Mysticism or Mystification? When ‘Trads’ Seek to Save the Church via Occultism (Part Two)

“Go not aside after wizards, neither ask any thing of soothsayers, to be defiled by them…” (Lev 19:31)

Mysticism or Mystification?
When ‘Trads’ Seek to Save the Church via Occultism

(PART TWO)

(left to right: Peter Kwasniewski, Valentin Tomberg, Sebastian Morello)

by Francis del Sarto

“The magic of Tarot divination is not in the cards but in ourselves…. Can the Tarot predict the future? Perhaps!”
—Gnostic bishop Stephan A. Hoeller, The Royal Road [1]

Footnotes will be found at the end of the article.

In PART ONE, we began examining the ongoing controversy surrounding the 2024 volume, Mysticism, Magic, and Monasteries: Recovering the Sacred Mystery at the Heart of Reality, specifically its promotion of occultism, which is a central theme. According to its author, Sebastian Morello, belief in “sacred magic” is an unbroken tradition. He argues in the Introduction that it is a kind of divine counterbalance to black magic:

Christianity has never denied that curses, hexes, and many kinds of evil spells exist, or that evil spirits can be contacted and succumbed to, in order to attain evil ends. So too, Christians—alongside their practices of meditation and contemplation—have ever believed in sacred magic, or “theurgy,” but they have held that such magic possesses the power to conquer demons and sacralise the world only when united to the eternal and singular priesthood of Jesus Christ, and to this baptised theurgy Christians have given the name of liturgy. [2]

While the first part of this passage is undoubtedly true, it’s mistaken to conclude, as he does, that the latter is equally so. Rather, it reveals Morello as an unreliable narrator who explicitly advances a position as Catholic that the Church has never held; namely, that the liturgy is “baptised theurgy,” and, one may reasonably infer, that by extension, implicitly all sacraments are forms of magic in one fashion or another. His associate Charles Coulombe advanced the same nonsense in a 1990 article for the occult Gnosis magazine, where he wrote:

…there are other elements of the miraculous and the magical (for if the Mass is not magical, then what is?) which are an integral part of orthodoxy. [3]

The position that the Mass is a magic ritual was also introduced in a forged text known as The Grimoire of Pope Honorius (or Le Grimoire du Pape Honorius), a spellbook (grimoire) purportedly written by Honorius III, which, among other things, advanced the theurgical heresy:

It is unique among grimoires in that it was specifically designed to be used by a priest, and some of the instructions include saying a Mass. [4]

Coulombe provocatively titled his article, “The Esoteric Orthodoxy of Catholicism.” This is a textbook oxymoron if ever there was one, and this should be a red flag for all the faithful about the soundness of the article’s claims, as there is nothing whatsoever esoteric (that is, secret) about the teachings of the Church. We are never required to ferret out the “real” meaning behind her doctrines, as they are always set forth intelligibly and transparently, not hidden in a cloud of obscurity. Rather, what we see here is a construct favored by Hermeticists and other occult adherents, not those who are forthright in their commitment to Catholic dogma. As will be seen presently, this is hardly the only instance where Charles Coulombe has shown himself to prefer a murky, arcane distortion of Catholicism to its clear-cut, genuine credo.

This conflation of miracles with magic has a familiar biblical antecedent in the Acts of the Apostles, where Simon Magus, seeing the wonders wrought by the Holy Ghost through Sts. Peter and John, mistakenly saw it as a manifestation of magic, and offered money to gain it and increase his power (see Acts 8:9-24). Something analogous would be if someone were to foolishly argue that in the narrative of the ten plagues of Egypt recorded in Exodus (chapters 7-11), the divine power shown by Moses and Aaron was nothing more than a form of magic not unlike that of Pharaoh’s magicians, Jannes and Mambres [5], but simply carried out for a nobler purpose. Yet the magicians are always described as such, whereas such is not the case with God’s champions, thus contrasting miracles and magic as two distinct forces that may at times produce similar effects, but coming from dissimilar sources.

Morello’s claim that “Christians…have ever believed in sacred magic,” is unquestionably false, if by “Christians” he is referring to faithful Catholics who, rather, have never believed in it, and, as such, is an assertion that must be consigned to the category of theological novelty. This is easily demonstrable when one makes a search of the magisterial teachings of the Church, along with the writings of Church Fathers, Doctors, and other eminent theologians, as are found in standard pre-Vatican II reference works such as:

• The Catholic Encyclopedia and various Catholic dictionaries
• Fr. Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (also known by its English title, The Sources of Catholic Dogma)
• Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology
• Fr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Theology
• Fr. Stanislaus Woywod, Commentary on the 1917–18 Code of Canon Law and Canonical Decisions of the Holy See
• Frs. Joseph Pohle and Arthur Preuss, The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise (4 vols.)
• Fr. Clarence McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology: A Textbook for Advanced Students
• Fr. Anthony Alexander, College Sacramental Theology

We submit that Sebastian Morello and his cohorts may peruse the sources cited above to their hearts’ content in a search to find backing for the contention that the liturgy is “baptised theurgy” or magic, but are fated to do so in vain. In PART ONE of this article, Dr. John Lamont’s rebuttal of the Morello argument demonstrated the incompatibility of theurgy with sound Catholic principles and, in referencing St. Augustine’s The City of God, made it abundantly clear that, no, Christians did not believe in sacred magic. Contrasting true miracles with the lying wonders of theurgy defended by the Neoplatonists, the Doctor of Grace wrote:

These miracles, and many others of the same nature, which it were tedious to mention, were wrought for the purpose of commending the worship of the one true God, and prohibiting the worship of a multitude of false gods. Moreover, they were wrought by simple faith and godly confidence, not by the incantations and charms composed under the influence of a criminal tampering with the unseen world, of an art which they call either magic, or by the more abominable title necromancy, or the more honorable designation theurgy; for they wish to discriminate between those whom the people call magicians, who practise necromancy, and are addicted to illicit arts and condemned, and those others who seem to them to be worthy of praise for their practice of theurgy — the truth, however, being that both classes are the slaves of the deceitful rites of the demons whom they invoke under the names of angels. [6]

Interestingly, the Wikipedia page on theurgy does nothing to support the Morello claim either. If belief in this magic was so prevalent among early Christians as to be universally embraced and these illicit arts ended up morphing into what we now know as Catholic liturgy, it would follow that at least something expressing the historical fact would be forthcoming; rather, all that’s discussed is how the only ones advancing sacred magic were pagans and one infamous apostate from the Church, who abandoned the Faith for theurgical beliefs and practices:

The Emperor Julian (332–363) embraced neoplatonic philosophy and worked to replace Christianity with a version of neoplatonic paganism. Because of his untimely death and the hold mainstream Christianity had over the empire at the time, this was ultimately unsuccessful, but he did produce several works of philosophy and theology, including a popular hymn to the sun. In his theology, Helios, the sun, was the ideal example of the perfection of the gods and light, a symbol of divine emanation. He also held the mother goddess Cybele in high esteem.

Julian favored ritual theurgy, with an emphasis on sacrifice and prayer. He was heavily influenced by Iamblichus’ ideas. [7]

Not exactly the ringing endorsement for theurgy its defenders would seek. When the fictional concept of some ancient Christian theurgy is considered, Morello’s notion that it existed in accord with orthodox Catholicism is rightly passed over, and what is discussed next are its modern manifestations: Esoteric Christianity, “radical orthodoxy” (read heterodoxy) and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Of the former, we read how some branches teach a system of certain rituals to acquire knowledge — or gnosis — so that

…if an Esoteric Christian, Rosicrucian, or Theosopher practices it they could potentially rise to the degree of Magus or Adept after a certain level of spiritual attainment. [8]

This being the case, any and all “Catholics” promoting theurgy as being consonant with Church teachings are to be held suspect. Nowhere in history do we find the slightest indication that the ranks of Magus and Adept or any other form of occult initiate has ever had the slightest approval by the Vatican or any other legitimate ecclesiastical authority, but much pointing to the contrary.

