Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that divination by auguries, omens, and by like observations of external things is not unlawful. If it were unlawful holy men would not make use thereof. Now we read of Joseph that he paid attention to auguries, for it is related (Gn. 44:5) that Joseph's steward said: "The cup which you have stolen is that in which my lord drinketh and in which he is wont to divine ": and he himself afterwards said to his brethren (Gn. 44:15): "Know you not that there is no one like me in the science of divining?" Therefore it is not unlawful to make use of this kind of divination.

Objection 2: Further, birds naturally know certain things regarding future occurrences of the seasons, according to Jer. 8:7, "The kite in the air hath known her time; the turtle, the swallow, and the stork have observed the time of their coming." Now natural knowledge is infallible and comes from God. Therefore it seems not unlawful to make use of the birds' knowledge in order to know the future, and this is divination by augury.

Objection 3: Further, Gedeon is numbered among the saints (Heb. 11:32). Yet Gedeon made use of an omen, when he listened to the relation and interpreting of a dream (Judges 7:15): and Eliezer, Abraham's servant, acted in like manner (Gn. 24). Therefore it seems that this kind of divination is not unlawful.

On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 18:10): "Neither let there be found among you anyone . . . that observeth omens."

I answer that, The movements or cries of birds, and whatever dispositions one may consider in such things, are manifestly not the cause of future events: wherefore the future cannot be known therefrom as from its cause. It follows therefore that if anything future can be known from them, it will be because the causes from which they proceed are also the causes of future occurrences or are cognizant of them. Now the cause of dumb animals' actions is a certain instinct whereby they are inclined by a natural movement, for they are not masters of their actions. This instinct may proceed from a twofold cause. In the first place it may be due to a bodily cause. For since dumb animals have naught but a sensitive soul, every power of which is the act of a bodily organ, their soul is subject to the disposition of surrounding bodies, and primarily to that of the heavenly bodies. Hence nothing prevents some of their actions from being signs of the future, in so far as they are conformed to the dispositions of the heavenly bodies and of the surrounding air, to which certain future events are due. Yet in this matter we must observe two things: first, that such observations must not be applied to the foreknowledge of future things other than those which can be foreknown from the movements of heavenly bodies, as stated above (Articles 5,6): secondly, that they be not applied to other matters than those which in some way may have reference to these animals (since they acquire through the heavenly bodies a certain natural knowledge and instinct about things necessary for their life---such as changes resulting from rain and wind and so forth).

In the second place, this instinct is produced by a spiritual cause, namely, either by God, as may be seen in the dove that descended upon Christ, the raven that fed Elias, and the whale that swallowed and vomited Jonas, or by demons, who make use of these actions of dumb animals in order to entangle our minds with vain opinions. This seems to be true of all such like things; except omens, because human words which are taken for an omen are not subject to the disposition of the stars, yet are they ordered according to divine providence and sometimes according to the action of the demons.

Accordingly we must say that all such like divinations are superstitious and unlawful, if they be extended beyond the limits set according to the order of nature or of divine providence.

Reply to Objection 1: According to Augustine , when Joseph said that there was no one like him in the science of divining, he spoke in joke and not seriously, referring perhaps to the common opinion about him: in this sense also spoke his steward.

Reply to Objection 2: The passage quoted refers to the knowledge that birds have about things concerning them; and in order to know these things it is not unlawful to observe their cries and movements: thus from the frequent cawing of crows one might say that it will rain soon.

Reply to Objection 3: Gedeon listened to the recital and interpretation of a dream, seeing therein an omen, ordered by divine providence for his instruction. In like manner Eliezer listened to the damsel's words, having previously prayed to God.

Articulus 7

Argumentum 1

Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divinatio quae est per auguria et omina et alias huiusmodi observationes exteriorum rerum, non sit illicita. Si enim esset illicita, sancti viri ea non uterentur. Sed de ioseph legitur quod auguriis intendebat, legitur enim Gen. XLIV quod dispensator ioseph dixit, scyphus quem furati estis ipse est in quo bibit dominus meus, et in quo augurari solet; et ipse postea dixit fratribus suis, an ignoratis quod non sit similis mei in augurandi scientia? ergo uti tali divinatione non est illicitum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, aves aliqua circa futuros temporum eventus naturaliter cognoscunt, secundum illud Ierem. VIII, milvus in caelo cognovit tempus suum, turtur et hirundo et ciconia custodierunt tempus adventus sui.

