The following, by Johan Liljencrants, originally appeared on August 7, 1919, when Homiletic & Pastoral Review was known as “The Homiletic Monthly & Pastoral Review.”
“SPIRITISM AND RELIGION”
A Reply to Criticism
The Editors of the Homiletic Monthly and Pastoral Review.
Reverend Sirs:
The July number of the Homiletic Monthly And Pastoral Review this year contains a review of my book, Spiritism and Religion. In this review I am accused among other things of proving that the souls of the departed have power over matter, and that contrary to all theologians and Catholic authorities; of setting aside as insufficient the conclusions which the most distinguished theologians have formed from a careful study of spiritism; of teaching that the discarnate souls are pure spirits; of mistaking St. Thomas’ objections for proofs; of averring that we cannot disprove the existence of telepathy between the departed and the living in such a manner as to confirm affirmative theories on that point; of sacrificing the conclusions of the greatest thinkers of all times and principles essential to scholastic psychology; and, in general, of presenting a very unscientific treatise.
The limited space at my disposal does not allow me to make reply to all these charges. Nevertheless, while forced to confine myself to the most odious accusations, I emphatically deny that my book contains anything that a fair-minded reader could possibly construe as being contrary to the consensus of theological opinion, or as being subversive of fundamental principles of scholastic psychology. I equally emphatically deny that I anywhere prove, or attempt to prove, that the souls of the departed have power over matter. In order to accuse me of so doing it was necessary for the reviewer to mutilate and misrepresent my argument. In no connection whatever do I refer to “pure spirits”; the expression simply does not occur in my book. I nowhere quote St. Thomas’ objections for proofs. I defy the reviewer to substantiate any of these charges with my text before him!
I propose to use the space allotted to me to refute in particular the allegation that I depart from the common teaching of theologians by favoring a natural explanation of all the phenomena of spiritism, both physical and psychical. The reviewer charges that I ask “theology, and philosophy as well, to set aside as insufficient, not only the conclusions which the most distinguished theologians have formed from a careful study of spiritism. . . .” He says that on page 269 I candidly admit that my position is a departure from the consensus of theological opinion.
The reviewer fails to mention the theologians who have made a careful study of spiritism. In my work I have referred to Father Perrone, S.J., whose treatise was published in 1867. Father Perrone, accepting the phenomena as they were then known, and, applying to them the principles of theology, came to the conclusion that in a majority of cases they were preternatural and consequently diabolical. But Father Perrone wrote at least nine years before systematic and scientific investigation of the phenomena was even proposed. Since that time many discoveries have been made, and over thirty-five years of incessant, painstaking and systematic research have changed the whole aspect of the phenomena. Are we compelled to close our eyes to this fact?
Father Tanquerey, whose manuals of theology are second to none in soundness and erudition, in his treatise on spiritism disagrees with Father Perrone, not indeed on theological principles, but in his views on the phenomena of spiritism. Father Tanquerey seems to base his opinions on the works of men who have been engaged in, or who are familiar with spiritistic practices and psychical research. Some of the works to which he refers are old and antedate what may be called the scientific period in the history of spiritism. Others are universally recognized as reliable and valuable. He seems to rely greatly on Maxwell, but it does not appear that he quotes any work published after the year 1905. Is it permissible to think that something may have been discovered by psychical research between the years 1905 and 1918?
What is Father Tanquerey’s conclusion as to the nature of the phenomena of spiritism? In regard to materializations and spirit-photography he says: “Many, however, are convinced that those spirits are nothing else than the human persons who are called mediums, dressed in special costumes and masks.” (Syn. Theol. Dog. II, No. 28 (B), Phenomena physica, (e).) What does he say about the Katie King case? He relates it, gives Crookes’ opinion, and adds that “some think that the learned Crookes was deceived.” In both cases he leaves the question open. Consequently he would seem to admit the lack of proof sufficient to establish with moral certitude that the phenomena were preternatural.
Tanquerey proposes as the more probable opinion regarding the phenomena of spiritism that many are certainly natural, and the residue are not to be held as preternatural unless it can be shown from various concurring circumstances that they exceed the laws of nature (Syn. Theol. Mor. I, Nos. 911-914). In another place he proposes the following thesis: “The phenomena of magnetism, spiritism, or hypnotism by which occult, remote and future things are discovered, are diabolical, the rest, however, do not seem to transcend the laws of nature” (Syn. Theol. Dog. II, No. 830). He states that generally speaking several signs — as indicated in the Rituale Romanum for detecting diabolical activity — must concur in order to establish moral certitude of diabolical intervention. He defines what is necessary in order that a thing may be said truly to be occult, etc. (Syn. Theol. Mor. I, No. 913). But in so far as I am able to discover he nowhere states that spiritistic phenomena have been observed in which these conditions actually have been realized.
