|
Objection 1: It would seem that divination is not a sin.
Divination is derived from something "divine": and things that are
divine pertain to holiness rather than to sin. Therefore it seems that
divination is not a sin.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i,
1): "Who dares to say that learning is an evil?" and again: "I
could nowise admit that intelligence can be an evil." But some arts
are divinatory, as the Philosopher states (De Memor. i): and
divination itself would seem to pertain to a certain intelligence of the
truth. Therefore it seems that divination is not a sin.
Objection 3: Further, there is no natural inclination to evil;
because nature inclines only to its like. But men by natural
inclination seek to foreknow future events; and this belongs to
divination. Therefore divination is not a sin.
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 18:10,11):
"Neither let there be found among you . . . any one that consulteth
pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers": and it is stated in the
Decretals (26, qu. v, can. Qui divinationes): "Those who
seek for divinations shall be liable to a penance of five years'
duration, according to the fixed grades of penance."
I answer that, Divination denotes a foretelling of the future. The
future may be foreknown in two ways: first in its causes, secondly in
itself. Now the causes of the future are threefold: for some produce
their effects, of necessity and always; and such like future effects
can be foreknown and foretold with certainty, from considering their
causes, even as astrologers foretell a coming eclipse. Other causes
produce their effects, not of necessity and always, but for the most
part, yet they rarely fail: and from such like causes their future
effects can be foreknown, not indeed with certainty, but by a kind of
conjecture, even as astrologers by considering the stars can foreknow
and foretell things concerning rains and droughts, and physicians,
concerning health and death. Again, other causes, considered in
themselves, are indifferent; and this is chiefly the case in the
rational powers, which stand in relation to opposites, according to
the Philosopher [Metaph. viii, 2,5,8]. Such like effects,
as also those which ensue from natural causes by chance and in the
minority of instances, cannot be foreknown from a consideration of
their causes, because these causes have no determinate inclination to
produce these effects. Consequently such like effects cannot be
foreknown unless they be considered in themselves. Now man cannot
consider these effects in themselves except when they are present, as
when he sees Socrates running or walking: the consideration of such
things in themselves before they occur is proper to God, Who alone in
His eternity sees the future as though it were present, as stated in
the FP, Question 14, Article 13; FP, Question 57,
Article 3; FP, Question 86, Article 4. Hence it is written
(Is. 41:23): "Show the things that are to come hereafter,
and we shall know that ye are gods." Therefore if anyone presume to
foreknow or foretell such like future things by any means whatever,
except by divine revelation, he manifestly usurps what belongs to
God. It is for this reason that certain men are called divines:
wherefore Isidore says (Etym. viii, 9): "They are called
divines, as though they were full of God. For they pretend to be
filled with the Godhead, and by a deceitful fraud they forecast the
future to men."
Accordingly it is not called divination, if a man foretells things
that happen of necessity, or in the majority of instances, for the
like can be foreknown by human reason: nor again if anyone knows other
contingent future things, through divine revelation: for then he does
not divine, i.e. cause something divine, but rather receives
something divine. Then only is a man said to divine, when he usurps
to himself, in an undue manner, the foretelling of future events: and
this is manifestly a sin. Consequently divination is always a sin;
and for this reason Jerome says in his commentary on Mich. 3:9,
seqq. that "divination is always taken in an evil sense."
Reply to Objection 1: Divination takes its name not from a rightly
ordered share of something divine, but from an undue usurpation
thereof, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: There are certain arts for the foreknowledge
of future events that occur of necessity or frequently, and these do
not pertain to divination. But there are no true arts or sciences for
the knowledge of other future events, but only vain inventions of the
devil's deceit, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 8).
Reply to Objection 3: Man has a natural inclination to know the
future by human means, but not by the undue means of divination.
|
|