Question Fifteen of Chapter Nine of the Third Decade
Whether it is evil to use lots
It is asked whether it is lawful to use the judgment of lots in order to obtain and know some hidden event—for example, concerning the election of prelates, the manifestation of hidden sins, and the acquisition of temporal dignities.
It is answered first concerning the election of prelates by saying that it is not lawful to use a divisory lot.
This is proved by two arguments.
The first is that such elections ought to be made through invocation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not by the outcome of lots.
The second is that, because of the malice of human beings, there can be danger to souls in the use of lots. Therefore, lest frauds be committed in elections of prelates, they ought to be made not by lot but through invocation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit and by the choice of votes.
But to the contrary: things which are found in the Scriptures to have been done by saints do not appear to be unlawful. Yet in both the Old and the New Testament, saints are found to have used lots.
This is evident. For in 1 Kings 14 it is read that Saul detected by lot that his son Jonathan had eaten honey. In Jonah 1, Jonah was cast into the sea by lot. In Luke 1 it is also read that Zacharias went out by lot to set incense. In Acts 1 it is likewise read that Matthias was chosen by lot by the apostles as a prelate—that is, as an apostle.
Therefore it appears that in ecclesiastical elections of prelates it is lawful to use lots.
It is answered that until the truth should come into public view, lots were permitted in the Old Testament, both in punishments and in elections and in matters which were ordained.
Hence Bede says upon Acts of the Apostles 1: “Here Matthias is chosen by lot, lest he depart from the law in which the high priest was sought by lot, when the true priest was to be sought. Hence, until the truth should come, the figure had to be exercised,” and for this reason the election of Matthias was made by lot before Pentecost, on which the Holy Spirit was given.
For the truth had not yet been made altogether public, because the fullness of the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out upon the Church. The seven deacons afterward were appointed not by lot but by the election of the disciples.
Hence Jerome, in the Gloss upon the words cited from Jonah 1, says that when Jonah the fugitive was detected by lot and Matthias was chosen by lot, this was not done by the power of uncertain lots but by the will of God, who governed them.
Therefore we ought not to use lots according to this example, because the privileges of a few cannot make a common law.
Similarly, Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar knew future things through the judgment of dreams; nevertheless, dreams are not therefore to be believed everywhere.
Second, in the manifestation of hidden sins it is not lawful to use the judgment of lots through a duel or through a judgment of red-hot iron and boiling water. This is both because such a practice is ordained for judging hidden matters which are preserved or reserved for divine judgment, and because the judgment of lots was not sanctioned by divine authority.
Hence it is said in cause 2, question 4, chapter Consuluisti, in the decree of Pope Stephen, that the sacred canons do not judge that an examination by red-hot iron or boiling water and a confession should be extorted from anyone; and that what has not been sanctioned by the teaching of the holy fathers ought not to be presumed by a superstitious invention.
For offenses made public through voluntary confession or the approval of witnesses have been committed to our governance for judgment, with the fear of God held before our eyes. Hidden and unknown matters, however, must be left to him who alone knows the hearts of the children of human beings.
The same reasoning also appears to apply to the law of duels, except that it more fully participates in the common character of lots insofar as a miraculous effect is not expected there, unless perhaps when the champions are very unequal in strength or skill.
These things are from Thomas, Second Part of the Second Part, question 95, article 8.
As for the acquisition of temporal dignities, the defense of churches, and the distribution of alms, it is said that, if necessity is pressing, it is lawful with due reverence to implore divine assistance through lots.
First, concerning the acquisition of dignities: for in those matters which are ordained for the disposition of earthly affairs, human beings often use lots. Hence, as a figure of this, David is read in 1 Kings 17 to have entered into single combat with the Philistine, which participates more fully in the character of lots than in the judgment of red-hot iron or boiling water, as is evident above.
Second, it is lawful to use lots in the governance or defense of churches.
For when a certain city was besieged and the clergy doubted who ought to flee and who to remain, Augustine responded in a letter to Honoratus, speaking thus: “If there is a dispute among the ministers of God about which of them should remain in a time of persecution, lest all should flee, and which of them should flee, lest the Church be deserted by the death of all, if this dispute cannot be settled otherwise, it appears to me that those who remain and those who flee should be chosen by lot.”
Third, it is lawful to use lots in the distribution of alms.
Hence Augustine says in Book I of On Christian Doctrine: “If you had something in abundance which ought to be given to one who did not have it, and it could not be given to two; if two persons met you, neither of whom surpassed the other in need or in some necessity in relation to you, you would do nothing more just than choose by lot the one to whom that which could not be given to both should be given.”
These things are from Thomas, Second Part of the Second Part, question 96, article 8.
The reason why it is lawful to use lots in these three acts just described is to settle human doubts and contradictions. Hence it is said in Proverbs 18: “The lot suppresses contradictions.”
These things are from Raynerius of Pisa.
Addition
It is certain that casting lots is not evil in itself, but it can be done evilly if we abuse it. This occurs when, without necessity or from mere curiosity to know hidden and future things, we cast lots to the tempting of God, or otherwise from some superstition.
Joshua, leader of the people, used a lot to investigate who was that sacrilegious man who had secretly stolen from the things under the ban at Jericho. But this is not therefore to be drawn into an example, so that we too should use lots if some hidden crime has been committed and should commit to fortune the task of disclosing the author of the deed with certainty. For Joshua did not do this by his own rashness, but at God’s command, because God wished to reveal the thief by this means.
The apostles also used lots in choosing Matthias. Nevertheless, pastors of the Church ought not to be appointed by lot, because the apostles committed to God the judgment between those two, each of whom was fit for the office, since they did not know which of them ought to be preferred to the other, lest they be thought respecters of persons.
The sailors too, according to the rite of the gentiles, used lots with vain superstition. Although they found the truth they sought concerning Jonah, this did not occur because God favored their superstition, but so that he might fulfill what he wished to be done concerning Jonah, just as he tempered the lots of the king of the Chaldeans to his own glory.
There are some who dispute many things concerning this matter. If, however, you desire more and a resolved treatment, see Cardinal Cajetan in the Summa on Sins.