"One Peter Five" And "Catholic" Astrology

 

$teve $kojec, former owner of the website One Peter Five ("OP5"), has sold it to Crisis magazine which appointed Timothy Flanders as editor.  The site tells us In 2019 he [Flanders] founded The Meaning of Catholic, a lay apostolate dedicated to uniting Catholics against the enemies of Holy Church. For someone ostensibly fighting "the enemies of Holy Church," he is a "conservative" Vatican II sect member. To be with Bergoglio is to be with the very enemies of the Church with whom he purports to do battle. Worse yet, is that he published an "expert on the occult," who is himself a practitioner of astrology. 

Going by the moniker "Michael J. B." (hereinafter MJB), he wrote an article entitled What is the Occult? (See onepeterfive.com/what-occult). Click on his photo at the top of the article and it has this bio:

Michael J.B. writes about the influence of the Occult on history, society, and how it crops up in some of the most unexpected places. Around 2019 he began a ‘Prodigal Son’ type return to the Church. He is now a Latin Mass enthusiast and Marian devotee. He’s also engrossed in the study of a wide variety of topics that unveil the enmity of the esoteric traditions – such as Freemasonry and Theosophy – toward all things Catholic. Last but not least, Michael is currently writing a book on the aforementioned topics, and is happy to be a part of OnePeterFive’s updated mission to unite ‘Unite the Clans.’

The occult does indeed crop upon some of the most unexpected places---like in MJB's own personal life. I went to MJB's personal website and watched his video TCA 1.0-Astrology Forbidden in Scripture and Tradition? (See rockstaresoterica.com/free-video-samples). If you want to listen to a refined, cultured, and erudite Millennial making cogent arguments, then please don't watch the video. I suffered for just over an hour and twenty minutes listening to an uncouth, inarticulate, pseudo-educated dolt pontificating next to a white board where he rambles on using profanity, slang, and makes an obscene gesture. I'm surprised the Vatican II sect hasn't made him Professor of Moral Theology at one of their seminaries. The second video (1.1) was no better except for the fact it was only one hour and six minutes of vulgar nonsense. 

His bottom line is this: there is "acceptable" astrology for Catholics, and "unacceptable" astrology. Acceptable astrology, he assures us, is "a catalyst," and "a tool" to help you "sort out things in your life," and "point you towards God."  He offers services as a "Catholic Astrologer" doing "Natal Chart readings." You need only pay him $36 for an hour "reading"--and you can spend up to three hours with him on Skype for $108. He writes:

You can also start off with an hour and if you want it to go longer you can send the rest of the payment afterwards.  I can usually cover everything in a chart within an hour and a half, but this can vary depending on how much detail you prefer; if it’s more detail then perhaps two sessions are best in order to cover the entire chart.  I’m also happy to do a Q&A discussion any research, or teach my astrology system for the same rates as listed above.  If you are interested in recurring sessions then I’m happy to work out a reduced rate.

He assures you that  For any Catholics suspicious of 'Catholic Astrology' please read through this Blog post with all the necessary resources (even those by Catholic Answers). I did just that, and I will explain what he gets wrong (i.e., pretty much everything). The blog post cites to another website that blasphemously asserts that St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Albert the Great were into "acceptable astrology." This post will demonstrate that no astrology is acceptable. 

Origin and Modern Revival of Astrology

Astrology as known in the West today, began around the year 3000 BC in the Mesopotamia. The Babylonian belief system held that the celestial bodies were "gods" who influenced all of life. Astrology during this time was used by pagan priests who attempted to tell the fortune (or future) of their countries as opposed to today's practice of casting personal horoscopes. With the advent of Christianity, astrology was condemned, and the number of practitioners decreased. 

