The Condemnation of Astrology

The Secret Vatican Archives and Pope Sixtus the Fifth

Alan J. Ouimet, O.F.S.
1
A Jesuit speaks to Irish astrologers

In 1993 the late Father Laurence L. Cassidy, S.J., a Jesuit priest and theologian at Saint Peter’s College,
New Jersey addressed the Irish Astrological Association (IAA) about their concerns over the forthcoming
publication of the 1994 English edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which had been rumored
to prohibit the study and practice of astrology. Father Cassidy, an astrologer himself, assured them it did
not, noting the Catechism was not teaching “new doctrine” and was in accord with the traditions of the
Church.

Many astrologers and their clients are not aware of the Church’s permissive tradition on astrology. Some
think it is condemned outright. Some would say “who cares?” Others may simply dismiss the question as
simply a religious or theological debate of no consequence. Yet C.G. Jung felt “of all his patients over the
age of forty there was not one whose problem was not essentially religious in nature.” Religious beliefs
are important. Today, with the increasing secularization of society, religious denominations are taking
more defensive and conservative postures leading in some cases to prejudices of the past. In the process,
astrology has all too often had to assume a defensive posture. However, as Father Cassidy tried to point
out, this is quite unnecessary.

What follows is the story of two papal efforts to change the traditional Church praxis on astrology long
held permissible, with certain constraints, for over three hundred years from the 13th to the 16th century.
The attempts in the person of two popes, Sixtus V (1585 – 1590) and Urban VIII (1623 -1644), to forbid
or otherwise constrain astrological predictions failed through lack of support by successive papal
administrations and the papal congregations serving them. The innovations, considered reactionary had
contradicted a long held tradition established by two great 13th century saints of the Church, Saints Albert
the Great (1206 – 1280) and Thomas Aquinas (c.1227 – 1274) , as well as the great 18 year ecumenical
council, the Council of Trent convened in 1645.

In 1998 Pope John Paul II (1978 – 2005) opened the Vatican Secret Archives to scholars specializing in
modern European history. The results of their research were published by the Cambridge University Press
in 2001 under the title Church, Censorship and Culture in Early Modern Europe edited by Gigiola
Fragnito. 1 The archives have been the final resting place of the files of two 16th Century papal
congregations charged with oversight in heretical matters – the Congregation of the Holy Inquisition and
the Congregation of the Index. Founded in the 16th century and staffed by high ecclesiastical officials,
both congregations worked hand in hand to offset the damaging effect of the newly founded printing press
used by Protestant propagandists. For the first time in over four hundred years files were opened revealing
important issues surrounding the 16th century debate among papal congregations over the Church’s
position on astrology. Prior to this discovery, little was known concerning the infighting among papal
congregations and the popes they served. This seminal material discloses not only the reasons for the
rejection of a complete ban on judicial astrology but also, because astrology was not found offensive to
the Faith, why such a rejection, tout court, would be highly ambiguous. It was the issuance of Coeli et
terrae by Sixtus that brought the issue to a head.

“We decree and declare against astrologers”

Some twenty-three years after Pope Pius V (1566 – 1572) defined what type of astrological books were
offensive to the faith, an event took place changing the Church’s policy on astrology virtually overnight.
On January 5, 1586, not yet one year into his papal reign, Pope Sixtus V, issued the following papal

2
decree condemning outright all forms of judicial astrology. The decree, written in Latin takes its name,
Coeli et terrae creator deus, from its opening line, “God, Creator of Heaven and earth.” It states in part

“God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Omnipotent One, gave to man, whom he created in his own
image and likeness, a mind colored not only by the divine light of faith, so that he might not only know the
mysteries which surpass human reason… nonetheless he made him in such a way that he might
comprehend such profound matters not as an haughty animal,
but rather that he would fear, and prostrate on the ground and
venerate the immense majesty of his Maker. …To Himself alone
did God reserve the knowledge of those things that will come to
pass and the awareness of future matters…There are no true
arts or branches of study which seek foreknowledge of future
events and chance happenings. Future events, with some
exceptions, come about necessarily or at least frequently from
natural causes which owe nothing to divination. … Some
people…run after curiosities and so gravely offend God. They
err and bring others into error. Prime examples are the
astrologers. They employ an idle, false knowledge of the
planets and stars, and with the utmost audacity busy themselves
now with anticipating a revelation of God’s arrangement of
things…They take the moment a child was conceived, or its
birthday, or some other ridiculous observation and note of
times and circumstances and, from this, rashly presume to
foretell, judge and pronounce upon each person’s rank and
situation, how his life will proceed…other fortunate and
unfortunate events which may come his way… Therefore, WE
condemn and reject all types of divination…by this decree,
which will be forever valid, and by Our Apostolic authority, We
decree and declare against astrologers…and any others who practice the art of what is called judicial
astrology (with the exception of those who make predictions in relation to agriculture, navigation and
medicine); also against those who dare to cast and interpret people’s birth-horoscopes with a view to
foretelling future events – be these contingent, successive or fortuitous – or actions dependent upon
human will, even if the astrologer maintains or testifies that he is not saying anything for certain …”2

The timing of the decree was curious. It was the vigil feast of the Magi. Why condemn astrology on the
day celebrating the coming of the “wise men” who were astrologers? If the author of Saint Matthew’s
Gospel saw fit to open his infancy narrative with astrology serving the designs of Providence, why
condemn its study and practice? Was this something personal with the new pope or was it part of a
broader effort?

