Superstitions and Catholic Theology - An Inquiry

[Alopen]

I’m sure everyone here as had at some particular point encountered a story regarding their faith and the occult, or a oujia board, ghosts, etc.

And that has always made me curious, since I tend to be rather rationally minded and often disinclined to believe in such things. But has always made me curious – are Catholics (and here I speak of the laity) an overly superstitious lot?

Now, let me first say that this is not a criticism of the hierarchy of the Church – in terms of things that a person might define as “supernatural,” the Church throughout its history has tended to be rather careful about jumping at shadows or declaring something a miracle. And in our modern age, they make use of the greatest advances in modern medicine and technology to rule out “false alarms” of touchy subjects such as sainthood and demonic possession.

But whereas they are circumspect and prudent, it seems all too often than those within the congregation are not. You have only but to look about Catholic Answers to find those who are quaking in fear of an unsubstantiated encounter with something “satanic” or occult.

What accounts for this disparity that inclines the leadership of the Church to think in one direction and those of the laity to think in another?

Furthermore - what accounts for this historical mystery?

Early Christianity gave a sound theological argument, one that I tend to uphold, that the resurrection of Christ had won a victory over all forces of evil – effectively making witchcraft and sorcery well…useless.

IE: It has absolutely no effect. Perhaps it once did – but the sacrifice of the Lord took care of that promptly.

In fact, if I understand this correctly, the Eastern Christians file belief in witchcraft as “deisdemonia” – superstition, while Western Christians followed suit in the 9th and 10th centuries by calling it superstitious nonsense or erroneous heresy.

Its what got many of our forerunners to go chopping down sacred oaks, over turn bloody altars, and laugh in the general direction of those who called upon divine pagan vengeance or attempted to curse them.

So what happened between now and then? How did we go from being extremely positive believers confident in our Lord to folk who jump at the number 666, run screaming away from a oujia board, and think the Devil is hiding behind every chain letter and 4 Leaf Clover?

 

[Alopen]

Ouch, the silence is defeaning.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t find followers of Catholicism overly superstitious. Why make such a statement? Witchcraft as I understand it is rooted in the demonic, which is certainly real according to Catholic teaching. Ever heard Father Corapi? He has some stories about modern witches.

 

[Alopen]

I don’t find followers of Catholicism overly superstitious. Why make such a statement? Witchcraft as I understand it is rooted in the demonic, which is certainly real according to Catholic teaching. Ever heard Father Corapi? He has some stories about modern witches.

Then why did we switch our position?

As for the superstitious part - glance through the spirituality board or Non-Catholics board in relation to matters concerning Oujia boards and chain letters (although there’s alot more than that).

I find it utterly surprising that many seem to immediatelty subscribe to “demonic influence” vs. a much more mundane explanation.

Whereas i feel quite confident in saying that the Church would operate on a much higher standard to declare something “supernatural” if you will.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Then why did we switch our position?

As for the superstitious part - glance through the spirituality board or Non-Catholics board in relation to matters concerning Oujia boards and chain letters (although there’s alot more than that).

I’m not aware of a switching of position, nor do I find there to be an “overly superstitious lot” in Spirituality. At the very least, if there are those superstitious, I don’t find it anything unique to Catholics. I find superstition to be far more prevalent among those I know who label themselves “spiritual but not religious.” What can I say?

 

[JonW]

It should also be taken into account that someone who sees demonic influence in something will be more likely to contribute to a thread than someone who sees whatever phenomenon that is under discussion as mundane or a wil-o’-the-wisp. Do you have sources for your claim that witchraft was denounced as nonsense by the Western Church in the 9th and 10th centuries? I would be interested in learning more about that as I am unaware of it. Thanks very much.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

 

[soma]

The people who are afraid are not sincere Catholics. God is the strongest force so if they are afraid of an inferior force they are not devoted to the superior force, God.

 

[Alopen]

It should also be taken into account that someone who sees demonic influence in something will be more likely to contribute to a thread than someone who sees whatever phenomenon that is under discussion as mundane or a wil-o’-the-wisp. Do you have sources for your claim that witchraft was denounced as nonsense by the Western Church in the 9th and 10th centuries? I would be interested in learning more about that as I am unaware of it. Thanks very much.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

Grrr… bias sampling, i’m an idiot . Completely forgot to account for that.

Well, you can start with this tidbit John from wikipedia.

Beliefs regarding magic have been around for centuries, and are to be found in many human societies. They were common in the society of the Roman empire into which the Christian faith emerged. (See the Book of Acts) Christian responses differed from the surrounding society in that Christians believed that since Christ by his death and resurrection had won a victory over all forces of evil, neither witchcraft nor sorcery had the power to harm Christians. (Epistle to the Romans 8:38-9) A corollary of this was that witchcraft and sorcery were proscribed in Christian scripture. (Galatians 5:20) The practice of witchcraft and sorcery were sins that Christians needed to repent of, confess and forsake.

