The Church does not say a lot about curses.
Fr Colin Apap
Curses are not a subject the Church dwells on. The Catechism addresses attempts to use supernatural powers to harm others, but briefly, within its wider condemnation of magic and sorcery. The Church has published more extensive guidance on related subjects, including demonic influence and exorcism, but curses themselves receive little attention as a distinct subject.How we reached this verdict ↓
Analysis and evaluation
The Church does address curses, but briefly and only as part of its wider teaching on magic and sorcery.
The Catechism does address it
Paragraph 2117 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that all practices of magic or sorcery by which someone tries to gain supernatural power over others are gravely contrary to religion, and that they are “even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons”. That covers practices commonly described as curses. The preceding paragraph rejects divination, mediums and conjuring the dead in similar terms.
Condemning an attempt to exercise supernatural power does not establish that the attempt works. The Catechism addresses the practice and the intention, not whether curses can cause harm. This is what the other speaker in the discussion, Shasha, implied.
The Church also maintains a rite of exorcism and authorises certain priests to perform it. It has published more extensive documents on demonic influence, including a 1975 study on Christian faith and demonology and a 1985 instruction regulating exorcisms. These show that the Church treats demonic influence as a serious theological subject. But demonic influence and curses are not the same thing, and these documents do not establish that curses are effective.
What the Church does not do is discuss curses specifically at any length, which is what Fr Colin said, and it is fair.
Why it comes up rarely is a separate question
Shasha's suggestion, that the Church holds back because curses may well be real, is one interpretation, but there is no evidence that this is the reason. Other explanations are possible: that dwelling on curses feeds the superstition the Catechism warns against, or that the Church prefers to point people towards prayer and the sacraments rather than towards counter-rituals.
The Church's own writings offer some support for a cautious approach. The 1975 Vatican study on demonology explicitly warned against an excessive preoccupation with Satan and demons, saying the Church should not make the devil the central subject of its preaching. That does not directly explain why curses receive little attention, but it shows the Church has reasons for discouraging a focus on occult matters.
Evaluation
The statement is accurate. Curses are addressed in the Catechism, but briefly and as part of wider teaching on magic, sorcery and superstition. The Church has published more substantial material on demonic influence and exorcism, but curses are not a major standalone subject in its central doctrinal documents.
For anyone who assumes the Church has nothing to say at all, the little it says is specific: it condemns attempts to gain occult power over others, and condemns them more severely when the aim is to harm someone. The explanation offered on the programme for its relative silence remains speculative. That silence is not evidence that curses work, just as its condemnation of them does not establish that they do.
Editorial note
How we assessed this claim
We checked what the Catechism and other official Church texts say about curses, magic and sorcery, and examined the Church's broader guidance on demonic influence and exorcism. We distinguished between teaching about curses specifically and teaching about related supernatural subjects; the latter is considerably more extensive.
We also considered whether the Church has explained why curses receive little attention. Vatican writings caution against excessive preoccupation with demonic matters, but we found no official explanation supporting the suggestion that the Church avoids discussing curses because they are likely to be real.
True, because the statement is a general claim about how much the Church says about curses specifically, and its treatment of them is limited. We set out what that teaching contains because it is useful to a reader, not because the statement is inaccurate. Shasha's explanation was not part of the verdict, because it is a separate claim about the Church's motives and is not established by the available evidence.
Limitations
- How much counts as “a lot” is subjective. Our assessment concerns the attention given to curses as a distinct subject in major Church teaching documents, not every sermon, pastoral instruction or historical writing.
- We cannot scientifically establish whether curses have any effect and have not attempted to. The Church's religious teaching and the scientific evidence are separate questions.
- This fact check concerns the Catholic Church, which was the institution discussed on the programme.
Sources
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2111 and 2115–2117: superstition, divination, magic and sorcery
- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Christian Faith and Demonology” (1975)
- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Letter to Ordinaries Regarding Norms on Exorcism” (1985)
- Holy See, “Presentation of the New Rite of Exorcisms” (1999)
- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Exorcism”