It's modern day revival began in the early 20th century due to the writings of three people: Satanist Aleister Crowley (1875-1947) who wrote a book entitled Astrology; Alice Bailey (1880-1949), an occultist who authored a three-volume work, A Treatise on the Seven Rays; and most influential was Carl Jung (pronounced "young" 1875-1961), one of the so-called Fathers of Psychology and an occultist. Jung used astrology in tandem with his theory of synchronicity (i.e., meaningful coincidences), and his work with symbols and myths were influential in the development of the North American humanist school of astrology which emphasizes psychology and therapy (called "astrotherapy"). 

The so-called "New Age Movement," which began in the United States in the 1960s and quickly spread to Europe, incorporated and helped to legitimize astrology. In striving to legitimize astrology and make it seem scientific, there is an ongoing attempt to make it square with the theories of certain schools of psychology--in particular those that incorporate Jungian principles. (See The Astrology Encyclopedia, [1994], by James Lewis).  The New Yorker magazine references a 2017 Pew Research poll, which relates that approximately 30% of the U.S. population believes in astrology. The magazine notes that it is on the upswing due to its popularity among millennials:

In its penetration into our shared lexicon, astrology is a little like psychoanalysis once was. At mid-century, you might have heard talk of id, ego, or superego at a party; now it’s common to hear someone explain herself by way of sun, moon, and rising signs. It’s not just that you hear it. It’s who’s saying it: people who aren’t kooks or climate-change deniers, who see no contradiction between using astrology and believing in science. The change is fueling a new generation of practitioners...The popularity of astrology is often explained as the result of the decline of organized religion and the rise of economic precariousness, and as one aspect of a larger turn to New Age modalities. Then, there’s the matter of political panic. In times of crisis, it is often said, people search for something to believe.  

(See newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/28/astrology-in-the-age-of-uncertainty).

 Astrology is therefore based on the assumption that the stars and planets mysteriously influence people’s lives. It teaches that this influence begins at birth and continues throughout a person’s life. This is because the heavenly bodies allegedly influence or determine our future, and astrology claims to be able to "read" how the planets, stars, etc., affect people’s lives, and so offer helpful counsel about the present and the future. As an ancient pagan system of divination (attempting to predict the future), astrology easily traps people in occult practices and philosophy.

Did St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Albert the Great Endorse Astrology?

MJB cites to Fish Eaters: The Traditional Catholic View of Astrology for the assertion that there is "Catholic Astrology" promoted by both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Albert the Great.

(See fisheaters.com/astrologybackground.html). It corroborates MJB's false claim that there is "good astrology" as long as it (a) does not attempt to foretell the future (the mortal sin of divination) and (b) it is acknowledged that there are forces the planets and stars exert on people to incline them to do certain things, but does not rob them of their free will. According to Fish Eaters:

...in the first part of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas writes about the influences the Heavenly bodies might have on us. Excerpts from that section of his greatest work -- found in Question 115, which you can read in full here -- follow. In responding to the question, in Article 3, "Whether the heavenly bodies are the cause of what is produced in bodies here below?", he writes:

Since every multitude proceeds from unity; and since what is immovable is always in the same way of being, whereas what is moved has many ways of being: it must be observed that throughout the whole of nature, all movement proceeds from the immovable. Therefore the more immovable certain things are, the more are they the cause of those things which are most movable. Now the heavenly bodies are of all bodies the most immovable, for they are not moved save locally. Therefore the movements of bodies here below, which are various and multiform, must be referred to the movement of the heavenly bodies, as to their cause.

In response to the question posed in Article 4, "Whether the heavenly bodies are the cause of human actions?", he writes:

It must be observed, however, that indirectly and accidentally, the impressions of heavenly bodies can reach the intellect and will, forasmuch, namely, as both intellect and will receive something from the inferior powers which are affixed to corporeal organs. But in this the intellect and will are differently situated. For the intellect, of necessity, receives from the inferior apprehensive powers: wherefore if the imaginative, cogitative, or memorative powers be disturbed, the action of the intellect is, of necessity, disturbed also. The will, on the contrary, does not, of necessity, follow the inclination of the inferior appetite; for although the passions in the irascible and concupiscible have a certain force in inclining the will; nevertheless the will retains the power of following the passions or repressing them. Therefore the impressions of the heavenly bodies, by virtue of which the inferior powers can be changed, has less influence on the will, which is the proximate cause of human actions, than on the intellect... 

