{"collection":"Paganism & Neopaganism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/pag/mm/mm01_08a.htm","path":"pag/mm/mm01_08a.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/mm01_08a.htm","text":"Whether Witches can Hebetate the Powers of Generation or Obstruct the Venereal Act.\nNow the fact that adulterous drabs and whores are chiefly given to\nwitchcraft is substantiated by the spells which are cast by witches upon the\nact of generation. And to make the truth more clear, we will consider the\narguments of those who are in disagreement with us on this matter. And first\nit is argued that such a bewitching is not possible, because if it were it\nwould apply equally to those who are married; and if this were conceded,\nthen, since matrimony is God's work and witchcraft is the devil's, the\ndevil's work would be stronger than God's. But if it is allowed that it can\nonly affect fornicators and the unmarried, this involves a return to the\nopinion that witchcraft does not really exist, but only in men's imagination;\nand this was refuted in the First Question. Or else some reason will be\nfound why it should affect the unmarried and not the married; and the only\npossible reason is that matrimony is God's work. And since, according to the\nTheologians, this reason is not valid, there still remains the argument\nthat it would make the devil's work stronger than God's; and since it would\nbe unseemly to make such an assertion, it is also unseemly to maintain that\nthe venereal act can be obstructed by witchcraft.\nAgain, the devil cannot obstruct the other natural actions, such as eating,\nwalking and standing, as is apparent from the fact that, if he could, he\ncould destroy the whole world.\nBesides, since the venereal act is common to all women, if it were obstructed\nit would be so with reference to all women; but this is not so, and therefore\nthe first argument is good. For the facts prove that it is not so; for when\na man says that he has been bewitched, he is still quite capable as regards\nother women, though not with her with whom he is unable to copulate; and\nthe reason for this is that he does not wish to, and therefore cannot effect\nanything in the matter.\nOn the contrary and true side is the chapter in the Decretals (If by\nsortilege, etc.): as is also the opinion of all the Theologians and Canonists,\nwhere they treat of the obstruction to marriage caused by witchcraft.\nThere is also another reason: that since the devil is more powerful than\nman, and a man can obstruct the generative powers by means of frigid herbs\nor anything else that can be thought of, therefore much more can the devil\ndo this, since he has greater knowledge and cunning. Answer. The truth is sufficiently evident from two matters which have\nalready been argued, although the method of obstruction has not been\nspecifically declared. For it has been shown that witchcraft does not exist\nonly in men's imaginations, and not in fact; but that truly and actually\nin numerable bewitchments can happen, with the permission of God. It has\nbeen shown, too, that God permits it more in the case of the generative\npowers, because of their greater corruption, than in the case of other\nhuman actions. But concerning the method by which such obstruction is\nprocured, it is to be noted that it does not affect only the generative\npowers, but also the powers of the imagination or fancy.\nAnd as to this, Peter of Palude (III, 34) notes five methods. For he says\nthat the devil, being a spirit, has power over a corporeal creature to cause\nor prevent a local motion. Therefore he can prevent bodies from approaching\neach other, either directly or indirectly, by interposing himself in some\nbodily shape. In this way it happened to the young man who was betrothed to\nan idol and nevertheless married a young maiden, and was consequently unable\nto copulate with her. Secondly, he can excite a man to that act, or freeze\nhis desire for it, by the virtue of secret things of which he best knows the\npower. Thirdly, he can also disturb a man's perception and imagination as to\nmake the woman appear loathsome to him: since he can, as had been said,\ninfluence the imagination. Fourthly, he can directly prevent the erection of\nthat member which is adapted to fructification, just as he can prevent local\nmotion. Fifthly, he can prevent the flow of the vital essence to the members\nin which lie the motive power; by closing as it were the seminary ducts, so\nthat it does not descend to the generative channels, or falls back from\nthem, or does not project from them, or in any of many ways fails in its\nfunction.\nAnd he continues in agreement with what has been treated of above by other\nDoctors. For God allows the devil more latitude in respect of this act,\nthrough which sin was first spread abroad, than of other human acts.\nSimilarly, serpents are more subject to magic spells than are other animals.\nAnd a little later he says: It is the same in the case of a woman, for the\ndevil can so darken her understanding that she considers her husband so\nloathsome that not for all the world would she allow him to lie with her.