Born ruler or source of embarrassment?

Any reading of Sixtus, as a person, describes him as being a loner, ambitious, condescending and
impatient. He was not a collegial pope feeling he had no peers. He had joined the Franciscan Order
founded by the humble Saint Francis of Assisi. According to one historian, however, he was the “most
ungentle of Franciscans.” 3 A papal judicial historian, describes him as “rejecting mildness as a virtue
unfitting to a sovereign” and bringing to that office “the traits of the Grand Inquisitor” with an

3
“obsession” to mete out papal justice.4 Stating he was a “born ruler” the Catholic Encyclopedia describes
him as exterminating banditry in the Papal States “with excessive cruelty.” 5

Given the prestigious intellectual position of astrological thought in academia and in high ecclesiastical
circles, including the Papal Court, it is reasonable to wonder if Sixtus fully appreciated the gravity of his
condemnation and the problem it would present to the succeeding generations of the Church. Reportedly,
when he served as the Inquisitor to Venice thirty-six astrological volumes lined his bookshelves.6
However, there is no extant information suggesting, unlike his predecessor Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484)
and his distant successor Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644), that he either used astrologers or studied it
himself. Although an intelligent man, his fame, as a Franciscan friar, came for his preaching ability.

From all accounts he lacked the patience to be a true scholar seen in some unsuccessful efforts in that
direction. His attempt to provide a newly edited version of the Vulgate Bible, on which he worked alone,
had to be recalled and revised due to its many errors.7 Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), the
famous prosecutor of Galileo, on the death of Sixtus, urged the Bible’s recall lest it embarrass the Church
and the infallibility of the Pope then sensitive to the Protestant reformers.8 Prior to becoming pope, he
spent years editing the works of Saint Ambrose (340 – 397). One church historian noted the Sixtus edition
on Ambrose “as the worse ever published.”9

There is no extant record available that suggests why Sixtus issued such a bull. Was it personal or did he
represent broader forces at work in the Church? His fear of demonic influence reverberates clearly in the
bull hearkening back to the theology of St. Augustine now overshadowed by Aquinas. However Sixtus,
himself a Franciscan friar, would have known the Franciscan Order was no stranger to astrological
discourse. Such Franciscan greats as Fra Roger Bacon (c. 1214 – 1294), today honored as one of the the
founders of science, Fra Guido Bonatti (d. 1296),10 the author of the Liber Astronomicus considered the
greatest astrological work of the 13th century most likely written in a Franciscan cell and Fra Duns Scotus,
mentioned by Father Cassidy as on the path to sainthood and many others considered astrological
discourse as a great universal symphony involving the power of God in their daily lives. The 15th Century
Franciscan saint, Bernardino of Siena (1380 – 1444), the “Apostle of Italy,” accepted “the governance of
the planets and signs and constellations”. Whenever he preached against astrologers he did as did Saints
Albert and Thomas. Leaving no room for free will and predicting with certitude “is all openly and clearly
heresy and sin” said Bernardino. 11 Whatever Sixtus’ reasons, broader forces were at work in the Church
insuring the status quo ante established by Pope Pius V and the Council of Trent, a position well founded
on the scientific thinking of Saint Albert and the theological formulas of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Supporters of Astrology – St. Albert and St. Thomas but divination forbidden

Saint Albert and his disciple, Saint Thomas were both members of the Order of Preachers, also known as
the Dominican Order, named after their founder Saint Dominic. Famous as the teaching order of the
Church, the Dominicans were the insurers and enforcers of doctrinal orthodoxy as the primary principals
of the Holy Inquisition. The Dominican doctrinal tour de force was the Summa Theologica of Thomas
Aquinas. Formulated on the twin pillars of faith and reason any rules, in matters of theology and
orthodoxy followed by the Holy Inquisition, followed the precepts of Thomas. It was the scientific
reasoning of Albert and the theological opinion of Thomas on which astrology found a credible place as a
bona fide science in Christendom.
4
Albert was very generous in his opinion of astrology. His Speculum Astronomiae presented astrology as
the “middle science” between metaphysics and natural philosophy. He advanced its importance to the
Christian faith as it “more intensely provokes men to love
God.” Speaking of the judgment of the stars found in the
ordering of the planets he states “no human science attains this
ordering of the universe as perfectly as does the science of the
judgment of the stars.” He advanced the use of mundane
astrology, natal astrology, revolutions and interrogations
(horary astrology). Concerning interrogations he was
comfortable with “interrogations for advice” but concerned
with “interrogations of fact” which may inhibit free will. 12

