Note: Monday’s posts are usually paywalled, but due to the importance of this post and the discussion to which it contributes, I am making it freely available to all readers.—PAK
Sebastian Morello has published a further response to a host of critics, touching on Hermeticism, natural religion, Perennialism, magic, re-enchantment, and Pico della Mirandola, among other topics. Those who have been following the polemics of Michael Warren Davis, Thomas Mirus, Sean Wright, Chris Jackson, and Alistair McFadden won't want to miss it.
This exchange has been rather like watching a small nimble man with a stiletto (MWD) dueling with a big strong man armed with a large hammer (Morello). Morello was bound to win in the end (and with the 1P5 article he has done it) but MWD has given him the runaround very skillfully.
I remain curious about whether there is any substance behind that article by Alistair McFadden. Perhaps it is obvious to those in the know that there is not, but it's enough to make some of us uneasy. Given how much attention the "re-enchantment" debate is receiving I think it would be sensible for someone to clarify that question.
I finished the Alistair McFadden series (which was written in 2021 before this week’s drama). Dr. Kwasniewski, the series he wrote is worth reading and he raises valid concerns that are very worthy of discussion, and I hope someone like Dr. Morello or you will do so. My hope is that the danger he points to is admitted — the serpent is crafty — while at the same time, you can show Catholics how to respond without being reactionary or going on a witch hunt. Of particular interest to me is how Catholics ought to approach heretical thought in a different way than pagan thought, and yet still allow it to be the occasion of clarifying truth.
I read it a while ago when it first came out. It's full of half-truths and lack of understanding. The finesse of a sledgehammer. There are a few criticisms of individual figures or books that I would agree with, of course.
This isn't a convincing rebuttal to a layman. Reading McFadden's article, the impression one gets is that occultism, or at best dangerous tolerance for occultism, is flourishing at the heart of the traditionalist Catholic intellectual world.
These accusations are serious, completely discrediting if true. If they're false, they deserve a serious response.
Davis’ initial attack read like a shallow, simplistic reactionary Protestant tract to me. And yet I understand the power simplistic errors can have on souls. I was under the spell of such thinking when I spent more time online than in prayer, and it only bred confusion, restlessness, pain, and moral failure in moving me away from charity. I’m the sort who is smart enough to terribly confuse myself but not smart enough to sort out my confusions…The knee-jerk Protestant errors that show up at every turn these days — in secularism, in Orthodoxy (especially American Orthodoxy), in Novus Ordo Catholicism, in traditional Catholic online culture — is head spinning. But especially when they emerge in Orthodox and Catholic circles, the toll they take is much heavier. As St. Ignatius teaches, when a soul becomes religious, the enemy switches tactics and tempts us with a distorted piety as a way to enslave. And the slavery he inflicts there is terribly cruel.
Your work, Dr. Morello, has helped me navigate through that and given me space to breathe where otherwise I felt suffocated by conflicting errors. When I’m not enjoying the simple, clarifying light of consolation, the confusions I have around salvation for lost souls and yet trust in the perfection of Providence rage a terrible war in me. The reality that souls can be lost and are by default outside of grace, read through error, turns me into a fundamentalist Baptist more than a Catholic. Trust in Providence, read through error, turns me into a soft sentimentalist & presumptuous universalist. All of the above gets enmeshed in my own personal pride and anxieties and curiosities, and creates a hellish turmoil.
Your work, its themes, and the way you speak of the nature and supernature distinction — with such subtly, carefully drawing distinctions, and at the same time inspiring humility and wonder — you bring me relief in the battle. I’m left wanting to pray and rest more than think and wrestle. The peace you’ve helped me recover is unmistakably the peace of Christ. I pray the Lord continues to bless your work and that your sincere but misguided critics come to realize they are attacking a brother who is indeed laboring for Our Lord. At least for this soul, you’re a guiding light when things grow dark.
I suspect Davis has fallen prey to the all-too-common Orthodox mindset of "I will speak the contrary of the Catholic position no matter where it leads me." Perhaps his next step will be to denounce the fundamental errors of "the Franks" and join in the Greek chorus against the manifest errors of the heretical neo-platonic philosopher Augustine of Hippo. For those of us who have heard it all before, it is oh-so-tiresome. Thank you Sebastian Morello for your robust refutation of this un-Christian assault on truth (and your good name).
Since when is a critical book review an 'un-Christian assault on truth'? Davis has a right to express his view, and Morello has a right to respond. This is what being a writer is all about. No need to take everything as some kind of personal assault.
It's one thing to critique or even excoriate someone's writing; it's another thing to accuse someone of promoting anti-Christianity to the extent of being in league with satan. It's the difference between a harsh charity and doing the devil's work for him. I think some of the animus on display in Davis's attack stems from the nature of Orthodox anti-Catholic polemics, with which I (as someone formerly Orthodox) have some familiarity.
Davis wrote a response today to Morello's response, which is also worth reading. I don't think his motivation is anything to do with 'Orthodox anti-Catholic polemics.' Davis's whole argument, rightly or wrongly, is that Morello is *not* being Catholic. What he is worried about is the intrusion of magic into the Church. Davis is a former occultist, and so is clearly very sensitive to this particular danger. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on whether he's right or not.