\nLater he wishes to find the reason why more men than women are bewitched in\nrespect of that action; and he says that such obstruction generally occurs\nin the matter of erection, which can more easily happen to men; and therefore\nmore men than women are bewitched. It might also be said that, the greater\npart of witches being women, they lust more for men than for women. Also\nthey act in the despite of married women, finding every opportunity for\nadultery when the husband is able to copulate with other women but not with\nhis own wife; and similarly the wife also has to seek other lovers.\nHe adds also that God allows the devil to afflict sinners more bitterly than\nthe just. Wherefore the Angel said to Tobias: He gives the devil power over\nthose who are given up to lust. But he has power also against the just\nsometimes, as in the case of Job, but not in respect of the genital\nfunctions. Wherefore they ought to devote themselves to confession and other\ngood works, lest the iron remain in the wound, and it be in vain to apply\nremedies. So much for Peter. But the method of removing such effects will be\nshown in the Second Part of this work.\nSome Incidental Doubts on the subject of Copulation prevented\nby Evil Spells are made Clear.\nBut incidentally, if it is asked why this function is sometimes obstructed\nin respect of one woman but not of another, the answer, according to S.\nBonaventura, is this. Either the enchantress of witch afflicts in this way\nthose persons upon whom the devil has determined; or it is because God will\nnot permit it to be inflicted on certain persons. For the hidden purpose of\nGod in this is obscure, as is shown in the case of the wife of Tobias. And\nhe adds:\nIf it is asked how the devil does this, it is to be said that he obstructs\nthe genital power, not intrinsically by harming the organ, but extrinsically\nby rendering it useless. Therefore, since it is an artificial and not a\nnatural obstruction, he can make a man impotent towards one woman but not\ntowards others: by taking away the inflammation of his lust for her, but\nnot for other women, either through his own power, or through some herb or\nstone, or some occult natural means. And this agrees with the words of\nPeter of Palude.\nBesides, since impotency in this act is sometimes due to coldness of nature,\nor some natural defect, it is asked how it is possible to distinguish\nwhether it is due to witchcraft of not. Hostiensis gives the answer in his\nSumma (but this must not be publicly preached): When the member is in\nno way stirred, and can never perform the act of coition, this is a sign\nof frigidity of nature; but when it is stirred and becomes erect, but yet\ncannot perform, it is a sign of witchcraft.\nIt is to be noted also that impotence of the member to perform the act is\nnot the only bewitchment; but sometimes the woman is caused to be unable to\nconceive, or else she miscarries.\nNote, moreover, that according to what is aid down by the Canons, whoever\nthrough desire of vengeance or for hatred does anything to a man or a woman\nto prevent them from begetting or conceiving must be considered a homicide.\nAnd note, further, that the Canon speaks of loose lovers who, to save their\nmistresses from shame, use contraceptives, such as potions, or herbs that\ncontravene nature, without any help from devils. And such penitents are to\nbe punished as homicides. But witches who do such things by witchcraft are\nby law punishable by the extreme penalty, as had been touched on above in\nthe First Question.\nAnd for a solution of the arguments; when it is objected that these things\ncannot happen to those joined together in matrimony, it is further to be\nnoted that, even if the truth in this matter had not already been made\nsufficiently plain, yet these things can truly and actually happen just as\nmuch to those who are married as to those who are not. And the prudent reader\nwho has plenty of books, will refer to the Theologians and the Canonists,\nespecially where they speak of the impotent and bewitched. He will find them\nin agreement in condemning two errors: especially with regard to married\npeople who seem to think that such bewitchment cannot happen to those who\nare joined in matrimony, advancing the reason that the devil cannot destroy\nthe works of God.\nAnd the first error which they condemn is that of those who say that there\nis no witchcraft in the world, but only in the imagination of men who,\nthrough their ignorance of hidden causes which no man yet understands,\nascribe certain natural effects to witchcraft, as though they were effected\nnot by hidden causes, but by devils working either by themselves or in\nconjunction with witches. And although all other Doctors condemn this error\nas a pure falsehood, yet S. Thomas impugns it more vigorously and stigmatizes\nit as actual heresy, saying that this error proceeds from the root of\ninfidelity. And since infidelity in a Christian is accounted heresy,\ntherefore such deserve to be suspected as heretics. And this matter was\ntouched on in the First Question, though it was not there declared so\nplainly. For if anyone considers the other sayings of S. Thomas in other\nplaces, he will find the reasons why he affirms that such an error proceeds\nfrom the root of infidelity.