Defending Fr. Ripperger

A Refutation of Claims of Divination

Recently, Melody Lyons at the substack ‘The Wild Return’ wrote an article titled ‘The Disobedience of Fr. Ripperger.’ As the subtitle indicates, the main thesis of the article is that the practice Fr. Ripperger engages in of “citing demons” is a form of the sin of divination.

While I have translated a text from Fr. Berthier’s De Locis Theologicis (here) and posted an edited video (here) on the topic, in this article I wanted to deal more particularly with the claim that Fr. Ripperger is engaging in divination (something I covered briefly in the end of the aforementioned video).

Before beginning with the analysis, it is important to impress upon the reader the gravity of the claim made by Mrs. Lyons. If Fr. Ripperger was engaging in divination, he would be making an act of apostasy (St. Thomas Aquinas, Isaiah.C3.L3.n130.2), which is a “species of fornication of the soul” and “sacrilegious observances” (St. Augustine, De doctrina Christiana 2.23.35). As Cajetan teaches, “without doubt this society pertains to apostasy from God” (Com. in ST.II-II.Q95.A4, n. 5) and “incurs all the penalties of apostates and heretics.” (ibid.) In fact, as all theologians teach, it necessarily involves the worship of demons. It would be a uniquely abominable sin on the part of Fr. Ripperger. We would be more than justified in our rejection of Fr. Ripperger, not only on this point, but in all that he says.

This grave accusation requires clear evidence and a careful study of the matter. Has Mrs. Lyons made such a careful study in her definition of the matter? If she is right, then we must reject Fr. Ripperger. If she is wrong, then she must recant this error as an act of justice towards Fr. Ripperger. If this error was through malice, then it is a grave sin against his character, if it was through a simple error, then she has sinned through negligence as everyone has an obligation to a clear and careful study before making such claims.

This essay will not be an extensive study of all the sources, but the doctrine outlined here will be from the most authoritative sources cited by all theologians and by the Church (Ss. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Alphonsus Liguori) and is common doctrine among moral theologians (Cajetan, Salmanticenses, Soto, Sanchez, etc.), although there is dispute on additional questions outside of the scope of this article.

The central error of Mrs. Lyons concerns her understanding of the definition of “Divination.” The classical definition of Divination comes from St. Augustine’s brief treatment in De Doctrina Christiana which is to seek knowledge from demons out of a “fellowship between men and devils.” (2.23.35) This is taken up by St. Thomas (who all theologians commonly follow) as “a compact made expressly with a demon by the very fact of invoking him” (ST.II-II.Q95.A4) which comes “from the counsel of demons” (Isaiah.C3.L3.n130) in which “pacts are contracted with demons.” (DeSortibus.C5.3)

If one were to glance over the texts of St. Thomas or some other theologian, it is quite easy, as Mrs. Lyons did, to ignore these clear qualifications. Cajetan, in his interpretation of ST.II-II.Q95.A4, makes this clear when he states that divination specifically requires that the act be “invocation,” i.e., an act that forms a society with the demon:

If one carefully considers the intention and words of the Author, he does not require this first interpretation, but remains in the second, namely concerning a social act. And indeed the intention of the Author is manifest. (n. 2)

Yet, one does not need to go far into the commentators on St. Thomas. This is already clear in the very text of the Angelic Doctor in the response to the first objection,

It is one thing to question a demon who comes to us of his own accord (and it is lawful to do so at times for the good of others, especially when he can be compelled, by the power of God, to tell the truth) and another to invoke a demon in order to gain from him knowledge of things hidden from us. (ST.II-II.Q95.A4.Rep1)

Hence, when St. Thomas uses terms like “invocation,” he clearly distinguishes it from a simple inquiry. “Invocation” requires some sort of society or pact to be formed between the demon and the individual. This is distinct from simple inquiry, which does not assume some sort of society or pact to be formed.

