Gillaume le Castlein
Dec 7 2003, 11:17 AM
The Thomistic synthesis is by no means an answer to the problem of evil. I’m using it here to set the stage for a discussion about evil as it was understood by most medievals. What Saint Thomas’ synthesis helps to illuminate is the fact that medieval men and women regarded evil as primarily a disorder of right existence. Once again it is important to note that evil is not here regarded as a simple absence or as an illusion. For Saint Thomas Aquinas and the medieval intelligencia in general, evil was something that existed in reality, that had the ability to affect persons and things in a real way. The monastic ideal, predating Saint Thomas for centuries, worked on the premise that ascetics were the milites Christi, the soldiers of Christ, embroiled in a bitter spiritual battle with the forces of evil, that like God, could enter into the material realm to bring God’s creation into further disorder. (This latter point seems to be missing entirely from modern discussions regarding evil and sin, and I think this has caused a rather glaring hole in the modern debate; modern debate seems to ignores a reality that medieval thinkers took for granted... I’ll look into this problem a little bit later, but in the meantime lets set the stage.)
The origin of this disordered reality, therefore, must be mentioned. The Thomistic synthesis neatly takes God out of this equation. If evil is a disordering of reality created good by a loving God, then God can not be responsible for the origin evil, at least not directly (I’ll deal with this ultimate sticking point later). The question arises, then: Where did evil originate? For the medieval, the answer must lie in the actions of those creatures created by God with wills capable of disordering reality. It is easy to say that free will entails the ability to sin, and sin brings about evil in the world. This, however, is an over-simplification into which medieval thinkers, especially Saint Thomas, did not easily fall. I think it telling that Saint Thomas, himself, never used the terminology, “free will”. Instead of speaking of “free will,” Thomas instead speaks of “free choice.” For Saint Thomas, the will was never really free, and he would never consider a “free will” as a good thing. The will should always, according to Saint Thomas, be governed by reason, and left to its own devises without the guidance of reason, will becomes base desire.
In order to flesh this out it will take some grunt work in defining terms, such as will, intellect and reason, but I think it is important for understanding not only Saint Thomas’ position on the origin of evil, but the evolution of medieval thinking up to the 13th century. For example, once we understand that the will is directed toward an object of reason, which the medievals for the most part did, the problem arises: if we assume that evil begins from an object of a free will, we must necessarily assume that either reason perceived an already created evil it deemed as good, or that human reason is capable of creating or perceiving an object of the will that does not exist in created reality. The former would bring us back to God creating evil, and the latter would either undercut the notion that knowledge is gained from experience, or attribute to human reason a power it does not possess (while Augustinians could accept the former, such illumination could not possibably be evil, and no medieval thinker could accept the latter).
Gillaume le Castlein
Dec 17 2003, 11:02 PM
The Devil
The medieval construct took into serious consideration the Devil in consideration of the origin of evil and the fall of man, thus we must inevitably take this path as well. The word “devil” comes from the Greek word, diaballein, which signifies an office--“the accuser” or “the slanderer.” The Hebrew word Satan, means the same--an accuser.
As mentioned it became very obvious to the medieval thinker that the schools of Greek philosophy failed miserably to account for the origin of evil, so they naturally turned toward divine revelation. This in no wise was a cop out though. There are many references to the Devil and his legions in the Old and New Testaments, but no one passage is clear as to the origin or nature of these beings. In order to set the stage it might be profitable to outline some of these passages that medieval thinkers regarded when they considered the origin of evil:
Old Testament
Wisdom 2:24 -- But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.
Job 4:18 -- Lo, he [God] puts no trust in his servants, and with his angels he can find fault.
Isaiah 14:12-15 -- How have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star [Lucifer], son of the dawn! How are you cut down to the ground, you who mowed down the nations! You said in your heart: “I will scale the heavens; Above the stars of God I will set up my thrown; I will take my seat on the Mount of Assembly, in the recesses of the North. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will be like the Most High!” Yet down to the nether world you go to the recesses of the pit!