The reviewer rejects the validity of my argument from telepathy. Besides ignoring the mass of evidence in favor of telepathy presented among others by the very men whose authority in favor of spiritism he invokes as well nigh infallible, he states that “nothing is more obscure than what we call telepathy, and no one has a right to speak of it as admittedly natural.” Tanquerey says: “Many in our days think that there probably is in the human body, especially of certain persons in whom the nervous system is preeminent, some kind of fluid, analogous with the magnetic or electric fluid, which may be projected externally and influence nearby objects.” (Syn. Theol. Mor. I, No. 912, (B). (a)). Now, this Od, or “human radiations,” or “magnetic fluid,” or “animal magnetism,” or whatever we may choose to call it, to which Tanquerey refers, is certainly far more obscure than telepathy. Still, Tanquerey explicitly states that the phenomena of spiritism which may at least hypothetically be explained by it should not be attributed to a preternatural agent. This being the case, may it not also safely be said that psychical phenomena which may adequately be covered by the comparatively well-established facts of telepathy should not be attributed to preternatural agencies?
Again, Tanquerey says: “Phenomena which regularly and in an almost constant way are produced by scientific experiments, in which the agent neither explicitly nor implicitly has made pact with the devil, must not easily be attributed to demons” (Syn. Theol. Dog. No. 832, b). Sir Oliver Lodge not only accepts telepathy as a natural fact, but gives excellent accounts of successful scientific experiments (see The Survival of Man). Other prominent persons, certainly above suspicion, among whom many scientists of note, give similar testimony. But I have referred to them sufficiently in my book. May I not also point out that Cardinal Mercier, than whom no living exponent of Scholastic philosophy is more eminent, not only admits the possibility of telepathy as a natural process, but seems strongly inclined to accept certain forms thereof as established facts. (A Manual of Scholastic Philosophy [2d edition revised], Vol. I, No. 136. )
Dr. Edward Pace in the Catholic Encyclopedia, article Spiritism, says in part: “Nevertheless, patient research conducted by rigorous methods had shown that beneath the error and imposture (in spiritistic performances ) there lay a real influence which was to be accounted for; and which finally was explained on the theory of suggestion.” Again he says: “To explain the phenomena which after careful investigation and exclusion of fraud are regarded as authentic, three hypotheses have been proposed.” They are telepathy, psychical radiation and spiritism (including diabolical operation). Which of these hypotheses is the right one he does not say.
Father Roure in Le Merveilleur Spirite says that the credulity of Crookes was inexhaustible (page 48), he discards the evidence for preternatural causation claimed to be furnished in one after another of the strongest and most famous cases of alleged spirit control — to a large extent the same cases which we have employed in our book — and he certainly leaves one under the impression that genuine phenomena never existed.
He notes, however, the resemblance between the spiritistic phenomena as a whole and what we are taught to be the activities in this world of evil spirits. But the resemblance, although creating a suspicion, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to give the evidence demanded by the principles which I employ in common with theologians.
It must be remembered that the ninth chapter of my book, the main stumbling block to the reviewer, has for purpose to establish the morality of spiritistic practices. I am endeavoring to determine their morality, (1) on the basis of the objective nature of the phenomena, apart from their interpretation in the mind of “sitter” and medium, (2) on the basis of their subjective nature, i.e., their interpretation in the mind of “sitter” and medium, apart from their objective nature.
On neither of these points is it possible to give an unconditional verdict involving diabolical intercourse unless it can be shown with moral certitude that the phenomena in whole or in part are preternatural. The reviewer admits my principle according to which “the facts in question should not be considered as other than natural, unless every hypothesis of natural causality is clearly insufficient.” But while calling this a sound principle he tries to muddle the issue by bringing in questions of probability. If the morality of spiritistic practices is to be settled according to the principle just quoted, probability must give room for moral certainty. There can be no question of my own opinion or the opinions of others, but simply and solely of what is morally certain.
Now, what do theologians say on this point? First of all, there is no consensus of opinion, for which simple reason I am physically incapable of contradicting it. Some, with Perrone, seem to affirm that there is moral certainty of preternatural causation in a larger or smaller number of instances. Others, with Tanquerey, give a conditional verdict, but do not affirm the actual realization of the condition in any single case. Dr. Pace leaves the question open. Father Roure shows that in the best cases of alleged spirit control it cannot be shown that the causation was not natural.