While it is intrinsically evil to ever form a pact with a demon, there can be various different justifications for the inquiry of a demon. Of course, this does not mean that every inquiry of a demon is justified, but it does mean that, in principle, it is neither intrinsically evil nor an act of divination.

As Cajetan points out, this is clear from the very text of the arguments that are frequently repeated by St. Thomas (ST.II-II.Q95.A4, Sent.II.D7.Q2.A2, Isaiah.C3.L3.n129-130, DeSortibus.C5.3, etc.),

The words of the Author for this in the present text are clear in the first argument, when he says that there is an express pact with the demon entered into through the very invocation of the demon. For by these words that are added, namely “through the very invocation of the demon,” he explains in what the pact consists, namely in the invocation itself: so that explicit invocation is an explicit pact, and tacit invocation is a tacit pact. But it is evident that invocation is a social act...Hence he clearly shows that by the term pact he understands society. So that when you read “a pact or compact entered into,” understand “a society entered into,” expressly by invocation, tacitly by an act to which the demon fittingly attaches himself. (n. 2)

The teaching of the theologians is summarized with clarity and authority by the moral doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori whose writings, according to Gregory XVI “can be read by the faithful with complete safety,” which is repeatedly indicated by multiple Pontiffs and curial documents (sources). As Ven. Pius XII states, St. Alphonsus’ doctrine “is most highly approved and has often been gravely commended by the Supreme Pontiffs as a safe norm.” (26 April 1950)

St. Alphonsus begins his treatment of this question (in Theologia Moralis, lib. iii, tract. ii, cap. ii, dub. vii, n. 493) by distinguishing between various forms adjuration:

Adjuration is the invocation of God, or of sacred things, or of the saints, to induce someone to do or omit something...One is solemn, which is performed by ministers and in the manners established by the Church; another is private, without such solemnities. Likewise, one is deprecatory, as was that of the prince of the Apostles: “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ.” Another is imperative, which belongs only to superiors with respect to subjects, and to exorcists with respect to demons.

When it comes to the demons, St. Alphonsus states that this adjuration must be imperative (as commanding an inferior) rather than deprecatory,

Especially concerning the adjuration of demons two things are chiefly to be noted here. 1. That the adjuration with them be imperative, not deprecatory. 2. That it be done only to remove harms and the vexation of the possessed, not for vanity and curiosity; hence the doctors commonly say with the Salmanticenses that he cannot be excused from grave sin who engages in many useless conversations with a demon possessing someone.

Useless conversations are ordinary said to be only a venial sin of curiosity, as Sanchez, Cajetan, Suarez, Navarrus, Soto, and the Salmanticenses teach.

As all theologians teach, it is lawful for the exorcist to question demons in what is necessary for the exorcism. It is said by St. Alphonsus to be the “common opinion.” This is supported by the Roman Ritual. St. Alphonsus gives a few examples of this,

They may ask the number and names of those who dwell in the possessed, and for how long, as is found in the Roman Ritual. Likewise the cause of his entrance. Likewise a sign of his departure, as is most commonly permitted...

Directly against Mrs. Lyons, the exorcist may also ask imperatively the manifestation of some truth as is the common teaching of theologians following St. Thomas (as quoted above),

Whether, however, it is licit to ask imperatively from a demon the manifestation of some truth...more probably and most commonly it is affirmed that it is licit, if this conduces to the divine glory. Thus Sanchez (n. 24), and Cajetan, Soto, Concina, Tabiena, etc., with the Salmanticenses (n. 59). And this is expressly taught by St. Thomas Aquinas...

To summarize, the central error of Mrs. Lyons’ understanding of this topic concerns a false reading of the nature of divination insofar as divination requires some sort of society with the demon. This society is not entered into by asking the demons questions imperatively, which is supported by the Roman Ritual in those truths necessary to exorcise the demons and, following St. Thomas, more commonly by theologians in manifestation of those turths which conduce to the divine glory.