Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not unlawful to practice the observances of the magic art. A thing is said to be unlawful in two ways. First, by reason of the genus of the deed, as murder and theft: secondly, through being directed to an evil end, as when a person gives an alms for the sake of vainglory. Now the observances of the magic art are not evil as to the genus of the deed, for they consist in certain fasts and prayers to God; moreover, they are directed to a good end, namely, the acquisition of science. Therefore it is not unlawful to practice these observances.

Objection 2: Further, it is written (Dan. 1:17) that "to the children" who abstained, "God gave knowledge, and understanding in every book, and wisdom." Now the observances of the magic art consist in certain fasts and abstinences. Therefore it seems that this art achieves its results through God: and consequently it is not unlawful to practice it.

Objection 3: Further, seemingly, as stated above (Article 1), the reason why it is wrong to inquire of the demons concerning the future is because they have no knowledge of it, this knowledge being proper to God. Yet the demons know scientific truths: because sciences are about things necessary and invariable, and such things are subject to human knowledge, and much more to the knowledge of demons, who are of keener intellect, as Augustine says . Therefore it seems to be no sin to practice the magic art, even though it achieve its result through the demons.

On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 18:10,11): "Neither let there be found among you . . . anyone . . . that seeketh the truth from the dead": which search relies on the demons' help. Now through the observances of the magic art, knowledge of the truth is sought "by means of certain signs agreed upon by compact with the demons" . Therefore it is unlawful to practice the notary art.

I answer that, The magic art is both unlawful and futile. It is unlawful, because the means it employs for acquiring knowledge have not in themselves the power to cause science, consisting as they do in gazing certain shapes, and muttering certain strange words, and so forth. Wherefore this art does not make use of these things as causes, but as signs; not however as signs instituted by God, as are the sacramental signs. It follows, therefore, that they are empty signs, and consequently a kind of "agreement or covenant made with the demons for the purpose of consultation and of compact by tokens" . Wherefore the magic art is to be absolutely repudiated and avoided by Christian, even as other arts of vain and noxious superstition, as Augustine declares (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 23). This art is also useless for the acquisition of science. For since it is not intended by means of this art to acquire science in a manner connatural to man, namely, by discovery and instruction, the consequence is that this effect is expected either from God or from the demons. Now it is certain that some have received wisdom and science infused into them by God, as related of Solomon (3 Kgs. 3 and 2 Paralip 1). Moreover, our Lord said to His disciples (Lk. 21:15): "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist and gainsay." However, this gift is not granted to all, or in connection with any particular observance, but according to the will of the Holy Ghost, as stated in 1 Cor. 12:8, "To one indeed by the Spirit is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit," and afterwards it is said (1 Cor. 12:11): "All these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to everyone according as He will." On the other hand it does not belong to the demons to enlighten the intellect, as stated in the 1, Question 109, Article 3. Now the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom is effected by the enlightening of the intellect, wherefore never did anyone acquire knowledge by means of the demons. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 9): "Porphyry confesses that the intellectual soul is in no way cleansed by theurgic inventions," i.e. the operations "of the demons, so as to be fitted to see its God, and discern what is true," such as are all scientific conclusions. The demons may, however, be able by speaking to men to express in words certain teachings of the sciences, but this is not what is sought by means of magic.

Reply to Objection 1: It is a good thing to acquire knowledge, but it is not good to acquire it by undue means, and it is to this end that the magic art tends.

Reply to Objection 2: The abstinence of these children was not in accordance with a vain observance of the notary art, but according to the authority of the divine law, for they refused to be defiled by the meat of Gentiles. Hence as a reward for their obedience they received knowledge from God, according to Ps. 118:100, "I have had understanding above the ancients, because I have sought Thy commandments."

Reply to Objection 3: To seek knowledge of the future from the demons is a sin not only because they are ignorant of the future, but also on account of the fellowship entered into with them, which also applies to the case in point.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod uti observantiis artis notoriae non sit illicitum. Dupliciter enim est aliquid illicitum, uno modo, secundum genus operis, sicut homicidium vel furtum; alio modo, ex eo quod ordinatur ad malum finem, sicut cum quis dat eleemosynam propter inanem gloriam. Sed ea quae observantur in arte notoria secundum genus operis non sunt illicita, sunt enim quaedam ieiunia et orationes ad deum. Ordinantur etiam ad bonum finem, scilicet ad scientiam acquirendam.