Ezekiel 28:12-15 -- Son of man, utter a lament over the king of Tyre, saying to him: Thus says the Lord God: You were stamped with the seal of perfection, of complete wisdom and perfect beauty. In Eden, the garden of God, you were, and every precious stone was your covering; Of gold your pendants and jewels were made, on the day you were created. With the Cherub I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God, walking among the fiery stones. Blameless you were in your conduct from the day you were created, until evil was found in you.
The last passage, while directed toward an earthly king, uses the imagery associated with a fallen angel. The author is making an obvious parallel for rhetorical purposes.
New Testament
Rev 12:7-9 -- Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back, but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.
Jude 1:6 -- the angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day.
2 Peter 2:4 -- For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but condemned them to the chains of Tartarus and handed them over to be kept for judgement...
Because of the lack of detail in the Scriptural passages, the best one can do is to take these various passages and place them into the context of patristic writings to ascertain the early Church’s conception of the Devil. Not until the fourth Lateran Council in 1215 did the Church set forth a clear teaching regarding the Devil: the Devil and the other demons were created by God good in their nature but they by themselves have made themselves evil. The council reiterated the traditional teaching that the Devil and his demons were created, non-corporeal creatures (angels) in a state of innocence, but by their own act of will, sinned against God. This definition is supported by the various Scriptural passages and imagery, patristic writings and the living tradition of the Church.
That’s the easy part, though. What was the nature of this angelic sin? No easy question, indeed, once we consider the nature of angelic beings and the content of their intellect and knowledge... :offtheair:
Duncan
Nov 25 2003, 09:22 AM
Is there a scale to the balance of the good and evil in the world?
Does such a thing exist, or is it only in the mind of man?
Did the insanity of 9-11 tip the balance toward an evil influence in the world, more then normal any way, as spoken of in legends of things thats happened and has been passed down from earlier times?
There are many reports during a war or other conflict of manifestations that may indicate such a thing as a cosmic balance is in play.
They range from a simple act of kindness to even the appearance of armed Knights on horse back defeating a battalion of the then modern solders with automatic weapons.
Like the Cross of the Crusaders and the Muslim symbols, did Nazi Germany and the US use the mystic symbols of the Swastika and Pentagram by shear accident in WW II, or were they chosen to off set each other in the global conflict of Good and Evil.
Is a war just a shadow of other things?
Duncan
Dec 7 2003, 12:43 PM
QUOTE
For Saint Thomas Aquinas and the medieval intelligence in general, evil was something that existed in reality, that had the ability to affect persons and things in a real way. The monastic ideal, predating Saint Thomas for centuries, worked on the premise that ascetics were the milites Christi, the soldiers of Christ, embroiled in a bitter spiritual battle with the forces of evil, that like God, could enter into the material realm to bring God’s creation into further disorder.
I have to admit I'm in more agreement with the medieval thinking then I thought.
This part also sounds like the reference in the Bible "s" to the war fought by the soldiers {angles} of Heaven against those who turned against God.
Gillaume le Castlein
Dec 20 2003, 11:14 AM
The first of these speculative questions referring to the time of probation of the angelic hosts involves a notion of time that is somewhat foreign to modern notions. I don’t claim to understand modern speculative physics regarding time, and neither would medieval thinkers. On the other hand, I’m not entirely clear as to the medieval conception of time. I do know, though, that time was understood in a very corporeal way. Medieval men and women measured time by the movements of corporeal bodies, such as the stars and planets. Astronomy was an important medieval science for the practical purpose of calculating the placement of the moveable feast of Easter. It is apparent that temporality was dependent upon movement of bodies.
In regard to humans and all other things of the material universe, temporality was the result of our finite and corporeal natures. We are subject to time because we are creatures subject to change. We move from potentiality to act, we move from experience to knowledge to desire to action; we are subject to growth and corruption; we live in a world that moves along according to the seasons. All of these various movements are measurable, and thus we can speak of time as a measurement of movement. Of course, a being that is not finite, and thus not corporeal, is not subject to temporality. Thus God is not limited by time. This is all medieval thinkers could venture to guess about the timelessness of God--He is not subject to time.