Thomas did not concern himself with the specifics of astrology

as did his mentor, Albert. He was interested in the theological
problem of divination, which for him was the prediction of an
event with certitude. Question 95, Article 5 in the Summa
Theologica addresses the issue, Whether divination by the stars
is unlawful? Aquinas’ cautiously affirmed that astrologers can
sometimes predict future events because human behavior
derives mostly from bodily passions through the inclining
influences of the planets, a position he borrowed not only from
Albert but also from Saint Augustine. One could predict with certitude astronomical matters, such as the
timing of a forthcoming eclipse; one could predict in astrological matters as to the meaning of the eclipse
in terms of human behavior, but such a prediction could not be done with certitude. Such divination was
unlawful.13 The long held prohibition of astrology by Saint Augustine yielded to the cautious acceptance
of Thomas as interpreted by the Church overriding any previous objections to its practice.

So profoundly influential was Thomas on the mind of the Church that every session of the Council of
Trent (1545 – 1563) saw his Summa Theologica standing alongside the Bible on the main altar. 14 At
Trent a simple formula was put in place concerning astrological books not offensive to the Faith.
Promulgated under the signature of Pope Pius V “Rule IX” of the Ten Rules on the Prohibition of Books
concerned itself only with the censoring of unacceptable astrological publications. It stated

“The bishops shall diligently see to it that books, treatises, catalogues determining destiny by astrology,
which in the matter of future events, consequences, or fortuitous occurrences, or of actions that depend on
the human will, attempt to affirm something as certain to take place, are not read or possessed. Permitted,
on the other hand, are the opinions and natural observations which have been written in the interest of
navigation, agriculture or the medical art.” 15

Publishable books then were those in which the doctrine of astrological prediction did not reach the level
of divination – predictions born of necessity and certain to happen. Judicial astrology, though not
expressly stated, that avoided predictions with certitude would not run afoul of Rule IX. This ruling,
however, created a problem for the bull. Sixtus, unwittingly or not, contradicted Thomas when he
declared “… even if the astrologer maintains that he is not saying anything for certain.” The problem was
not quickly resolved. In August 1590 Sixtus died suddenly from either malaria or poisoning by his rival,
the Spanish monarch. Within a year and a half, between September 1590 and January 1592, there were
three popes, all short lived leaving dormant the problems created by the bull.
5
 Papal stability came with the election of Pope Clement VIII (1592
– 1605). One of the first items brought to his attention was a need
for clarification of Coeli et terrae. Requests were coming from
various academic institutions in the Papal States through the
peripheral offices of the Holy Inquisition. The publication and use
of various astrological texts had caused great consternation. After
all, one could be sent to the galleys if sentenced under the ruling of
the bull. The question for Pope Clement was whether to bring
Church teaching back into accord with the Council of Trent by
invalidating the legislation of his predecessor?

The Bull stands but…ambiguity reigns

The issue must have been sensitive. The Protestant Reformation

was going full speed and the Papacy was the bulls-eye. Clement
not only had to deal with repealing a papal bull but concurrently
had to somehow recall the error ridden Sixtus Bible to avoid papal
embarrassment. The stakes were high. Bellarmine, a Jesuit with a
special vow to defend the papacy, wrote to Pope Clement “Your holiness knows…Sixtus placed himself
and the entire Church in danger by wishing to correct the Bible according to his own knowledge and I am
not sure the Church has ever run a greater risk.”16 He believed in papal supremacy and the honor of the
office even though he disliked Sixtus. We are told, “Uppermost in Bellarmine’s mind was this: popes
must never be seen to condemn the solemn decrees of their predecessors. That would reflect badly on
papal authority. “17How to act without damaging the office of the papacy apparently was the issue? Was
Coeli et terrae seen as a solemn decree? Or was it just another papal bull in a long series of legislative
edicts?

The language of Coeli et terrae complicated its possible recall as it authoritatively said in part
“Therefore, by this decree, which will be forever valid, and by our Apostolic authority, We decree and
declare against astrologers…” suggesting strong papal intent to be enforced in perpetuity. Although
Bellarmine believed the bull contradicted Church teaching he cautioned against its formal repeal and Pope
Clement ruled accordingly. In 1592 he ordered the bull be interpreted according to Rule IX regardless of
its contradiction on the issue of predictive certitude. It is apparent, however, the real concern was not
astrological but the credibility of papal authority.

