While I agree all is sacred - a huge topic in it's own right - for the sake of clarity, for human practices, it is useful to separate Magic (Magia) from Sorcery (Goetia / Necomancy). There is a lot to cover, and I hope I tackle some in this little space.
There is much to unpack here. I have long contended "Magic," as a Persian loanword, has been made to do too much heavy lifting. It pretty much has become a modern cipher, allowing anyone to project their own practices or fantasies into it. On an individual level, I support this, but it muddies our view of history.
In my view, reserving the transcendent, supralunar "Above" as the realm of God is very useful. The "Positive Mind" mysticism of New Thought and the Sufi schools is very effective and works at this level of pure "code." Sorcery operates at sublunar and daimonic "levels" of reality. I use the word " daimonic" in its classical, non-pejorative sense, referring to intermediary spirits, or divine inspiration, rather than the more confused "demons."
The Church, strictly speaking, has no issue with Magic (meaning magia, from which we get the English word "mage"). The early Church was in alignment with the older pagan fear and their laws against magic (which was then conflated with sorcery). Again I have no issue with sorcery, while I do have issue with causing harm unnecessarily.
In ancient Mesopotamia, the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 B.C.) contains one of the first laws against the practice of magic (which they actuall specifically meaning sorcery, or
maleficia, meaing witchcraft. ):
“If a man charges a man with sorcery and cannot prove it, he who is charged with sorcery shall go to the river; into the river he shall throw himself. If the river overcomes him, his accuser shall take possession of his house. If the river shows that man to be innocent and he comes forth unharmed, he who charged him with sorcery shall be put to death. He who threw himself into the river shall take for himself the house of his accuser.”
Counter to the fantasies of modern pagan reconstructionism, the actual ancient pagans were not more tolerant of all magic. (I am lumping them together under the generic word "pagan," - often how they wish to be identified today when they try to form a united front, but dissolve when it is inconvenient ). By the year 82 B.C, under the Roman Cornelian Laws, all magic was considered unlawful, and even the study of the magickal arts was considered a high crime and the Cornelian Laws decreed that all users of magic were to be condemned to death by “wild beasts, burning, or crucifixion.” When Emperor Augustus took the office of Pontifex Maximus in 12 B.C., he ordered the destruction of over two thousand books on magic and the occult sciences. Magic was already "gutted" by the pagans centuries before the rise of Christianity to Rome's state religion.
It has taken a while for Magia to be separated from other forms of magical "tech," such as Goetia. It is unfortunate that the Wiccans, neopagan, modern pagan - and now by extension -and social contagion, almost all Anglophone magic folks - following Gerald Gardner, lumped them both together. Gardner practiced a form of New Thought, and then split the Divine into male and female manifestations (taking inspiration from Golden Dawn and Crowley modern Hemeticism, and the Jewish Shekhinah - and appropriating the black-handled knife of Goetia / Necromancy, the circles, then adding modern ideas such as "energy,"and a fair amount of BDSM-inspired ritual. (Gerald Gardner liked to have his bottom paddled)
It took until the fourteenth century and the intellectual shift of the Renaissance for the public attitude toward magic and the Church’s authority to begin changing dramatically. The
Catholic Encyclopedia, published under Pope Pius X, defines magic as producing
“supernatural effects with the aid of powers other than the Divine.” However, the 1965 edition of the
Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary states plainly that
“white magic is perfectly lawful.”
But this change does not mean anyone will be okay with Goetia / necomancy of the sublunar world, nor malifica - meaning sorcery to cause harm.
Aquinas would argue that Magia (Natural Magic) is simply the use of Secondary Causes - the hidden "virtues" or properties within herbs, stones, and stars, to achieve an end. Since God is the Ground of Being, these properties are just parts of the "code" He wrote.
Goetia, in Aquinas view, is an attempt to bypass the Ground of Being by bargaining with intermediate, finite entities. This makes the practitioner a "client" of a Demiurge-like spirit rather than a participant in the Divine Life.
Just a quick note.
Aquinas actually had very little direct access to Plato, and gets confused on the nature of the Demiuge, but that is another issue, and a huge issue, in my view. This I had to double-heck aith AI, but it confirms: In the 13th century, only a few dialogues (like the
Timaeus) were available in Latin. He knew Plato primarily through the "filter" of St. Augustine and the Pseudo-Dionysius, both of whom had already tried to "fix" Plato to fit Christian doctrine. He hates the idea of a Demiurge because it suggests that God is "hands-off." He did the best he could at the time.
Anyway, about intermediaries and the reality of the practice of Folk Catholic "bujeria"
In Folk Catholic practices in the American Southwest, and Latin, Central, and South America, there is no issue with seeking intermediaries, provided one does not worship them.
A quick note: there is technically no such thing as a "Folk Catholic." This is an academic designation used as a quick shorthand for practices occurring outside the Church bureaucracy. These practitioners are simply Catholic, and they would be very insulted to be called something else, such as Satanists.
If one is not worshipping dead people or daimons, then by extension, making a very rational choice as a practitioner of brujeria, there is no issue with seeking assistance from daimons. Notice how I use the term: I rarely call them "demons," and if I do, it is usually being ironic. There seems to be spirtual beings (thought beings) that act like nasty demons but I reserve the name
diablos, or "devils" for those.
Folk Cathocism operates in a very "Mediterranean" or "Baroque" style of Catholicism that seems alinged with the Greek and Southern European culture of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and that predates the modern, more sterile interpretations of the faith - and is very different from the North European cultirs that produced the Anglophone modern magic culture of today. This older worldview relies heavily on the Daimonic Hierarchy without even needing to name it as such. In Catholic theology, the Church already has a built-in mechanism, and distinguishes between:
Latria - Worship/Adoration (Reserved for the Ground of Being alone).
Dulia - Veneration/Honor (Given to intermediaries, saints, and "messengers").
Sothere is no issue with seeking intermediaries, but one is not to worship them. Quck note. There is no such thing as a "Folk Catholic." This is an academic designation that has is used a a quock shorthand for praticed outside the Church Bearacracy. They are just Catholic,a nd wold be very inslted to be called something else, like Satanists.
When a practitioner of brujeria in the American Southwest seeks help from a "daimon" (in the classical sense of an intermediary spirit) or a folk saint, they are practicing a form of Dulia. As long as they don't claim the spirit is the source of existence, they aren't violating the "The One" vs. "Demiurge" distinction that kept Aquinas up at night.
Oh. About magia vs Goetia. For more learn more about the theological distinctions between different types of magic in this video on
Natural vs Demonic Magic in the Middle Ages. This video explores how medieval and Renaissance thinkers separated the study of natural "occult virtues" from illicit demonic practices.
wizardforums.com