... The spiritual substances, that move the heavenly bodies, do indeed act on corporeal things by means of the heavenly bodies; but they act immediately on the human intellect by enlightening it. On the other hand, they cannot compel the will...

...The majority of men follow their passions, which are movements of the sensitive appetite, in which movements of the heavenly bodies can cooperate: but few are wise enough to resist these passions. Consequently astrologers are able to foretell the truth in the majority of cases, especially in a general way. But not in particular cases; for nothing prevents man resisting his passions by his free-will. Wherefore the astrologers themselves are wont to say that "the wise man is stronger than the stars" [Ptolemy, Centiloquium, prop. 5], forasmuch as, to wit, he conquers his passions. 

In other words, according to the Father of Scholasticism, yes, the Heavenly bodies not only may, but do influence us on the corporeal level, which includes the intellect to some degree, and the will to a lesser degree. But the will cannot be "overridden" by any such influence; the will is supreme. However, because so many men allow themselves to be ruled by their passions, form bad habits, and don't exercise their will in the right way, the power the Heavenly bodies may exert upon them is more evident. Or, to put it another way, the Heavenly bodies may influence our inclinations and basic personalities, but that influence only has the power we grant to it, that we allow it to have by not using our will to overcome any negative inclinations they might cause. An analogy: the stars may influence what cards we're dealt in a game of poker, and they may influence how we play our hand, but they can't determine how we play our hand unless we refuse to use our will to play the hand correctly.

Separating Fact from Fiction

First, it must be remembered that astronomy (a science) and astrology (a pseudoscience and occultic)  were closely linked in the 13th century when Aquinas lived. What he gives credence to is what he perceived to be scientific uses for astronomy, and condemnation of all other uses, such as a means of divination. Here is what the Angelic Doctor taught in context:

• In Latin, occultus meant anything that was hidden—anything that people didn’t know about or understand. The world thus was filled with “occult” or hidden things and forces. Hence, Aquinas wrote a treatise entitled On the Occult Workings of Nature or Concerning the Causality of Heavenly Bodies (See isidore.co/aquinas/english/OperatOccult.htm).

• These weren’t automatically contrary to the Faith, and “occult” had a neutral meaning. Just because people didn’t understand something, that didn’t mean it was evil.

• It wasn’t till the 1600s that Isaac Newton proposed an invisible force causing objects with mass to attract each other; which he called gravity

• Aquinas held that stones fall toward the Earth because they contain the element of earth. " A stone, for example, is moved towards the center (of the earth) according to the property of earth dominant in it." (See On the Occult Workings of Nature)

• Aquinas knew some things could be predicted with certainty, “even as astrologers foretell a coming eclipse” (ST II-II:95:1), but not everything astrologers said was true

• Stars and planets exert influence on physical bodies: “The natural forces of natural bodies result from their substantial forms, which they acquire through the influence of heavenly bodies; wherefore through this same influence they acquire certain active forces” (ST II-II:96:2 ad 2)

• Since the stars influenced the physical world, Aquinas held that “astrologers, by considering the stars, can foreknow and foretell things concerning rains and droughts” (ST II-II:95:1)

• They thus could influence the choices we make, for “the majority of men follow their passions, which are movements of the sensitive appetite, in which movements of the heavenly bodies can cooperate” (ST I:115:4 ad 3)

• “Accordingly it is not called divination, if a man foretells things that happen of necessity, or in the majority of instances, for the like can be foreknown by human reason” (ST II-II:95:1)

• Since most people follow their passions, Aquinas concluded that “astrologers are able to foretell the truth in the majority of cases, especially in a general way. But not in particular cases; for nothing prevents man resisting his passions by his free will” (ST I:115:4 ad 3)

So purely natural things, like an eclipse, or being guided by the North Star, are legitimate. He was mistaken about the stars and planets having causal influence on people's actions due to limited scientific knowledge. Likewise, he was wrong about delayed ensoulment largely due to limited biological knowledge. The astrology's "science" (or rather, "the lack thereof") will be presented below in this post. 