Documents in the Vatican Secret Archives revealed however that the dispute did not end there. Five years
later, in 1597, Clement had to deal again with the confusion over Coeli et terrae as “complaints were
coming every day” to the Congregation of the Index. Further, by this time, “the majority of the
Congregation of the Index opposed the rigor of the bull” and “without pressing for repeal they were
inclined towards non-observance.” Apparently, according to these documents, Clement’s decision had not
been successfully disseminated throughout Christendom leading to an unequal application of the law.
Attempting to clarify the papal position the Congregation referred the matter back to Pope Clement in
form of a question “whether the constitution (bull) relative to judicial astrology was still in force?” The
response was “no” for the following reasons: Pope Clement was opposed to the bull; the bull had not been
accepted as valid by the Congregation of the Decretals; the rules of the Congregation of the Index
6
contradict it; the offices of the Inquisition followed Rule IX of the Council of Trent. The final decision, in
1597, ruled that publications of judicial astrology written by Christians were to be corrected if predictions
were made with certitude; all pagan classical astrological books could be published even if they espoused
certitude. 18

An inscrutable Pope and his bull, Inscrutabilis

It was not until thirty-eight years after the death of Sixtus that one of his successors, Pope Urban VIII felt
the need to again legislate constraints on judicial astrology. Urban was an unlikely heir of Sixtus’ cause as
he was an ardent student of astrology and its unlikely foe. During the interregnum of Pope Sixtus and
Pope Urban it was said that ‘there is not a cardinal, nor a prelate, nor a prince who does not possess an
astrological analysis of his birth horoscope with predictions of good fortune.” 19 Reportedly Urban
himself had natal charts of all his Cardinals to determine their longevity. 20 Yet, an event would occur that
led him to reaffirm the provisions of Coeli et terrae. The story surrounding this reaffirmation has a certain
humor to it and is brilliantly reported in Brendan Dooley’s Morandi’s Last Prophecy and the End of
Renaissance Politics (2002). Briefly, while Pope Urban was still in good health an influential astrologer,
Father Orazio Morandi, the abbot of the important monastery of Santa Prasaede on the outskirts of Rome,
predicted, in 1629, the death of the pope the following year. For confirmation he sought the concurrence
of other astrologers. Word got out and Cardinals began arriving for a papal conclave to elect a new pope.
Surprised at their arrival and learning of their intent, Urban was outraged. Morandi was imprisoned, along
with others and died suspiciously in prison shortly thereafter.

Fearing the astrological prediction correct, Urban secretly called on the most famous astrologer in Europe
at the time, Father Tommaso Campanella, O.P. (1568 – 1639), a Dominican theologian and controversial
practitioner of astrological magic. Eventually, with the publication of Campanella’s book, Astrologicorum
Libri VI, which included a chapter on astrological magic, the rumors were confirmed the pope was
involved in such activities to ward off the evil effects of the forthcoming eclipse. Embarrassed and
outraged at his exposure, Urban issued the bull Inscrutabilis iudiciorum Dei (Unsearchable judgments of
God) on April Fool Day, 1631. In addition to reaffirming Coeli et terrae it prohibited especially the
drawing up of nativities on popes and royalty and their relatives, unto the third degree of consanguinity
under the penalty of death.

The major question became – did Urban reaffirm Coeli et terrae according to the mind of Sixtus or that of
Clement and Trent? Evidence strongly suggests that Urban preferred the mind of the latter, Clement and
Trent. The historian D.P. Walker notes Campanella and Urban maintained a good relationship after the
event and Campanella may have helped Urban compose the papal bull. Advancing this position, Walker
notes Campanella was given papal permission to start the College Barberino in Rome in 1630 which
would include astrological instruction. Further, only three months before Urban issued the bull,
Campanella practiced his astrological magic on the nephew of the Pope leading Walker to remark “The
statement that he helped to draft Urban’s anti-astrological bull may well be correct.” 21

7
Further evidence the bull was interpreted according to Trent is given by historian Lynn Thorndike in his
magisterial work, History of Magic and Experimental Science. He notes that both John Baptiste Morin
and Antonious Petrus de Magistris Galathei state the bull was
interpreted to agree with the Council of Trent and the doctrine
of Aquinas. Petrus states “the majority of the theologians
regard the bull (Coeli et terrae) as not binding in the forum of
conscience…” 22 Further evidence can be gleaned from the
Inquisition’s guidebooks and case studies.

Martin del Rio S.J. sets the pace

Prior to the Sixtus papacy, one of the most popular manuals

used by the Inquisition was the Malleus Mallificarum
(Hammer of Heretics) published by the Dominican Order.
Published in the late 15th century to hunt down witches it
supported the astrology permitted by Albert and Thomas. One
whole chapter is spent showing why the planets, which are
creatures of God, cannot by their very nature be the cause of
evil and therefore not the source of witchcraft. Astrology
appears exonerated of any malfeasance. Pope Sixtus, however
with his condemnation of astrology, inaugurated new cautious
thinking for a new century. New guidelines were needed.