In regard to the angels, can we speak of movement and temporality? Is there time in heaven? It would seem that there is movement on an intellectual plane with regard to the angels. While angels are non-corporeal creatures, they are still creatures, and all creatures are created for an end. The primary purpose of the angels given by Scripture seems to be to give praise and service to God. If angels move toward this given end, then it follows that they must move toward this end after an act of reason and will. The angels judge their end as good by a power of reason, and then desire this end as a good, and then act. The power of reason on the part of the angels is significantly different from the human power of reason that comes from knowledge via discursive reasoning based on sense experience. Angels are non-corporeal, so they do not come to knowledge via discursive reasoning, but come to their knowledge via direct revelation from God. This angelic illumination, however, is not the same as God’s knowledge. God’s knowledge and power of reason is without limit--He thinks of all things simultaneously for eternity. Angels, however, do not contemplate all things at once. Their knowledge may be comprehensive in regards to all things created by God, but it is revealed in succession according to each aspect of God’s creative action. Thus on an intellectual level, angels can be said to have movement, and thus we can speak of some kind of temporality as in movement from one thought to the next. This kind of temporality, however, is very different from our experience, and there’s really no way to adequately explaining it.
Both Saint Thomas and Blessed John Duns Scotus held that, theoretically, God could have revealed all He wanted to reveal to the angels about themselves and His creative act at the moment they were created, and as a consequence, Satan could have chosen to rebel in that instant. While this is theoretically possible, both thinkers held that such a possibility was unlikely given Scripture which indicates a time when Lucifer and the other fallen angels existed in heaven as worthy angels. Such a position could also lead one to misinterpret the fall of Lucifer as designed by God. The best either one could say was that such a possibility is unlikely and dangerous given what they knew from Scripture.
More important is the second speculative question. Can or did Satan and his angels have a chance at redemption? That God’s punishment for the sin of Lucifer and his angels was swift is well attested in Scriptures, as are references that Satan and his angels are beyond redemption: “God spared not the angels that sinned,” (II Peter 2:4). That they are now beyond repentance was a given for medieval thinkers, but whether or not they were ever beyond repentance is another matter.
Many argued that according to the angelic nature, and the powers of their reason and will, the angels were incapable of making any other choice beyond the choice between sanctifying grace and its rejection. Other’s argued that God, according to his infinite mercy, would have made it possible for the fallen angels to repent. It is important to note that Scripture gives no direction in regards to this question. However, it seems reasonable to accept that since Satan rejected all sanctifying grace, to include the grace of forgiveness, his eyes are permanently turned away from God’s forgiveness. Only Saint Thomas seems to hint that the fallen angels did not make a single and static choice, but made a single and dynamic choice... a choice that is on-going--they continue to make their choice into eternity. But he never formulated an organized argument. With this understanding, God always offers to the fallen angels forgiveness, but the fallen angels always refuse it. This seems to fit very well with the interpretation that the “blasphemy against the Spirit” that “will not be forgiven” (Matthew 12:31) is unforgivable because it is, itself, a rejection of God’s forgiveness along with all sanctifying grace.
Gillaume le Castlein
Dec 1 2003, 12:44 AM
The problem of evil is a fascinating topic in the field of medieval philosophy and theology. In order to approach the problem of evil in the historical context of the medieval period, we should start with the father of medieval philosophy and theology, Saint Augustine of Hippo. In the 7th book of his Confessions, Saint Augustine wrote:
QUOTE
And it became clear to me that those things which are subject to corruption are good. They would not be subject to corruption if they were the highest good or not good at all. For, if they were the highest good, they would be incorruptible, but if they were not good at all, there would not be anything in them to be corrupted. For corruption would not harm. Either, therefore, corruption does not harm at all, which cannot be the case, or, which is quite certain, all things which are corrupted are deprived of something good in them. But if things are deprived of all goodness, they will have no being at all. For if they continue to exist and can no longer be corrupted, they will be better than before, because they will be permanently beyond the reach of corruption. And what is more monstrous than to say that those things which have lost all goodness have become better? If they were deprived of all goodness, they would be altogether nothing. Therefore, as long as they are, the are good. Therefore, all things which exist are good, and that evil, the origin of which I sought, is not a substance because, if it were a substance, it would be good. For either it would be an incorruptible substance, that is, the highest good, or it would be a corruptible substance which, unless it were good, would not be corruptible. Therefore I saw and clearly realized that all things you have made are good, and there are certainly no substances which you have not made.