What about St. Albert the Great? Fish Eaters informs us:

...And if the Bull (Taurus), the Maiden (Virgo) or the Horned Goat (Capricornus) are engraved [upon stones], by reason of the triplicity of Earth and South, they are cold and dry, so far as their effects [are concerned]; hence they are said to cure their wearers of fainting fits and hot infirmities. And they incline their wearers towards religious devotion, and wards country occupations, such as agriculture and the planting of vineyards and gardens.

The same considerations [hold good] for the images that have been scribed outside the Zodiac.

Many moderns might mistake that for something written by a New Age hippie. But it was, in fact, written by one of the very greatest Doctors of the Church, St. Albertus Magnus ("St. Albert the Great"), mentor of St. Thomas Aquinas, in his De Mineralibus (On Minerals).

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia [1907] knows that: Indeed, many legends have been circulated which attribute to him the power of a magician or sorcerer. Dr. Sighart (Albertus Magnus) examined these legends, and endeavored to sift the truth from false or exaggerated stories. Other biographers content themselves with noting the fact that Albert's proficiency in the physical sciences was the foundation on which the fables were constructed...he expressed contempt for everything that savoured of enchantment or the art of magic: "Non approbo dictum Avicennae et Algazel de fascinatione, quia credo quod non nocet fascinatio, nec nocere potest ars magica, nec facit aliquid ex his quae timentur de talibus" (See Quétif, I, 167). There were many false texts ascribed to him. That he thought astronomy could be used as Aquinas taught based on limited scientific knowledge, conceded; that he thought anything more of it, denied. 

Is Astrology Scientifically Proven?

There is a very small niche where science validates the effects of heavenly bodies on Earth. Some examples include the high and low tides, navigation using stars, the time to harvest crops, etc.  Outside of this narrow range of readily admitted astronomical influence, the claimed effects of astrology ("Catholic" or otherwise) have zero scientific evidence. As a former New York City science teacher, this is an area in which I have a very good understanding.

Whenever a scientific hypothesis or theory is proposed, it is subjected to careful testing to see if the results of the testing fit the theory. If the results can be successfully replicated, the theory then undergoes the scrutiny of peer review to see if similar results can be obtained by other experimental researchers. In the end, for a theory to be legitimate, the results must have explanatory relevance (the theory must explain something), and be falsifiable (i.e., be capable of being disproven). A theory that explains nothing and can never be disproven cannot be considered a scientific theory.

The scientific method is not perfect, of course, because people are not perfect, but every modern technological and scientific advance would have been impossible without it. It is a method that clearly works. Whatever biases modern science has (especially its politicization in the time of COVID), the role of the scientist is that of skeptic and adversary, not an accepting conformist with personal wishes about how the world operates. Concerning astrology, the indisputable conclusion is that the scientific evidence indicates that astrology fails at everything it claims to do.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, there has not been a single scientific study open to peer review that has shown astrology to effectuate any causal influence in people, yet there have been many scientific studies that show such influence is lacking. I will cite two such studies: 

1. In “An Empirical Test of Popular Astrology,” researcher Ralph Bastedo carefully analyzed the content of astrological literature. He found that it revealed 2,375 specific adjectives for the 12 zodiacal Sun-signs, each sign being described by about 200 adjectives. (For example, a person who is a “Leo” is strong, domineering, tough—a born leader; a person who is a “Taurus” is indecisive, timid, insecure—not a leader.) In Bastedo’s test, 1,000 people were examined for 33 variables, including physical attractiveness, leadership ability, personality traits, social and religious belief, etc. Bastedo concluded that this test failed to prove any astrological prediction. He said, “All of our results can be attributed to random chance.” 