Thank you. While I try to avoid getting sucked into these online disputes, I may (time-permitting) have a look. As to the issue of magic, I wholeheartedly agree. While I was never lured into the actual practice of magic, I was influenced in my youth by Dungeons & Dragons, etc. That was in the 1970s. Had I been a youth in the 21st Century it is quite possible I would have been drawn deeper into evil. It is one thing for a pagan culture with magical practices to encounter Christ; it is another thing entirely for a post-Christian society to be allured by magic.
I think there is some misunderstanding. I revere St. Augustine as a model of faith and Doctor of the Church. However, some in Eastern Orthodox circles have reviled him and even suggested he was a heretic. Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote a book to partly refute that assertion. Re-reading your comment, I think you may be under the assumption that I am a devotee of hermeticism, which I am not. I don't defend it; I don't think Morello is advocating for magic. If he was, I would join Davis in condemning him. As I commented elsewhere, as a teen I read widely in fantasy literature, some of it good (Tolkien), and some of it not. I also played Dungeons & Dragons. Thankfully neither activity nudged me into more esoteric pursuits, so I am on guard against such paths. Finally, I have no animus against Orthodox people; I do have no tolerance for the common tropes of Orthodox polemics.
All I meant to point out to you is that Davis is the one defending St. Augustine’s legacy in this respect, contra what I thought was your rather uncharitable assumption about his motives. It was rather low hanging fruit, so I apologize if it was a bit too snarky.
My snark-detector was not set off. It is (for me at least) difficult to "read" comments sans a physical interlocutor. In my own experience as a one-time student of Orthodox thought, Augustine is problematic to the East. If only he had ever mastered Greek!
It turns out that the kind of magic Morello advocates—as his book makes clear—is not subversive of orthodoxy but of modernity: it is the Christian life understood as “absorption into the cosmic liturgy of the created order, reflected and redeemed by the bridal liturgy of the Church” (12).
Let us heed Morello’s call: “I invite the reader, then, to join me in re-enchanting the world; not by projecting some romantic and vague notion of spirituality onto the world by an act of sheer will, but by genuine liberation from the black magic of modernity” (12).
Lovely--but, of course, the best thing you can say after arguing with an idiot, is that you won an argument with an idiot. I will have a kind of response later this week.
Much of this misunderstanding could be avoided by them actually reading Tomberg's book, since you are inspired by his works. Despite some major errors (such as the one about reincarnation), he explains perfectly in chapter three the difference between sacred magic and personal/collective magic. Sacred magic is simply the union of one's will with that of God, unlike personal/collective magic, which is performed solely by the will of the operators. You may be repulsed by this language, but at least understand what it is about before attacking. And even Jonathan Pageau acknowledged in X that Tomberg's definition of magic is "excellent and succinct". Will they throw him into the fire too?
You know you can apply discernment to what you read, right? Tomberg certainly has some heterodox ideas, and this has been commented on many times by Catholic authors who have read his work (such as Urs von Balthasar, Stratford Caldecott, Roger Buck, etc.). He also has many glimpses of brilliance. You don't need to read him if you want to stay safe from the lingering errors of Anthroposophy and other esoteric currents. His book is not the catechism, but it has helped many people to come out of the New Age and become converts.
Tomberg's commentary on reincarnation amounts to this: he speaks on something, and only rather briefly, that he says comes from a place of experience that he could not, as it stood, explain in any other way. He was simply speaking from a place conscientious honesty. And that coupled with multiple statements advocating for, and encouraging the faithful in fidelity to, the Church's magisterium.
If someone wants to throw away a treasure trove of profound insight because of their spiritual immaturity in fear of scandalizing themselves, that is their choice in doing so, but don't presume to insist that everyone else must do the same.
Yes, of course, reincarnation is nonsense, first and foremost from a philosophical point of view. Aristotle demonstrated that in the "De Anima." But I too read Tomberg in college and he helped me a great deal to arrive at a much deeper understanding of the Faith than I had ever been equipped with from parishes or schools. I saw his deficiencies, but they paled in comparison to what I received thanks to his humble, luminous witness to the Divine Lover. Tomberg was a remarkable convert whose (relatively few) errors do not detract from the splendor of his insights.
Reincarnation is a pretty big error though. Forgive me Dr. Kwasniewski but if someone believes in reincarnation that is indicative of a highly disordered understanding of reality and I would be extremely wary of whatever else is in their corpus.
That's like saying "Denying the Trinity and the Incarnation are pretty big errors, so Aquinas should never have bothered with Averroes, Avicenna, Maimonides, and Proclus."
The point is that you can read books that contains errors and distinguish them from the good parts, as the Church always did with Plato, for example. Tomberg has brilliant passages mixed with bad mistakes and you can discern them.
What exactly are you trying to prove here? I clearly stated in my original post that the idea of reincarnation is an error, so obviously I don't adhere to it. But you can read books include it and disagree, what is the issue?
The whole "we don’t need to look outside of the Christian tradition" assumption is nothing but cultural Monophysitism. People who hold to it look at Christian doctrine as if it were the monolith of Space Odyssey, a material fallen on Earth from deep space without any possible relation to life on this planet. Just like Christ is both God AND Man in one person, so human wisdom has always been assumed and "baptized" by Christianity to help express divine mysteries in words we could understand. One could expect such approach from some Protestant sects, that are anti-cultural by design, or from Islam; but from an Orthodox it comes as a surprise.
As to the matter at hand, I suggested to Davis exploring the chapter "The higher religion of Hellenism: Hermetic literature" from Charles Dodd's excellent commentary on the Forth Gospel. That chapter alone - and the many points of contacts with John's theology highlighted there - would perhaps have suggested a more prudent approach.