\nFor in his questions concerning Sin, where he treats of devils, and in his\nfirst question, whether devils have bodies that naturally belong to them,\namong many other matters he makes mention of those who referred every\nphysical effect to the virtue of the stars; to which they said that the\nhidden causes of terrestrial effects were subject. And he says: It must be\nconsidered that the Peripatetics,the followers of Aristotle, held that devils\ndid not really exist; but that those things which are attributed to devils\nproceeded from the power of the stars and other natural phenomena. Wherefore\nS. Augustine says (de Ciuitate Dei, X), that it was the opinion of\nPorphyry that from herbs and animals, and certain sounds and voice, and from\nfigures and figments observed in the motion of the stars, powers\ncorresponding to the stars were fabricated on earth by men in order to\nexplain various natural effect. And the error of these is plain, since they\nreferred everything to hidden causes in the stars, holding that devils were\nonly fabricated by the imagination of men.\nBut this opinion is clearly proved to be false by S. Thomas in the same\nwork; for some works of devils are found which can in no way proceed from\nany natural cause. For example, when one who is possessed by devil speaks in\nan unknown language; and many other devil's works are found, both in the\nRhapsodic and the Necromantic arts, which can in no way proceed except from\nsome Intelligence, which may be naturally good but is evil in its intention.\nAnd therefore, because of these incongruities, other Philosophers were\ncompelled to admit that there were devils. Yet they afterwards fell into\nvarious errors, some thinking that the souls of men, when they left their\nbodies, became devils. For this reason many Soothsayers have killed children,\nthat they might have their souls as their co-operators; and many other\nerrors are recounted.\nFrom this it is clear that not without reason does the Holy Doctor say that\nsuch an opinion proceeds from the root of infidelity. And anyone who wishes\nmay read S. Augustine (de Ciuitate Dei, VIII, IX) on the various\nerrors of infidels concerning the nature of devils. And indeed the common\nopinion of all Doctors, quoted in the above-mentioned work, against those\nwho err in this way by denying that there are any witches, is very weighty\nin its meaning, even if it is expressed in few words. For they say that they\nwho maintain that there is no witchcraft in the world go contrary to the\nopinion of all the Doctors, and of the Holy Scripture; and declare that\nthere are devils, and that devils have power over the bodies and imaginations\nof men, with the permission of God. Wherefore, those who are the instruments\nof the devils, at whose instance the devil at times do mischief to a\ncreature, they call witches.\nNow in the Doctor's condemnation of this first error nothing is said\nconcerning those joined together in matrimony; but this is made clear in\ntheir condemnation of the second error of believing that, though witchcraft\nexists and abounds in the world, even against carnal copulation, yet, since\nno such bewitchment can be considered to be permanent, it never annuls a\nmarriage that has already been contracted. Here is where they speak of those\njoined in matrimony. Now in refuting this error (for we do so, even though\nit is little to the point, for the sake of those who have not many books),\nit is to be noted that they refute it by maintaining that it is against all\nprecedent, and contrary to all laws both ancient and modern.\nWherefore the Catholic Doctors make the following distinction, that impotence\ncaused by witchcraft is either temporary or permanent. And if it is\ntemporary, then it does not annul the marriage. Moreover, it is presumed\nto be temporary of they are able to healed of the impediment within three\nyears from their cohabitation, having taken all possible pain, either\nthrough the sacraments of the Church, or through other remedies, to be\ncured. But if they are not then cured by any remedy, from that time it is\npresumed to be permanent. And in that case it either precedes both the\ncontracting of a marriage, and annuls one that is not yet contracted; or\nelse it follows the contract of marriage but precedes its consummation,\nand then also, according to some, it annuls the previous contract. (For it\nis said in Book XXXII, quest. 1. cap. 1 that the confirmation of a marriage\nconsists in its carnal office.) Or else it is subsequent to the\nconsummation of the marriage, and then the matrimonial bond is not annulled.\nMuch is noted there concerning impotence by Hostiensis, and Godfrey, and the\nDoctors and Theologians. To the arguments. As to the first, it is made sufficiently clear from\nwhat has been said. For as to the argument that God's works can be destroyed\nby the devil's works, if witchcraft has power against those who are married,\nit has no force; rather does the opposite appear, since the devil can do\nnothing without God's permission. For he does not destroy by main force\nlike a tyrant, but through some extrinsic art, as is proved above. And the\nsecond argument is also made quite clear, why God allows this obstruction\nmore in the case of the venereal act than of other acts. But the devil has\npower also over other acts, when God permits. Wherefore it is not sound to\nargue that he could destroy the whole world. And the third objection is\nsimilarly answered by what has been said.\nNext: Question IX Whether Witches may work some Prestidigatory Illusion so that the Male Organ appears to be entirely removed and separate from the Body.","title":"Malleus Maleficarum Part 1 Question VIII","type":"page"}