(See https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1978/10/22165459/p19.pdf)

2. A team from the University of Manchester did a study in 2007 called “Ten million marriages: A test of astrological ‘love signs.’” They analyzed 10 million marriages, using census data from the U.K. and inferring astrological signs from couples’ birth dates.

Astrologists have specific ideas about which signs make the best matches—a Sagittarius is better off with a Leo or Aquarius than with a Cancer. But the University of Manchester team found that, in reality, people tended to marry others with birthdays close to their own. In fact, the number of couples with the exact same birthday was 41 percent higher than expected. (According to Saggitarius.com, two Sagittarii together can be “highly unpredictable although remarkable!”). It turns out that these same-birthday pairings are probably just accidents on the forms, writes United Academics. When you take away the birthday weirdness, you wind up with no effect at all. The study includes the following analysis:

This research shows that astrological sign has no impact on the probability of marrying – and staying married to – someone of any other sign. For decades, popular astrologers have promoted the idea of ‘love signs’: compatibility between partners with certain combinations of birthdays. If the more than twenty million married people in England and Wales offer any indication, however, lonely hearts who worry about the zodiac are wasting their time.

(See smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/good-news-astrology-doesnt-impact-the-success-of-your-marriage-10892064/; Emphasis in original). 

Astrologers use three common defenses against the fact there is no scientific support for what they claim astrology can do: (1) scientists, and most of the general populace, "don't understand astrology" like those "in the know" (think: Gnosticism); (2) science is inherently "evil;" (3) "experience" and testimonials "prove" astrology true.

MJB does the same. In the second video, he claims people against astrology (including scientists) "don't understand it." He then pontificates that science was "hijacked by the Enlightenment" and can't be trusted. Finally, astrology can be shown true because of certain events. He tells the viewer (I kid you not) that Freemasons at NASA planned the launch of the Apollo 11 when the "moon was ascendant." This shows the coming together of the moon and the sun (Apollo being the name of the pagan sun god) and will also get people to focus on the launch. Yeah. OK. Sure. He also has anecdotal testimonials which mean nothing scientifically.

Astrology's Attempt to Side-Step Science

Some astrologers will claim that what they do is scientific in spite of all the research being clearly against them.  The others, who are honest, will admit they deal with "unseen" or supernatural forces. To be certain, science is one way--but not the only way--to ascertain the truth. If astrology is dealing with supernatural forces (read "demons"), it would account for both the accuracy of some individuals' astrological charts/ "readings" and would not be subject to the scientific method. If astrology works via the forces of nature, it would be subject to scientific investigation. A third option (used by some New Agers to dupe Christians) is to claim astrology is supernatural, but by God's doing, not Satan. 

Astrologers are either "dabblers" who do it for "kicks," and the serious who do it for money. Each category can be further divided into (a) those who claim it works "scientifically," and (b) those who assert it works supernaturally. Among those who invoke supernatural forces, some identify them as "spiritual," and others claim it is knowledge from the Christian God. The serious practitioners who perform astrological readings for money are, for the most part, charlatans who open themselves up to the demonic. Those who declare astrology "science" cannot produce any real research, so they fall back on one or more of the following "proofs:"

•   Astrology is true/good because it is found in many cultures (So is worshipping idols; doesn't make it either true or good.)

• Extraterrestrial or “cosmo-biological” influences exist (Scientists do agree that extraterrestrial influences exist, such as the moon’s influence on the tides, but the same scientists also agree that this has nothing to do with influencing people)

• Non-astrologers are unqualified to judge astrology (There are no qualifications to be an astrologer)

Therefore, any pleading by MJB that "Catholic" astrology  is scientific would fail miserably. 