The Augustinian definition of evil as an absence (a corruption, a privation) of a good that should, according to a thing’s nature, be there was to dominate western medieval thought. Evil then is not a positive thing, but a negative. In support of the Augustinian definition we have the 10th century Islamic philosopher, Avicenna (Ibn Sina), who wrote in his Essay on the Secret of Destiny:
QUOTE
We say that the apparent evils which befall this world are, on the principles of the Sage, not purposed for the world--the good things alone are what is purposed, the evil ones are a privation...
The definition of evil as a privation has a common source for both Avicenna and Saint Augustine--Neoplatonism, and specifically in regard to Saint Augustine, the Neoplatonism of Pseudo-Dionysius. However, the history of the theory becomes very murky before Saint Augustine’s concise rendering in his Confessions, and for our purposes, his definition will suffice.
The theory that evil is a privation or absence is a fairly complex theory that warrants a greater degree of description. In order to outline the theory with greater clarity, I will have to call on the systematic presentation of the 13th century philosopher and theologian, Thomas Aquinas. This will take a bit of research, though.
--David :sheildsmile:
Gillaume le Castlein
Dec 7 2003, 10:11 PM
QUOTE
This part also sounds like the reference in the Bible "s" to the war fought by the soldiers {angles} of Heaven against those who turned against God.
In a way it was very similar, but the struggle of the medieval ascetic was on a much lower plane and of a different order. The monk’s struggle was in the taking up of suffering and self-denial as a means of atoning for the sins they and others had committed. They believed that through their prayers and self-sacrifice they were in their flesh “filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church” (Col 1:24). They saw themselves as participating in the redemptive work of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on the cross, a calling that they shared with Jesus by virtue of the Church being the “body of Christ.” Ultimately the battle was not fought to somehow overcome Satan or the principalities of darkness and evil, as such a thing could only be done by the power of God made manifest in the heavenly hosts, but to save souls by lives of self-sacrifice and prayer.
--David :sheildsmile:
Gillaume le Castlein
Dec 21 2003, 10:32 AM
The place of Lucifer in the heavenly hosts was discussed with equal zest as these other speculative questions. Was he the first of the angels, a mighty captain? Was he among the cherubim and seraphim, among the thrones? Was he the highest in a positive sense, meaning that he was the mightiest of angels, or the highest in a negative sense, meaning that none were higher, but others equal? Some conjectured, based on certain biblical passages that the Earth was given to the keeping of Lucifer before his fall, and after his fall he still holds dominion over the world of men (John 14:30, for example). However, this is very unlikely as these passages always indicate that Satan has dominion over the world of men because of his triumph in man’s first sin. At any rate, it was apparent to medieval thinkers that Lucifer was of a high rank in the heavenly host judging from the language of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, and that he was the leader of a host of angels who followed him to ruin (Mat. 25:41; Rev.12:7; Lk 11:15, 18; Eph 2:2).
At any rate, medieval thinkers took seriously Jesus’ words in John 14:30 when he says that Satan is “the ruler of this world.” This rulership was generally interpreted by medieval thinkers as a dominion over the minds of evil people. Those who are evil belong to the kingdom of Satan on in this world. Saint Augustine, in his De Civitate Dei compared the city of Satan, a world sunk in evil desire, false religion and magic, confusion and doubt, with the new city founded by Christ through this triumph at the cross. Through the sacrifice of Christ, men and women are now admitted to the City of God--a visible alternative to the Devil’s city, where the citizens of this new city find salvation. The age in which we live is a struggle between these two cities. Augustine’s thought was to have a profound impact on the shape of western Christianity, especially the monastic movement and various reforms.