Valentin Tomberg (1900-1973), a faux-convert and lifelong occultist highly touted in MM&M, who will be discussed in more detail further on, was an unapologetic proponent of theurgy, referencing it favorably several times in his 700-page Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism. Lest there be any confusion about his bent, he uncritically cites as authorities on theurgy a number of notorious esoteric figures: Papus (née Gérard Encausse)—author of works on the Tarot, Kabbalah and ritual magic, along with being the founder of the esoteric Martinist Order; Louis Claude de Saint-Martin—a Freemason and pseudo-mystic for whom the Martinist Order was named, he learned from a Kabbalist, and styled himself “the unknown philosopher” who received revelations by someone cryptically referred to as the “unknown agent,” was greatly influenced by the Lutheran “mystic” Jakob Böhme, whose works he translated from German to French, wrote a book that landed on the Index of Forbidden Books, and claimed the Church would be replaced by a “spiritual” church; Martinez de Pasqually—a theurgist who initiated Saint-Martin into the occult, he founded the Order of Knight-Masons Elect Priests of the Universe, which had teachings that incorporated elements taken from Kabbalistic, Hermetic, Gnostic, and Manichean traditions, and promoted an invisible church superior to the Catholic Church [9].

These “august personages,” Tomberg and Morello would have us believe, are trustworthy guides who will lead us into spiritual realms. Really?

There is a more recent “Catholic” thinker they can point to as espousing theurgy, and that’s the French philosopher Maurice Blondel (1861–1949), praised in Novus Ordo circles for setting the groundwork of the nouvelle théologie [‘New Theology’], a movement that sought to revive Modernism and some of whose teachings were condemned by Pope Pius XII in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis [10]. Although not mentioned by name, certain of Blondel’s teachings regarding the so-called “philosophy of action” were formally condemned by the Holy Office in 1924.[11] He has been hailed for being a “precursor” of Vatican II [12]. He was able to avoid detection as a Modernist by way of deception. John Vennari notes how “he admitted to Fr. Henri de Lubac that he purposely disguised his true ideas in order to escape certain censure from Catholic authorities” [13]. Germane to the present article, Blondel was the subject of a study entitled “Theurgy in Modernity: Maurice Blondel’s Liturgical Phenomenology” [14].

The foregoing outline should be sufficient to cause Morello and company to pause and rethink their erroneous position, as it establishes that there is no theological or historical foundation for such a position, never has been, and much refutes it. And then there are the myriad condemnations of magic through the ages that bolster the rejection of such folly.

These prohibitions date back to the Pentateuch and were carried forward by the Church through magisterial decrees, both papal and conciliar, along with other censures at the diocesan level and in the writings of Doctors of the Church and other highly-esteemed saints and theologians, not to mention laws, both canonical and secular. It is to some of these that we now turn our attention.

The Evils of Divination and Magic Condemned by Scripture

The divine prohibition of these sins was expressed in the Book of Deuteronomy. Before the Israelites’ passage into the Promised Land, Moses warned them that engaging in such acts would violate the First Commandment: “I am the Lord thy God…Thou shalt not have strange gods before me” (Exodus 20:2-3). He then enumerated the conduct they must avoid:

When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee, beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations. Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations he will destroy them at thy coming. Thou shalt be perfect, and without spot before the Lord thy God. These nations, whose land thou shalt possess, hearken to soothsayers and diviners: but thou art otherwise instructed by the Lord thy God. The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a PROPHET of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me: him thou shalt hear.

(Deuteronomy 18:9-15)

Note that in none of these activities was a malevolent end being sought per se; while lawful knowledge of future events was something revealed by God’s prophets, the false prophets of pagan religions aped them in the form of oracles and soothsayers, and even in the abominable practice of child sacrifice, the sin came in the means employed — slaughtering the child to appease a devilish deity — to reach goals that typically were along the lines of assuring a good harvest or averting natural disasters. In such a case, the shaman typically assured the parents that their slain child would be given a lofty position in the next life. Of course, even though the ends may be for a material benefit, the shedding of innocent blood to appease a false god negates any temporal good that was vainly sought after.

Among sinful activities listed by St. Paul as the “works of the flesh,” he names “idolorum servitus” (idolatry or, literally, servitude to idols) and “veneficia” (witchcrafts or poisonings), warning that “they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-21).

Condemnations by the Magisterium, Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints and Other Eminent Theologians

In PART ONE, we saw how Pope Innocent VIII condemned a book of propositions authored by Pico della Mirandola including some concepts that Pico attempted to smuggle past ecclesiastical censure through the artifice of euphemism. His Holiness pointed out that those propositions favoring wicked practices had already received censure both from the Church and learned scholars:

And not a few propositions which, under a certain disguise of natural philosophy, strive to lend respectability to certain arts that are hostile to the Catholic Faith and injurious to the human race – arts most sharply condemned by their own canons and by the doctrines of the Catholic doctors.

St. Augustine’s refutation of theurgy has been noted above, but other theological lights have spoken out as well concerning related occult activities.

Where divination is concerned, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in the Summa Theologiae that demonic intervention is always involved in one way or another:

…all divination results from the demons’ operation, either because the demons are expressly invoked that the future may be made known, or because the demons thrust themselves into futile searchings of the future, in order to entangle men’s minds with vain conceits. Of this kind of vanity it is written (Psalm 39:5): “Who hath not regard to vanities and lying follies.” Now it is vain to seek knowledge of the future, when one tries to get it from a source whence it cannot be foreknown. Therefore it is manifest that divination is a species of superstition.[15]

Hence, demonic involvement in divination can be either remote or direct. In the case of the latter, this may be through various methods, such as dreams, wonders and apparitions, the evil spirit impersonating the specter of a dead person (in modern times this is seen in spiritualism and seances, though human fraud can also be present), or in the demon acting through a possessed person (the “pythonical spirit” spoken of in Acts 16:16). Concerning these phenomena, St. Thomas writes:

When demons are expressly invoked, they are wont to foretell the future in many ways. Sometimes they offer themselves to human sight and hearing by mock apparitions in order to foretell the future: and this species is called “prestigiation” because man’s eyes are blindfolded [praestringuntur]. Sometimes they make use of dreams, and this is called “divination by dreams”: sometimes they employ apparitions or utterances of the dead, and this species is called “necromancy,” for as Isidore observes (Etym. viii) in Greek, nekron “means dead and manteia [means] divination, because after certain incantations and the sprinkling of blood, the dead seem to come to life, to divine and to answer questions.” Sometimes they foretell the future through living men, as in the case of those who are possessed: this is divination by “pythons,” of whom Isidore says that “pythons are so called from Pythius Apollo, who was said to be the inventor of divination.” [16]

Elaborating further upon the wickedness of men availing themselves of such diablerie, he continues:

All divination by invoking demons is unlawful for two reasons. The first is gathered from the principle of divination, which is a compact made expressly with a demon by the very fact of invoking him. This is altogether unlawful; wherefore it is written against certain persons (Isaiah 28:15): “You have said: We have entered into a league with death, and we have made a covenant with hell.” And still more grievous would it be if sacrifice were offered or reverence paid to the demon invoked. The second reason is gathered from the result. For the demon who intends man’s perdition endeavors, by his answers, even though he sometimes tells the truth, to accustom men to believe him, and so to lead him on to something prejudicial to the salvation of mankind. Hence Athanasius, commenting on the words of Luke 4:35, “He rebuked him, saying: Hold thy peace,” says: “Although the demon confessed the truth, Christ put a stop to his speech, lest together with the truth he should publish his wickedness and accustom us to care little for such things, however much he may seem to speak the truth. For it is wicked, while we have the divine Scriptures, to seek knowledge from the demons.” [17]

Likewise, in the Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, one of the earliest Catholic doctrinal discourses dating roughly from the late first century to the early second century, these and associated practices are condemned:

“…thou shalt not use magic; thou shalt not use philtres; thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide….” (Chapter 2.2)

“My child, regard not omens, for this leads to idolatry; neither be an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a magician, neither wish to see these things, for from them all is idolatry engendered.” (Chapter 3.4) [18]

St. Peter’s rebuke of the sorcerer Simon Magus is noted above, but a century later followers of the heresiarch would fall under the righteous wrath of one of Peter’s successors, Pope St. Pius I:

The heretics Valentinus, Cerdon, and Marcion visited Rome in Pius’ time, and he is believed to have excommunicated both groups. Catholic apologists see this as an argument for the primacy of the Roman See during the 2nd century. [19]

St. Justin Martyr spent a good part of his First Apology tearing into the wickedness of magic, so an extended set of highlights is presented here:

Chapter 14. The demons misrepresent Christian doctrine

For we forewarn you to be on your guard, lest those demons whom we have been accusing should deceive you, and quite divert you from reading and understanding what we say. For they strive to hold you their slaves and servants; and sometimes by appearances in dreams, and sometimes by magical impositions, they subdue all who make no strong opposing effort for their own salvation. And thus do we also, since our persuasion by the Word, stand aloof from them (i.e., the demons), and follow the only unbegotten God through His Son — we who formerly delighted in fornication, but now embrace chastity alone; we who formerly used magical arts, dedicate ourselves to the good and unbegotten God….

