the result is not always expected from his power. Therefore neither is G.o.d tempted when the result is expected from His power alone.

Obj. 2: Further, all those who work miracles by invoking the divine name look for an effect due to G.o.d's power alone. Therefore, if the temptation of G.o.d consisted in such like deeds, all who work miracles would tempt G.o.d.

Obj. 3: Further, it seems to belong to man's perfection that he should put aside human aids and put his hope in G.o.d alone. Hence Ambrose, commenting on Luke 9:3, "Take nothing for your journey,"

etc. says: "The Gospel precept points out what is required of him that announces the kingdom of G.o.d, namely, that he should not depend on worldly a.s.sistance, and that, taking a.s.surance from his faith, he should hold himself to be the more able to provide for himself, the less he seeks these things." And the Blessed Agatha said: "I have never treated my body with bodily medicine, I have my Lord Jesus Christ, Who restores all things by His mere word." [*Office of St.

Agatha, eighth Responsory (Dominican Breviary).] But the temptation of G.o.d does not consist in anything pertaining to perfection.

Therefore the temptation of G.o.d does not consist in such like deeds, wherein the help of G.o.d alone is expected.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 36): "Christ who gave proof of G.o.d's power by teaching and reproving openly, yet not allowing the rage of His enemies to prevail against Him, nevertheless by fleeing and hiding, instructed human weakness, lest it should dare to tempt G.o.d when it has to strive to escape from that which it needs to avoid." From this it would seem that the temptation of G.o.d consists in omitting to do what one can in order to escape from danger, and relying on the a.s.sistance of G.o.d alone.

_I answer that,_ Properly speaking, to tempt is to test the person tempted. Now we put a person to the test by words or by deeds. By words, that we may find out whether he knows what we ask, or whether he can and will grant it: by deeds, when, by what we do, we probe another's prudence, will or power. Either of these may happen in two ways. First, openly, as when one declares oneself a tempter: thus Samson (Judges 14:12) proposed a riddle to the Philistines in order to tempt them. In the second place it may be done with cunning and by stealth, as the Pharisees tempted Christ, as we read in Matt. 22:15, sqq. Again this is sometimes done explicitly, as when anyone intends, by word or deed, to put some person to the test; and sometimes implicitly, when, to wit, though he does not intend to test a person, yet that which he does or says can seemingly have no other purpose than putting him to a test.