Ergo uti huiusmodi observationibus non est illicitum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Dan. I legitur quod pueris abstinentibus dedit deus scientiam et disciplinam in omni libro et sapientia.

Sed observantiae artis notoriae sunt secundum aliqua ieiunia et abstinentias quasdam. Ergo videtur quod divinitus sortiatur ars illa effectum. Non ergo illicitum est ea uti.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, ideo videtur esse inordinatum a Daemonibus inquirere de futuris quia ea non cognoscunt, sed hoc est proprium dei, ut dictum est.

Sed veritates scientiarum Daemones sciunt, quia scientiae sunt de his quae sunt ex necessitate et semper, quae subiacent humanae cognitioni, et multo magis Daemonum, qui sunt perspicaciores, ut Augustinus dicit.

Ergo non videtur esse peccatum uti arte notoria, etiam si per Daemones sortiatur effectum.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. XVIII, non inveniatur in te qui quaerat a mortuis veritatem, quae quidem inquisitio innititur auxilio Daemonum.

Sed per observantias artis notoriae inquiritur cognitio veritatis per quaedam pacta significationum cum Daemonibus inita. Ergo uti arte notoria non est licitum.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod ars notoria et illicita est, et inefficax.

Illicita quidem est, quia utitur quibusdam ad scientiam acquirendam quae non habent secundum se virtutem causandi scientiam, sicut inspectione quarundam figurarum, et prolatione quorundam ignotorum verborum, et aliis huiusmodi. Et ideo huiusmodi ars non utitur his ut causis, sed ut signis. Non autem ut signis divinitus institutis, sicut sunt sacramentalia signa.

Unde relinquitur quod sint supervacua signa, et per consequens pertinentia ad pacta quaedam significationum cum Daemonibus placita atque foederata. Et ideo ars notoria penitus est repudianda et fugienda christiano, sicut et aliae artes nugatoriae vel noxiae superstitionis, ut Augustinus dicit, in II de doct. Christ..

Est etiam huiusmodi ars inefficax ad scientiam acquirendam.

Cum enim per huiusmodi artem non intendatur acquisitio scientiae per modum homini connaturalem, scilicet adinveniendo vel addiscendo, consequens est quod iste effectus vel expectetur a deo, vel a Daemonibus. Certum est autem aliquos a deo sapientiam et scientiam per infusionem habuisse, sicut de Salomone legitur, III Reg. III, et II Paral. I.

Dominus etiam discipulis suis dicit, Luc. XXI, ego dabo vobis os et sapientiam, cui non poterunt resistere et contradicere omnes adversarii vestri.

Sed hoc donum non datur quibuscumque, aut cum certa observatione, sed secundum arbitrium spiritus sancti, secundum illud I ad Cor. XII, alii quidem datur per spiritum sermo sapientiae, alii sermo scientiae secundum eundem spiritum; et postea subditur, haec omnia operatur unus atque idem spiritus, dividens singulis prout vult.

Ad Daemones autem non pertinet illuminare intellectum, ut habitum est in prima huius operis parte.

Acquisitio autem scientiae et sapientiae fit per illuminationem intellectus. Et ideo nullus unquam per Daemones scientiam acquisivit.

Unde Augustinus dicit, in X de CIV. Dei, Porphyrium fateri quod theurgicis teletis, in operationibus Daemonum, intellectuali animae nihil purgationis accidit quod eam facit idoneam ad videndum deum suum, et perspicienda ea quae vera sunt, qualia sunt omnia scientiarum theoremata. Possent tamen Daemones, verbis hominibus colloquentes, exprimere aliqua scientiarum documenta, sed hoc non quaeritur per artem notoriam.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod acquirere scientiam bonum est, sed acquirere eam modo indebito non est bonum.

Et hunc finem intendit ars notoria.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod pueri illi non abstinebant secundum vanam observantiam artis notoriae, sed secundum auctoritatem legis divinae, nolentes inquinari cibis gentilium. Et ideo merito obedientiae consecuti sunt a deo scientiam, secundum illud psalm., super senes intellexi, quia mandata tua quaesivi.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod exquirere cognitionem futurorum a Daemonibus non solum est peccatum propter hoc quod ipsi futura non cognoscunt, sed propter societatem cum eis initam, quae etiam in proposito locum habet.