Chapter 26. Magicians not trusted by Christians

…after Christ’s ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: — “Simoni Deo Sancto,” “To Simon the holy God”. And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies….

Chapter 30. Was Christ not a magician?

But lest any one should meet us with the question, What should prevent that He whom we call Christ, being a man born of men, performed what we call His mighty works by magical art, and by this appeared to be the Son of God? We will now offer proof, not trusting mere assertions, but being of necessity persuaded by those who prophesied [of Him] before these things came to pass, for with our own eyes we behold things that have happened and are happening just as they were predicted; and this will, we think, appear even to you the strongest and truest evidence. [Over the next dozen chapters, invoking the biblical prophecies that speak of Our Lord, and proceeding on to occasions where the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity confirmed Him, St. Justin thoroughly refutes the claim.] [20]

Canonical Condemnations

The ban on magic and its kindred practices can be traced back to the beginning of the Christian era in Rome, even prior to the reign of Constantine. On his blog Thoughts on Antiquity, Roger Pearse, author of Selected Fathers of the Church, posted an entry entitled “Roman Attitudes to Magic”, where he quotes from Julius Paulus (fl. c. 190–235 AD), who was given the epithet Prudentissimus (that is, the wisest or most prudent), widely regarded as one of the most distinguished of all legal scholars in ancient Rome. He wrote over 300 treatises that include concepts helping to lay the groundwork for modern jurisprudence. The severe Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (=assassins and poisoners, crimes often associated with the magic arts) is quoted in the so-called Sentences of Paulus thus:

Persons who celebrate or cause to be celebrated impious or nocturnal rites so as to enchant, bewitch or bind anyone, shall be crucified or thrown to wild beasts… Anyone who sacrifices a man, or attempts to obtain auspices by means of his blood, or pollutes a shrine or a temple, shall be thrown to wild beasts, or, if he is of superior rank, shall be punished with death. … It has been decided that persons who are addicted to the art of magic shall suffer extreme punishment; that is to say, they shall be thrown to wild beasts or crucified. Magicians themselves shall be burned alive. … No-one shall be permitted to have books of magic in his possession, and when they are found with anyone they shall be publicly burned and those who have them, after being deprived of his property, if they are of superior rank shall be deported to an island, and if they are of inferior station shall be put to death; for not only is the practice of this art prohibited, but also knowledge of the same. [21]

Similar laws carried over after the Church gained her freedom, as noted by Pearse:

The legislation of the Christian emperors against magic is in the Codex Justinianus 9:18 and in the Codex Theodosianus 9:16. In 312 Constantine banned a haruspex from visiting another; in 321 banned magical arts that injured others, while exempting those used for medicinal purposes or the general welfare. In 357 Constantius banned magic altogether (CJ. 9.18.5)….

A law of 358 called magicians “the enemies of the human race” and classified those who used magic verses, sorcerers, haruspices, soothsayers, augurs, diviners, and interpreters of dreams as magicians. [22]

Among the canons issued at the Council of Ancyra, which was held in 314, number 24 reads:

They who practice divination, and follow the customs of the heathen, or who take men to their houses for the invention of sorceries, or for lustrations, fall under the canon of five years’ [penance], according to the prescribed degrees; that is, three years as prostrators, and two of prayer without oblation. [23]

In terms of ecclesiastical laws, such condemnations extend from the earliest centuries to the present day. For example, from the Canon Episcopi of the Decretum of 1008–1012, an early collation of canon law, we read:

The bishops and their ministers should by all means make great effort so that they may thoroughly eradicate the pernicious art of divination and magic, invented by the devil, from their parishes, and if they find any man or woman adhering to such a crime, they should eject them, turpidly dishonoured, from their parishes. [24]

The papal bull Super Illius Specula, issued in 1326 by Pope John XXII, “granted inquisitors the right to prosecute those who engaged in magical practices, i.e., witchcraft, as heretics” [25].

Writings favorable to occult practices were expressly forbidden in the Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books, drawn up by the Fathers of the Council of Trent and ratified by Pope Pius IV. Rule IX provides a sweeping condemnation of works relating to magic and divination:

All books and writings dealing with geomancy, hydromancy, aeromancy, pyromancy, oneiromancy, chiromancy, necromancy, or with sortilege, mixing of poisons, augury, auspices, sorcery, magic arts, are absolutely repudiated. 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. [26]

Sixty years later, Pope Gregory XV issued a decree on magic concerning penalties for those engaged in such activities:

His Declaration against Magicians and Witches (Omnipotentis Dei, 20 March 1623) was the last papal ordinance against witchcraft. Former punishments were lessened, and the death penalty was limited to those who were “proved to have entered into a compact with the devil, and to have committed homicide with his assistance.” [27]

The 1917 Code of Canon Law echoed Trent’s negative ruling:

Canon 1398
§ 1. The prohibition of books brings it about that the book cannot be published, read, retained, sold, translated into another language, or in any other way communicated to others without necessary permission. …

Canon 1399
By the law, [the following] are prohibited: … 7.° Books that teach or recommend superstition in general, sorcery, divination, magic, evoking of spirits, and other things of this sort; [28]

Providing a gloss on this sacred canon, the noted Benedictine Dom Charles Augustine explains in his commentary on the Code that

Superstition seems to be here taken as a distinct and coordinate, not as a comprehensive term, and hence means a specific form of belief, which manifests ignorant or abnormal credulity, such as the belief in omens, charms, etc. The other terms include the whole broad field of occultism or Spiritism, witchcraft, sorcery, clairvoyancy, and so forth. Hypnotism and somnambulism, if superstitious, are also included. Books teaching or approving such practices are forbidden, not, of course, books written for the purpose of combating them. [29]

Indeed, there are few errors that have more consistently drawn the enmity of Holy Mother Church than the magical arts and esotericism promoted by Sebastian Morello and his confreres in MM&M, tracing back as far as St. Peter’s rebuke of Simon Magus in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles [30].

The Warlock’s Spell: A Novel Explanation for the Church’s Crisis

Morello’s admission that magic is incapable of “saving the Church” is absolutely true, though not in the sense he sets forth: Simply put, “sacred magic” is not of God, because no magic is of God. While the Church has distinguished between white magic and black magic—spellcasting used for benign and malign purposes, respectively—she has condemned both as sinful for employing forbidden means to reach an end. This is something readily demonstrable from the sources already cited.

A striking example of this has already been noted in the first part of this article, involving one of the author’s favorites, Pico della Mirandola, the Renaissance occultist and “Christian Kabbalist” [31] after whom Morello named his dog (or whatever it is). Pico’s book of 900 Theses was condemned in toto by Pope Innocent VIII as containing “damnable assertions” that included reviving errors of pagan philosophers, fostering the perfidy of the Jews, and seeking “to lend respectability to certain arts [i.e., magic and divination] that are hostile to the Catholic Faith and injurious to the human race—arts most sharply condemned by their own canons and by the doctrines of the Catholic doctors.” We reiterate this here simply to drive home the point that the author of MM&M is arguing for a version of Catholicism that never existed, aside from that debased caricature of the Faith practiced by cabalists in their dark lairs.