The most notable manual used by the 17th Century Inquisition was written by Father Martin Antonio del
Rio S.J. (1551 – 1608). In 1599 – 1600, only three years after Pope Clement issued his ruling that Coeli et
terrae was no longer in effect. Speaking of Rio’s Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex, (Investigations
into Magic) one historian notes “Del Rio accepted the boundary between lawful and unlawful astrology
but maintained that some human events, collective or individual, were due to natural phenomena
produced by astral influences thereby seeking to legitimate traditional sectors of astrology.” Del Rio’s
work was denounced anonymously to the Inquisition and examined in 1604. Nothing came of the matter
and his work went into 20 editions, carrying the required “superiorum permissu” of the Church with the
last printing in 1750. His magnum opus was used by both Catholic and Protestant authorities, the latter
during the Salem Witch trials in 1695.

Rio accepted three types of astrology – governance of nativities, revolutions, and electional astrology. He
states “The astrologer who does not depart from general principles and those guiding premises which are
immediately relevant can, in accordance with the canons of his art, predict with accuracy general events
many years, perhaps, unless either his calculations or his instruments deceive him… Any astrology which
goes further than these three methods and predicts any event as certain is simply illicit and superstitious.
Any divination of this kind is uncertain and insubstantial and unworthy to be called art or knowledge”. 23

Some case studies in New Spain

During an inquisition in New Spain, in 1641, fifty-five years after Coeli et terrae and ten years after
Inscrutabilis, two Jesuits were called upon by the Spanish Inquisition in Mexico City to adjudicate if one
Friar Nicholas de Alarcon was guilty of practicing judicial astrology for raising natal charts for the
President of Guatemala. To assist them the Jesuits called on a professor of Mathematics and Astrology at
the Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico, Friar Diego Rodriguez. He considered the evidence in the
8
light of both Coeli et terrae and Inscrutabilis and testified the astrology used was lawful as the stars were
represented only as moral and physical inclinations rather than as necessities. Friar Nicholas was
acquitted. 24 That a chair of astrology existed at a pontifical university is instructive. More importantly,
that natal charts, completely forbidden by Coeli et terrae, were deemed lawful under the inclining
influences doctrine is strong evidence the Church returned to the traditional doctrine of inclining
influences set forth by Trent in Rule IX and the doctrine of Aquinas.

In a study on the publishing of astrological almanacs in New Spain astrologers did not limit themselves to
natural astrological predictions “rather they continuously entered into the territory of judicial astrology.”
The study noted that, the use of judicial astrology notwithstanding, no Mexican almanacs were forbidden
by the Inquisition with the exception of one in 1666. The almanac in question contained a dangerous
prediction on “conflicts among ecclesiastics and religious and the destruction of convents.” Censorship
trials of several astrologers were examined reflecting quibbling over correct wording. For instance, for an
astrologer to say “Mars won’t stop sending” bad influences indicating future turmoil was to predict with
certitude, this was unlawful; the astrologer was made to change the statement to “it can be expected that
Mars sends.” One Jesuit censor ordered an astrologer to remove from his almanac the phrase “everybody
be careful on the roadways” as it suggested that robberies will occur, a contingent event subject to free
will; he also ordered the removal of “a notorious person will die” as death is not a predictable event. 25

In the final analysis the study concluded that a review of 16 censors from 1647 to 1700, who used Coeli et
terrae and rulings of the Congregation of the Index maintained an ambivalent attitude towards astral
determinism and free will. Everything depended on the individual censor. Some built ”fences around the
law” prohibiting even what was permitted under the auspices of Thomistic thinking for fear they would
cross the line into forbidden territory. Some did not. Further, because of this ambivalence, it concluded
the end of the 17th century saw the Catholic Church in an “ambiguous” relationship with astrology. It was
a “thin line which divided natural astrology and judicial astrology…frequently crossed not only by
astrologers but also by the theologians. From Saint Thomas onward, it was not difficult for both of them
to find ways to conciliate the dogma of free will and the influence of the stars.” 26The predominant
problem, the study concluded, was one of “epistemological jurisdictions.” Unlike today the 17th century
did not have the plethora of forecasts and predictions coming from such soft sciences as history,
economics, political science, psychology et al predicting future events through trend studies based on
anecdotal information. Astrology was as close as that could get challenging the Church’s position on the
forecasting of future events.

