The Church and Astrology
It almost goes without saying that resistance to astrology has emerged from a number of sources over the years, and centuries for that matter.
It doesn’t go down well with some orthodox religions, and the Christian Church has been particularly vociferous about it over the centuries – but then probably not quite as much as you might think…
Christian resistance to astrology is not that surprising really when in earlier times people believed the planets were gods that controlled the destiny of people. This was far from the one Christian God. We no longer live in those ages, and astrologers (I’m thinking of Western astrologers) no longer treat the planets as gods – one or two might prove the exception to that rule of course. But meanwhile Christianity, I’d suggest, still lives in the mists of antiquity where its understanding of modern astrology is concerned…
Take a look at three Christian perspectives on astrology
All forms of divination are to be rejected: … Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honour, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Isaiah 47. 8-15 reveals that for all the predictions the astrologers and all their advice the judgement of God will surely come and they will be quite helpless to prevent it. God is not subject to the movements of planets or the laws of nature, but is free to act as He wants. Thus, astrology is an inadequate substitute for true revelation from God.
The Dangers of Astrology1
Astrology is the alleged interpretation of a presumed influence of celestial bodies upon human destiny, both collective and individual. The Bible makes it clear that this is a false teaching, and that those who practice it are subject to God’s condemnation … God expressly forbids astrology, which is a form of interpreting omens, and places it in the same category as witchcraft and child sacrifice (Deuteronomy 18:10-14) … Anyone who claims to be a Christian but also studies his horoscope is denying the authority of God’s Word, and following a false and spiritually deadly authority – that of Satan himself.
The Church has certainly expressed opposition to this art seemingly for a very long time and you wouldn’t be blamed for thinking the hell-fire and damnation of the final comment above was possibly drawn directly from some 17th century scripture of a Witchfinder General – or even earlier. Well, it is actually more recent, written by a Dr Paul M Elliott, and can be accessed on the Web.2
Clearly the Church doesn’t want us to look into astrology – an understatement to say the least. We’re supposedly playing with fire and brimstone if we do. Note the dark warnings and the conjuring of fear in the comments. It reminds me of the time I had a person who, on discovering I was practicing astrology, wrote to me repeatedly offering to save me from the devil. We exchanged letters. She had the grace to apologise to me at a later time when she came to know more about modern astrology.
But if you ask, was the Church always anti-astrology, the answer might surprise you. It would be a qualified “No.”
You don’t have to dig too deep to observe that astrology was also embraced by the Church. For example, the zodiac was present in the Christian Book of Hours (illustrated).
Also, the Church incorporated astrological symbols into some of its buildings or structures. For example, if you want to see the signs of the zodiac take a visit to Chartres Cathedral, in France – you’ll find them there in the “Zodiac” stained glass window. Or you could visit St. Mary of the Angels and Martyrs in Rome, to see them on the floor there. Or, for that matter, you could take a look at the zodiac on the lead font in St Augustine’s Church at Brookland in the Romney Marshes, England.
Also, the 13th century friar St. Albertus Magnus and his student St. Thomas Aquinas both gave some endorsement to astrology. Magnus believed in the heavenly bodies influencing human life. In Speculum Astronomiae, he defended astrology as a Christian form of knowledge.
So, one might ask what changed or what was going on back then with the Church that was different to now?
Well, we get a clue from Magnus’ treatment of astrology. Christians could learn from it, but…. it had its limitations. Broadly he argued that:
Celestial influence began with God before being transmitted through each of the nine upper spheres of creation, down to the tenth sphere of the sublunar realm, where we all live our lives. As this influence is passed from the stars to each one of the planets and then on to the Earth and its creatures, it picks up accretions that were not part of God’s original intent.3
Astrology was seen to be in danger of dealing with those “accretions that were not part of God’s original intent.” Magnus saw astrology as operating albeit at a lower level than godly; and advised on how we must rely on our will to raise ourselves above this less spiritual level of existence. But at the same time, he didn’t completely discount its use.
What we can begin to draw from this is that it wasn’t astrology per se that the Church was anti towards but how the astrology of the time was being used, to what end it was being applied.
During the mediaeval period astrology was certainly a valued and important discipline. It flourished. One could study it as an academic subject under Church controlled education. But not all applications of it were viewed as kosher. Judicial astrology, where it was used in making predictions for people, was opposed by the Church. It went against the belief that everything that happens in the future is under the control of God, not astrology. It was viewed as heresy and subject to persecution by the Church. A Bull by Pope Sixtus V in 1586 (43 years after Copernicus launched his heliocentric theory) made this clear – and also hinted at where things were heading.