Despite the clear history, Morello continues to stubbornly cling to his outlandish position that the Church has never condemned Hermeticism. The truth of the matter is quite different from what he presents it to be, for of the three topics in MM&M‘s title, only the two bookends — Mysticism and Monasteries — are capable of being interpreted in a positive Catholic way, while the center one — Magic — cannot. It is shameful that he attempts to enchant his readers into believing otherwise.

Morello’s reflections about the ecclesial crisis since the Second Vatican Council continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding about where its parameters were drawn, and he fails to explain why utilization of “the Hermetic way,” rather than a straightforward Catholic approach—such as prayer and fasting—to combating the evil bedeviling the Church, not only is to be preferred, but “may now be a pressing necessity.” He insists the Church’s hierarchy has been bewitched by modernity, through which it has lost some of its authority. But in the same place, he speaks of the need for it to humble itself, as if mere hubris were the issue.

Yet the warlock’s malediction suffices as a stand-alone cause, just as the mythological sorceress Circe required nothing more than her rage and magic potions to transform the objects of her scorn into beasts, as happened to members of Odysseus’s crew, who became swine after her enchantment. What should we make of Morello’s appeal to a Novus Ordo hierarchy struggling against an evil spell? It sounds quite a bit like the pretexts employed by another better-known purveyor of the recognize-and-resist (R&R) narrative.

The late Richard Williamson, a bishop who originally was with the Society of St. Pius X, made similar excuses for Vatican II “popes.” Where MM&M‘s author shifted the blame to a male witch, the bishop mined evasions no less exotic, as we pointed out in an article outlining his confusing theological rhetoric from several years ago:

To cite just a couple of examples of his alibis du jour: John Paul II may have held heresies, but it wasn’t really his fault because he was in a “liberal dream” (Bp. Williamson’s phrase), while Benedict XVI hasn’t been culpable either, because he was seduced by modern German philosophers (fascinated with old German heretics like Luther is more like it!). In all sincerity, we ask Bp. Williamson to show us in St. Pius X’s decrees against the Modernists anywhere that he mitigates culpability based on such specious grounds as “liberal dreams”, seductions by German philosophy and the like; anywhere that a cleric can get off scot-free from an excommunication or loss of Church membership on such grounds. (Just one such instance would be fine, Your Excellency.) [32]

In the August 20, 2011 issue of his publication Eleison Comments, Bp. Williamson wrote something very much in keeping with what Sebastian Morello has said about “a Church whose members largely don’t believe they need rescuing. They are under a spell, and that spell must be broken” and the need for the hierarchy to be “freed from the bewitchment of modernity.” Bp. Williamson, too, sees a bewitchment of sorts, where leaders of the Vatican II Sect don’t think they need to have a spell lifted, although the culprit here isn’t modernity’s warlock, but rather something akin to a hobgoblin of past religious revolts who continues to plague the present:

…one need not at all call in question these Romans’ sincerity and good will. There, in fact, is the problem! After nearly 500 years of Protestantism and Liberalism our age is so confused and perverse that the world is now full of people doing wrong even while being convinced that they are doing right. And the more convinced such people are that they are doing right, the more dangerous they can be, because with all the more force of subjective sincerity and good intentions they push towards doing objective wrong, and they pull others with them. The more sincerely today’s Romans are convinced of the rightness of their Newchurch, the more efficaciously they will destroy the true Church. [33]

A summary composite of the Morello-Williamson view of the crisis is one that looks upon the Novus Ordo hierarchy as being essentially of good will, and requiring only freedom from their bewitchment to change the “trajectory of self-destruction” they’ve been tracing back to the mission true Catholics ought to be pursuing. Yet the men being spoken of have attended seminaries (and, in the cases of Karol Wojtyla [John Paul II] and Joseph Ratzinger [Benedict XVI], even taught at them or their equivalents) and been privy from various sources to the Church’s Magisterium, which has condemned Modernism in the strongest possible terms.

Morello teaches what is, quite frankly, almost impossible to take in any sense but a heretical one in the following passage, given the suggestion that the apostasy is not on a local diocesan level, but “from the very top”:

Over the last century, the Catholic Church has undergone the greatest apostasy in its history. And yet, amazingly, people are still sporadically converting to Catholicism. In the West, such people—especially young people—are coming to the Catholic Church through the traditional liturgy and the wider traditionalist movement.

Indeed, a strange characteristic of the post-authority epoch is that the parish and the diocese aren’t really where Catholicism happens. Catholicism has largely become an internet genre. And whilst the Church’s government is doing all it can, from the very top, to destroy the traditionalist movement, that movement certainly remains alive and well online. [34]

Here let us turn for a moment to Charles Coulombe, who has unsuccessfully protested being characterized, successively, as a Gnostic, a Perennialist, and an occultist. That any man who self-identifies as a Catholic is compelled to publicly do so in the aftermath of credible imputations is a reason for concern, particularly given his unwarranted reputation for being a reliable voice of traditional Catholicism. His contribution of the Foreword for the Morello book has been noted and shouldn’t be underestimated, since the author himself praised it as “wonderful” and “a helpful initiatory pathway into this book’s spirit.” It is evident that the two are largely on the same wavelength, but is it more likely a case of folie à deux?

The Mystic Knight of Dissimulation

“…if the Mass is not magical, then what is?”
—Charles Coulombe, “The Esoteric Orthodoxy of Catholicism” [35]

Visitors to the Wikipedia page devoted to Charles Coulombe (aka Roy-Charles A. Coulombe, KCSS) [36] will find information about his life, his various vocations—as an author, lecturer, columnist, and narrator—and his interests, especially his fervent commitment to monarchism, as evidenced by his two latest books, Zita: Empress of Austria and Queen of Hungary, published by TAN Books, and The Compleat Monarchist by Os Justi Press, making him the publishing stablemate of Morello, who, predictably, applauded the latter work.

His involvement with the Novus Ordo is also noted, and it’s something about which he’s quite proud. He has no problem whatsoever with certain Modernist “pontiffs,” as chronicled:

Coulombe was commended by Pope John Paul II for his book Vicars of Christ: A History of the Popes, and by order of John Paul II, Coulombe was created a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Sylvester for his services rendered to the Holy See. He has later on also provided narration for ABC News, Fox News, and for the BBC during the funeral of John Paul II and the election and installation of Pope Benedict XVI. [37]

What is not seen on the page is more interesting, however, because Coulombe has very carefully collated what’s presented on it in a way that shunts his disturbing occult interests out of sight of unsuspecting readers, a bit of page editing sleight of hand. The only instances that might suggest such activities are mention of him having been a contributor to FATE magazine and his authorship of A Catholic Quest for the Holy Grail; yet in the first case, while the publication may carry articles on esoteric religion, it bills itself as exploring “the strange and unknown,” which includes studies on UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts, snake handlers, ESP, ancient pyramids, voodoo, fortune telling, Houdini, seances, etc. (even a few regarding saints and other Catholic topics, usually not with the most orthodox of interpretations). “Witches, Werewolves, and Madness” was the chapter from John Paul II’s would-be knight errant in the 2017 anthology Fate Presents Werewolves and Dogmen [38]. His work on the Holy Grail (also from TAN Books), that is, the chalice used by Our Lord at the Last Supper, necessarily hints at liturgical esotericism, as seen in his claim that the Mass is “magical,” cited at the top of this section, a view that surely savors of heresy, in addition to the obvious blasphemy [39].

“I am not gnostic” is the title of a video on the Tumblar House YouTube channel in which Charles Coulombe is asked by a viewer about whether he’s a Gnostic, given that he’s written articles for the occult journal Gnosis (one of at least three publications featuring outré content for which he’s known to have been a contributor, the others being FATE and Quest). [40]

For the better part of the nearly eight-minute video Coulombe expounds on the tenets of that belief system. Now, there’s nothing wrong with enlightening his audience about what may be little known to most of them, but it also succeeds in shifting the focus away from Coulombe and why his behavior could be seen as suspect. He does elaborate later on that he is a Gnostic, but only in the same way as St. Clement of Alexandria, who taught that “faith, not esoteric knowledge (γνῶσις), is required for salvation” [41]. That’s a fair description of what the Church Father taught, but does it also apply to Coulombe?

