Pages

Monday, March 6, 2023

On Cleromancy


What is cleromancy? Cleromancy, according to Merriam-Webster, is "divination by means of casting lots." The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us:

All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone. (CCC 2116)

This article, describing the practice of divination in the Neocatechumenal Way's Redemptoris Mater seminaries, is an adapted translation of two sources: primarily a detailed correspondence from an Italian Catholic online forum called "Cattolici Romani;" and secondarily from the Osservatorio, who edited and commented on the primary source. Both are from 2012. Our translation largely follows the Osservatorio, with some additional edits and notations of our own. We apologize in advance for the more rambling, less-structured tone of this particular article, as the original author was composing thoughts in a discussion forum as opposed to any sort of clear-formatted essay.


This discussion illustrates the Redemptoris Mater seminaries and the liturgy of the Merkaba (from the Hebrew מֶרְכָּבָ֖ה, meaning "chariot"), which in practice appears to be the divinatory art of cleromancy.

The first Redemptoris Mater seminary was erected in Rome in 1988 at the invitation of Pope John Paul II. [Note: in reality, the decree of erection "ad experimentum for three years" is dated February 14, 1988, and is signed by Ugo Poletti (1914-1997), then-Cardinal Vicar for the Diocese of Rome. Before the end of the ad experimentum, on October 1, 1990, Poletti confirmed the seminary's erection. The haste is explained by the fact that on January 17, 1991, Poletti resigned, having surpassed the age limit.]

This event was recorded by L'Osservatore Romano as "the rebirth of an institution, that of diocesan seminaries for missionary priests, which until the 1950s was quite common in many dioceses." [Note: this article in L'Osservatore Romano, published on April 28 1998, page 6, was written by the Neocatechumenal Giuseppe Gennarini, famous throughout the world for his mystifications. As such, it can hardly be considered objective.]

I have known these seminaries personally and they have given me an excellent impression, just as the seminarians have given me an excellent impression, whom I have found very serious, prepared, and of great generosity.

However, for these seminaries a highly questionable liturgy is used, the so-called Merkaba, which left me very perplexed because in practice it would appear to be a real and true divinatory practice, that is, cleromancy. In fact, the candidates who begin the process of becoming priests accept the destination, except in special cases, by lottery.

Basically, these young men, these candidates for the priesthood, do not enter the seminary closest to their own diocese; nor do they enter a seminary of a certain nation, chosen with the discernment of their superiors. Rather, all the candidates beginning their seminary courses gather at a convivence (the Merkaba), and in a special liturgy a drawing of lots takes place in the belief that the city drawn by lot (any city in the world where there is a Redemptoris Mater) is specially chosen by the Lord.

Such a practice is, in fact, a divinatory art, namely cleromancy. I can say with certainty that these candidates, and these priests, possess the conviction that the Lord guides the lots by obtaining the city that represents his will.

This cleromancy is also used for Neocatechumenal families who want to go on a mission. In fact, these families also participate in a convivence, and cleromancy takes place in the liturgy, with the belief that the cities drawn by lot for the missionary families represent the cities specifically chosen by the Lord. However, we will maintain our focus in this article on the seminaries.

As we have seen, although Hebrew terminology ("Merkaba") is used, the belief in lots directed by the Lord is a divinatory art called "cleromancy."

In Hebrew, "Merkaba" stands for "the throne of God" and "the chariot," a means of taking the body elsewhere. Reference is found in the Bible, in Ezekiel, where we find the famous chariot of fire (Ez 1:4-26) and it is configured as a kind of pilgrimage in which the pilgrim assumes the role of traveler towards his home in God.

Obviously in Ezekiel, in Judaism, and in early Christianity, we find no draw and no divination because the image of the Merkaba is only symbolic.

[For a somewhat deeper analysis on Merkaba symbolism, see our previous article on Jewish mysticism.]