Sometimes I think there is such a thing as a Catholic brain.
Often converts from rationalistic/material ideologies seem to retain a Puritanism, as in a purity test in which all non-rational things are viewed with suspicion and considered heretical and worthy of a burning at the stake.
I am grateful to have read your thoughtful response.
Accusing Catholicism of saying something it says the opposite of is a core part of Orthodox polemics in general, in my experience.
For instance, rather than admit that Catholic mysticism and Orthodox mysticism have anything in common, some of the Orthodox at times insinuate that Catholic mysticism is subject to spiritual deception because, allegedly, we don't have the experience of God and are therefore relying on imagination. Nevermind that the Church, at least historically, has stringent standards for assessing private revelation and cautioned people not to run off with it. Nevermind that the Catholic mystics would warn you not to get attached to "sensible" devotion (that is, able to be sensed, not "sensible" as in "common sense" or reasonable), which includes the imagination, the emotions, consolations etc. Nevermind that any role of the imagination goes away along with consolation you can feel, in the dark night etc. as everyone who reads Ss. John of the Cross & Theresa of Avila (or better yet, follows their path in prayer) talks about. (Also, as far as experiencing God: nevermind that the experience of Christ is primarily through the Sacraments/Mysteries, not through self-emptying spiritualism in isolation from the context of those means of grace; mysticism, prayer of the heart, "contemplation" etc. are only possible because of the Sacraments; and the Catholic Church has the Sacraments and the Orthodox, though they call them by another word, generally do not dispute that.) Obviously Catholics don't believe what Catholics say they believe about mysticism, they believe what Orthodox say Catholics believe about mysticism, right?
Or consider how, to hear certain Orthodox tell it, all the Catholic "errors" come from Aristotle… Even though they know themselves that most of the points of Catholic theology they dispute come from Augustine, who was more Platonic than Aristotelian if you're going to insist on categorizing that Church Father according to pagan philosophers – which is frankly dubious anyway, it's not like Augustine teaches Platonism. And even though in his own time Thomas Aquinas was considered suspect just for including Aristotle among the many Christian and non-Christian thinkers whose ideas he cited, since at the time Aristotle was still a big no-no (despite what later Thomists would have you believe). And even though, ultimately, Catholics only believe in taking ideas from either Plato or Aristotle – those who do at all, anyway! – where Plato or Aristotle are compatible with the revealed Faith, and (I say as evidence that we practice what we preach, on this point) you simply won't hear about most of the kookier stuff of either one from most Catholics even among the philosophically educated. Not to mention that for half a millennium Orthodoxy was still in communion with Catholicism despite these Augustinian developments that are now being condemned as Aristotelian. No, better to just say the Catholic Church has always subscribed to Aristotelianism and not ask what Catholicism historically thought on the matter; that's the polemicist's way of refuting/persuading.
Anyhow, there's not much point arguing with people who won't read what you actually say and don't believe you when you tell them you don't think what they say you think.
This was a very helpful reply—thank you. I had not heard of Morello or his book until I saw it criticized by Davis and Mirus. I was especially struck by the latter’s claim on twitter:
“A prominent traditionalist press has published a book advocating the practice of ‘Hermetic magic.’ This is part of an alarming trend of trad intellectuals dabbling in the occult and non-Catholic spiritual traditions.”
Since my conversion in 2018, I’ve attended the Traditional Latin Mass and have been closely involved in the traditionalist world. While I do not apply the label to myself, I know many who embrace it without hesitation. I have never once encountered a traditionalist who dabbles in the occult or advocates magic. Far from being a trend, I cannot recall one instance of it, except hearing today about Charles Coulombe reading tarot cards, which is admittedly very strange if true. (I have never read or interacted with Coulombe, and if he is some kind of traditionalist representative, no one told me.)
As for Davis, I am familiar with his polemics against Catholicism—including his distorted portrayal of Newman. His critiques are shallow and confused: riddled with half-truths, historical errors, suggestive insinuations, or logical leaps. They closely resemble the arguments of another author whom he has likely read and with whom I engage here: https://controversiam.substack.com/t/whelton-review.
So while disappointing, it is not at all surprising if Davis failed to read Morello carefully—or at all—or simply misrepresents him.
Mirus's article was a spectacular example of a man totally out of his depth - the kind of person who would see C.S. Lewis's mention of "deeper magic" and throw the book across the room, as a piece of corrosive pagan literature.
Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory. Thomas Mirus’s article vibrates with the energy of someone who has discovered a giant underground esoteric movement among traditionalist voices. He has connected the dots, found the bodies, sounded the alarm and alerted the public. What a hero!
In any case, if people wish to take their bearings from a trio of sedevacantists, a Catholic apostate to Orthodoxy, and a fairly unremarkable commentator with a bachelor’s in jazz piano, they are certainly free to do so; but in so doing, they will waste their time chasing an imaginary conspiracy and a ghost heresy. (It’s a striking coincidence, by the way, that four of these individuals—Davis, Mirus, Wright, and Jackson—had detailed studies on “occultism” ready to publish within a few hours of each other—looks like it might be a concerted effort among self-appointed guardians of doctrinal purity, in spite of being such strange bedfellows!)
I hope to address this topic further in the future.
Strange bedfellows indeed. Did Mirus read the book? I can't recall exactly, but he seemed to have used the criticisms of Davis, not his own from reading the book.