Sed naturalis cognitio est infallibilis, et a deo.

Ergo uti cognitione avium ad praenoscendum futura, quod est augurari, non videtur esse illicitum.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, Gedeon in numero sanctorum ponitur, ut patet Heb. XI.

Sed Gedeon usus fuit omine ex hoc quod audivit recitationem et interpretationem cuiusdam somnii, ut legitur iudic. VII.

Et similiter eliezer, servus Abrahae, ut legitur Gen. XXIV.

Ergo videtur quod talis divinatio non sit illicita.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. XVIII, non inveniatur in te qui observet auguria.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod motus vel garritus avium, vel quaecumque dispositiones huiusmodi in rebus consideratae, manifestum est quod non sunt causa futurorum eventuum, unde ex eis futura cognosci non possunt sicut ex causis. Relinquitur ergo quod si ex eis aliqua futura cognoscantur, hoc erit inquantum sunt effectus aliquarum causarum quae etiam sunt causantes vel praecognoscentes futuros eventus. Causa autem operationum brutorum animalium est instinctus quidam quo moventur in modum naturae, non enim habent dominium sui actus.

Hic autem instinctus ex duplici causa potest procedere.

Uno quidem modo, ex causa corporali. Cum enim bruta animalia non habeant nisi animam sensitivam, cuius omnes potentiae sunt actus corporalium organorum, subiacet eorum anima dispositioni continentium corporum, et primordialiter caelestium. Et ideo nihil prohibet aliquas eorum operationes esse futurorum signa, inquantum conformantur dispositionibus corporum caelestium et aeris continentis, ex qua proveniunt aliqui futuri eventus. In hoc tamen duo considerari oportet. Primum quidem, ut huiusmodi operationes non extendantur nisi ad praecognoscenda futura quae causantur per motus caelestium corporum, ut supra dictum est.

Secundo, ut non extendantur nisi ad ea quae aliqualiter possunt ad huiusmodi animalia pertinere. Consequuntur enim per caelestia corpora cognitionem quandam naturalem et instinctum ad ea quae eorum vitae sunt necessaria, sicut sunt immutationes quae fiunt per pluvias et ventos, et alia huiusmodi.

Alio modo instinctus huiusmodi causantur ex causa spirituali.

Scilicet vel ex deo, ut patet in columba super christum descendente, et in corvo qui pavit eliam, et in cete qui absorbuit et eiecit ionam. Vel etiam ex Daemonibus, qui utuntur huiusmodi operationibus brutorum animalium ad implicandas animas vanis opinionibus. Et eadem ratio videtur esse de omnibus aliis accipiuntur pro omine, non subduntur dispositioni stellarum.

Huiusmodi, praeterquam de ominibus. Quia verba humana, quae disponuntur tamen secundum divinam providentiam; et quandoque secundum Daemonum operationem. Sic igitur dicendum quod omnis huiusmodi divinatio, si extendatur ultra id ad quod potest pertingere secundum ordinem naturae vel divinae providentiae, est superstitiosa et illicita.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc quod ioseph dixit, non esse aliquem sibi similem in scientia augurandi, secundum Augustinum, ioco dixit, non serio, referens forte hoc ad id quod vulgus de eo opinabatur. Et sic etiam dispensator eius locutus est.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod illa auctoritas loquitur de cognitione avium respectu eorum quae ad eas pertinent.

Et ad haec praecognoscenda considerare earum voces et motus non est illicitum, puta si quis ex hoc quod cornicula frequenter crocitat, praedicat pluviam cito esse futuram.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod Gedeon observavit recitationem et expositionem somnii accipiens ea pro omine, quasi ordinata ad sui instructionem a divina providentia. Et similiter eliezer attendit verba puellae, oratione praemissa ad deum.