Saint Thomas Aquinas was to make clear, though, that the rule of Satan over the minds of evil men and women is very different from the rule exercised by Jesus over the citizens of the new city. Satan’s rule can be nothing more than an external rule that binds the bodies and minds of human beings to himself. Jesus’ rule, on the other hand, is a self-giving, self-sacrificing rule that works not to bind the human person to a dominating will, but to inspires each person to fulfill their own natures in accordance with the liberating will of the Creator (Summa III, 8,7). Medieval thinkers, no matter how inclined they were to delve the speculative questions that revelation suggested, never lost sight of the basic principle that the sacrifice of Christ freed human beings from bondage to Satan and paid the price of divine justice.
It would be enough to posit only the first sin of our ancestors to account for the pain, suffering and propagation of sin in our world. The sin of Adam, so to speak, placed man in opposition to God’s creation by placing himself in opposition to God, and thus human beings suffer and toil in the world around them. The first sin also stained his soul, giving rise to the propensity to sin, or concupiscence. Sin would certainly exist today without the further interference of the Devil. But medieval thinkers were convinced that the Devil still interferes with the world in which we live, that he and his minions still hold sway in the world about us. Their conviction is supported by Saint Pauls words in his letter to the Ephesians 6:12: “Our battle is not against human forces but against the principalities and powers, the ruler of this world of darkness, the evil spirits in regions above.”
The full implications of the perils of their world were clear: evil is not a random or natural occurrence, nor is evil the design of mere humans, but it is intended and directed with malicious intent by intellegences that are naturally well beyond the ability of mortals. The fallen angels, even without the sanctifying grace of God, possess natural powers that far surpass the powers of corporeal creatures. They are capable of binding souls that agree to their lies, they can enter into the privacy of one’s cell to quietly tempt them in the stillness of the night, they had the ability to torment lost souls for eternity, start wars, inflict both spiritual and physical pain, had the ability to possess material objects and mortal creatures including wild beasts and even human beings, and they could move men by their suggestions to commit horrible acts. More over, they are capable of organizing the evil of this world according to their design, in their supercosmic battle with God. However, in the face of such a frightening reality, medieval thinkers were assured of one indisputable thing: the superiority of Christ and His sacrifice. Satan and his minions are doomed to failure, and the greatest lie of Satan is the belief that he and his fallen angels can win.
Gillaume le Castlein
Dec 3 2003, 10:48 PM
OK, so if evil is the absence of good... and the ability to see is good, isn’t it evil that a rock can’t see?
Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, Ia, Q48, Art 3): As was said above, evil imports the absence of good. But not every absence of good is evil. For absence of good can be taken in a privative and in a negative sense. Absence of good, taken negatively, is not evil; otherwise, it would follow that what does not exist is evil, and also that everything would be evil, through not having the good belonging to something else; for instance, a man would be evil who had not he swiftness of the roe, or the strength of a lion. But the absence of good, taken in a privative sense, is an evil; as, for instance, the privation of sight is called blindness.
Thomas makes an important distinction between two types of absence, here. Something can be absent because it doesn’t belong there, like a 1955 Chevy in the 1800s, or the strength of a lion in a man or a monkey. This is absence taken in the negative sense. Privative absence (privation) is the absence of something that should be there. Like, for example, the power to walk in a full grown human being, or the ability for a woman to see. If someone is blind we would say that that person possesses a privation of sight. The absence of the ability to see for the rock is absence understood as negative, the absence of the ability to see for a woman is privative (a privation), and thus an evil.
OK, so what about a baby... there is an absence of the abilities to walk, talk, and control his temper... wouldn’t these absences be evils, since babies are humans, and those abilities should be there for humans?
Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, Ia, Q48, Art3): It is, however, manifest that the form which makes a thing actual is a perfection and a good; and thus every actual being is a good; and likewise every potential being, as such, is a good, as having a relation to good. For as it has being in potentiality, so has it goodness in potentiality.
