|
The affirmative reply is of faith, because many angels
sinned; therefore they are able to sin.
That the angel can sin, St. Thomas proves as follows:
Only that will which is the rule of its own action is
unable to depart from the proper rectitude. But only
God's will is the rule of its own action because it has
no superior end. Therefore any created will is able to
sin.
Can the angels sin directly against the natural law, and
could they have sinned if they had been created simply in
the natural order? According to the more common opinion
of the Thomists the negative reply is more probable.
1. Because at all times the angels see intuitively the
natural law in their own essence, even with regard to
singular instances, and therefore they cannot be in
error, or be ignorant, or lack consideration about the
natural law, consequently they cannot sin against the
natural law.
2. Because the angel naturally and efficaciously loves
God as the author of nature more than itself, and this
love virtually contains the fulfillment of the entire
natural law. This love remains in the devil to the extent
that the devil loves God as the author of his physical
life although he does not love God as the author of the
moral law and as the judge.
Can the angel sin indirectly against the natural law?
Reply. He can by sinning directly against the
supernatural law.
How can the angel sin against the supernatural law?
Reply. Because the angel knows the supernatural law not
with intuitive evidence but in the obscurity of faith, and
inasmuch as this law commanded something that could be
displeasing to the proud angels.
Is every direct sin against the supernatural law
indirectly against the natural law?
The reply is in the affirmative, because the natural law
already commands that God is to be obeyed in whatever He
commands.
Objection. Then the angels' elevation to the order of
grace was the cause of their sin.
Reply. It was not the cause but the occasion, just as
the redemptive Incarnation was an occasion of sin for the
Jews.
Objection. But the angels could not have sinned even
against the supernatural law.
Proof. Sin, or a defective choice, supposes an
erroneous judgment. But there can be no error in the
angels, at least not prior to sin, since they have no
passions or any inordinate precipitation of the will.
Reply. I distinguish the major: the angels have no
defective choice with regard to the object willed, I
concede; with regard to the manner of tending toward the
object good in itself, I deny.
What does this sin of the angels presuppose on the part of
the intellect?.
Reply. A lack of consideration of the supernatural law
to be observed here and now.
Is this lack of consideration a negation or a privation?
Reply. It is a privation since the angel begins to
operate without consideration of the rule.
Was this lack of consideration voluntary?
Reply. It was at least indirectly voluntary inasmuch as
the angel could have and should have considered the rule.
Was this lack of consideration more voluntary in the angel
than in man?
Reply. Many Thomists say that this lack of
consideration was interpretatively voluntary.
What is the meaning of interpretative in this connection?
Reply. It does not mean that the consent was such as
would be given if there were sufficient attention; in this
case it means something willed virtually or implicitly, by
an implicit act rather than an explicit act. If it had
been an explicit act, such as, "I do not wish to
consider," this act of unwillingness would presuppose not
only lack of consideration but also an error, which could
not have been in the angels before sin.
How then did the angels sin?
Reply. They sinned by inordinately desiring their own
excellence, or their natural happiness as derived from the
power of their natures, and refusing the supernatural
happiness that comes from the gratuitous gift of God, the
supernatural happiness that they have in common with men,
the happiness that is to be had by way of humility and
obedience.[1224]
Were there two acts, one concerning natural happiness and
the other concerning supernatural happiness?
Reply. There was but one act, preferring natural
happiness to the other.
How could such stupidity enter the mind of the higher
angels?
Reply. In the same way that some men prefer the study of
mathematics or physics to the study of the Gospel.
|
|