Also, Kingsnorth piled on? The same man who wrote of St. Patrick,
> He left us an island whose monks, as Cahill demonstrates, took into themselves, copied and kept alive all of classical and Christian learning in the face of barbarian fires. He left us a leafy, wet, strange and magical Christianity, entwined with the spirit of this Atlantic island.
>
> And he left us a hymn, a song which to me speaks of the mystic, green spirit of true Irish - and British - Christianity still. St Patrick’s Breastplate, they call it; or sometimes The Deer’s Cry. It is a prayer, an incantation, a chant, a spell. Sixteen centuries later - well, it is still quite something. Try speaking it aloud to yourself, and then see what power swirls around you.
This is an excellent and thorough reply to obviously baseless criticisms. What more can be said in a blog comment? I just wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate Morello on an excellent book, which I have found to be particularly helpful for my own spiritual life, with no danger of slipping into heresy or syncretism, as he keeps his eye firmly on the Cross.
I congratulate you Dr. Morello on your appointment to Princeton... because we all know how much solid Catholic knowledge has come out of there in recent decades. In any case, your principal defense seems to be that you were 'only asking the question' which of course you answered in a perfectly orthodox manner. Except what actual believing Catholic would even need to ask the question of whether 'hermetic magic' could do anything beneficial for the Church?
This has been a tried and true tactic of our enemies for at least the last one hundred and fifty years. Put out a ridiculous question that has the grave potential to plant very damaging ideas in the minds of less educated would be faithful Catholics and then, the damage having been done, to feign to give an orthodox answer to said question in order to cover their tracks. Whether you were doing this or not is not something I am in a position to know, but I merely bring the matter up to point out that saying 'I was just asking a question...' is not an adequate defense.
And at no time did the ancient Church ever 'dialogue' with neoplatonism or astrology or the so called 'philosophy' of that age. From the time of Justin Martyr to the time of Gregory the Great it was one long stream of ridicule from the Church Fathers. Nor did they ever claim to have learned anything from these people.
When writing his first Apology, one of whose addressees was of all people Marcus Aurelius the so called 'philosopher king', during the middle of the second century long before Aquinas attempted to sanitize this 'philosophy' Justin Martyr yes does mention Plato several times since he is talking to unbelievers but his basic argument was that if there is anything good to be found in Plato it is because he stole it from Moses.
The gold and silver we looted from the pagan world were the ancient languages, Latin, Greek, Coptic, Syriac, etc., the political and legal structure of the Roman Empire, all of these things. Egyptian wisdom traditions? What are you even talking about there? All of this sounds like Joseph Campbell with a (very) thin Catholic veneer.
I am unfamiliar with the work and the criticisms received but the response I just listened to certainly resonates with the core of Classical Christian truth and the sacramental reality of God among us. I also fancy myself to be a Thomistic realist and view the battle against endarkenment shouting to be central to what our mission actually is. Material causation only gets you to the gateway of reason. So at least in the affirmation of my core instincts or inspirations, I thank the good author for the clarified uplift of his response for us lurking Thomists of the lower rank in robust accord with your erudite defense of our God and His religion. Many thanks for the many lifelong sacrifices that carried you here for us. May I increasingly follow the lead.
Are you willing to plainly state that worshiping saints is evil?
The reason I ask this counterquestion is to demonstrate the fallacy of your question.
The word "worship" in English can mean either adore or venerate. We do not adore saints, but we do venerate them.
Similarly, "magic" is an analogous term. This is why it is worthy of condemnation in one sense, but in another sense CS Lewis can talk about the "deeper magic of Aslan" and no one objects to him.
My takeaway is that you have not read Morello's essay and that it would benefit you to do so, because he shows why the term is analogous.
Is the statement "practicing magic is evil" incorrect? If so, are you or Sebastian Morello willing to explain why it is incorrect? I am not asking about whether or not it is prudent to use the word "magic" in an analogy, but about the accuracy of the statement "practicing magic is evil."
If by that statement you mean "practicing the magical arts as popularly understood is evil," then yes, absolutely, no question it is evil. Nor would Morello disagree; indeed, if you had read his article, you would know that already. If, however, Christian sacramental liturgy and blessings are, in a certain sense, a sacred magic, a deeper magic, then their practice is not only not evil but necessary for sanctification and salvation.
But why this focus on the word "magic", and Hermeticism? The stated advantages can all be found in the Eastern Christian tradition (this includes Eastern Catholicism).
There's a pile of gold sitting next to you guys in the church, and you're telling people to go looking for treasure in booby-trapped Egyptian tombs.
Davis should be aware that when a headline poses a yes/no question e.g. “Can Hermetic magic rescue the Church?” the answer is always NO. This rule is virtually iron-clad.
Sebastian Morello has published a further response to a host of critics, touching on Hermeticism, natural religion, Perennialism, magic, re-enchantment, and Pico della Mirandola, among other topics. Those who have been following the polemics of Michael Warren Davis, Thomas Mirus, Sean Wright, Chris Jackson, and Alistair McFadden won't want to miss it.
https://onepeterfive.com/to-achieve-clarity-to-avoid-scandal-some-statements-on-christian-re-enchantment/
This exchange has been rather like watching a small nimble man with a stiletto (MWD) dueling with a big strong man armed with a large hammer (Morello). Morello was bound to win in the end (and with the 1P5 article he has done it) but MWD has given him the runaround very skillfully.
