|
WE SHARE THE MAIL
Dear Fr. Connolly:
I read your response to my question and it was very insightful.
You did however create another residual question for me. Since
I’m always learning and trying to draw applicable analogies
to understand, I now pose you with this.
First let me say, I am not confusing being HUMAN with being a
PERSON. So saying that, and taking from your statement that all
of the angels are pretty much an ‘eternal’ fixture,
is the devil truly a ‘person’ or is he a ‘manifestation
of evil’ that exists because of man’s free will and
the use of that will to ‘choose’ evil rather that reject
it? Thus having some rationale for always existing and creating
the ‘catch 22’ effect of the damned being tortured
by their own sin. Now the problem with this is that it removes
the literal definition of the devil as proposed in the Bible
and places some of the ‘identification’ of who the
devil is, as being part of the author’s literary license
to put the devil in terms that the reader will understand.
In comment to your response- you did jog my memory some. I remember
now about having heard in my early years about ‘angels’
being ‘forever’. That always made me wonder why the
omnipotent God could not just ‘do away’ with the bad
ones. If I remember correctly- it is based on the same concept
that god created ‘free will’ with the intent that it
would never be compromise- and thus never be taken away because
of the choice- but the choice would determine one’s own
outcome.
RJB
Dear Colonel B:
There are two questions here. Let me put them in my own words
in the hope that I am not misunderstanding you.
Question #01: Is the devil truly a PERSON
or is he a literary device meant to symbolize evil?
Question #02: Why doesn’t God simply
annihilate the Devil (and his minions) instead of keeping them
in existence?
My answer to #01: It is a
dogma of the Catholic Faith that the angels are real persons.
As far as the authentic Catholic Faith is concerned, it is a
closed question. So, a fortiori, the Devil is a real person.
This begs the question: What is a person? Here is the definition
I have carried around in my head since college days: A person
is a distinct, individual entity who has a self-reflexive intellect
and a free will. As far as we know, there are only three
kinds of persons: divine, angelic and human. There are three
(and only three) divine Persons, all of Whom are uncreated. All
other persons are creatures. Angelic persons (like divine Persons)
are immaterial. They are not dependent on matter. (When we say
“matter”, we include, of course, “energy”
because “matter” and “energy” are interchangeable
entities. As Dr. Einstein has demonstrated (I think): Energy
is Matter that moves at the speed of light squared.) But angels
are not “energy” as we understand energy. They are
pure-spirit persons.
The reason I said “as far as we know” is simply this:
It is within the realm of possibility that there are other entities
who, like humans, are composed of spirit and matter. If such
beings do exist (and I kind of doubt that they do but I leave
my mind open to the possibility), they would be persons. They
would be those elusive “ETI’s” (extra-terrestrial
intelligences) who populate the annals of science fiction. But
angels are not to be equated with anything that has material
parts. So, just in case a UFO lands in your back yard and a strange
entity steps out and asks you to take him to your leader, be
assured that the entity is not an angel.
Other than making the bold assertion that angels really exist
and that they are persons and that we have to believe it because
it is a defined dogma of the Church, can we prove by empirical
evidence that they exist?
I would say, “No, we cannot prove by empirical evidence
that they exist, any more than we can prove by empirical evidence
that God exists or that the human soul exists.”
I would say that it is entirely reasonable to assert that they
exist, just as it is entirely reasonable to assert that God exists
and that the human soul exists. Not only is it reasonable, but
it is almost urgently reasonable.
The Bible and the Tradition
of the Church are unimpeachable sources for our belief in the
existence of angels (and of God and of human soul). My own intuition
certainly points in that direction. Whatever is lacking in empirical
evidence is more than made up for by the Bible and the Tradition
of the Church. I guess we call that “faith”.
Remember that “faith” is not a refuge for the gullible
and the uneducated, as some persons would have us believe. Faith
is a whole new way of knowing.
You know, of course, as I do, that there are persons who ridicule
our belief in angels. I am personally acquainted with some of
these. Such persons are usually also ambiguous about belief in
God and in human soul. Taking my clue from Hamlet, I usually
say to these cynics, “There are more things in heaven and
earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
That’s what known as a conversation stopper, appropriate
when conversing with wise guys.
If you want to read a good book on angels, I recommend Peter
Kreeft’s Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Angels
but Were Afraid to Ask.
My answer to #02: As to why God does or does not do
certain things, that is always an intriguing question. The most
basic version of this kind of question is: Why did God create
anything at all? Why didn’t (don’t) the Three Divine
Persons” just “rest in Themselves” and not clutter
up their existence with creatures?
The best we can do is use analogy. My answer is: God brought
creatures into existence for somewhat the same reason (this is
an analogy and remember that all analogies
limp!) that people have babies. Your wife and you made
a baby a few years ago, as I recall. Now, tell me: Just why
did you do that? Whatever reason you come up with, you can
apply to God (by analogy!) and then you’ll know why God
brought creatures into existence.
Now, just suppose that the baby you brought into existence turned
out to be a rotter! (I know that he did not turn out to
be a rotter, so I feel safe to use this as an example.) If he
had turned out to be a rotter, what would you do? Would
you destroy him or would you put up with him? I think your answer
would be: “I would not destroy (annihilate) him. I would
put up with him, although I would try to isolate him, so that
he could not do me harm.” In other words, your love for
your hypothetical rotten kid would be such that you would afford
him, as a bare minimum, the courtesy of existing. You might even
utilize his rottenness in order to bring about some good in your
other creatures.
That, more or less, is what God does with the Devil and his minions.
His love for them is eternal. He will not annihilate them. It
seems strange to say that God, in any sense, loves the fallen
angels. But He does. He grieves that they will never love Him
in return, but He will not annihilate them.
He sends them His love, but they do not accept His love, so His
love becomes like a fire that tortures them instead of a fire
that comforts and illuminates them.
If I could sit down with the Devil for an interview (sort of
like Charlie Rose on PBS), I would ask him: “Sir, if God
gave you your choice between annihilation and the eternal continuation
of your current and future miserable, disgusting, painful and
doomed-to-frustration status, which would you choose?”
What would his answer be?
I am quite certain that his answer would be something like the
following: “I am the master of my own destiny! I deny that
God has any power to annihilate me and, as far as my current
and future status is concerned, I would like you to know that
I am quite content. Am I not equal to God? I am the Master of
my realm as He is the Master of His! If you think that I am ever
going to crawl on my knees and ask Him for any favors, you are
quite mistaken. I would rather rule in Hell than reign in Heaven!”
(I borrowed that last line from John Milton.)
If I were to interview the Devil, I would have to remember, of
course, that he is a liar. God keeps him in existence until (a)
he repents or (b) he is no longer a liar. There is your
“Catch 22”. The Devil will never repent and he will
always be a liar! So, he will remain forever an unrepentant,
unhappy, tortured, proud, sadistic and pathetic liar. There are
a few human persons who come close to mirroring him.
EBC |
Saturday,
26 February