Who Qualifies as an Astrologer?

Before moving on to the contention that astrology can be "Catholic," I'd like to answer the question, "Who qualifies as an astrologer?" Paradoxically, the answer is "no one" and "anyone." I say that no one can be a professional astrologer because astrology is neither scientifically or theologically supported. A person can call himself a "Professional Astrologer" in the same sense I can call myself a "Professional Unicorn Hunter." 

I say anyone can be a "Professional Astrologer” because those, like MJB, who give "readings" for money have no educational or licensing requirements. I'm a lawyer because I was accepted and graduated from an American Bar Association-approved law school with a Juris Doctorate (J.D.). After having passed the rigorous curriculum requirements for my J.D., I then passed the New York State Bar Exam. I'm a science teacher because I have a Masters Degree in Science Education from an approved University, was observed for a year as a student teacher, and passed the New York State teaching examination for my license. 

Here are MJB's "qualifications" to be a "Catholic astrologer" on his own website listed as "Experience & Knowledge:"

• Many moons of reading independently on the topics of astrology, Occultism, Hermeticism and religion in general––specifically Catholicism. ("Independent reading" on the occult and the Vatican II sect doesn't qualify someone as any type of professional). 

•  Research application of astrology to my Schism206 content on world events, social engineering, symbolism, etc. (Whatever that means).

•  Well over 100 hours of professional readings along with satisfied clients (see Testimonials section). (What makes them "professional"? That he got paid? The satisfied "clients" [read: "fools"] were most likely told things they wanted to hear). 

•  Life: its trials and tribulations, but also joys and blessings.(Being alive is a qualification? Great; just keep waking up in the morning and you're good to go!). 

 The following is what our "Professional Catholic Astrologer" can do for you with his qualifications after you hand over $36 per hour:

“Judicial” is probably a misnomer for the type of natal chart analysis we do here, as it’s under the umbrella of the views of Thomas Aquinas on such matters; thus, it would deemed a natural influence in regards to natural inclinations vs. “magic." See the "Spiritual Views" section below for more on these topics. However, whether or not astrology is indeed a "natural" phenomenon, or it simply functions as a Rorschach test that is devoid of any physical reality or influence, the result is the same––at least when the proper restrictions are placed upon it, and it's used as tool for self-analysis and self-reflection. This is the main approach we take. (Emphasis mine).

MJB disavows divination, yet clings to the idea of "natural forces" influencing "natural inclinations," which I have demonstrated has no scientific validity whatsoever. Aquinas was operating under the science as best it was known almost 800 years ago. Nevertheless, even if astrology is not a natural phenomena subject to the scientific method, we are told it can function as a "Rorschach test." The Rorschach test is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, which is done by a psychologist, psychiatrist, or other licensed mental health counselor. MJB doesn't even pretend to have such credentials. So, even if astrology is "like a Rorschach test," it requires years of education and training to do it correctly. Moreover, no psychologist has ever declared that astrology charts can be used instead of inkblots for such testing.

Whether he admits it or not, using astrology in a psychological manner would fall into the category of Jungian New Age "astrotherapy" I mentioned earlier. 

Worthless Testimonials

MJB's website has praise for his astrological readings. Here is one such testimonial:

"Michael is exceptional at his craft.  As a fellow student of the esoteric I am often naturally skeptical of how the many approach these topics.  My familiarity with Michael’s approach to research had alleviated these fears and with good reason.  We discussed my chart with me in a way that was both empowering and enlightening.  Unlike the popularly portrayed deterministic model of astrology, Michael presented me with obstacles and assets.  He was able to explain phases of my life with an eerie degree of accuracy and expose lessons I would have otherwise ignored.  This is truly an exceptional service that can help anyone from the seasoned seeker to those beginning on their path. I highly suggest you book your session with him today!"

~ Ross Cessna (The Spiritual Phoenix Podcast).  (Emphasis mine).