Among Eastern Christians belief in witchcraft was regarded as deisdemonia – superstition. In the West, however, by the 9th and 10th centuries, belief in witchcraft began to be seen as heresy.

Towards the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Early Modern period, belief in witchcraft became sanctioned by the Church, and witches were seen as directly in league with the Devil. This marked the beginning of a period of witch-hunts which lasted about 200 years, and in some countries, particularly in North-Western Europe, thousands of people were accused of witchcraft and sentenced to death.

During the Age of Enlightenment, belief in the powers of witches and sorcerers to harm began to die out in the West. But the reasons for disbelief differed from those of early Christians. For the early Christians the reason was theological – that Christ had already defeated the powers of evil. For the post-Enlightenment Christians, the disbelief was based on a belief in rationalism and empiricism.

I also believe that David C. Lindbergh put out a monograph too a while back, addressing the matter of naturalism in the church to the 13th century.

I’ll need to go back to my history of science stack and pull the appropriate references - but from what i understand there’s always been that bit of doubt amongst theologians about the status of things like witchcraft and sorcery (not so with demons however).

EDIT - The other thing off the top of my head is good old St. Augustine

a particularly influential passage of On Christian Doctrine, explicitly linked idolatry with divination as superstitious practices, essentially reducing all of pagan religion to superstition.

The accusation of “deisidaimonia” was often thrown around against our pagan opponents as denied the existence of their Gods and the efficacy of their practices.

Now how we went from “Your stuff doesn’t work.” to “Oh no, my astrological table portends doom unless i switch it to a different day!” (Sadly, this was Pope Julius II…a Pope beleiving in astrology?!)…well that part i just don’t understand.

 

[SedesDomi]

Now how we went from “Your stuff doesn’t work.” to “Oh no, my astrological table portends doom unless i switch it to a different day!” (Sadly, this was Pope Julius II…a Pope beleiving in astrology?!)…well that part i just don’t understand.

Kepler practiced astrology. If it was good enough for ol’ Kep…

 

[MarcoPolo]

Now how we went from “Your stuff doesn’t work.” to “Oh no, my astrological table portends doom unless i switch it to a different day!” (Sadly, this was Pope Julius II…a Pope beleiving in astrology?!)…well that part i just don’t understand.

Now you know the sin of a Pope does not amount to Catholic teaching on astrology, right? I am not quite following your assignment of superstition to “Catholics”. I saw you post a historical account that the Church said “witchcraft” was a collaboration with the devil. What’s wrong with that? Is your focus more on the being “afraid” of witches? Scrupulosity about spells or something? Again, I don’t find this unique to Catholicism at all!!..not today or yesteryear.

 

[LJN21]

I’m not sure I understand the question…

Are you asserting that there is no demonic influence in Witchcraft and that Ouji Boards are nothing more than harmless Toys? Or is the the reaction to every Chain Letter and and D&D game?

 

[Alopen]

Ok, i’m going to be as rigorous as possible about this as i’ve caused a lot of confusion - mea culpa.

What i’m wondering about is a division in the mentality of how one views what is or is not “occult” vs. what is “superstition.”

An additional division is how the Laity views the matter vs. the Church.

It seems to be the case (although John Winterburn pointed out the problem of biased sampling which i must acknowledge) that the Laity (us) has a stronger tendency to ascribe Occult properties or supernatural doings to objects/situation than the Church and her learned men/Theologians.

Whereas a mysterious circumstance might provoke a person to say a miracle has occurred, or demonic influence is about - the Church usually tends to try to rule out all Mundane causes before venturing to the other option.

And they do so with the strongest capacity of scientific rigor.

Ex. Someone claims possession - they expose that person to the largest range of psychological testing.

Ex. Someone claims a weeping statue as miraculous - the Church withholds judgment until they can get a closer look at it.

The Church is disinclined to ascribe things automatically to Occult forces in strange situations. The Laity seems to be the other way around.

The 2nd half of the question is about the fear of the occult.

I know everyone jumped on the “Witchcraft” references - but look at what i said before.

In the immediate aftermath of the Resurrection and onward through the centuries till we reach the Medieval age, we as a Church are collectively disinclined toward the efficacy of so-called spiritual practices.

(This not include the existence of demons, as we readily affirm that).

Whereas, concern about Pagan magic or what not sends some people screaming - our forerunners went into their temples, overturned their altars, chopped down their sacred oaks, and paid not a single bit of heed to all the weird ridiculous so-called “spells” or curses they laid on us.