I remain curious about whether there is any substance behind that article by Alistair McFadden. Perhaps it is obvious to those in the know that there is not, but it's enough to make some of us uneasy. Given how much attention the "re-enchantment" debate is receiving I think it would be sensible for someone to clarify that question.
I finished the Alistair McFadden series (which was written in 2021 before this week’s drama). Dr. Kwasniewski, the series he wrote is worth reading and he raises valid concerns that are very worthy of discussion, and I hope someone like Dr. Morello or you will do so. My hope is that the danger he points to is admitted — the serpent is crafty — while at the same time, you can show Catholics how to respond without being reactionary or going on a witch hunt. Of particular interest to me is how Catholics ought to approach heretical thought in a different way than pagan thought, and yet still allow it to be the occasion of clarifying truth.
I read it a while ago when it first came out. It's full of half-truths and lack of understanding. The finesse of a sledgehammer. There are a few criticisms of individual figures or books that I would agree with, of course.
This isn't a convincing rebuttal to a layman. Reading McFadden's article, the impression one gets is that occultism, or at best dangerous tolerance for occultism, is flourishing at the heart of the traditionalist Catholic intellectual world.
These accusations are serious, completely discrediting if true. If they're false, they deserve a serious response.
Would make a worthwhile podcast discussion to help us hammerheads out!
Davis’ initial attack read like a shallow, simplistic reactionary Protestant tract to me. And yet I understand the power simplistic errors can have on souls. I was under the spell of such thinking when I spent more time online than in prayer, and it only bred confusion, restlessness, pain, and moral failure in moving me away from charity. I’m the sort who is smart enough to terribly confuse myself but not smart enough to sort out my confusions…The knee-jerk Protestant errors that show up at every turn these days — in secularism, in Orthodoxy (especially American Orthodoxy), in Novus Ordo Catholicism, in traditional Catholic online culture — is head spinning. But especially when they emerge in Orthodox and Catholic circles, the toll they take is much heavier. As St. Ignatius teaches, when a soul becomes religious, the enemy switches tactics and tempts us with a distorted piety as a way to enslave. And the slavery he inflicts there is terribly cruel.
Your work, Dr. Morello, has helped me navigate through that and given me space to breathe where otherwise I felt suffocated by conflicting errors. When I’m not enjoying the simple, clarifying light of consolation, the confusions I have around salvation for lost souls and yet trust in the perfection of Providence rage a terrible war in me. The reality that souls can be lost and are by default outside of grace, read through error, turns me into a fundamentalist Baptist more than a Catholic. Trust in Providence, read through error, turns me into a soft sentimentalist & presumptuous universalist. All of the above gets enmeshed in my own personal pride and anxieties and curiosities, and creates a hellish turmoil.
Your work, its themes, and the way you speak of the nature and supernature distinction — with such subtly, carefully drawing distinctions, and at the same time inspiring humility and wonder — you bring me relief in the battle. I’m left wanting to pray and rest more than think and wrestle. The peace you’ve helped me recover is unmistakably the peace of Christ. I pray the Lord continues to bless your work and that your sincere but misguided critics come to realize they are attacking a brother who is indeed laboring for Our Lord. At least for this soul, you’re a guiding light when things grow dark.
I suspect Davis has fallen prey to the all-too-common Orthodox mindset of "I will speak the contrary of the Catholic position no matter where it leads me." Perhaps his next step will be to denounce the fundamental errors of "the Franks" and join in the Greek chorus against the manifest errors of the heretical neo-platonic philosopher Augustine of Hippo. For those of us who have heard it all before, it is oh-so-tiresome. Thank you Sebastian Morello for your robust refutation of this un-Christian assault on truth (and your good name).
Since when is a critical book review an 'un-Christian assault on truth'? Davis has a right to express his view, and Morello has a right to respond. This is what being a writer is all about. No need to take everything as some kind of personal assault.
It's one thing to critique or even excoriate someone's writing; it's another thing to accuse someone of promoting anti-Christianity to the extent of being in league with satan. It's the difference between a harsh charity and doing the devil's work for him. I think some of the animus on display in Davis's attack stems from the nature of Orthodox anti-Catholic polemics, with which I (as someone formerly Orthodox) have some familiarity.
Davis wrote a response today to Morello's response, which is also worth reading. I don't think his motivation is anything to do with 'Orthodox anti-Catholic polemics.' Davis's whole argument, rightly or wrongly, is that Morello is *not* being Catholic. What he is worried about is the intrusion of magic into the Church. Davis is a former occultist, and so is clearly very sensitive to this particular danger. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on whether he's right or not.
Thank you. While I try to avoid getting sucked into these online disputes, I may (time-permitting) have a look. As to the issue of magic, I wholeheartedly agree. While I was never lured into the actual practice of magic, I was influenced in my youth by Dungeons & Dragons, etc. That was in the 1970s. Had I been a youth in the 21st Century it is quite possible I would have been drawn deeper into evil. It is one thing for a pagan culture with magical practices to encounter Christ; it is another thing entirely for a post-Christian society to be allured by magic.
You know, then, that St. Augustine condemned Hermes Trismegistus (founder of Hermeticism) and his work in several chapters of City of God, I assume?