Here Aquinas falls back on an already established set of metaphysical laws he has spent more than one article building earlier in his Summa. A created thing can be said to exist in two ways at the same time: it exists in act and in potentiality. It is actual in as much as it conforms to its nature, and it is in potential in as much as it is striving toward conforming to its nature. For example, the acorn is not an oak tree, but the acorn is an oak tree potentially. The same holds true for the baby... the ability to walk, talk, and control his temper all exist in the baby, but in potential. Thus, there is only an absence in the sense that the baby’s potential has not been reduced to act. The lack of these abilities in a baby is not a privative absence (evil) because there is no absence at all... all these goods exist in potential.
OK, so what about a brain tumor? Who would say that a brain tumor isn’t evil? However, it definitely is not an absence of something, but quite the opposite... its definitely there!
Thomas wouldn’t argue that the presence of a brain tumor is an evil. However, he would argue from which direction the evil involved is coming from. Does the evil come from the tumor, itself? Thomas would answer, no. Certainly there is nothing evil about a tumor that has been removed from a person’s head and is sitting on the laboratory table. The tumor is only evil when it is sitting on a person’s brain. Thus, what is evil about the brain tumor is not the tumor, itself, but the disorder of the person’s health caused by the presence of the tumor on the person’s brain. The disorder... slurred speech, blurry vision, convulsions, vertigo, etc... is a privation of proper health, and it is this privation of health that is evil.
Another example would be cruelty. There is nothing absent about a school yard bully’s fist knocking out some poor child’s front teeth, however, no one would argue that the school yard bully’s actions aren’t evil. Once again Aquinas would argue that the evil does not reside in the bully’s fist, or in the bully’s fist striking the other child’s mouth. The evil resides not in the action, itself, but in the fact that the action is contrary to the moral law. Thomas asserts that human beings should conform to the moral law, and not doing so is a privative absence of a good that should be there, a privation, and thus an evil.
Ohh, headache :eek: ... more later :offtheair:
--David :sheildsmile:
Gillaume le Castlein
Dec 11 2003, 08:22 AM
For most medieval thinkers, causality was of great importance in determining the meaning of the words we use and constructing a metaphysical basis for approaching reality. In reference to the fall, medieval thinkers would approach the problem in the following manner:
In order for there to be a sin, there must be an action. In order for there to be an action, there must be an object of desire or will. For there to be an object of will, there must be an act of judgement, the reason, determining something as worthy of desire, determining something as good.
If the first humans sinned, then the first humans committed an act of judgement that determined a lesser good worthy of desire more so than the greater good of the divine law. This is clearly from our day to day activity... sin is very easy given the fallen condition of man. However, for the first humans, in a state of innocence, who were capable of seeing clearly the divine law, as God walked with them in the garden, how did they come about this faulty act of judgement? If the medieval thinker were to say that they came to this judgement based upon their experience of creation, then they would have to admit that God’s creation possesses some flaw... thus placing back on God the origin of evil. If they asserted that the human psyche can somehow fashion an object of desire independent of experience or divine illumination, then they would contradict both Saint Augustine’s and, later, Saint Thomas’ epistemology. Thus, the medieval thinker was forced to conclude that there had to be an exterior and objective source that made it possible for the first humans to commit an act of flawed judgement... this they understood as the serpent from the book of Genesis, or Satan.
This does did not take away human freedom in the medieval construct... the Devil didn’t make the first man and woman do it. Nor can it be said that the Devil was the cause of sin. Because Satan can not control our actions, only make suggestions, humans remain responsible and culpable for their actions. However, the first humans opted in their freedom to listen to the tempter instead of the precepts of God, and thus sinned.
What this demonstrates is the close relationship between philosophy and theology for the average medieval thinker. The pre-Christian Greek philosophical schools did much to enlighten the medieval mind concerning creation and even their understanding of Christian doctrine, but these schools were fundamentally inadequate to deal with certain perplexing problems such as the origin of evil. To the medieval, Christian faith did not necessarily stand in opposition to philosophy, but instead the Christian faith completed the endeavors of the Greek thinkers, bringing their thought to final fruition.