Cleromancy, that is, the belief that God draws lots, is an art of divination as old as the world. It has appeared in the Catholic Church several times throughout history, and has always been harshly condemned by the Church [including the passage from the Catechism cited above]. In particular, I would like to report the condemnation of cleromancy by St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, which also cites the condemnations by other saints such as St. Bede, St. Augustine, and St. Ambrose.

We read:

If we ascribe it to chance, and this can only take place in “sortilege of allotment,” it does not seem to imply any vice other than vanity, as in the case of persons who, being unable to agree upon the division of something or other, are willing to draw lots for its division, thus leaving to chance what portion each is to receive.

If, on the other hand, the decision by lot be left to a spiritual cause, it is sometimes ascribed to demons. Thus we read (Ez 21:21) that “the king of Babylon stood in the highway, at the head of two ways, seeking divination, shuffling arrows; he inquired of the idols, and consulted entrails:” sortilege of this kind is unlawful, and forbidden by the canons.

Sometimes, however, the decision is left to God, according to Proverbs 16:33, "Lots are cast into the lap, but they are disposed of by the Lord:" sortilege of this kind is not wrong in itself, as Augustine declares [Exposition on Psalm 31 (30):16; cf. arg. 1].

Yet this may happen to be sinful in four ways.

FIRST, if one have recourse to lots without any necessity: for this would seem to amount to tempting God. Hence Ambrose, commenting on the words of Luke 1:8, says: “He that is chosen by lot is not bound by the judgment of men.”

SECONDLY, if even in a case of necessity one were to have recourse to lots without reverence. Hence, on the Acts of the Apostles, Bede says [Commentary on Acts 1:26]: "But if anyone, compelled by necessity, thinks that he ought, after the apostles’ example, to consult God by casting lots, let him take note that the apostles themselves did not do so, except after calling together the assembly of the brethren and pouring forth prayer to God.”

THIRDLY, if the Divine oracles be misapplied to earthly business. Hence Augustine says [Letter 55, Chapter 20]:

“Those who tell fortunes from the Gospel pages, though it is to be hoped that they do so rather than have recourse to consulting the demons, yet does this custom also displease me, that anyone should wish to apply the Divine oracles to wordly matters and to the vain things of this life.”

FOURTHLY, if anyone resort to the drawing of lots in ecclesiastical elections, which should be carried out by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Wherefore, as Bede says [Commentary on Acts 1:26]: “Before Pentecost the ordination of Matthias was decided by lot,” because as yet the fulness of the Holy Ghost was not yet poured forth into the Church: “whereas the same deacons were ordained not by lot but by the choice of the disciples.” It is different with earthly honors, which are directed to the disposal of earthly things: in elections of this kind men frequently have recourse to lots, even as in the distribution of earthly possessions.

If, however, there be urgent necessity it is lawful to seek the divine judgment by casting lots, provided due reverence be observed. Hence Augustine says [Letter 228], “If, at a time of persecution, the ministers of God do not agree as to which of them is to remain at his post lest all should flee, and which of them is to flee, lest all die and the Church be forsaken, should there be no other means of coming to an agreement, so far as I can see, they must be chosen by lot.” Again he says [On Christian Doctrine, 1.28]: “If thou aboundest in that which it behooves thee to give to him who hath not, and which cannot be given to two; should two come to you, neither of whom surpasses the other in need or in some claim on thee, thou couldst not act more justly than in choosing by lot to whom thou shalt give that which thou canst not give to both.” (ST II-II, Q 95, A 8, co.)

Therefore, reading St. Thomas Aquinas and the whole Tradition (Fathers of the Church), we can affirm that:

--Relying on fate for the things of this world is not a sin. In fact, this action about resorting to chance draws for worldly affairs can only be seen as a lack of virtue, because the inability to agree peacefully is manifested. However, in worldly affairs, it is fully permissible and it is a random draw.

--Relying on the drawing of lots for spiritual things is lawful only and exclusively for exceptional cases of urgent necessity, and Saint Augustine cites examples (see above).