Modern Man, as he denies the realm of the spiritual, readily denies the “Occult” on grounds of mere superstition due to lack of empirical evidence.

Ancient Christian Man ALSO denied the Occult in terms of its efficacy. NOT on the basis of scientific claims, but on a PURELY THEOLOGICAL CLAIM:

During the Age of Enlightenment, belief in the powers of witches and sorcerers to harm began to die out in the West. But the reasons for disbelief differed from those of early Christians. For the early Christians the reason was theological – that Christ had already defeated the powers of evil. For the post-Enlightenment Christians, the disbelief was based on a belief in rationalism and empiricism.

Our ancient Christian brothers and sister paid no heed to so-called magic and other weird practices because they were absolutely confident in the Lord’s victory.

The vast majority of these practices were condemned as “deisidaimonia” - superstition - as in illusionary/non-existant/incorrect facile imaginative work of the mind that has absolutely no bearing on us all whatsoever.

They were not quaking in their boots about some random witch saying “I’ll curse you” because they inherently believed that since the Resurrection - such things were no longer even possible.

Flash-forward to the Early Middle Ages -

Suddenly people are starting to believe in Astrological portents, you got Catholic priests practicing forms of divination (when their earlier counterparts would have thought it was all hokum!), you have people reading arcane grimoire’s like the Picatrix or the Lemegeton - themselves the creation from ancient Greek magical papyri in the 2nd-3rd centuries…

…“Magic formula” that was condemned as fictional sad trash by Aristotleans, Neoplatonics, Stoics, and yes… Christians.

So what the heck happened? When did this change in mentality occur?

How did we go from being a People so confident that we disbelieved or didn’t even worry about such things to well ascribing “occult influence” to Oujia boards, fearing chain letters, etc.

 

[Alopen]

This trend of automatically believing such things got so intolerable that our own Church had to campaign against the Laity in order to rectify their behavior!

The Catholic campaign against superstition in the Middle Ages and early modern periods were not merely theoretical. Church reformers preached and campaigned against what they identified as superstitious religious practices, the wearing of charms and talismans and other non-Church sanctioned activities. Catholic authorities defined superstitious practices as those that did not rely either on nature or on divine power for their effectiveness. Superstition was not only a threat to the laity. Parish priests were often seen as tolerating superstition or even practicing it themselves, and many of the leading campaigners against it were friars operating outside the diocesan hierarchy of the church.

Early modern Spain produced a particularly rich literature on superstition from the pens of Catholic priests, ranging from the vernacular works of the sixteenth-century friars Pedro Ciruelo (1470–1548) and Martin de Castanega to the Scholastic Latin writings of the eminent Jesuit theology professor Francisco Suarez (1548–1617). Ciruelo’s influential Treatise Reproving All Superstitions, aimed at ordinary Spaniards whose souls were threatened by superstition, identified it almost completely with magic. All superstition, Ciruelo claimed, was based either on the desire for illicit knowledge or material gain. Superstitions aimed at gaining knowledge were necromancy and divination; those aimed at gain were enchantment and witchcraft. Like much of the early modern Catholic literature, Ciruelo’s work focused on questions of causation, claiming that events could be caused either by direct divine intervention, as in the case of miracles, or natural causes. Ascribing outcomes to other causes was superstitious. The general tendency of the Spanish literature on superstition from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century was to circumscribe the area of direct divine action and ascribe more and more events to natural causes.

The Church, though sometimes faltering, nevertheless, did exactly what our beloved Pope Benedict has always stated-

Upheld Reason in defense of Faith - did not bow down to every silly little ridiculous thing that came its way, ascribed “NATURAL” causes to what others may have said to have been supposedly Supernatural.

So why the difference between the hierarchy and the laity?

 

[Jodi]

What i’m wondering about is a division in the mentality of how one views what is or is not “occult” vs. what is “superstition.”

My guess is that the answer to your question lies in comparing actual “Heresey” to “Ignorance”, respectively. The distinction belongs in the capability of the person in question.

Some people find the reciting of the Rosary to have properties that are definitively defined as being ‘occultic’ or ‘magical’, both inside and outside the Church, despite the clear teaching of the Church on its proper use which has formulated these devotional items in such a way as should preclude a magical interpretation (and objectively do so). Though naturally limited, my own personal experience is that those who possess the occultic veiw of such devotions, within Faithful Catholics, of the Rosary or Brown Scapular, are themselves acting out of an impulse that would be more accurately defined by your use of ‘superstition’ than objective and deliberate heresy.

