**SUPERSTITION** — From the Latin *superstitio* (cf. Greek ἐκστασις) “to stand outside or above,” in religious ethnology it designates the state of isolation from the surrounding world through a special emotion or stimulus; among the Romans it signifies excess, exaggeration, or superfluous observance (cf. Lucretius, V, 56–59; Isidore, *Etym.*, VIII, 3; Nonius Marcellus, *De comp. doctrina*, V, 36; the popular etymology of Cicero, *De nat. deorum*, II, 28 is to be excluded).
The term *superstitio* in the Vulgate translates two different Greek expressions: in Acts (17, 22; 25, 19) it corresponds to the word ἐκστασις, “that is, religious belief toward poorly known deities”; in the Letter to the Colossians (2, 23) it translates the expression ἐκστασις, which denotes special practices rather than mere religious sentiment. These two scriptural terms continue to have distinct meanings among the Greek Fathers (cf. Clement of Alexandria, *Protrept.*: PG 8, 224; *Strom.*, I, VII, 1 and 4; PG 9, 408, 428; Origen, *Contra Cels.*, I, II, 2; PG 11, 800; Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, VI, 12; Basil, *Const. monast.*, 25; PG 31, 1412; Epiphanius, *Adv. haer.*: PG 41, 172, 1040; Theodoret, *Epist.*, 161; PG 83, 1460). For the Latin Fathers, superstition is a counterfeit of true religion, a simulated religion, namely that of pagan cults (cf. Lactantius, *Div. instit.*, IV, 28; PL 536; especially St. Augustine, *Enarratt. in Ps.* XCV, no. 5; PL 38, 377–78; *De Civ. Dei*, IV, 30; PL 41, 136–38).
The Middle Ages merely coordinated, from a theological standpoint, all previous notions, namely that superstition is a vice, an excessive, capricious, vain, and pagan distortion of the virtue of religion (*Sum. Theol.*, II-II, q. 92, a. 1). Suárez (De relig. t. III, I, II, cap. 1; ed. Vives, t. X, III, Paris 1861, p. 460 ff.) provides a detailed and subtle psychological analysis. Under the name of superstition, which the Scholastics call *cultus vitiosus veri vel falsi numinis*, are included both the worship of the true God in an erroneous manner (undue worship) and the worship offered to a creature (worship of a false god; V. IDOLATRY).
In the false worship of the true God—true in its aspirations and false in its applications—two elements are distinguished: the esteem one has for the person one wishes to honor, and the sign used to render worship. There is no lack of an element of truth and goodness: the esteem for the true God. The error lies in the material part of worship, namely in the use of procedures or means not suited to honoring God (*Sum. Theol.*, II-II, q. 93, a. 1). Superstition therefore rests either on the false meaning of a sign or on the false intention of the one performing the act of religion, for example: honoring God with the ceremonies of the Old Testament, etc.
Even the superfluous worship of the true God is directed toward its proper end, but is excessive, superfluous, and useless in its objective aspect. Here “superfluous” does not mean a quantitative excess, for nothing can be excessive in divine worship, since everything man has or can do is always below what is owed to God. Interior generosity must be supreme, and the only limit is set by human strength. The excess or superfluity consists in the circumstances of the acts of worship, which, like every moral virtue, must observe the golden mean. Thus, what does not correspond to the ends of worship is superfluous, because it consists solely in externalities (*quia in exterioribus solum consistens, ad interiorem Dei cultum non pertinet*), or because it does not follow the prescriptions or customs recognized by the Church (ibid., q. 93, a. 2; q. 81, a. 5 ad 3; q. 92, a. 1). For example, adding particular ceremonies or prayers to sacred functions against the rubrics.
The false worship of the true God, whose disorder is grave *ex genere suo* (cf. St. Augustine, *Contra mendacium*, cap. 3), is an affront to God, whom one cannot worship with falsity and deceit, and is harmful to religion, rendering it suspect of error. In the superfluous worship of the true God, moralists generally find material for venial sin, since no serious irreverence or bad will is evident, but rather carelessness or superficiality. It is added, however, that on account of contempt or precept, grave sin may be recognized. These excesses must therefore not be considered insignificant on the pretext that they do not obstruct but rather aid the true worship of God, for every disorder in religious matters is important. Moreover, the culpability of these cultic superstitions varies according to the attachment one has to them, the origin attributed to them, the efficacy ascribed to them, and the diffusion one seeks to give them.
The *Codex Iuris Canonici* (can. 1251) recognizes that local Ordinaries have the duty to ensure that divine worship, in all its various manifestations, remains pure and free from any superstition.