At this point his co-host, Vincent Frankini, asks a direct question: “You’re complicating things too much. Why can’t we just say that you do some things that vaguely resemble witchcraft, and then… so you’re Gnostic or occultist?” Rather than answer why his activities have given people cause for concern, Coulombe chooses to sidestep the question with an insult to the intelligence of his viewers, lecturing them: “Don’t study what you can’t understand, and for heaven’s sake, ladies and gentlemen, don’t express opinions in areas that you don’t catch.” Here and in his videos generally, Coulombe at times comes off as dismissive, sarcastic, silly, evasive or worse, affecting a “smartest man in the room” posture, but some of that may be excused as him making what he perceives to be stylistic flourishes. In fairness, everyone has his own oratorical eccentricities, so he should be given a certain degree of leeway — until, that is, such posturing begins to get out of hand.

Still, beyond the posturing, obfuscation is his stock in trade when it comes to providing non-answers to questions to which he’d prefer to make no response; belittling people who disagree with him is another effective tactic in his arsenal.

Why shouldn’t people study further? According to Coulombe, because they can’t understand, but by making such an assertion he’s making a blanket condemnation of his audience’s capacity to learn; likewise, he essentially suggests that given their status as hopeless dimwits, they should keep their thoughts to themselves on subjects well beyond their ken. His condescending attitude is suggestive of the Gnostics themselves, who held that they possessed mystic insights knowable only to a select group of spiritual savants.

Frankini’s query about how some things in which Coulombe engages “resemble witchcraft, and then… so you’re Gnostic or occultist?” is an excellent one. Unfortunately, he doesn’t follow up to probe deeper and seek to find out why these shadowy pursuits don’t in some way qualify Coulombe as a participant in Gnosticism or some allied field of occultism; instead, Frankini falls back into his role as pliant sidekick. Often, here and in other videos, Frankini seems so overawed by what he must perceive as brilliance and acumen, that he’s content to let Coulombe ramble on to his heart’s content, while scarcely getting a word in edgewise. Never for a moment is the viewer left in doubt as to who’s in charge of the conversation. The co-host is reduced to the role of being a redundancy in programs that feel as though they could just as easily be monologues without any appreciable loss of content.

He should have asked, for example, how Coulombe could claim to have been a Gnostic in the same way as St. Clement, when the latter didn’t in the slightest engage in activities resembling witchcraft. Or he might have asked why, if he identifies as believing in the same “gnosis” as the saint (saving knowledge of the Catholic faith, not esoterica), did he write articles for Gnosis in which he shared space with those who in some cases include heretical Gnostics of the same kind that St. Clement fought against? Considering that some of Coulombe’s activities, including a close personal association with precisely the bad sort of Gnostic, began around 1977 when he was in his late teens, one is permitted to ask–and, in fact, should be asking–how seriously should we be taking Coulombe’s protestations to the contrary?

A second video, “I am not a Perennialist” [42], has Coulombe rightly rejecting the Perennialist school associated with the apostate Catholic-turned-Muslim René Guénon (1886-1951), which teaches the heresy that all religions are “salvific,” yet he states that he holds to the belief that “once upon a time there was a common religion to all mankind … but that religion is only true and pure and preserved in its fullness in the Catholic Church, outside of which it is not salvific.” This points to an essential tenet of the Perennialist School (also known as Sophia Perennis and the Traditionalist School), and that’s a transcendent unity of religions or “common religion of all mankind,” yet this can go beyond what Coulombe avers in a disturbing way. In the article “What is Perennialism and Why Should We Know About It?,” we read that

For those unfamiliar with Sophia Perennis, it seems to possess the same basic tenets as the Theosophical Society founded by Madame [Helena] Blavatsky and others but with only accidental differences; although there have been spats between these groups over certain aspects of disagreement. Despite protests to the contrary from its followers, this esoteric cult is not only a form of Neo-Gnosticism but in some ways overlaps with the New Age occultism. Their fundamental belief is that of the “Transcendent Unity of Religions” which includes what they refer to as the major world religions in their pure original form. [43]

Seal of the Theosophical Society [44]

While Coulombe might protest being juxtaposed with such movements, the fact remains that the apparent similarities underlying his contention that a root religion once existed (i.e., a triune deity, virgin birth, atoning sacrifice, etc.) have also been ascribed to the Devil, the ape of God, who has offered counterfeits of the divine since the Garden of Eden.

In yet another video, entitled “Charles Obliges a Priest’s Request,” the matter of Coulombe’s wayward activities finally came to a head. It begins:

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Charles Coulombe here in a somewhat subdued and apologetic mode. As some of you may be aware, over the past week there’s been a bit of a fracas over my participation in a mock Tarot reading in Hollywood. Well, we did a piece on it, a video, and many people were kind enough to come to my defense and I am very, very grateful for them. [45]

From the very start we see a typical attempt of his to befuddle his viewers, a gambit he’ll play throughout the presentation. While he speaks of being “somewhat subdued and apologetic,” somewhat perturbed seems more fitting, since, rather than contrite, he comes across as indignant that his actions are under scrutiny. In fact, when he reached the word “apologetic,” the right corner of his mouth went up in what seemed to be a sneer, as though it was distasteful for him to be put in the position of making an apology or, perhaps more accurately, a pseudo-apology.

Note, too, that he qualifies his remark by prefacing it with “somewhat,” as if to say that he’s only willing to concede there’s a problem up to a point. It’s as though the ones expressing concern are to blame for turning a triviality into an issue. Granted, we may be reading something into his rhetoric and gestures that aren’t intended by him, but it’s nonetheless evident that he didn’t seem particularly happy to be dealing with the situation and is even irritated. If anything, he comes across more as the aggrieved party, more deserving of receiving an apology than having to issue one.

Why? Well, because of the uproar caused by his “participation in a mock Tarot reading” — the fracas, as he put it. There is so much to unpack in this one comment, and little of it presents Coulombe in the best light. His active involvement in Tarot readings wasn’t a mere one-off; no, for years he was a fixture at the event, so much so that his appearance was greatly ballyhooed by his host (more to be delved into going forward), who certainly didn’t view the readings as a sham in any way. For those unfamiliar with the term, the “Tarot” is used as a means of fortune-telling or divination, and is a central interest of Valentin Tomberg, who in MM&M is portrayed as a hero.

Yet might our protest be a bit of an overreaction, given his claim that the reading wasn’t to be taken seriously? For Tomberg, the Tarot wasn’t a joke, but a deeply-held conviction, so much so that he devoted an entire book, Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism, in an attempt to validate its use among Catholics. Coulombe’s endorsement of Morello’s work strongly suggests that he had no problem with serious use of the cards and even approved of it.

Certainly, if it wasn’t meant for the purpose of cartomancy, that changes the optics somewhat, but does it excuse Coulombe? If anything, the excerpts from his apology raise more questions than they answer in that regard:

[Vincent Frankini, reading from a letter Coulombe had received from an unnamed priest:] “Your explanation video made things worse. As a reader of yours, as a fellow baptized Catholic and, most of all, as a priest, I sincerely beg that you issue a very strong statement or video where you unambiguously, strongly apologize for all the ways you dabbled in the things you did, and unequivocally make it clear that you permanently reject these activities and philosophies, that you plan to make a thorough confession, and plan to consult Fr. [Chad] Ripperger or someone similar on how to repair the damage. … I understand that my request might sound patronizing, but the Gospel is simple. If the little ones are scandalized, it is not because they lack knowledge of historical nuance, it is because the Gospel is simple.”

[Charles Coulombe:] Now, you see, this gave me something to think about, ladies and gentlemen. The great critics were individuals who, shall we say, I didn’t mind ignoring. But this, this was different, because, of course, it’s better that there should be a millstone around your neck than that you should scandalize one of these little ones. So, that being the case, I took this letter from this priest whom I respect rather more seriously than I did some of the other messages that we’ll pass over in silence. So, here and now I’m going to comply with Father’s request. Would you be so kind?