However, this all changed by the 19th century. By then, the Church’s attitude toward astrology became
largely dismissive due to changing scientific paradigms brought on by the Enlightenment. Astrology had
lost its favored position in the academy brushed off by the Cartesian world view. Rule IX remained on the
books until the issuance of Officiorum ac Munerum (1897) by Pope Leo XIII (1878 – 1903). 27 Replacing
Rule IX, Officiorum removed astrology completely and merely states as follows: “It is forbidden to
publish, read or keep books in which sorcery, divination, magic, the evocation of spirits, and other
superstitions of this kind are taught or commanded.”27 Except for minor exceptions made by Pope Pius X

9
(1903 – 1914), the Index of Pope Leo was the basis for ecclesiastic positive law until its repeal in 1966, a
result of the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965) which disbanded the Congregation of the Index
altogether.

The dispute is academic not theological

Astrology again became a focus of interest in 1994 with the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church. Pope John Paul II ordered its publication as a guide for bishops and pastors. It was the first
catechism issued since the Council of Trent in the 16th Century but definitely needed due to the reforms of
the Second Vatican Council. Section 2116 states the following:

All forms of divination should be rejected; the recourse to Satan or to demons, the evocation of the dead,
and other practices which equivalently pretend to “reveal” (sic) the future (cf. Dt. 18, 10; Jr. 29,8).
Consultation of horoscopes, astrology, chiromancy, the interpretation of omens and fates, visual
phenomena, the recourse to mediums, all these entail a will to power over time, history, and finally,
mankind, and, at the same time they manifest a desire to secure protection of occult powers. This
constitutes a contradiction with the honor and respect, mixed with loving fear that we owe to God alone.”
28

At first glance it seems to appear quite clear, astrology is condemned. Curiously, though, astrology is
given a blanket treatment under “divination” without any of the distinctions of Albert and Thomas. It has
none of the intellectual eloquence and understanding one reads on astrology in the Catholic Encyclopedia
written at the turn of the century and available at www.newadvent.org suggesting little knowledge of the
subject matter itself. Further, there is no reference to the papal bulls by Sixtus V and Urban VIII? Absent
all this information and aware of Church tradition and history on the subject what is one to think?
Did the Church decide in the 1990’s to null and void Catholic doctrine on astrology by overruling two
doctors of the Church as well as one of the most eventful ecumenical councils of the Church, the Council
of Trent? That is doubtful. Father Cassidy interpreted the Church’s silence within the context of its
tradition of accepting some astrological practice as permissible. Of further ambiguity is the statement that
astrology is used to have “power over time, history and finally mankind?” Aren’t these the goals of any
social science? Aren’t these the reasons for psychological, economic, historical and political trend studies
reflecting the human need for a predictable and secure future? There is no further elaboration on this
point.

It was the occasion of the publication of the Catechism and the ambiguity around Section 2116 that
brought Father Cassidy to Ireland to speak to the IAA. His talk recalled that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,
now Pope Benedict XVI, said the Catechism is not teaching “new doctrine” and “articulates the ordinary
theological tradition” reminding those present that the Franciscan friar, Duns Scotus, was made a
“blessed” by the Church, in 1993, one step away from sainthood. The Church’s investigation of his life
and writings over many years, he noted, found no errors in his teaching on faith and morals. These
teachings included a belief in astrology appearing in his major work, Opus Oxonienses. On astrology
Scotus said “The stars incline the will but in no wise necessitate it. Frequently it comes to pass that
astrologers foretell truths concerning the manner of men by reason of their proneness to follow the
sensitive appetite…By this means it comes to pass, that he who knows the virtues of the Signs and the
Planets therein placed, may foretell, if he knows when any creature is born, of the whole life of it.” 29

Cassidy closed his talk on a positive note “thus the Catechism offers those of us who wish to
demonstrate a rational astrology…an excellent opportunity to educate the wider public that our work
10
involves a spiritual science, a search for a cosmic and meaningful theophany in the manner of our
Christian ancestors in ages past…It is worthwhile to observe, yet again, that the Catechism’s strictures
against astrology as divination indeed contain no new doctrine but were commonplace among the
medieval theologians who, at the same time, fully accepted astrology as a function of natural reason.”30

Concerning the fear of any episcopal disapproval Cassidy addressed this issue in an essay entitled The
Believing Christian as a Dedicated Astrologer.” He rhetorically asks and responds “what is the attitude
among educated clergy today towards the theory and practice of astrology?... In this, they follow the
consensus of the contemporary academic community who consider it to be an outmoded myth of
mediaeval man. But, on the other hand, there are few indeed who consider the study of astrology any
more a matter for ecclesiastical disapproval than they would one's interest in flying saucers or the flat
earth society. They do not ignore astrology because it offends their faith, but because it seems to
contradict what they believe to be their scientific reason. Of course, I agree with them in their faith, and
disagree with them in their reason, but the dispute is academic, not theological.”31

The primary role of papal authority is to insure the continuity of the Church’s tradition. Pope John Paul II,
in 1995 addressed the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Inquisition)
describing papal authority as “a means of guaranteeing, safeguarding and guiding the Christian
community in fidelity to and continuity with tradition, to make it possible for believers to be in contact
with the preaching of the Apostles and with the source of Christian reality itself.” 32 Seen in this light, the
actions of Pope Clement VIII and Urban VIII make a lot of sense and are in accord with the finest
traditions of the Church. They knew the tradition and kept it.

