|
Some people hear
the word "Zodiac" and freak out, their minds going to New Age thinking,
not realizing that the Zodiac is just a set of stars -- stars that God
made and called "good." But since the question will come up, what does the Church teach about
astrology?
It's not
uncommon at all to hear people -- even educated people, even priests --
express not just the idea that astrology is just bunk (which they, of
course, have every right to believe), but that
it's forbidden by the Church. Some are vehement about it, passionately
insisting that astrology, in se,
is forbidden, an occultic practice inherently akin to necromancy or
divination. In
my experience, this tends especially to be true when it comes to
converts from certain Protestant sects -- often the same type who
insists that ghosts don't exist, that it's forbidden to think ghosts
exist, that magic doesn't work (it does, but it's forbidden. By definition, it derives
its power from demons), that curses and cursed objects don't exist,
and so on (learn about these things in the "The Preternatual World"
sub-section of this website).
But that belief is simply not true. In the medieval world, astrology
was given a great deal of very serious thought -- including by
great Doctors and Saints -- and in everything
from medicine to farming, astrological
considerations were often taken into account. Our glorious
heritage of Catholic art -- including paintings, church architecture,
stained glass, and illuminated
manuscripts -- especially in Books of Hours, in which the zodiacal
signs were almost always included along with depictions of the seasonal
labors of man1 -- proves just
how ubiquitous and accepted astrological thought was. Here is one
of many examples of a "Zodiac Man" which illustrates the idea that
the different zodiacal signs influence various parts of the body:
Medieval literature is filled with astrological thought. Chaucer's "The
Canterbury Tales" speaks often of planetary influences, and even
Dante's great religious work, "Divine Comedy," relates each the seven
"planets" of medieval astrology to one of the Cardinal and Theological Virtues.
Consider a description of a church window that relates how
that
window is covered in astrological symbols and includes depictions of
men going about their daily business. One might -- understandably,
given how things are these days --
leap to the conclusion that such a church window would be located in
some modernist church building somewhere, likely designed by some
woefully misled or ill-intentioned "progressive Catholic" (may God have
mercy on them!) -- the sort of parish in which
parishioners are encouraged to refer to God as "She," in which the
Buddha is
treated as a Catholic Saint, and other insults to the Holy
Faith we hear about lately are manifest. But those words actually
describe this
very beautiful window found in Chartres Cathedral:
Or consider the following bit of text:
The Ram (Aries)
or the Lion (Leo) or the Archer (Sagittarius) carved [on stones] by
reason of Fire and the Eastern triplicity, indicate that stones have a
property against fevers and such infirmities as dropsy, paralysis, and
the like. And since heat has a beneficial effect, these are said make
their wearers skilful and clever, and to raise them to positions honour
in the world; the Lion especially [has this effect].
The Twins (Gemini), the Scales (Libra) and the Waterman
(Aquarius) if carved on stones, by reason of the triplicity of Air and
the West, are said to predispose their wearers towards friendship and
righteousness and good manners, diligent observation of laws, and
concord.
The Crab (Cancer), the Scorpion (Scorpius) and the Fishes
(Pisces), carved on stones, by reason of the triplicity of Water and
the North, temper dry fevers, like [those called] ethica and causon,
and the like. But according to The Art of Images, they produce an
inclination towards lying and unrighteousness and inconstancy and
licentiousness. Evidence of this is that the Scorpion is the image of
Mahommet, who never taught anything except lies and unrighteousness.
And if the Bull (Taurus), the Maiden (Virgo) or the Horned
Goat (Capricornus) are engraved [upon stones], by reason of the
triplicity of Earth and South, they are cold and dry, so far as their
effects [are concerned]; hence they are said to cure their wearers of
fainting fits and hot infirmities. And they incline their wearers
towards religious devotion, and wards country occupations, such as
agriculture and the planting of vineyards and gardens.
The same considerations [hold good] for the images that have
been scribed outside the Zodiac.