VF: Okay, so… [you] strongly apologize for all the ways you dabbled in the things you did.

CC: I do so.

VF: You apologize.

CC: I strongly apologize, yes.

VF: You unequivocally make it clear that you permanently reject these activities and philosophies.

CC: Yes, I am deeply, deeply sorry for the sort of scandal that’s caused [sic] people like Father here and those to whom he was referring. What’s the next step?

VF: That you plan to make a thorough confession and plan to consult Fr. Ripperger, or someone similar, on how to repair the damage.

CC: Well, those are actually two different parts: The first, I’ve just been to confession, Communion, and the last rites because I’m going to do a colonoscopy tomorrow, so if things should unexpectedly go badly, this will be my last statement for you. But, don’t worry, I don’t think anything like that is going to happen. The last part, though, yes, I will.

VF: You’re going to consult the priest on how to repair the damage.

CC: Yes, I shall.

VF: OK. And I don’t think Father, or the priest, worded it this [way], but I just want to make sure. So, you’re not going to go to any of these again… any of these meetings?

CC: No.

VF: No. Okay. And so in hindsight I feel the video we did was poorly done, and several people have asked that we remove the video. And it seems like this priest feels also that it made things worse, so I’m going to oblige them and remove the video.

How sincere was Coulombe’s attempt at an apology? If anything, it raises more questions than it answers. First, there’s the request posed by the priest that he “apologize for all the ways you dabbled in the things you did, and unequivocally make it clear that you permanently reject these activities and philosophies,” which he agreed to do.

But what activities? And what philosophies?

In terms of activities, there is really only one mentioned at the beginning of the video, and that’s the one that led to the kerfuffle he noted: his “participation in a mock Tarot reading in Hollywood.” But if he only speaks of that one, why is the plural, activities, used? Returning to a previous video cited above, recall that Frankini speaks of how Coulombe did “some things that vaguely resemble witchcraft.” As will be seen in Part Three of this study, his involvement goes much deeper than a passing interest with the Tarot. Still, if he only was engaged in pretend readings of the cards, then an apology and pledge to refrain from doing so in the future seem unnecessary: to date, he has made good on the promise, at least as far as public appearances go.

As for rejecting certain unnamed “philosophies,” it’s presumed that what is meant are Gnosticism, occultism, and Perennialism, topics which he’s addressed in various videos. In them he makes the point of saying that he doesn’t hold any of these views, except in a qualified way. Again, it seems peculiar to renounce positions that he doesn’t espouse for the sake of satisfying a request that has no basis in fact. The whole video comes off as being an exercise in perception management and not much more, as, while acknowledging the existence of scandal, he doesn’t really take responsibility for having caused it; rather, the gist is more along the lines of “I’m sorry if people took offense,” which is a textbook example of a faux-apology in action [46]. Perhaps in the future he will see fit to issue a genuine mea culpa about his involvement, but unless that happens it should be presumed that he finds no fault in his dabbling, which he has referred to as his efforts in the field of “evangelization.”

Then, there’s Frankini’s mention of an unnamed video that was taken down: “And so in hindsight I feel the video we did was poorly done, and several people have asked that we remove the video. And it seems like this priest feels also that it made things worse, so I’m going to oblige them and remove the video.” Deleted from the Tumblar House‘s YouTube channel for having “made things worse,” that very same day the video showed up posted on Vimeo by another source as “Sir Charles Responds to the Uncultured and Unenlightened Catholics” [47].

Upon watching, it’s easy to see why it was scrubbed, as it’s an utter embarrassment that does nothing substantive to clarify or justify his repeated excursions into manifestly occult circles, but, rather, is more likely to obscure and confuse. He paints himself as one who has done this in a spirit of “evangelization,” and his “field of mission work” happened to include the confirmed Gnostics and Theosophists with whom he frequently intermingled.

As an example of his prior “mission work,” in this disappeared-then-reappeared video Coulombe mentions how his articles in the occult Gnosis magazine brought into the Church a few converts, but what he doesn’t say is how many Catholics lost the Faith by reading articles there that presented topics like Freemasonry, Wicca, Kabbalah, Magic, and Gnosticism in a favorable light, even in articles that he wrote! [48]

At one point he boasts: “I know how to read Tarot cards, do it better than most people.” He is quick to add, though, that he doesn’t believe in their ability to unerringly predict the future so as to deny free will, and says he considers them to be as worthless as fortune cookies. He follows that by admitting that “from time to time I have indeed ‘read the cards'” — here he makes the air quote sign — “with groups of friends of mine who are interested in such things.” He states that his purpose in doing so was “part entertainment, part…I hope…evangelization; no divination on my part, no real conjuration….” He also refers to it as a “magic act.”

Coulombe goes so far as to say, correctly, that believing in Tarot cards having such power is a sin, and that he isn’t promoting them. While that all sounds good, what he doesn’t satisfactorily explain is how his active participation in these annual events, where his host (the avowed Gnostic Stephan Hoeller, whom we shall discuss in some detail in Part Three of this study) took the readings seriously enough to call them divination, didn’t in some way serve as a promotion of the event. At no time does he preface his remarks by making it clear that he disagrees with such a characterization of the reading, though he concurs with it also being done for “fun.”

How he attempts to defend his presence at the Tarot readings is by explaining that it is a method to evangelize those occultists in attendance — he speaks of them being “very well-educated” and “very articulate,” attributes which unfortunately also apply to Satan, although that isn’t to say that all occultists are consciously worshipping the devil — that is unique to this group and tailored to their mindset, whereas a different approach would be used for others:

When you’re trying to convert a rationalist, what do you start with? You don’t start with the supernatural aspect of the Faith, you start with the fact that the Faith — the Catholic Church — invented [the] scientific method, invented the rationality that we enjoy now, really.… When you’ve got, on the other hand, a Protestant, an Evangelical, then you lead with the fact that the Church created the Bible, that’s what you start with. When you’re dealing with people of this sort [i.e., occultists], you start with the Church, the Sacraments, and mysticism.

At first glance this seems reasonable enough in theory, but there are a couple of fatal flaws that come sharply into focus when Coulombe’s application of this in the real world is scrutinized:

1. Exactly how does sitting around a table pretending to prognosticate with a deck of Tarot cards, a practice he concedes that at best is silly, and at worst a sin, equate to bringing the light of our beloved Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to those still enshrouded in the darkness of superstition? Did he forget that this is supposed to be a path to evangelization and not just entertainment? Well, he does put them in what seems to be his order of importance, when he puts the desire to entertain ahead of the desire to convert.
2. Why has he chosen for his mission field a literally accursed venue, as it also serves as the worship space for the blasphemous Gnostic “Mass,” where Our Lord is referred to as “one of the High Aeons of the Fullness,” with Jesus being only “the earthly manifestation of Christ, the celestial Aeon,” and His Blessed Mother, the Immaculate Virgin Mary, degraded into Lady Sophia, another “high Aeon of the Fullness,” no longer His Mother, but simply “His close associate (Sister Aeon or Twin Aeon),” who takes on “a great and holy emanated aspect (HYPOSTASIS) of God”? Regardless of whether a “Mass” is taking place, a mere Tarot reading or any other befouled event, no Catholic truly worthy of the name should ever set foot in such a den of iniquity, unless it’s a priest performing an exorcism. Apparently, Coulombe didn’t get the memo. If the conversion of these wretched souls was of such great importance to him, he could have easily arranged to meet them at some other place far away from there; if, however, entertainment was foremost on his mind, then such a consideration wouldn’t have been important. Let us pray that his pledge to abandon such activities wasn’t merely for show; or, if it was, that he now genuinely amend his ways, because, to paraphrase the closing of some of his videos: The soul he saves may be his own.

Coulombe issues a typical “if I caused offense, I apologize” dubious mea culpa, the force of which is considerably lessened by use of the qualifier “if,” because he doesn’t really acknowledge any wrongdoing, but rather puts the onus upon the perception of others. Similarly, he shifts away from his problematic activities by essentially chiding viewers to quit criticizing him unless they themselves are evangelizing friends and others in their sphere of influence, a rhetorical tactic of deflection similar to that known as tu quoque [49].