Astrology works (when there is no demonic activity) because of (1) The Barnum Effect, and (2) the inability of astrology to be falsified. According to the American Psychological Association, The Barnum effect is the tendency to believe that vague predictions or general personality descriptions, such as those offered by astrology, have specific applications to oneself. Coinage of the term has been attributed to Paul Everett Meehl; it alludes to a remark allegedly made by U.S. showman Phineas T. Barnum (1810–1891) to the effect that “There’s a sucker born every minute.” The effect was termed the fallacy of personal validation by U.S. psychologist Bertram Robin Forer (1914–2000), who first studied it in 1949. (See dictionary.apa.org/barnum-effect; Emphasis mine). Hence, MJB can "present your assets" and "phases of your life" using generalities the person's mind then applies to himself. (It is also possible that it is very specific and reliable due to demonic influence, but I shall not address that now). 

The lack of falsifiability makes astrology seem to work because astrologers always have “reasonable” explanation for failures. Within astrology exists an inexhaustible reserve of material for explaining the failures of astrology without threatening astrology itself. Some of the excuses astrologers have given are: The so-called client did not really “know himself”- the time of birth must have been inaccurately recorded; the stars “impel,” they do not “compel”; the person’s free will countered the astrological prediction; astrologers aren’t perfect; the client never fulfilled his “astrological potential.” A thousand and one excuses are given except the right one: Astrology itself is a falsehood. 

Astrology: Doorway to Demons

Does the Church distinguish between "good" and "bad" astrology? No. Astronomy and its scientifically valid predictions (such as the times of the tides) is not condemned. With our current knowledge of science, astrology is pseudoscience and always involves some kind of predictions about the future. There is no "Catholic" astrology anymore than there can be "Catholic" abortion. Popular culture has for years been trying to push the idea of "good" and "bad" witches (from The Wizard of Oz to Harry Potter), yet all witchcraft is evil. 

MJB has cited no approbation from the Vatican II sect for his "Catholic" astrology (although they certainly won't warn against it or condemn it either). What does the One True Church have to say about astrology? Despite MJB's protestations to the contrary, astrology is a type of divination ("predicting the future," or as the Oxford Dictionary defines it, "the practice of seeking knowledge of the future or the unknown by supernatural means."). As such, astrology falls under the prohibition of the Church. According to theologians McHugh and Callan, divination is a sin of superstition against the First Commandment because "a creature is given the credit of Divine knowledge, when instruction about hidden matters which only God could bestow is asked from it..." (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:360). Furthermore, "If there is no explicit invocation of the spirits of evil, the sin is of its nature mortal on account of its implicit commerce with the devil; but generally the sin will be light on account of the dispositions of the offender (e.g., because he is ignorant, or consults divination as a joke or from curiosity, or has no faith in it). Hence, the faithful should be warned not go to fortune tellers...All forms of divination, it is commonly held, belong to the same species of worship of a false god..(Ibid, 2:365-366; Emphasis mine). 

MJB's protestation that he is only talking about "influences" and not "fatalism" is clearly condemned by Pope Sixtus V in his decree Coeli et Terrae, promulgated January 5, 1586. The pertinent part reads:

...Therefore, We condemn and reject all forms of divination...by this decree, which will be forever valid, and by Our Apostolic Authority, We decree and declare against astrologers...and any others who practice the art of what is called judicial astrology (with the exception of those who make predictions in relation to agriculture, navigation, and medicine); also against those who dare to cast and interpret people's birth-horoscopes with a view to foretelling future events--be these contingent, successive or fortuitous--or actions dependent upon human will, even if the astrologer maintains or testifies that he is not saying anything for certain..." (Emphasis mine). Therefore, even if events are not certain (only influenced), it stands condemned. MJB does exactly this with his "natal chart readings." It is still a form of divination and opens one up to demonic forces. His argument that it's like "reading ink blots" also fails miserably as he has no credentials in psychology to do so, and psychology itself never makes use of "star charts" in place of ink blots for the Rorschach test.  It would be New Age astrotherapy. 