Many moderns might mistake that for something written by a
New Age hippie. But it was, in fact, written by one of the very
greatest Doctors of the Church, St. Albertus Magnus ("St. Albert the
Great"), mentor of St. Thomas Aquinas, in his De Mineralibus (On Minerals). And
as to St. Albert's illustrious pupil, in the first part of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas writes
about the influences the Heavenly bodies might have on
us. Excerpts from that section of his greatest work -- found in
Question 115, which you can read in
full here -- follow. In
responding to the question, in Article 3, "Whether the heavenly bodies
are the cause of what is produced in bodies here below?", he writes:
Since every
multitude proceeds from unity; and since what is immovable is always in
the same way of being, whereas what is moved has many ways of being: it
must be observed that throughout the whole of nature, all movement
proceeds from the immovable. Therefore the more immovable certain
things are, the more are they the cause of those things which are most
movable. Now the heavenly bodies are of all bodies the most immovable,
for they are not moved save locally. Therefore the movements of bodies
here below, which are various and multiform, must be referred to the
movement of the heavenly bodies, as to their cause.
In response to the question posed in Article 4, "Whether the
heavenly bodies are the cause of human actions?", he writes:
It must be
observed, however, that indirectly and accidentally, the impressions of
heavenly bodies can reach the intellect and will, forasmuch, namely, as
both intellect and will receive something from the inferior powers
which are affixed to corporeal organs. But in this the intellect and
will are differently situated. For the intellect, of necessity,
receives from the inferior apprehensive powers: wherefore if the
imaginative, cogitative, or memorative powers be disturbed, the action
of the intellect is, of necessity, disturbed also. The will, on the
contrary, does not, of necessity, follow the inclination of the
inferior appetite; for although the passions in the irascible and
concupiscible have a certain force in inclining the will; nevertheless
the will retains the power of following the passions or repressing
them. Therefore the impressions of the heavenly bodies, by virtue of
which the inferior powers can be changed, has less influence on the
will, which is the proximate cause of human actions, than on the
intellect...
... The spiritual substances, that move the heavenly bodies, do indeed
act on corporeal things by means of the heavenly bodies; but they act
immediately on the human intellect by enlightening it. On the other
hand, they cannot compel the will...
...The majority of men follow their passions, which are movements of
the sensitive appetite, in which movements of the heavenly bodies can
cooperate: but few are wise enough to resist these passions.
Consequently astrologers are able to foretell the truth in the majority
of cases, especially in a general way. But not in particular cases; for
nothing prevents man resisting his passions by his free-will. Wherefore
the astrologers themselves are wont to say that "the wise man is
stronger than the stars" [Ptolemy, Centiloquium, prop. 5], forasmuch
as, to wit, he conquers his passions.
In other words, according to the Father of Scholasticism,
yes, the Heavenly bodies not only may, but do influence
us on the corporeal level, which includes the intellect to some degree,
and the will to a lesser degree. But the will
cannot be "overridden"
by any such influence; the will is supreme. However, because so many
men allow themselves
to be ruled by their passions, form bad
habits, and don't exercise
their will in the right way, the power the Heavenly bodies may exert
upon them is more evident. Or, to put it another way, the Heavenly
bodies may influence our inclinations and basic personalities, but that
influence only has the power
we grant to it, that we allow
it to have by not using our will to overcome any negative inclinations
they might cause. An analogy: the stars may influence what cards we're
dealt in a game of poker, and they may influence how we play our hand, but
they can't determine how we
play our hand unless we refuse to use our
will to play the hand correctly.
In addition to such writings, you will also find many Church Fathers
who wrote against astrology, but they refer to astrology as practiced
at that time -- astrology done wrong, astrology that ignores free will,
astrology that crosses the line into divination, etc. But even St.
Augustine,
famous for writing against astrology, conceded, in Book V, Chapter VI
of his "City
of God", my emphasis:
But, while it is
not altogether absurd to say that certain
sidereal influences have some power to cause differences in bodies
alone—as, for instance, we see that the seasons of the year come
round
by the approaching and receding of the sun, and that certain kinds of
things are increased in size or diminished by the waxings and wanings
of the moon, such as sea-urchins, oysters, and the wonderful tides of
the ocean—it does not follow that the
wills of men are to be made
subject to the position of the stars.