I think there is some misunderstanding. I revere St. Augustine as a model of faith and Doctor of the Church. However, some in Eastern Orthodox circles have reviled him and even suggested he was a heretic. Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote a book to partly refute that assertion. Re-reading your comment, I think you may be under the assumption that I am a devotee of hermeticism, which I am not. I don't defend it; I don't think Morello is advocating for magic. If he was, I would join Davis in condemning him. As I commented elsewhere, as a teen I read widely in fantasy literature, some of it good (Tolkien), and some of it not. I also played Dungeons & Dragons. Thankfully neither activity nudged me into more esoteric pursuits, so I am on guard against such paths. Finally, I have no animus against Orthodox people; I do have no tolerance for the common tropes of Orthodox polemics.
I recommend Morello's second reply, today at 1P5:
https://onepeterfive.com/to-achieve-clarity-to-avoid-scandal-some-statements-on-christian-re-enchantment/
Yes. I looked at it earlier and I think it should dispel (pun intended) erroneous interpretations of what he wrote.
All I meant to point out to you is that Davis is the one defending St. Augustine’s legacy in this respect, contra what I thought was your rather uncharitable assumption about his motives. It was rather low hanging fruit, so I apologize if it was a bit too snarky.
My snark-detector was not set off. It is (for me at least) difficult to "read" comments sans a physical interlocutor. In my own experience as a one-time student of Orthodox thought, Augustine is problematic to the East. If only he had ever mastered Greek!
> For those of us who have heard it all before, it is oh-so-tiresome.
Yes, but also so right.
Hear, hear! A superb reply.
It turns out that the kind of magic Morello advocates—as his book makes clear—is not subversive of orthodoxy but of modernity: it is the Christian life understood as “absorption into the cosmic liturgy of the created order, reflected and redeemed by the bridal liturgy of the Church” (12).
Let us heed Morello’s call: “I invite the reader, then, to join me in re-enchanting the world; not by projecting some romantic and vague notion of spirituality onto the world by an act of sheer will, but by genuine liberation from the black magic of modernity” (12).
Lovely--but, of course, the best thing you can say after arguing with an idiot, is that you won an argument with an idiot. I will have a kind of response later this week.
Hermetically yours,
Michael
You mean, a response to Thomas Mirus et al.? Please make sure you send me a link to it! professorkwasniewski (at) gmail.com
https://druidstaresback.substack.com/p/christian-hermeticism-for-dummies
Much of this misunderstanding could be avoided by them actually reading Tomberg's book, since you are inspired by his works. Despite some major errors (such as the one about reincarnation), he explains perfectly in chapter three the difference between sacred magic and personal/collective magic. Sacred magic is simply the union of one's will with that of God, unlike personal/collective magic, which is performed solely by the will of the operators. You may be repulsed by this language, but at least understand what it is about before attacking. And even Jonathan Pageau acknowledged in X that Tomberg's definition of magic is "excellent and succinct". Will they throw him into the fire too?
I love how you just glibly pass over the error about reincarnation like it was nothing... Wow.
You know you can apply discernment to what you read, right? Tomberg certainly has some heterodox ideas, and this has been commented on many times by Catholic authors who have read his work (such as Urs von Balthasar, Stratford Caldecott, Roger Buck, etc.). He also has many glimpses of brilliance. You don't need to read him if you want to stay safe from the lingering errors of Anthroposophy and other esoteric currents. His book is not the catechism, but it has helped many people to come out of the New Age and become converts.
Tomberg's commentary on reincarnation amounts to this: he speaks on something, and only rather briefly, that he says comes from a place of experience that he could not, as it stood, explain in any other way. He was simply speaking from a place conscientious honesty. And that coupled with multiple statements advocating for, and encouraging the faithful in fidelity to, the Church's magisterium.
If someone wants to throw away a treasure trove of profound insight because of their spiritual immaturity in fear of scandalizing themselves, that is their choice in doing so, but don't presume to insist that everyone else must do the same.
Reincarnation is not 'heterodox'. It is out and out paganism.
Yes, of course, reincarnation is nonsense, first and foremost from a philosophical point of view. Aristotle demonstrated that in the "De Anima." But I too read Tomberg in college and he helped me a great deal to arrive at a much deeper understanding of the Faith than I had ever been equipped with from parishes or schools. I saw his deficiencies, but they paled in comparison to what I received thanks to his humble, luminous witness to the Divine Lover. Tomberg was a remarkable convert whose (relatively few) errors do not detract from the splendor of his insights.
Reincarnation is a pretty big error though. Forgive me Dr. Kwasniewski but if someone believes in reincarnation that is indicative of a highly disordered understanding of reality and I would be extremely wary of whatever else is in their corpus.
That's like saying "Denying the Trinity and the Incarnation are pretty big errors, so Aquinas should never have bothered with Averroes, Avicenna, Maimonides, and Proclus."
Your position is fundamentally anti-intellectual.
> Reincarnation is a pretty big error though
So? You can make pretty big errors, even huge ones, and still be right in other cases.
Yes it is. It's also present in Plato's Myth of Er, and the Church have always studied the Republic and all his other books.
Then what was this about?
The point is that you can read books that contains errors and distinguish them from the good parts, as the Church always did with Plato, for example. Tomberg has brilliant passages mixed with bad mistakes and you can discern them.
Hebrews 9:27 And it is appointed to man to die once and then the judgement. NO REINCARNATION!
What exactly are you trying to prove here? I clearly stated in my original post that the idea of reincarnation is an error, so obviously I don't adhere to it. But you can read books include it and disagree, what is the issue?
