|
Hi, guys —
Years ago, I asked a priest (who, as far as I know, is not associated with your website) about the nature of sin and salvation for angels according to Catholic theology. He explained the ways it differs from human salvation.
For one, angels are incorporeal, so they are not subject to the vulnerabilities that embodied beings such as we experience, such as hunger, sickness, lust, and weariness.
They are also designed with perfect intellect, not diminished by our current human condition of ignorance or concupiscence as outlined above. This means that their initial choice to serve or rebel against God is definitive in a way that it is not for us humans, where we are allowed the opportunity to repent prior to death.
Also, as angels do not live in the dimension of time, or at least time as humans experience it, they made their choice for or against God the instant they were created. The angels who chose for God were immediately sealed within the Beatific Vision, while those who rebelled were immediately cast out of God's presence forever. Another Sacred Tradition-based anecdote I read was that exactly one third of the angelic host, led by Lucifer (Satan) rebelled, leaving two thirds to remain faithful to God.
A final crucial element of my inquiry is the Catholic belief that angels have, or had, meaningful free will in similar crucial ways to humans. They were not automatons; their choices were morally significant. But this presents, what I think is, a crisis-level issue for theological attempts at addressing the Problem of Evil as applied to humans. A common theodicy I have read is that the ability to do evil, and, not only that, but the ability also to perform great evil (think of the Nazi atrocities, Japan's Unit 731, European genocide of Native Americans) is necessary for humans to have meaningful free will and thus for their "good" choices to be morally significant.
By contrast, the angels were not able to enslave, rape, mutilate, kill (this one because they are essentially immortal), or otherwise menace other angels in the ways that humans can and do to other humans. Their choice for or against God was highly individuated, with none of the messy spillover seen in human action in relation to other humans. As I understand it, then, this gives the lie to any claim that performing horrible actions against other people is a necessary component of free will.
With all of the above in consideration:
- Why was it necessary, in any sense, for humans to be able to hurt other humans to have free will?
- Why couldn't God have only created angels or other similar beings?
- Why should I not consider the terrible elements of the current human situation to be philosophically or morally gratuitous when considering the apparent situation of the angels, or am I getting certain crucial assumptions about angels wrong per Catholic Tradition?
Thank you for any explanation.
Alejandro |
Paul replied:
|
Alejandro,
You need to tweak one presumption. You compare angels and humans too closely.
Being purely spiritual, each angel is a species of being unto himself, with no others sharing its nature. We, on the other hand, being part animal, share the essence of "humanity" as one species with one nature. Since each angel is his own unique species, they have less an opportunity to affect other angel creatures, positively or negatively. A species is similar to a body: When one body part does something, all others experience it. When a human stubs his toe, his entire person experiences the pain. This principle applies to humans, but not angels.
Therefore, taking into consideration the natural solidarity all humans have on the ontological order, things like original sin affecting all humans make more sense, as does intercessory prayer and sacrifice for other being effective. We're all affected by the good, or bad, actions of others.
So, to your specific questions:
- Why was it necessary in any sense for humans to be able to hurt other humans to have free will?
Because God made us members of the same earthly species, and that is the logical result. Why God willed to create an earthly species in His image with intellect and free will, is a question we would have to ask Him. The reason for that choice is not accessible through reason; at least not our limited ability to use of reason.
- Why couldn't God have only created angels or other similar beings?
I suppose He could have. But I'm glad there was a "very good" reason (Genesis 1:31) in His eternal mind and will to create us; which we're apparently not fully privy to.
- Why should I not consider the terrible elements of the current human situation to be philosophically or morally gratuitous when considering the apparent situation of the angels, or am I getting certain crucial assumptions about angels wrong per Catholic Tradition?
It depends on what you mean by gratuitous. If you're saying that creating a terrestrial species in His image with free will is gratuitous because He could have created other creatures instead that did not suffer, then I disagree.
Suffering is evil in itself but can be used for holy purposes.
Because of their nature, Angels don't have that option. Neither is one necessarily better than the other. Your judgment springs from our very limited finite perspective. God knows the big picture, considers all things, and can see from His eternal perspective how human persons temporarily suffering due to each other’s injustices is a very good thing in the big picture.
There are things we can be curious about, but our curiosity should never supersede our humility in realizing we are not the Author of the universe and of life and cannot see how the entire story works together to end perfectly, not gratuitously, with perfect harmony and happiness awaiting those who love God for all eternity.
Peace,
Paul
|
|