1. Ugo Baldini, The Roman Inquisition’s Condemnation of Astrology: Antecedents, Reasons and
Consequences in Church, Censorship and Culture in Modern Italy, by Gigliola Fragnito (ed) and
translated by Adrian Belton Cambridge University Press, 2001. One error is remarkable for this
reputable scholar. He writes on page 84 “The prohibitions issued until the fifteenth century by
ecumenical, national and provincial councils and enacted in the bulls of Honorious III (1225),
John XXII Super illus specula (1326) and Innocent VIII Summis desiderantes affectibus (1485)
often accused the divinatory arts of being forms of devil worship and of strengthening Satan’s
grip on mankind, pointing to judicial astrology in particular.” This is incorrect. A review of the
bulls of John and Innocent do not mention judicial astrology at all. In the case of Honorious the
bull is not identified. However the relationship of Honorious and Michel Scot, a cleric and the
most pre-eminent astrologer of his day, was more that generous. It is highly unlikely Pope

11
 Honorious issued a decree against judicial astrology while at the same time awarding one of the
most famous astrologers of the age with several benefices.

2. P.G.Maxwell-Stuart, The Occult in Early Modern Europe: A Documentary History. New York,
1999, pp. 111-112 for partial translation.. For a full translation see Harold B. Johnson, A
Horoscope Cast on the Birth of King Sebastian of Portugal (1554-1578), Appendix 3, pp. 16 – 18
(2001). http:people.virginia.edu/~hbj8n.

3. Nicholas Cheetham, Keepers of the Keys: A History of the Popes from St. Peter to John Paul II,
New York, 1983, p.214.

4. Irene Polverini Fosi, Justice and its image: Political propaganda and judicial reality in the pontificate
of Sixtus V in The Sixteenth Century Journal, Kirkesville: Spring, 1993, Volume 24, p.76 Issue 1, p. 76.

5. Catholic Encyclopedia (1919) online at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14033a.htm.

under Pope Sixtus V.

6. Corinne Mandel, Sixtus the Fifth and the Lateran Palace, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato,
Libreria della Stato, Roma (1994).p 99 n.30

7. Op Cit., Catholic Enclyclopedia online

8. James Broderick, S.J., Robert Bellarmine: Saint and Scholar, London, 1961, p116 – 119. Bellarmine,
asked Pope Gregory XIV in 1591 what “he should do about the Bible of Sixtus V in which many
regrettable changes had been made…I showed the Holy Father that, instead of forbidding the edition of
the Bible in question, it would be better to correct it in such a manner that it could be published without
detriment to the honor of Pope Sixtus. The result could be achieved by removing inadvisable changes as
quickly as possible and then issuing the volume with Sixtus’ own name upon it, and a preface stating that
owing to haste some errors crept into the first edition through the fault of the printers or some other
persons.”

9. Peter Godman, The Saint as Censor: Robert Bellarmine between Inquisition and the Index, Brill, 2000
pp. 64, 150.

10. Bonatti’s membership in the Franciscan Order has been questioned by some. John Lenhart O.F.M.
Cap. Science in the Franciscan Order: A Historical Sketch in Franciscan Studies, Vol. 1, January, 1924.
claims Guido Bonatti for the Order. Lenhart describes Bonatti as “The celebrated physicist, astronomer
and astrologer… of Forli (d.1296), a Friar Minor” who “drew scholars to his professional chair from all
parts of Europe.” Lenhart’s source is the Annales Minorum by Father Luke Wadding, OFM, a celebrated
17th century friar scholar using the Order’s records from the 13th Century. Lynn Thorndike, The History of
Magic and Experimental Science, V.2, p.828 notes the argument about his membership in the Order and
accepts the possibility stating “…judging from the number of Franciscans who have written books on
astrology and astrological medicine, he might not have found such retirement entirely uncongenial, and
need scarcely have surrendered his astrological views in consequence.” Kenelin Henry Digby , Mores
Catholici: or Ages of Faith, London, 1847, v.3, p. 419 wrote that Wadding “styles him (Bonatti) as a

12
philosopher” and “at an advanced age embraced the Order of Saint Francis in the Province of Bologna
and humbly and holily terminated his life.” It has been argued that Bonatti’s membership in the Order has
been confused with that of his notable client, Guido of Montefeltro who also entered the Order later in
life. However, the latter was a member of the Province of Umbria, not Bologna, and died in Assisi. Liber
Astronomicus, considered by Lynn Thorndike as “the most important astrological work produced in Latin
in the thirteenth century” might well have been written within the walls of a Franciscan friary.