**
**SUPERSTITION IN THE MIDDLE AGES** — The Fathers of the Church, especially St. Augustine, had already sternly condemned superstitions, but had not succeeded in eradicating them. When the barbarians converted to Christianity, they contributed new elements to popular beliefs, so that in the Middle Ages superstitions took on a singular impetus. The spread of the Cathar doctrine seems to have intensified them in the 13th and 14th centuries. The bull *Summis desiderantes affectibus* (5 Dec. 1484) attests that witchcraft had reached considerable proportions, necessitating the sanctions issued by Innocent VIII (cf. *Magnum Bullarium Romanum*, ed. C. Cocquelines, III, part 3, p. 191). An enumeration of the superstitions that flourished in early medieval Germany is found in the *Indiculus superstitionum et paganiarum* (PL 89, 1105–18) and in P. Lacroix, *Superstitions, croyances populaires, moyen âge et Renaissance* (I, part 2, Paris 1848, ch. 24). Only the principal ones will be indicated here.
In the Middle Ages some persons were reputed to possess the power of keeping a private demon at their service, which effectively aided them in their good or evil enterprises. In this way, jurists in the employ of Philip the Fair exploited the credulity of their contemporaries by falsely accusing Boniface VIII of keeping one at his side. It was also said that pacts were made with the devil, in which the denial of Jesus Christ and the Virgin was specified in detail, and an oath of fidelity was imposed, which was very often later broken by those who had sworn it once their aim was achieved. Even worse was the belief that demons could have carnal intercourse with men and even produce monsters. Satan counted among his most faithful servants sorcerers and witches. The latter were recruited especially among old women, who, on Saturday, would mount a broomstick or climb onto the back of a demon transformed into an animal and cross the sky invisibly to reach a sacrilegious gathering place where Satan was worshipped, often appearing in the form of a cat or a goat. During the assembly licentious scenes took place.
Witches and warlocks were believed to possess the power to cast the evil eye, to cause illnesses or to heal through spells, to bring on epidemics, to kill domestic animals, to destroy crops, to provoke hailstorms, to concoct love potions for public use, and to draw good fortune. Witches were thought to be more cruel than warlocks; they were said to be fond of children’s flesh and were believed to steal unbaptized infants to consecrate them to the devil.
The belief in witchcraft was so widespread among the medieval populace that, beginning—it seems—in the fourteenth century, inquisitors assimilated it to the crime of heresy and consigned those who practiced this nefarious art to the secular arm. Drawing on confessions extracted from witches and warlocks, the Dominican Giacomo Sprenger composed his *Malleus maleficarum, maleficia et eorum haeresim ut framea potentissima conferens* (Cologne, 1487), a work designed to facilitate the task of inquisitors while also providing an overview of the superstitions rampant in the lands of the Empire.
Yet it was not only witches and warlocks who practiced the black arts. To harm an enemy, wax dolls were prepared, which were made to undergo a mock baptism by a priest or deacon; strips of paper bearing the name of the intended victim were then affixed to them, and a pin was driven into the spot corresponding to the heart while the formula “Peter... John, die!” was pronounced. At other times, the belly of the figurine was exposed to fumes in order to induce a visceral illness in the adversary that would lead him to the grave. The most celebrated trials, which ended in the accused being condemned to the stake, took place at the beginning of the fourteenth century: those of a group of Gascons who had cast a spell on Pope John XXII (cf. E. Albe, *Hugues Gérard et l’affaire des poisons*, Paris, 1903) and of Guichard of Troyes, falsely accused of having practiced magic to win the favor of Queen Joan, wife of Philip the Fair (A. Rigault, *Le procès de Guichard, évêque de Troyes*, Paris, 1896).
Death was also sought through the use of harmful powders, compounded from the most bizarre ingredients: animal hairs, remnants of toads, flesh from a hanged person, mixed with a consecrated host. Medieval people seem to have been haunted by the fear of poisons prepared by sorcerers. Great personages kept tasters for the wine and food prepared for their tables; serpents’ tongues carved into stone were also hung in dining halls, reputed to reveal the presence of poison. The fear of the evil eye led people to use amulets wrapped in cabalistic formulas. Nails, horseshoes, amber, and coral were thought to bring good luck. Bands of cloth or woven herbs wrapped around the arms and legs were believed to ward off misfortune. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 96, art. 4) refers to fragments of the Gospels impressed on lead or tin or written on parchment, worn suspended from the neck by cords, which served the same purpose. Necromancy was also practiced. Certain mediums claimed to be in constant communication with the dead; they spoke with them and undertook to convey to their friends particular commissions, most often to make amends for wrongs committed during life or to request Masses for the repose of their souls. Necromancers also undertook to give relatives news of their dead and to inform them about their fate (cf. J. M. Vidal, *Une secte de spirites d’Pamiers en 1320*, in *Annales de St-Louis des Français*, 3 [1898], pp. 285-345).