But incidentally, if it is asked
why this function is sometimes obstructed in respect of one woman but not of
another, the answer, according to S. Bonaventura, is this. Either the
enchantress of witch afflicts in this way those persons upon whom the devil
has determined; or it is because God will not permit it to be inflicted on
certain persons. For the hidden purpose of God in this is obscure, as is shown
in the case of the wife of Tobias. And he adds:
If it is asked how the devil does
this, it is to be said that he obstructs the genital power, not intrinsically
by harming the organ, but extrinsically by rendering it useless. Therefore,
since it is an artificial and not a natural obstruction, he can make a man
impotent towards one woman but not towards others: by taking away the
inflammation of his lust for her, but not for other women, either through his
own power, or through some herb or stone, or some occult natural means. And
this agrees with the words of Peter of Palude.
Besides, since impotency in this
act is sometimes due to coldness of nature, or some natural defect, it is
asked how it is possible to distinguish whether it is due to witchcraft of not.
Hostiensis gives the answer in his Summa (but this must not be publicly
preached): When the member is in no way stirred, and can never perform the act
of coition, this is a sign of frigidity of nature; but when it is stirred and
becomes erect, but yet cannot perform, it is a sign of witchcraft.
It is to be noted also that
impotence of the member to perform the act is not the only bewitchment; but
sometimes the woman is caused to be unable to conceive, or else she miscarries.
Note, moreover, that according to
what is aid down by the Canons, whoever through desire of vengeance or for
hatred does anything to a man or a woman to prevent them from begetting or
conceiving must be considered a homicide. And note, further, that the Canon
speaks of loose lovers who, to save their mistresses from shame, use
contraceptives, such as potions, or herbs that contravene nature, without any
help from devils. And such penitents are to be punished as homicides. But
witches who do such things by witchcraft are by law punishable by the extreme
penalty, as had been touched on above in the First Question.
And for a solution of the arguments;
when it is objected that these things cannot happen to those joined together
in matrimony, it is further to be noted that, even if the truth in this matter
had not already been made sufficiently plain, yet these things can truly and
actually happen just as much to those who are married as to those who are not.
And the prudent reader who has plenty of books, will refer to the Theologians
and the Canonists, especially where they speak of the impotent and bewitched.
He will find them in agreement in condemning two errors: especially with
regard to married people who seem to think that such bewitchment cannot happen
to those who are joined in matrimony, advancing the reason that the devil
cannot destroy the works of God.
And the first error which they
condemn is that of those who say that there is no witchcraft in the world, but
only in the imagination of men who, through their ignorance of hidden causes
which no man yet understands, ascribe certain natural effects to witchcraft,
as though they were effected not by hidden causes, but by devils working
either by themselves or in conjunction with witches. And although all other
Doctors condemn this error as a pure falsehood, yet S. Thomas impugns it more
vigorously and stigmatizes it as actual heresy, saying that this error
proceeds from the root of infidelity. And since infidelity in a Christian is
accounted heresy, therefore such deserve to be suspected as heretics. And this
matter was touched on in the First Question, though it was not there declared
so plainly. For if anyone considers the other sayings of S. Thomas in other
places, he will find the reasons why he affirms that such an error proceeds
from the root of infidelity.
For in his questions concerning
Sin, where he treats of devils, and in his first question, whether devils have
bodies that naturally belong to them, among many other matters he makes
mention of those who referred every physical effect to the virtue of the stars;
to which they said that the hidden causes of terrestrial effects were subject.
And he says: It must be considered that the Peripatetics,the followers of
Aristotle, held that devils did not really exist; but that those things which
are attributed to devils proceeded from the power of the stars and other
natural phenomena. Wherefore S. Augustine says (de Ciuitate Dei, X),
that it was the opinion of Porphyry that from herbs and animals, and certain
sounds and voice, and from figures and figments observed in the motion of the
stars, powers corresponding to the stars were fabricated on earth by men in
order to explain various natural effect. And the error of these is plain,
since they referred everything to hidden causes in the stars, holding that
devils were only fabricated by the imagination of men.
But this opinion is clearly proved
to be false by S. Thomas in the same work; for some works of devils are found
which can in no way proceed from any natural cause. For example, when one who
is possessed by devil speaks in an unknown language; and many other devil's
works are found, both in the Rhapsodic and the Necromantic arts, which can in
no way proceed except from some Intelligence, which may be naturally good but
is evil in its intention. And therefore, because of these incongruities, other
Philosophers were compelled to admit that there were devils. Yet they
afterwards fell into various errors, some thinking that the souls of men, when
they left their bodies, became devils. For this reason many Soothsayers have
killed children, that they might have their souls as their co-operators; and
many other errors are recounted.
From this it is clear that not
without reason does the Holy Doctor say that such an opinion proceeds from the
root of infidelity. And anyone who wishes may read S. Augustine (de
Ciuitate Dei, VIII, IX) on the various errors of infidels concerning the
nature of devils. And indeed the common opinion of all Doctors, quoted in the
above-mentioned work, against those who err in this way by denying that there
are any witches, is very weighty in its meaning, even if it is expressed in
few words. For they say that they who maintain that there is no witchcraft in
the world go contrary to the opinion of all the Doctors, and of the Holy
Scripture; and declare that there are devils, and that devils have power over
the bodies and imaginations of men, with the permission of God. Wherefore,
those who are the instruments of the devils, at whose instance the devil at
times do mischief to a creature, they call witches.
Now in the Doctor's condemnation of
this first error nothing is said concerning those joined together in matrimony;
but this is made clear in their condemnation of the second error of believing
that, though witchcraft exists and abounds in the world, even against carnal
copulation, yet, since no such bewitchment can be considered to be permanent,
it never annuls a marriage that has already been contracted. Here is where
they speak of those joined in matrimony. Now in refuting this error (for we do
so, even though it is little to the point, for the sake of those who have not
many books), it is to be noted that they refute it by maintaining that it is
against all precedent, and contrary to all laws both ancient and modern.
Wherefore the Catholic Doctors make
the following distinction, that impotence caused by witchcraft is either
temporary or permanent. And if it is temporary, then it does not annul the
marriage. Moreover, it is presumed to be temporary of they are able to healed
of the impediment within three years from their cohabitation, having taken all
possible pain, either through the sacraments of the Church, or through other
remedies, to be cured. But if they are not then cured by any remedy, from that
time it is presumed to be permanent. And in that case it either precedes both
the contracting of a marriage, and annuls one that is not yet contracted; or
else it follows the contract of marriage but precedes its consummation, and
then also, according to some, it annuls the previous contract. (For it is said
in Book XXXII, quest. 1. cap. 1 that the confirmation of a marriage consists
in its carnal office.) Or else it is subsequent to the consummation of the
marriage, and then the matrimonial bond is not annulled. Much is noted there
concerning impotence by Hostiensis, and Godfrey, and the Doctors and
Theologians.
To the arguments. As to the
first, it is made sufficiently clear from what has been said. For as to the
argument that God's works can be destroyed by the devil's works, if witchcraft
has power against those who are married, it has no force; rather does the
opposite appear, since the devil can do nothing without God's permission. For
he does not destroy by main force like a tyrant, but through some extrinsic
art, as is proved above. And the second argument is also made quite clear, why
God allows this obstruction more in the case of the venereal act than of other
acts. But the devil has power also over other acts, when God permits.
Wherefore it is not sound to argue that he could destroy the whole world. And
the third objection is similarly answered by what has been said.