The whole "we don’t need to look outside of the Christian tradition" assumption is nothing but cultural Monophysitism. People who hold to it look at Christian doctrine as if it were the monolith of Space Odyssey, a material fallen on Earth from deep space without any possible relation to life on this planet. Just like Christ is both God AND Man in one person, so human wisdom has always been assumed and "baptized" by Christianity to help express divine mysteries in words we could understand. One could expect such approach from some Protestant sects, that are anti-cultural by design, or from Islam; but from an Orthodox it comes as a surprise.
As to the matter at hand, I suggested to Davis exploring the chapter "The higher religion of Hellenism: Hermetic literature" from Charles Dodd's excellent commentary on the Forth Gospel. That chapter alone - and the many points of contacts with John's theology highlighted there - would perhaps have suggested a more prudent approach.
Sometimes I think there is such a thing as a Catholic brain.
Often converts from rationalistic/material ideologies seem to retain a Puritanism, as in a purity test in which all non-rational things are viewed with suspicion and considered heretical and worthy of a burning at the stake.
I am grateful to have read your thoughtful response.
Accusing Catholicism of saying something it says the opposite of is a core part of Orthodox polemics in general, in my experience.
For instance, rather than admit that Catholic mysticism and Orthodox mysticism have anything in common, some of the Orthodox at times insinuate that Catholic mysticism is subject to spiritual deception because, allegedly, we don't have the experience of God and are therefore relying on imagination. Nevermind that the Church, at least historically, has stringent standards for assessing private revelation and cautioned people not to run off with it. Nevermind that the Catholic mystics would warn you not to get attached to "sensible" devotion (that is, able to be sensed, not "sensible" as in "common sense" or reasonable), which includes the imagination, the emotions, consolations etc. Nevermind that any role of the imagination goes away along with consolation you can feel, in the dark night etc. as everyone who reads Ss. John of the Cross & Theresa of Avila (or better yet, follows their path in prayer) talks about. (Also, as far as experiencing God: nevermind that the experience of Christ is primarily through the Sacraments/Mysteries, not through self-emptying spiritualism in isolation from the context of those means of grace; mysticism, prayer of the heart, "contemplation" etc. are only possible because of the Sacraments; and the Catholic Church has the Sacraments and the Orthodox, though they call them by another word, generally do not dispute that.) Obviously Catholics don't believe what Catholics say they believe about mysticism, they believe what Orthodox say Catholics believe about mysticism, right?
Or consider how, to hear certain Orthodox tell it, all the Catholic "errors" come from Aristotle… Even though they know themselves that most of the points of Catholic theology they dispute come from Augustine, who was more Platonic than Aristotelian if you're going to insist on categorizing that Church Father according to pagan philosophers – which is frankly dubious anyway, it's not like Augustine teaches Platonism. And even though in his own time Thomas Aquinas was considered suspect just for including Aristotle among the many Christian and non-Christian thinkers whose ideas he cited, since at the time Aristotle was still a big no-no (despite what later Thomists would have you believe). And even though, ultimately, Catholics only believe in taking ideas from either Plato or Aristotle – those who do at all, anyway! – where Plato or Aristotle are compatible with the revealed Faith, and (I say as evidence that we practice what we preach, on this point) you simply won't hear about most of the kookier stuff of either one from most Catholics even among the philosophically educated. Not to mention that for half a millennium Orthodoxy was still in communion with Catholicism despite these Augustinian developments that are now being condemned as Aristotelian. No, better to just say the Catholic Church has always subscribed to Aristotelianism and not ask what Catholicism historically thought on the matter; that's the polemicist's way of refuting/persuading.
Anyhow, there's not much point arguing with people who won't read what you actually say and don't believe you when you tell them you don't think what they say you think.
This was a very helpful reply—thank you. I had not heard of Morello or his book until I saw it criticized by Davis and Mirus. I was especially struck by the latter’s claim on twitter:
“A prominent traditionalist press has published a book advocating the practice of ‘Hermetic magic.’ This is part of an alarming trend of trad intellectuals dabbling in the occult and non-Catholic spiritual traditions.”
Since my conversion in 2018, I’ve attended the Traditional Latin Mass and have been closely involved in the traditionalist world. While I do not apply the label to myself, I know many who embrace it without hesitation. I have never once encountered a traditionalist who dabbles in the occult or advocates magic. Far from being a trend, I cannot recall one instance of it, except hearing today about Charles Coulombe reading tarot cards, which is admittedly very strange if true. (I have never read or interacted with Coulombe, and if he is some kind of traditionalist representative, no one told me.)
As for Davis, I am familiar with his polemics against Catholicism—including his distorted portrayal of Newman. His critiques are shallow and confused: riddled with half-truths, historical errors, suggestive insinuations, or logical leaps. They closely resemble the arguments of another author whom he has likely read and with whom I engage here: https://controversiam.substack.com/t/whelton-review.
So while disappointing, it is not at all surprising if Davis failed to read Morello carefully—or at all—or simply misrepresents him.
Thank you, Wesley, for these comments.
Mirus's article was a spectacular example of a man totally out of his depth - the kind of person who would see C.S. Lewis's mention of "deeper magic" and throw the book across the room, as a piece of corrosive pagan literature.
Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory. Thomas Mirus’s article vibrates with the energy of someone who has discovered a giant underground esoteric movement among traditionalist voices. He has connected the dots, found the bodies, sounded the alarm and alerted the public. What a hero!