But there’s one more removed-then-recovered video that needs to be reviewed briefly, one that’s even more damaging to the claims Charles Coulombe has made concerning missionary work, and one that his anonymous priest friend instructed him to pull from the channel. It was originally entitled: “I am not an Occultist” [50].

Let’s pause for a moment to consider how strange it is that a man who has, in large part, spent a career spanning decades as a putative traditional Catholic writer and lecturer — a veritable “voice of the Church”, as some would have it — is obliged to defend himself against well-founded concerns that he is involved with Gnosticism, Perennialism, and occultism, all of which are as completely at odds with orthodox Catholicism as could be imagined. It does not serve his cause well to begin the video by trivializing the concerns with hands held up to his head, wiggling his fingers and letting out a ghostly “Woooo!” when the word “occultist” is uttered, as if to say to his viewers, “I don’t take any of what follows seriously, and neither should you.” A little later, he jokingly inverts Christ’s admonition in Matthew 10:16 by remarking that he’s “innocent as a serpent, and as wise as a dove”, and he does the same with Our Lord’s warning about false prophets in Matthew 7:15, saying he’s “a sheep in wolf’s clothing” — getting tangled up in his attempt at humor.

Coulombe then gets serious, positing that the term “occultist” is to be taken according to who is defining it, so it can mean anything from a person who “traffics with the dark powers or theorizes thereabout,” to “ceremonial magicians [sic]”, to someone interested in “the philosophical theorizing behind the Occult Revival of the 19th century”, which he “admit[s] does interest me, and here I will stand guilty as charged.”

In Part Three of this article, we’ll delve into Coulombe’s interest in the French and British Occult Revivals, respectively.

________________

ENDNOTES

[1] Stephan A. Hoeller, The Royal Road: A Manual of Kabalistic Meditations on the Tarot (Wheaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1975), pp. 12, 13.

[2] Sebastian Morello, Mysticism, Magic, and Monasteries: Recovering the Sacred Mystery at the Heart of Reality (Lincoln, NE: Os Justi Press, 2024), p. 4; italics given. (Hereafter abbreviated as MM&M.) On a related side note, we find this question and answer from Radio Replies (vol. 2, n. 1083) concerning the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel: “1083. Now I ask you, do you believe, as a man and a priest, that a scapular has such magic power? I certainly do not believe that a scapular has any magic power. Nor does any Catholic. Nevertheless, I myself wear a brown scapular, and hope to benefit by its blessings.“

[3] Charles Coulombe, “The Esoteric Orthodoxy of Catholicism,” Gnosis, no. 16 (Summer 1990), p. 39.

[4] “The Grimoire of Pope Honorius”, Wikipedia.

[5] The names Jannes and Mambres aren’t found in Exodus, but in 2 Timothy 3:8, where they are described as having “resisted Moses,” and in a gloss for the epistle are further described as “The magicians of king Pharao.”

[6] The City of God, Book X, Chapter 9; italics added.

[7] “Theurgy”, Wikipedia; italics added.

[8] “Theurgy”, Wikipedia. Needless to say, this view is at complete odds with the concept of true Catholic mysticism, but it is in line with that which is proposed in MM&M — at least in theory, and very possibly, even in practice for Sebastian Morello and his familiar Pico.

[9] See search term “theurgy” in Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism.

[10] Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis.

[11] “Condemnation of Twelve Propositions pertaining to the Philosophy of Action”, Novus Ordo Watch.

[12] Peter J. Bernardi, S.J., “Maurice Blondel: Precursor of the Second Vatican Council”, Josephinum Journal of Theology, 22, 1 & 2: 59-77 (2015). Retrieved from Loyola eCommons.

[13] John Vennari, “A Short Catechism on the New Theology”, Catholic Apologetics. More on Blondel, including “Pope” Francis’s admiration for him, can be found in Roberto de Mattei’s study, “The Roots and Historical Consequences of Modernism”, OnePeterFive.

[14] J. M. Ciraulo (2024), “Theurgy in Modernity: Maurice Blondel’s Liturgical Phenomenology”, Duquesne Studies in Phenomenology, 4 (1).

[15] Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 95, a. 2, respondeo.

[16] Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 95, a. 3, respondeo.

[17] Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 95, a. 4, respondeo.

[18] Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, at earlychristianwritings.com. By “philtres” are meant love potions. The referencing of magic and potions as evils grouped with abortion and infanticide is something that has carried over throughout the centuries, even to the present day. The Satanic Temple even has abortion as one of its “sacraments.” One of the most sensational scandals during the reign of King Louis XIV combined an astonishing number of esoteric practices into a witch’s brew of crime that saw thousands — including infants — murdered and scores of the perpetrators either executed (36), sentenced to life imprisonment (55), or otherwise punished in what was referred to as affaire des poisons. The list of horrific offenses included poisonings, abortions (presumably, through herbal abortifacient potions), black masses featuring child sacrifices, magic, and witchcraft, along with lesser misdeeds like alchemy, astrology, palm reading and other forms of fortune telling, although these latter activities sometimes dovetailed with the more serious crimes. (See “Affair of the Poisons”, Wikipedia).

[19] “Pope Pius I”, Wikipedia. See also “Pope St. Pius I”, Catholic Encyclopedia.

[20] Church Fathers: St. Justin Martyr, The First Apology, at newadvent.org. The characterization of Jesus as a magician predates St. Justin’s writings, and can be found in the Gospel account of Our Lord freeing a man from demonic possession: “But the Pharisees hearing it, said: This man casteth not out the devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils” (Matthew 12:24). This was noted by St. Justin in a work written a few years after his First Apology, in which he states: “But though they saw such works, they asserted it was magical art. For they dared to call Him a magician, and a deceiver of the people” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 69). Here a bit of clarification is required, because magic isn’t per se condemned by Jews, as is evident from its presence in the Kabbalah and its foundational texts such as the Zohar, grimoires — or spellbooks like Sefer HaRazim (Hebrew: ספר הרזים; “Book of Secrets”), The Key of Solomon, and The Book of Abramelin (an English translation of the latter of these became a primary source for the ceremonial magic of the Golden Dawn and Aleister Crowley), along with the legend of the golems, which supposedly were clay figures molded into human form and brought to life Kabbalistically by godlike rabbis, who placed slips of paper with letters from the Hebrew alphabet in its mouth or on its forehead as part of a magical ritual. However, the same tradition alleges that only black magic was performed by Jesus and His followers. The Talmud, rabbinical Judaism’s central text, has perpetuated the Pharisees’ calumny down through the ages, weaving it into a vile fiction about how Jesus was the illegitimate offspring of Mary and a Roman soldier, and refers to Him as Yeshu ben Pantera, which has been translated by some as “Jesus, son of Pantera”, but Yeshu has a darker meaning. The normal spelling of “Jesus” is Yeshua, but when the “a” is omitted, it can become “an acronym for the formula ימח שמו וזכרו(נו)‎ (Yimach Shemo V’Zichro[no]), meaning ‘may his name and memory be obliterated’“. (“Yeshu”, Wikipedia.; italics added). It will be recalled that the painting “Pope” Francis called his favorite, Jewish artist Marc Chagall’s blasphemous White Crucifixion, uses Yeshu instead of Yeshua for the Hebrew title written on the superscription above Christ’s head. This is even noted in the article on the subject from the National Catholic Reporter, a publication in no way favorably disposed to Catholic tradition, and written by a Jewish reporter. When, in times past, it became expedient for them to publicly pretend to disavow the tale due to the justified outrage encountered in Catholic nations, rabbis would resort to claiming it was a different Jesus who was mentioned. However, living in Israel and thus freed from any constraints to state the truth in this regard, a retired professor of Hebrew, Esor Ben-Sorek, writing in 2017 for The Times of Israel, penned an article entitled “Pantera’s prodigy”, in which he sets forth the claim that the Talmudic version is a credible true narrative of Christ’s life, one in which “his miracles were considered Egyptian magic which he may have learned in his childhood in Egypt.” (See also “Jesus in the Talmud”, Wikipedia.) In 1978, Morton Smith, a Columbia University professor wrote a defamatory book, Jesus the Magician, in which he recycled the arguments of the Pharisees and the 2nd-century pagan philosopher Celsus, who was refuted by Origen (see “Jesus the Magician”, Wikipedia). Smith developed part of his claim on the controversial so-called Secret Gospel of Mark, a purported “mystical” elaboration of the New Testament book that is widely believed to be a forgery (possibly by Smith himself) or, if authentic, to be of the same class of ancient codices as the texts that were rejected by the Church as not being divinely inspired and heretical, as was the case with the other various Gnostic gospels. Smith obtained a Ph.D. from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where his professors included the Kabbalist Gershom Scholem, with whom he studied Jewish mysticism and magic. “Bishop” Stephan Hoeller (1931-2026), a very close associate of MM&M‘s Charles Coulombe who self-identified as a “Christian Gnostic”, had no problem with the authenticity of Smith’s esoteric find: “Gnostic scriptures, such as The Bruce Codex, The Gospel of Mary and The Secret Gospel of Mark indicate that Jesus Himself practiced Sacred Magic”, we read in an overview of his lecture schedule posted at the web site of The Gnostic Society (see “March 2006: Magic and Gnosis”).