Precisely what Aquinas said.
The early Fathers wrote
passionately against any sort of fatalism, and many wrote against
astrologers of the day who were consulted in an
illicit manner, had inordinate sway over those in power, and who, in
essence, were scam artists in the same way that bogus "astrologers" of
the sort who write silly newspaper columns are today.
All of this is akin to the phenomenon of clairvoyance: there are a
multitude of lying, self-professed "psychics" who'll give "readings"
for
a lot of money. Consider Sylvia Browne, a con-woman who
claimed special powers and went on to fame and fortune based on that
false claim, breaking hearts2 and defrauding people along
the way. But it's nonetheless a fact that God -- and even perhaps God
through Nature, per natural laws we haven't scientifically discovered
-- grants to some the
ability to see things others can't. The Bible expressly speaks of those
given the ability read souls and to prophesy. As an example, St. Padre
Pio was
able to know the sins of his penitents before they came to confess to
him. He was, ergo, "psychic." Psychic powers exist, and
none of the scammers out there -- even all of them put together --
makes
those sorts of gifts any less genuine.
And so it may well be with astrology, properly understood. Again, no
Catholic is
bound to believe in astrology -- i.e., no Catholic must believe the
that the Heavenly bodies can and do influence us. A Catholic can
consider it
to be complete hokum; all of that is a question of fact and,
ultimately, a matter of science, not of eternal Truths or dogma that we
need to know to save our souls. But a
Catholic may believe that
"the stars" influence us, and he can be perfectly orthodox while doing
so. It's no mortal sin to cast a natal chart to try to determine the
planetery influences that may affect your inclinations. What is absolutely
forbidden
is the casting of charts to foretell the future as if it's cast in
stone by the stars (a form of divination), or to
believe in any form of astrology that denies free will. If you're not
crystal clear on these concepts, it's best to stay away from it
altogether.
Footnotes:
1 See this site's
pages on Ember Days
2 One example of
Sylvia Browne's cruelty is this: In October of 2002, an 11-year old boy
named Shawn Hornbeck was abducted as he was riding his bike near his
Missouri home. His parents were distraught, frantic, and did all in
their power to find their boy. Unfortunately, they met up with Sylvia
Browne on the
Montel Williams Show -- a television talk show -- and this is what
happened:
The boy was later found alive, in 2007. He'd been abducted and
enslaved for years. She got lucky in getting the first name of his
abductor right -- Michael -- but everything else was wrong. He was not
dark-skinned, was not Hispanic, did not have dreadlocks, is not built
like a basketball player, and did not drive an old model blue sedan,
but drove a white pick-up truck, which is the vehicle he used to abduct
Shawn.
Sylvia Browne did the same thing to yet another parent of a child who'd
disappeared, a girl named Amanda Berry, who went missing in Cleveland
in 2003. Even though
Miss Berry had been kidnapped, and held as a slave with two other girls
in a Cleveland house -- Amanda had been held for a decade -- Sylvia
Browne told the girl's
mother that her daughter was dead. The mother, of course devastated,
went
home, got rid of her daughter's things, and died from heart failure a
couple of years later.
Browne
even told a woman whose mother had died that the man she believes to be
her father isn't really her biological father at all. In other words,
she
accused the woman's mother of adultery (or fornication), and tore from
that woman the
contentment of knowing that the man she loved as her father wasn't
truly her biological father at all, and was, in fact, a cuckold. If her
father was also
dead, neither of her parents had any way of defending themselves
against such calumny or detraction, as the case may be. Further, if the
father was alive and believed Browne, he'd be left thinking his now
dead wife had betrayed him:
Utterly vile. All of it. That
sort of evil is unspeakable.
Preying on the weak and vulnerable, on those who are in mourning,
is the lowest of the low. But her evil-doing does nothing to disprove
the existence of
"paranormal" abilities any more than bogus "newspaper
'astrologers'" disprove the basic principle of astrology in itself.
|
|