Gillaume le Castlein
Dec 19 2003, 07:18 PM
By stating that the first humans could not commit an evil act without a tempter, seems to pass the buck... so the origin evil has been passed on to the Devil, but if all things are created good, wouldn’t this have to include the Devil? How, then, did the Devil become evil?
According to the fourth Lateran Council of 1215, it was by an act of will on the part of an angel. This, however, presents a very problematic question for medieval thinkers. A sinful act of will is easy to account for in the actions of human beings, corporeal creatures easily fooled due to the corpus delicti, the weakness of bodily desires. Ignorance, inadvertence and bodily weakness are all things that can lead human beings to sin, but not angels. Even if we consider purely intellectual or spiritual sins, these can not be easily attributed to an angel.
For example, the passage from Isaiah above indicates that Lucifer sinned because he desired independence and equality with God leading to his rebellion. However, an angel, even the highest of the heavenly host, who exists in the very light of the divine, who does not have to conceptualize by induction or deduction based on a material world, but a creature who sees God face to face, could not have possibly overlooked the immense gulf between an infinite God and a created creature such as himself. A successful rebellion against such a glorious and majestic being as the infinite Godhead, and obviously any equality to such a being, could not be regarded by the angels as anything other than an impossibility.
Saint Anselm grasped the problem in his De Casu Diaboli when he wrote: If God cannot be thought of except as sole, and as of such an essence that nothing can be thought of like to Him how could the Devil have wished for what could not be thought of?--He surely was not so dull of understanding as to be ignorant of the inconceivability of any other entity like to God. An intelligent being can not will something that escapes its power of reason. Lucifer, nor any other created creature, can not conceive the absolute nature of an infinite being, and thus can not will anything equal to this nature. Thus, Saint Anselm, answers that Lucifer would be unable to desire equality with God in the absolute sense. Anselm answers the conundrum by stating that willing anything contrary to the divine is to claim an independence that belongs only to God, and thus at this level, Lucifer desired an equality, not absolute, but an equality of independence. Lucifer desired, not to be God’s absolute equal, but to be equal by claiming a certain likeness to God through claiming an independence that belongs only to God.
The discussion was taken up in the thirteenth century by the great schoolmen. Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed with Anselm as to Lucifer’s desire not for absolute equality, but that his desire to be “as God” (from Isaiah) was in likeness. However, a distinction must be made, because Holy Writ expressly indicates that a “likeness” to God is the desired end of both humans and angels. Both angels and humans are “like” God in their created perfections, and by supernatural grace. It is through supernatural grace that Saint Paul stated in his letters that human beings were to “become gods”, “gods through grace.” Aquinas held that not all desires for likenesses to God were sinful, in particular those desires for likenesses stipulated by the creator as belonging to the creature, such as natural perfections and the transformation to new life through sanctifying grace. These likenesses are according to the divine will. On the other hand, one can desire to be like God in his independence of will. The only way to emulate God’s independence would be to act contrary to the divine will. The only way that Lucifer could act contrary to the divine will was by a fundamental choice, but in heaven there is very little to choose from on a rational level. There is (1) the creature choosing and (2) the sanctifying grace offered by an infinite being. Thus the only way that Lucifer could act contrary to the divine will was to deny sanctifying grace. Thus, Thomas concludes that Satan fell because of pride... he chose to deny himself the perfection of sanctifying grace, and in doing so staked a claim to an independence belonging only to God. Blessed John Dun Scotus further qualified this argument by clarifying that Satan’s pride is not the same as human pride. Human pride is often the result of bodily weakness, a kind of self-serving of the appetites. Satan, on the other, did not will to serve his bodily appetites, obviously because he doesn’t have a body, but was prideful in as much as he desired for his own a perfection that belonged to God alone. Thus, Satan committed a kind of “spiritual lust,” the object of this lust being God's independence that Satan desired for his own.
Thus, the object of desire that Satan desired was not a pre-existing evil or flaw, but it was good. However, this independence is good only because it belongs to God alone.