--The gesture of having recourse to lots for spiritual things, without a serious urgency, is to be condemned, as this is reduced to tempting God. Hence the words of St. Ambrose, “Whoever is chosen by lot escapes human judgment.”

--The only case of an election by lot in the New Testament is the choice of the Apostle Matthias, but St. Bede clearly states that Matthias, ordained first at Pentecost, was chosen by lot because the fullness of the Holy Spirit had not yet been infused into the Church; later, however, the seven deacons [see Acts 6:1-7] were called to ordination not by lot, but through the choice of the disciples.

It must be said that in all Redemptoris Mater seminaries, the seminarians are chosen through cleromancy, and I myself heard a priest of these seminaries say: “In this way (lottery) we make Lord choose directly.”

Now let’s try to reason.

If cleromancy were true, that is, if the Lord really intervenes in the casting of lots inserted in a liturgy, why should we waste time with a conclave? A quick cleromancy could be done within a special liturgy and the Pope would be chosen by the Lord himself without wasting too much time.

If cleromancy were true, diocesan bishops could assign their priests to parishes through a quick cleromancy within a special liturgy, in the certainty that those assignments represent the Lord's will.

If cleromancy were true, any Catholic could choose his wife, his university, or his profession through the divinatory art of cleromancy inserted in a liturgy, and in this way he would let himself be guided directly by the Lord, avoiding errors.

The irrationality of cleromancy seems quite obvious to me.

In reality, the Holy Spirit is the One who puts the right cards before men to play, and it is the Christian, in an atmosphere of profound prayer and with the help of spiritual directors, who understands the Lord's will. You can make a mistake in your choice, but the Lord still writes straight with our crooked lines.

The cleromancy of the Redemptoris Mater seminaries, as it is a divinatory art, is contradicted by real life. In fact, I know a seminarian who underwent cleromancy convinced that his destination, a foreign city on another continent, was the will of the Lord. For a while, it really seemed that in that city there were signs that confirmed this will of God, but... Later, due to very serious difficulties, he was recalled to his homeland and, after adequate discernment by his superiors, he was sent to another seminary. Undoubtedly in these cases we find a lot of lost time. Above all, though, is the evident contradiction of the superiors who must intervene to correct the presumed choices of the Lord obtained with cleromancy.

So, there can only be two options: Either God intervenes in the draw, or he does not. Let's consider the choices.

God intervenes. This case is to be excluded and St. Thomas explains clearly why in the Summa. In fact, in that case, we would have irrational consequences. If cleromancy really worked for these seminarians, then it must work for everyone and everything (conclaves, appointments, vocational choices, etc.). But, as we have seen, it would be irrational and anti-Christian to use such a practice.

God does not intervene. In this case the question arises spontaneously: is it convenient to trust one's life to fate; that is, to a draw where the result is not the Lord's will? St. Thomas and the Tradition of the Church, in the text quoted above, also condemn this option. In fact, it would be as if one were entrusting to chance the choice of one's husband or wife, or it would be as if a young person with a religious vocation entrusted to chance the choice of which religious order to join.

It should be noted that the existence of international missionary seminaries fulfills the auspices of the conciliar decree Presbyterorum Ordinis. However, wouldn't it be more appropriate, rational, and Christian to entrust the destination of these seminarians to discernment and collaboration between seminarians and superiors, avoiding cleromancy?

For example, if a young Italian has particular characteristics and a particular attraction to South America, why should a "random" draw send him to Asia? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for his superiors to choose destinations through discernment?

It is very important to underline that cleromancy occurs with certainty, in the sense that this is not an article based on "hearsay." I have personally spoken with priests of these seminaries: the lottery of names within a liturgy most certainly happens. Likewise, it is certain that these priests, seminarians, and missionary families are firmly convinced that the Lord acts through lots (cleromancy).