Natural astrology, the making of predictions dealing with natural causes, on the other hand, was a different matter. This was tolerated by the Church:
… the practice of natural astrology and the publication of books on the subject were still permitted. This branch of astrology dealt not with future contingent events, but with events that occur frequently or necessarily from natural causes. Thus, as the Bull itself stated, judicial astrology for agriculture, navigation and medical practice was not subject to prosecution.4
And so hence there lies the cause of the apparent ambivalence. In the hierarchical order of mediaeval life, all natural things were below God, the priesthood and people. Astrology had its place at that level.
But then (eventually) came the demise of astrology altogether…
The Church and the demise of astrology
As we know, by the end of the 17th century the Church and astrology were going their separate ways. Apart from issuing Bulls, how much the Church actually got involved with further policing and machinations in the demise of astrology is debatable. It is said however that, led by the Inquisition, the Church began to discourage the academic study of astrology altogether, in favour of the other sciences of the time – and it could prosecute those who failed to take heed.
By obstructing the publication of writings on judicial astrology and dissuading those who aspired to a university career from concerning themselves with the subject, the Church heavily contributed to exclude astrology from the scientific disciplines and to distinguish sharply the figure of the scientist from that of the astrologer.5
In simple terms, even the previously highly regarded discipline of natural astrology began to be replaced by the new sciences of the time.
But, in context with Church endeavour to “distinguish sharply the figure of the scientist from that of the astrologer” one may ask was this movement by the Church to rid astrology simply a matter of it going out of favour and needing to be replaced by more advanced disciplines – or was there another motive?
I suspect there was political motive in there too.
Within the enormous changes taking place at the time, the writing was already on the wall for the arrival of a less godly perspective on the world. During, and following on, from the Renaissance, into in 16th-18th centuries in Europe people were exploring new ways of thinking, seeking new horizons, new lands, new ways of industry. These brought on our industrial revolution, migrations to the new world (America), political movements toward democracies and the emancipation of the “common man” to some degree at least.
At one time in mediaeval Europe the Church was fully in control of education. But with the rise of universities requiring their freedom for the student to learn what they wanted, this gradually changed, with control of education moving out of the Church’s jurisdiction to an extent. With this freedom people had already begun to question the old and established order. Latterly it brought on the rise of our modern sciences, with its developing secular worldview – still with us today.
The Church’s authority and doctrine was increasingly under suspicion and being challenged. Descartes pointed out that God was necessary, but only necessary to get the machine started. The metaphysical and/or spiritual dimension of life, that couldn’t be demonstrated or proved, was being assigned to personal belief or superstition.
All this change, I suspect, would have left the Church in an ambivalent position: Does it continue to support the spiritual and divine (and risk becoming a dinosaur), or support the new spirit of enquiry, that may eventually cast out the divine altogether?
In a secular world, where the divine is swept away from the realm of scientific knowledge, there is no room left for practices that claim to be at the same time divine and scientific.6
This was at a time when the Church’s hierarchical link with God had also become questionable and less tenable. It was no longer as central as it had been when the Earth was believed to be at the centre of the universe – and the Church was the acknowledged rightful intermediary between God and all life on Earth. Copernicus, the unwilling instrument for that change of perspective, had a lot to answer for. Is it any wonder he waited until he was on his deathbed, in 1543 before publishing his book, On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres.7
I’d suggest it came to a point for the Church having to create distance between itself and other beliefs or disciplines having any kind of spiritual or divine dimension. Astrology was surely the most prominent discipline outside of organised religion that carried the torch for something greater, unseen, the divine even. It would have been in the firing line. And of course, it was also tied up with the Copernican revelation and in a weakened position (from a public perspective), so this was an obvious target.
In the pecking order of things, creating political distance from astrology would, I believe, have helped the Church to retain some of its influence and authority going forward (in an atmosphere where it is, in any case, being compromised), and to help it clean up its act at the same time.
Well, that’s my perspective on the matter.
Ends
References
1. Young, P. The Dangers of Astrology https://www.preciousseed.org/article_detail.cfm?articleID=207 [Accessed 24/07/2020].
2. Elliot, Dr P. M. Should Christians Have Any Involvement With the Zodiac or Astrology. http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/default.asp?blogid=0&view=post&articleid=64844 [Accessed 09/05/2014].
3. See Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculum_Astronomiae [Accessed 15/10/2020]
4. Avalos, A. (2007) As Above, So Below. Astrology and the Inquisition in Seventeenth-Century New Spain; Dept., of History and Civilisation, European University Institute. P83.
5. Ibid., Avalos (2007) p67. In clarifying Ugo Baldini’s position on the demise of astrology.
6. Ibid., Avalos (2007) p70.
7. Copernicus, N. (1995) On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres. Prometheus Books (originally published in 1543)
Links you might also like:
Erecting Birth-charts
What is a birth-chart and how can it help me understand myself better?
What is Astrology?