Mention should be made here of the Scotus conception of the Incarnation. For Blessed John Dun Scotus the Incarnation was not a result, per se, of the fallen condition of man. No matter if man had sinned or not in the garden, the Word would have become incarnate as a human being as a necessary completion of God’s creative act. The fact that men sinned did not induce the Incarnation; it gave the Incarnation a salvific purpose that it would not have otherwise possessed. Here Scotus significantly differs from Saint Thomas Aquinas who insisted that the Incarnation took place as a result of human sin, and the primary purpose of the Word being made flesh was salvation. At any rate, many thinkers were influenced by Scotus thought, and posited that it was revealed to the angels that the Word was to be hypostatically joined to human nature, and not their own, and what’s more, all the heavenly host, including them, were to bow down and worship a God-Man (Heb 1:6; Ps 96:7). Thus, Lucifer’s fall was attributed to pride that flows from jealousy. (It should be noted, while Scotus formulated the above position regarding the Incarnation, he, himself, did not formulate any such position regarding the fall of Satan.)
While these theories regarding the Incarnation and the fall of Satan have not been accepted or condemned by the Magisterium as official doctrine, they still remain solely in the field of speculation. What we know for certain, without doubt from revelation, is the Thomist position; namely, that the Incarnation was occasioned by the fall of man and that its primary and only purpose was salvation. As such, the Thomist position does not support the aforesaid theory regarding the fall of the angels. The fall of Satan is obviously prior to the fall of man. How could the Incarnation be revealed to the angels before the occurrence of that which occasioned the Incarnation?
Personally, I lean toward the Scotus conception of the Incarnation, both in itself, and because of its implications pertaining to the fall of the angels. However, its merely speculation, so I guess I’ll just have to ask God myself when and if I get the opportunity.
This brings up two other speculative questions: How long was it between the creation of the angels and the fall of Lucifer? Was there a chance for redemption?
Gillaume le Castlein
Dec 21 2003, 11:57 AM
In case you are wondering if there is a point to this long meandering journey that I’ve dragged you down, the question that started this thread is one that medieval thinkers took very seriously:
QUOTE
Is there a scale to the balance of the good and evil in the world?
Does such a thing exist, or is it only in the mind of man?
Medieval thinkers would definitely reject any notion of a natural balance between good and evil in reality: evil, as a privation, was never “naturally” part of a world created good. On the other hand, they would term the question: “Is there a battle between good and evil that we see being played out in the world around us? Does this battle exist only in the mind of man?”
To the first question, they would definitely answer: yes! The powers and principalities of darkness that Saint Paul wrote about in his letter to the Ephesians were observably at work in the world. Without these powers and principalities there would be no rational explanation for the existence of evil in our world. To the second question, they would answer that the human mind is too small to fashion this colossal struggle as some kind of fantasy. Medieval thinkers were for the most part practical to a fault, and they understood well the practical limitations of the human mind.
QUOTE
Is a war just a shadow of other things?
Once again the typical medieval thinker would answer: yes. Behind most great evils is an organizing will of a malicious spirit, whose one goal is to sink the world of men into despair and doubt. This is not to say that men and women can’t sin without the temptations of the Devil and his minions, or that the Devil has some kind of control over the actions of human beings. The Devil and his minions make suggestions, tell lies, and manipulate according to their grand design. Human beings still are given the opportunity to make a choice: co-operate with Satan, or co-operate with God. Thankfully, the example provided by the good side, the sacrifice of Jesus and the presence of sanctifying grace, are much more efficacious influences on people than the urgings and tempting of the evil one.
QUOTE
Like the Cross of the Crusaders and the Muslim symbols, did Nazi Germany and the US use the mystic symbols of the Swastika and Pentagram by shear accident in WW II, or were they chosen to off set each other in the global conflict of Good and Evil.
Even though the struggle between good and evil has taken on many different forms, and has worn various masks throughout history, the struggle remains the same as it has always been since Satan first whispered in Eve’s ear. There should be no surprise then to observe certain intelligences at work in the happenings of our human history, to observe those brief moments when elements seem out of place and anachronistic. Behind the reality of sense perception there is a much deeper reality.