Furthermore, it would seem that the Magisterium of the Church has never approved this practice of drawing names within a liturgy (with the belief that the Lord manages the lots). In fact, in the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way, approved by the Magisterium, we find no trace of the lottery for seminarians, priests, and families. There is no trace of this lottery even in the Statute of the seminaries themselves (Rule of Life of the "Redemptoris Mater Diocesan Seminary" of formation to the presbyterate for the new evangelization).

I have not found this practice in documents approved by the Church. It would be very useful if someone could provide appropriate explanations, and possibly provide documents approved by the Magisterium which explicitly speak of this alleged drawing of lots guided by the Lord.

Surely we find harsh condemnations regarding the drawing of lots (with or without cleromancy) in St. Thomas and in the Tradition of the Church.

I find it appropriate, briefly, to distinguish cleromancy from bibliomancy, as they are very similar divinatory practices.

In bibliomancy, the Bible is opened at random in the certainty that the Lord will give a precise indication of the actions to be performed. For example, a young woman wonders if she should get married or enter a convent, so she randomly opens the Bible and finds the Gospel passage about the wedding at Cana, and believes the Lord wants her to get married.

This is both illicit, because it is divinatory, and irrational. It would be completely impossible to find the precise will of the Lord with this method. In fact, the wedding at Cana could also signify the marriage between the Lord and his Bride, or something else entirely. Whereas, on the other hand, it is entirely legitimate to open the Gospels at random in a prayerful context and read a passage to find enlightenment for one's life (as St. Francis and St. Augustine did), perhaps also with the help of a spiritual director, without any divinatory pretenses.

Returning now to cleromancy. Anyone can call their local Redemptoris Mater and ask for an interview with the rector. I have personally spoken to a seminary rector who told me honestly: "We draw lots to be on the safe side, because we let the Lord choose directly." I listened to a catechist, in person, who said about the families drawn: "They will go where the Lord decides they must go."

I spoke with a seminarian who explained everything about the Merkaba, and told me that the draw manifests God's will. Not only that, this seminarian also confided to me that during the Merkaba, after drawing lots for the city, the seminarian is asked if he accepts or refuses the destination. In case of refusal, the seminarian is seated and his vocational future becomes uncertain.

In summary and conclusion, the drawing of lots - with or without divine significance - is objectively illicit. If a divine value is associated with the draw, we have a true and proper divinatory art: a serious and illegal action. If a divine value is not associated with the draw, we have a more serious action than cleromancy. No serious and prudent superior would throw the spiritual destiny of a young man subjected to him to chance.

If we say that the Lord somehow intervenes in the draw, then we return to the first point, which is cleromancy. If, on the other hand, we say that the Lord will repair any destination that does not conform to the young person's characteristics, then it would essentially mean saying, "we do damage which the Lord will then take care of repairing." Such a practice seems far worse than cleromancy.

It is not true that this practice works. A seminarian friend of mine was tossed around the world without achieving anything, and only after a few years did they realize that he had to be recalled to Italy because he was having enormous problems. Do we want to deny the evidence? In fact, even in this case there is a rationalization: the Lord allowed him to be tossed around the world for a few years without concluding or learning anything because he wanted to put him to the test.

Using the same criterion, a bishop could randomly draw lots for parish assignments in his diocese and then, when faced with an unsuitable priest for a certain parish, the bishop says to the parish: "The Lord permitted it to test you."

With this technique, man can mess up, and then calmly transfer all the blame to God: "It was the Lord; He allowed it."


We hope this has given you a clearer understanding of how seminarians (and missionary families) are chosen for the Neocatechumenal Way, and subsequently the process by which most, if not all Neocatechumenal priests have ended up in your local parishes. When taking into consideration that many young men from Neocatechumenal communities are simply told by their catechists that they will be entering seminary, as opposed to discerning a vocation for themselves, you can understand how many priests and seminarians for the Way are less than good fits for the environments in which they find themselves.


 

No comments:

Post a Comment