[21] Cited in Roger Pearse, “Roman Attitudes to Magic”, roger-pearse.com. Although a pagan, certain of Paulus’ teachings are quite consistent with sound Catholic thought: “Natural is what is always fair and good” (he condemned infanticide and sodomy as unnatural acts) and “The burden of proof rests with who asserts, not who denies” (this presumption of innocence is still a cornerstone precept in both canon law and civil law). See “Latin quotes by Paulus”, latin-phrases.dechile.net.

[22] Roger Pearse, “Roman Attitudes to Magic”, roger-pearse.com. A haruspex was one who practiced divination by the inspection of the entrails of sacrificed animals. “The enemies of the human race” — as seen already in PART ONE, this is essentially the language that was used by Pope Innocent VIII in his condemnation of Pico’s book, where he singled out a proposition that sought “to lend respectability to certain arts that are hostile to the Catholic Faith and injurious to the human race—arts most sharply condemned by their own canons and by the doctrines of the Catholic doctors.”

[23] “Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314)”, newadvent.org. So-called lustrations are pagan purification rituals.

[24] “Canon Episcopi”, Wikipedia.

[25] “Super Illius Specula”, Wikipedia. Translation by DeepL.com. The full text of the papal bull can be found in the Bullarium Romanum, vol. IV (1857), p. 316.

[26] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, translated by Theodore Alois Buckley (London: George Routledge and Co., 1851), p. 287.

[27] “Pope Gregory XV”, Wikipedia.

[28] Edward N. Peters, ed., The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2001).

[29] The Rev. P. Chas. Augustine, O.S.B., A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Volume VI: Administrative Law (Can. 1154–1551) (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1921), p. 473.

[30] Although a text from 1975 appearing on the Vatican’s website must come with a necessary caveat, the study Christian Faith and Demonology nevertheless has some value, given its very thorough examination of the unrelenting position of the Church against magic, divination, and kindred dark arts through the centuries.

[31] In his celebrated Studies in Church History, Fr. Reuben Parsons, to whom Pope Leo XIII sent a brief of commendation for his zeal in defending the Church and the Holy See, wrote how, according to one of the condemned theses, “Christ confided, in secrecy, certain truths to His disciples, and the knowledge of these truths is the great foundation of our faith, and this knowledge can be acquired, insisted Pico, only by means of the Cabala” (vol. III, 3rd ed. [Philadelphia, PA: John Joseph McVey, 1896], p. 201). Fr. Parsons also noted that there was something false about the recantations: “…although Pico repeatedly protested his submission to the Church, he really substituted himself for the Church when he defined and explained dogma by means of Hebrew or the Cabala” (p. 201). Thus, the elusive “explanations” frequently employed today by Morello and his fellow travelers are very much in keeping with Pico’s evasiveness.

[32] “The Trojan Horse of the SSPX-Vatican Negotiations”, Novus Ordo Watch.

[33] Bp. Richard Williamson, “‘Greek Gifts’ – II”, Eleison Comments, Aug. 27, 2011. “Newchurch” is a neologism coined by Bp. Williamson as more or less synonymous with the post-Vatican II religion.

[34] MM&M, p. 52; italics given.

[35] “The Esoteric Orthodoxy of Catholicism,” Gnosis, no. 16 (Summer 1990), p. 39. The gist of his article is given thus on the Contents page: “Appreciating traditional Catholicism from an esoteric perspective.” It encapsulates the attempt to attain an unholy melding that also is found in Morello’s book, and having been written some 36 years ago, it shows Coulombe’s dogged commitment to a theological position that is incompatible with orthodoxy.

[36] “Charles A. Coulombe”, Wikipedia.

[37] “Charles A. Coulombe”, Wikipedia. While both the order and the knighthood are of Catholic origin, as the Sylvestrine Order dates back to 1841, the conferral by Karol Wojtyla (“Pope” John Paul II) can scarcely be regarded as legitimate or efficacious. See “Order of St. Sylvester”, Wikipedia.

[38] Rosemary Ellen Guiley, ed., Fate Presents Werewolves and Dogmen (New Milford, CT: Visionary Living, Inc., 2017).

[39] Coulombe should be warned that in describing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as “magic”, he is placing himself in bad — no, make that the worst — company. First and foremost of these perverters of the sacred was Simon Magus, the sorcerer mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, famed with the residents of Samaria, “who had bewitched them with his magical practices” (Acts 8:11). After seeing the great miracles wrought by the Apostles through the power of the Holy Ghost, Simon wished to gain this gift to increase his own, and offered to buy it, at which point St. Peter rebuked him for his wickedness of heart. See Acts 8:9–24.

[40] “I am not gnostic”, Tumblar House (YouTube), Aug. 2, 2017.

[41] “Clement of Alexandria”, Wikipedia. Clement’s luster as a saint was tarnished when his feast was removed from the calendar when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Pope Clement VIII, a decision that was upheld by a later pope, Benedict XIV. Among the reasons cited: “…some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least suspect” (“Clement of Alexandria”, Catholic Encyclopedia), such as his apparent rejection of the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So, perhaps he wasn’t quite the ideal source for Coulombe to use.

[42] “I am not a Perennialist”, Tumblar House (YouTube), Aug. 1, 2017.

[43] Theresa, “What is Perennialism and Why Should We Know About It?”, True Restoration, Apr. 5, 2021.

[44] “Theosophical Society Seal”, Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.

[45] “Charles Obliges a Priest’s Request”, Tumblar House (YouTube), Apr. 14, 2021. (Interjections such as ah, uh, and um in exchanges with his co-host have been omitted in the transcription for the sake of smoother readability.)

[46] See “Non-apology”, Wikipedia.

[47] “Sir Charles Responds to the Uncultured and Unenlightened Catholics”, Sir Charles (Vimeo), Apr. 14, 2021. Co-host Vincent Frankini admits that certain episodes (presumably including that one, and one more to be covered) he has “strategically left unmarked, so that only actual fans of the show and Charles would see and understand, whereas the hate-watchers would not see that because they don’t actually watch or enjoy Charles, they just seek to destroy….” Was the decision to take certain videos down from the Tumblar House playlist indicative of a cancel-culture-style silencing of criticism, where it’s curated to allow only those the channel deems “safe” to have access, thus precluding any tough questions that may otherwise show up in the comments section, the kind of questions that make one wonder if Coulombe is really being sincere in his purported efforts to defend traditional Catholicism?

[48] Published from 1985–1999, Gnosis magazine had close ties to the Theosophical Society through the Lumen Foundation. One of its editors, Richard Smoley, is currently the editor of Quest: Journal of the Theosophical Society in America.

[49] “Tu quoque, literally ‘you, too’, is a rhetorical technique that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by attacking the opponent’s own personal behaviour and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent appears hypocritical” (“Tu quoque”, Wikipedia).

[50] “Sir Charles explains that he isn’t an Occultist”, Sir Charles (Vimeo), Apr. 16, 2021.