The purpose of my whole book, as set forth in the Preface, is to present spiritism from a moral point of view. It is a moral, not a dogmatic treatise. I am not concerned with establishing the actual nature of the spiritistic phenomena except in so far as this is necessary in order to reach conclusions in regard to the morality of spiritistic practices.
What are, therefore, my final conclusions? As any one may verify, not those alleged by the reviewer. Rather, they may be summed up as follows (from page 279). The malice of spiritistic practices is threefold, to wit: (1) the basic malice, that is to say, the malice which goes through all spiritistic practices whatever, be the phenomena in reality fraudulent, genuine manifestations of unknown natural forces, or diabolical, is found in their opposition to the virtue of Religion in that they explicitly attribute to creatures what belongs to God alone; (2) they involve a direct danger of religious perversion in so far as the lucubrations of the medium — whether or not diabolically inspired — are accepted as revealed religious truths; (3) although remote, the danger of diabolical intercourse cannot be said to be totally absent. As a consequence, spiritistic practices must always, and under all circumstances, be considered as gravely illicit.
In what does this conclusion contradict the consensus of theologians? Or what principles of theology and Scholastic psychology have I set aside or violated in reaching it?
Nor do I anywhere admit that my position is a departure from the consensus of theological opinion. On pages 272-273 I say: “Our study of the phenomena of spiritism has led us to the conclusion that they do not exceed the powers of nature and that, where deliberate fraud is absent, they can be referred to psychological causes.” I continue: “Modern manuals of Moral Theology do not support our view, but it is to be noted that theologians have referred the phenomena to diabolical agencies only where a natural causation would be inadequate.” Tanquerey neither affirms nor denies that all unfraudulent phenomena actually observed can be referred to psychological causes. Consequently he does not support our view, nor do we contradict him. The same refers to Pace and Roure. The reviewer’s allegation is not true.
May I also briefly touch on two more points?
When the reviewer says “that according to St. Thomas and all Catholic authorities … human souls have from their nature no power over any other matter than the bodies that they informed during their earthly sojourn,” he does not state the truth. Duns Scotus, a great Catholic authority, and those who follow him, teach that discarnate souls have such power (see Oxon. 4. d. 10. q. 7. et d. 49. 1. 14). It is in discussing the subjective nature of the phenomena as already explained that I make reference to St. Thomas’ position and state that philosophical reasons alone are not sufficient to disprove that discarnate souls may have power over matter. My objection to St. Thomas’ argument finds support in Oxon, 4. d. 49, p. 14. n. 69, and d. 10. q. 7. n. 5. And de Montefortino in his Duns Scoti Summa Theologica (vol. III, Q. 117. A. 4.) puts forth the Doctor Subtilis’ arguments and plainly states: “I answer by saying that the rational soul separated from its body is able to move bodies locally.”
I do not want to be accused of taking my opinions now from St. Thomas, now from Duns Scotus. My argument here as elsewhere in my book will plainly show that I hold St. Thomas’ side. But no matter where I stand, the fact remains that the question whether discarnate souls. have power over matter is controverted among theologians and Catholic authorities, for which reason it cannot be said that either conclusion is unthinkable. And that, as properly stated in my book, is the issue (page 276, end of 2d paragraph).
The reviewer also says that my work is unscientific because I contradict certain scientists who have investigated the phenomena, and that the judgment of these specialists is no less worthy because other scientists, who either did not investigate at all, or did not witness the same phenomena, hold a contrary judgment. But what has that to do with my book? Where do I make a statement to that effect? I am not basing my treatise upon opinions, but upon recorded facts, various interpretations of the facts observed in the mind of the observers, reasons for these various interpretations, and criticism of these reasons. I am not taking “a few cases which I consider typical” for my examination — rather, I make a review of the cases which all writers on the subject hold to be crucial, and which constitute the main and strongest evidence presented by the defenders of spiritism. I quote authorities against spiritism who investigated side by side with its defenders. I compare the results of various investigations, note sources of error as actually established, and apply them in my criticism. But this method which is also followed by Father Roure in the book to which I have referred, and which has led him to conclusions even more strongly in disfavor of spiritism than mine, does not suit the reviewer. He rather takes his evidence from one man’s account, uncriticized, of a few years’ investigation of a few phenomena produced by one and the same medium, and swallows, wool and hoof, a theory which implies the production and operation of a hitherto unknown something, made of psychic stuff. Prosit!*
* I deplore that Dr. Crawford’s book was not considered in my treatise. But since my dissertation had to be presented in May, 1918, my manuscript was sent to the printer in April that year. At that time Dr. Crawford’s book had not yet been published, or, at least, had not come to my attention. For my opinion of his account, however, I refer to the Catholic World, July, 1919.
About HPRweb.com
Recent Comments