Since our Faith is necessarily supernatural in part, it is easy for many who are incapable of discerning the distinctions between Faith and Magic, especially when there is an entire industry aimed at blurring and disguising said distinction, to fall into a daemonic trap. For such, the wholesale rejection of all such things without rational basis beyond “its listed in the Catechism as being occult/witchcraft, therefore it is forbidden” is an adequate and appropriate defense.

Sure, those who encourage occultism or are trying to disguise their true intents or substance, will raise cries of 'superstition" against such ‘unenlightended’ persons; but in truth, reacting in Faith to your own limitations and capabilities should be admired, not critisized as it is.

Some Catholics can follow Aquinas or Rosmini; others can not. Some can follow the Principle, others can only follow the Rule.

The other half of the answer lies in who is defining the argument? For some, ALL supposed supernaturalism is defined as being ‘superstitious’, even such things as Transubstantiation or baptism. As such, in this part, it is essentially impossible to derive a substantive answer to the question.

-Brendan

 

[Jodi]

As to the ‘historical’ question, I’d think that, based on my own incomplete and therefore possibly misinformed research, the change to which you are referring came about when such occultic practices were brought forth in the common mind of europe as being rigourously ‘scientific’.

I also do not think that the division you see between the Laity and the Preisthood is quite so distinct as you are supposing, at least in regards to education and intellectual rigour and its ‘universal’ character. The more I read of medieval history, the more I fail to see a distinct line of separation between the intellectual powers of the supposedly highly trained preists versus the illiterate laity. This, I believe, will eventually be revealed as being just another stereotype born of post-enlightenment prejudice and assumption, than actual fact. Not every preist received a Masters of Theology from Paris; many were barely capable of reading themselves. Sure, we remember the famous ones, who tended to be masters of some discipline; but by being such, they were not the norm, but extraordinary exceptions to it.

Consider that in the US we have quite a throng of people who have more of an education than many Preists did, arguably the best educated lot in Medeival times, yet we still have a lot of suckers and degree-holding PhD’s peddling nonsense to give them.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I’m sure everyone here as had at some particular point encountered a story regarding their faith and the occult, or a oujia board, ghosts, etc.

And that has always made me curious, since I tend to be rather rationally minded and often disinclined to believe in such things. But has always made me curious – are Catholics (and here I speak of the laity) an overly superstitious lot?

Now, let me first say that this is not a criticism of the hierarchy of the Church – in terms of things that a person might define as “supernatural,” the Church throughout its history has tended to be rather careful about jumping at shadows or declaring something a miracle. And in our modern age, they make use of the greatest advances in modern medicine and technology to rule out “false alarms” of touchy subjects such as sainthood and demonic possession.

But whereas they are circumspect and prudent, it seems all too often than those within the congregation are not. You have only but to look about Catholic Answers to find those who are quaking in fear of an unsubstantiated encounter with something “satanic” or occult.

What accounts for this disparity that inclines the leadership of the Church to think in one direction and those of the laity to think in another?

Furthermore - what accounts for this historical mystery?

Early Christianity gave a sound theological argument, one that I tend to uphold, that the resurrection of Christ had won a victory over all forces of evil – effectively making witchcraft and sorcery well…useless.

IE: It has absolutely no effect. Perhaps it once did – but the sacrifice of the Lord took care of that promptly.

In fact, if I understand this correctly, the Eastern Christians file belief in witchcraft as “deisdemonia” – superstition, while Western Christians followed suit in the 9th and 10th centuries by calling it superstitious nonsense or erroneous heresy.

Its what got many of our forerunners to go chopping down sacred oaks, over turn bloody altars, and laugh in the general direction of those who called upon divine pagan vengeance or attempted to curse them.

So what happened between now and then? How did we go from being extremely positive believers confident in our Lord to folk who jump at the number 666, run screaming away from a oujia board, and think the Devil is hiding behind every chain letter and 4 Leaf Clover?

Aren’t Protestants who are involved in, “End Times” and ”End Time” prediction, technically – Fortune Tellers? Are they not the forbidden Soothsayers? Aren’t they the forbidden "False Prophets? Doesn’t this fall under a form of witchcraft?

 

[Greg27]

I think it depends a lot on what you mean by ‘superstition.’ To many secular thinkers, any form of religious belief or practice is ‘superstition’; this is what thinkers like Kant, Hume or Voltaire and more recently, Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins, have in mind in their writings.

For a religious believer, ‘superstition’ may mean a practice which seems unfounded, excessive, and irrational and distant from the core belief. In Christian belief, practices of certain denominations may seem excessive or unwarranted by scripture, but this judgement is often quite parochial and often overlooks superstitious practices in their own faith. To the secular thinker, praying to God, the saints or Mary may well seem equally superstitious, and in the same category as dowsing, looking for ghosts in empty houses, and reading astrology charts to determine your future.