In any case, if people wish to take their bearings from a trio of sedevacantists, a Catholic apostate to Orthodoxy, and a fairly unremarkable commentator with a bachelor’s in jazz piano, they are certainly free to do so; but in so doing, they will waste their time chasing an imaginary conspiracy and a ghost heresy. (It’s a striking coincidence, by the way, that four of these individuals—Davis, Mirus, Wright, and Jackson—had detailed studies on “occultism” ready to publish within a few hours of each other—looks like it might be a concerted effort among self-appointed guardians of doctrinal purity, in spite of being such strange bedfellows!)
I hope to address this topic further in the future.
Strange bedfellows indeed. Did Mirus read the book? I can't recall exactly, but he seemed to have used the criticisms of Davis, not his own from reading the book.
Mirus has not read Morello, as far as I know.
Also, Kingsnorth piled on? The same man who wrote of St. Patrick,
> He left us an island whose monks, as Cahill demonstrates, took into themselves, copied and kept alive all of classical and Christian learning in the face of barbarian fires. He left us a leafy, wet, strange and magical Christianity, entwined with the spirit of this Atlantic island.
>
> And he left us a hymn, a song which to me speaks of the mystic, green spirit of true Irish - and British - Christianity still. St Patrick’s Breastplate, they call it; or sometimes The Deer’s Cry. It is a prayer, an incantation, a chant, a spell. Sixteen centuries later - well, it is still quite something. Try speaking it aloud to yourself, and then see what power swirls around you.
https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/splendour-of-fire-speed-of-lightning-46e
This is an excellent and thorough reply to obviously baseless criticisms. What more can be said in a blog comment? I just wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate Morello on an excellent book, which I have found to be particularly helpful for my own spiritual life, with no danger of slipping into heresy or syncretism, as he keeps his eye firmly on the Cross.
I congratulate you Dr. Morello on your appointment to Princeton... because we all know how much solid Catholic knowledge has come out of there in recent decades. In any case, your principal defense seems to be that you were 'only asking the question' which of course you answered in a perfectly orthodox manner. Except what actual believing Catholic would even need to ask the question of whether 'hermetic magic' could do anything beneficial for the Church?
This has been a tried and true tactic of our enemies for at least the last one hundred and fifty years. Put out a ridiculous question that has the grave potential to plant very damaging ideas in the minds of less educated would be faithful Catholics and then, the damage having been done, to feign to give an orthodox answer to said question in order to cover their tracks. Whether you were doing this or not is not something I am in a position to know, but I merely bring the matter up to point out that saying 'I was just asking a question...' is not an adequate defense.
And at no time did the ancient Church ever 'dialogue' with neoplatonism or astrology or the so called 'philosophy' of that age. From the time of Justin Martyr to the time of Gregory the Great it was one long stream of ridicule from the Church Fathers. Nor did they ever claim to have learned anything from these people.
When writing his first Apology, one of whose addressees was of all people Marcus Aurelius the so called 'philosopher king', during the middle of the second century long before Aquinas attempted to sanitize this 'philosophy' Justin Martyr yes does mention Plato several times since he is talking to unbelievers but his basic argument was that if there is anything good to be found in Plato it is because he stole it from Moses.
The gold and silver we looted from the pagan world were the ancient languages, Latin, Greek, Coptic, Syriac, etc., the political and legal structure of the Roman Empire, all of these things. Egyptian wisdom traditions? What are you even talking about there? All of this sounds like Joseph Campbell with a (very) thin Catholic veneer.
I am unfamiliar with the work and the criticisms received but the response I just listened to certainly resonates with the core of Classical Christian truth and the sacramental reality of God among us. I also fancy myself to be a Thomistic realist and view the battle against endarkenment shouting to be central to what our mission actually is. Material causation only gets you to the gateway of reason. So at least in the affirmation of my core instincts or inspirations, I thank the good author for the clarified uplift of his response for us lurking Thomists of the lower rank in robust accord with your erudite defense of our God and His religion. Many thanks for the many lifelong sacrifices that carried you here for us. May I increasingly follow the lead.
Are you willing to plainly state that practicing magic is evil?
Are you willing to plainly state that worshiping saints is evil?
The reason I ask this counterquestion is to demonstrate the fallacy of your question.
The word "worship" in English can mean either adore or venerate. We do not adore saints, but we do venerate them.
Similarly, "magic" is an analogous term. This is why it is worthy of condemnation in one sense, but in another sense CS Lewis can talk about the "deeper magic of Aslan" and no one objects to him.
My takeaway is that you have not read Morello's essay and that it would benefit you to do so, because he shows why the term is analogous.
Peter...
Is the statement "practicing magic is evil" incorrect? If so, are you or Sebastian Morello willing to explain why it is incorrect? I am not asking about whether or not it is prudent to use the word "magic" in an analogy, but about the accuracy of the statement "practicing magic is evil."
If by that statement you mean "practicing the magical arts as popularly understood is evil," then yes, absolutely, no question it is evil. Nor would Morello disagree; indeed, if you had read his article, you would know that already. If, however, Christian sacramental liturgy and blessings are, in a certain sense, a sacred magic, a deeper magic, then their practice is not only not evil but necessary for sanctification and salvation.
But why this focus on the word "magic", and Hermeticism? The stated advantages can all be found in the Eastern Christian tradition (this includes Eastern Catholicism).
There's a pile of gold sitting next to you guys in the church, and you're telling people to go looking for treasure in booby-trapped Egyptian tombs.
Davis should be aware that when a headline poses a yes/no question e.g. “Can Hermetic magic rescue the Church?” the answer is always NO. This rule is virtually iron-clad.
Then why was Morello's answer a "qualified no"?