11. Franco Mormando, The Preacher’s Demons: Bernardino of Siena and the Social Underworld of
Early Renaissance Italy, Chicago/London, 1999 p.97 – 100.

12. Paola Zambelli, The Speculum Astronomiae and its Enigma: Astrology, Theology and Science in
Albertus Magnus and his Contemporaries, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 135, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, 1992. An English /Latin translation of the Speculum appears in the
Appendix section.

13. For an English translation of the Summa www.newadvent.org/summa/3095.htm.

14. Aterni Patris, Enclyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Restoration of Christian Philosophy, Sec. 31.
Accessable online at www.newadvent.org/library/docs_le13ae.htm. In this papal encyclical, written in
1896, Pope Leo called for the restoration of the teachings of Saint Thomas as the beacon for all
theologians. “Ite ad Thomae” – “go to Thomas” he beckoned noting that Thomas was so esteemed during
the Council of Trent that his Summa Theologica stood alongside the Gospels on the main altar through all
its sessions lasting eighteen years.

15. Rules of Prohibited Books, Modern History Sourcebook: Council of Trent at

www.fordham.edu/halsal/mod/trent-bookrules.html.

16. op.cit Godman p.141

17. Peter DeRosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, New York, 1988, p.219

18. op cit Baldini, pp. 95-96.

19. Germana Ernst, Astrology, religion and politics in Counter-Reformation Rome, in Science, Culture
and Popular Belief in Renaissance Europe edited by Stephen Pomfrey, Paolo L. Rossi and Maurice
Slawinski, Manchester Unversity Press, 1991 p. 268

20. Germana Ernst, Tomasso Campanella: The Book and the Body of Nature, Springer, 2010, p.210
Ernst states that Pope Urban “boasted of knowing the birth charts of all the Cardinals and consulted the
horoscope of the old Duke of Urbino in order to identify when he would finally quit the scene so that he
could take possession of the state.”

21. D.P. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella University Park, PA, 2000,
pp. 208 - 209

22. Lynn Thorndike, History of Magic and Experimental Science, New York, 1941, v. 6, pp.165, 171,
178.
13
23. op cit. Baldini, p.102

24. Ana Avalos, As Above, So Below. Astrology and the Inquistion in Seventeenth Century New Spain,
Thesis Presentation, European University Institute, Department of History and Civilization, 2007 p. 160
available at www.cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/6938/2007_02_Avalos.pdf?...

25. Tayra M,C, Lanuza-Navarro and Ana Cecilia Avalos-Flores, Astrological Prophecies and the
Inquisition in the Iberian World,p.686 – 687. A paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd ICESHS in
2006. Available at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15611640/Astrological-prophecies-and-the-Inquisition-
inthe-Iberian-World

26. Ibid. 687 – 688.

27. Officiorum ac Menurm, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on The Prohibtion and Censorship of Books. An
English translation can be located at www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/Censorship.htm.

28. Catechism of the Catholic Church , Ignatius Press, 1994, p. 513

29. William Lilly, Annus Tenebrosus or the Dark Year, London, 1652 p.6

30. Laurence Cassidy, S.J., The Old Astrology and the New Catechism is available at www.radical-
astrology.com.

31. Laurence Cassidy,S.J., A Believing Christian as a Dedicated Astrologer. This article appeared in
numerous astrological journals and is available at http://www.rasa.ws/index.php/rasa-library-articles-
believing-christian-astrologer.

32. John L. Allen Jr., All the Popes Men: The Inside Story of How the Vatican Really Thinks,
New York, 2006 p. 97

Alan J. Ouimet, O.F.S., a Franciscan tertiary, (Secular Franciscan Order, OFS) has been student of
astrology since 1972 and a graduate, with honours, of the Master’s Degree Level Course of
Astrological Studies under Noel Tyl. A graduate of Saint John’s University (BA, History) and the
University of Connecticut (MA, Political Science) he was an FBI Counterintelligence Agent until
his retirement. He is the founder of the Franciscan Family Apostolate (www.openhearts.org)
serving the destitute in India and welcomes all coworkers. For his work among the destitute he
was awarded in 1987 the Benemerenti papal medal by Pope John Paul II, the F.B.I. Foundation’s
Humanitarian Award in 2003 and was a nominee of for the Saint Francis National Peace Award
in 2010. Alan has previously published with Considerations magazine and on the internet. He
resides in Madison, CT. and can be reached at ajouimet@att.net.

14
29

15
30

31

32

16