To put things in historical perspective, with advancement in science and the combining of astrological nonsense with legitimate astronomy, there was confusion as to what, exactly, was legitimate to use in regard to astrology. There were astrologers at the court of Pope Paul III, but later Pope Sixtus V, having consulted the theologians and bishops, drew the line between the legitimate ends of astronomy and the illegitimacy of astrology--thus officially pronouncing the position of the Church. 

The Objection of the Three Kings Being "Astrologers"

Inevitably, there will be the objection that the Three Kings who went to see the birth of Christ were "astrologers" and therefore, astrology is permitted. The Douay-Rheims Bible gives the accurate translation of St. Matthew 2:1-2, "When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of King Herod, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to adore Him.'"  According to theologian Haydock, "Both the Latin and the Greek text may signify wise philosophers and astronomers which is the common exposition." (See The Douay-Rheims New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with Catholic Commentary, [1859], pg. 1249;Emphasis mine). There was no differentiation in those days between the legitimate study of the stars and planets (the science of astronomy) and pagan, superstitious astrology. Haydock continues, "They knew it was His star, either by some prophesy among them, or by Divine revelation." (Ibid). 

That the Magi were recipients of private Divine revelation is borne out by verse 12, "And having received an answer in sleep that they should not return to Herod, they went back another way into their country."(Emphasis mine). God revealed to them in their sleep that they were to return another way home and not to heed the wicked Herod. Haydock teaches, "Some ancient interpreters think these very men might have been magicians before their conversion." (Ibid; Emphasis mine). God will sometimes reveal Himself in a special way to those of good will. The Jewish "proper diaspora" began with the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC which sent them all around the Mesopotamia. Before the establishment of the Catholic Church, Judaism was the true religion. The Magi ("wise men") were either astronomers (or possibly astrologers who also learned astronomy) and converted. After all, if pagans, why would they go looking after a God in Whom they did not believe? They were rewarded for their faith by God. Hence, there is no "Catholic astrology," nor would God reward it, contrary to what MJB would like you to believe.

The Dangers of MJB and Astrology

There are three dangers of getting a "Catholic astrology" reading:

1. Astrology is dangerous because it is a lie. If astrology is not true in any sense, then it cannot give either accurate or useful information, for a system founded upon falsehood can never generate truths. You are living a lie, and that can never be good.

2. Astrology is dangerous because it is an occult system CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH that leads people to accept the assistance and advice of demons. If astrology functions in collaboration with demons, then it is dangerous by definition. The influence comes from the demonic, not God or science. You are doing something sinful. The Vatican II sect has not endorsed "Catholic astrology," or even attempted to define what, precisely, it would encompass.  

3. You no longer rely on God, but on "the stars" to tell you what to do. Traditional devotions and reliance on God, Who will guide you and strengthen you, is cast aside for astrological advice. It also helps to indirectly justify sin, because you couldn't resist your "natural inclination" to do this or that sinful act. 

"One Peter Five"= A Danger To The Faith

Does this website even bother to vet their writers? Having MJB write on the "dangers of the occult" is analogous to Joseph Stalin writing on the "dangers of Communism." How is a foul-mouthed, uneducated young man qualified to tell you anything about your life situation--especially when it's based upon reading books on the occult and experiencing the joys and sorrows of life?  This same MJB is going to write a book on the occult? Please. Can you trust anything OP5 publishes?

Conclusion

In this time of Great Apostasy, we must be more careful than ever before to prudently follow the Church and avoid the traps of the enemy who prowls about the world looking for the ruin of souls. (See Prayer to St. Michael after Low Mass, composed by Pope Leo XIII). The "occult invasion" since the Church was driven underground, does indeed show up in places you least expect it--like allegedly "Catholic" websites with an "anti-occultist" trying to sell you occultism in the name of the Church.