Devil
(Greek diabolos; Latin diabolus).
The name commonly given to the fallen angels, who are also known as demons (see

word (from diaballein, "to traduce") means a slanderer, or accuser, and in this
sense it is applied to him of whom it is written "the accuser [ho kategoros] of
our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night"
(Apocalypse 12:10). It thus answers to the Hebrew name Satan which signifies an
adversary, or an accuser.

Mention is made of the Devil in many passages of the Old and New Testaments, but
there is no full account given in any one place, and the Scripture teaching on
this topic can only be ascertained by combining a number of scattered notices from
Genesis to Apocalypse, and reading them in the light of patristic and theological
tradition. The authoritative teaching of the Church on this topic is set forth in
the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council (cap. i, "Firmiter credimus"), wherein,
after saying that God in the beginning had created together two creatures, the
spiritual and the corporeal, that is to say the angelic and the earthly, and
lastly man, who was made of both spirit and body, the council continues:

Here it is clearly taught that the Devil and the other demons are spiritual or
angelic creatures created by God in a state of innocence, and that they became
evil by their own act. It is added that man sinned by the suggestion of the Devil,
and that in the next world the wicked shall suffer perpetual punishment with the
Devil. The doctrine which may thus be set forth in a few words has furnished a
fruitful theme for theological speculation for the Fathers and Schoolmen, as well
as later theologians, some of whom, Suarez for example, have treated it very
fully. On the other hand it has also been the subject of many heretical or
erroneous opinions, some of which owe their origin to pre-Christian systems of
demonology. In later years Rationalist writers have rejected the doctrine
altogether, and seek to show that it has been borrowed by Judaism and Christianity
from external systems of religion wherein it was a natural development of
primitive Animism.

As may be gathered from the language of the Lateran definition, the Devil and the
other demons are but a part of the angelic creation, and their natural powers do
not differ from those of the angels who remained faithful. Like the other angels,
they are pure spiritual beings without any body, and in their original state they
are endowed with supernatural grace and placed in a condition of probation. It was
only by their fall that they became devils. This was before the sin of our first
parents, since this sin itself is ascribed to the instigation of the Devil: "By
the envy of the Devil, death came into the world" (Wisdom 2:24). Yet it is
remarkable that for an account of the fall of the angels we must turn to the last
book of the Bible. For as such we may regard the vision in the Apocalypse, albeit
the picture of the past is blended with prophecies of what shall be in the future:

their place found any more in heaven. And that great dragon was cast out, that old
serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he
was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Apocalypse
12:7-9)

principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in
everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude 1:6; cf. 2 Peter
2:4).

thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations? And thou saidst in thy
heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I
will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend
above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. But yet thou shalt
be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15)

This parable of the prophet is expressly directed against the King of Babylon, but
both the early Fathers and later Catholic commentators agree in understanding it
as applying with deeper significance to the fall of the rebel angel. And the older
commentators generally consider that this interpretation is confirmed by the words
of Our Lord to his disciples: "I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven"
(Luke 10:18). For these words were regarded as a rebuke to the disciples, who were
thus warned of the danger of pride by being reminded of the fall of Lucifer. But
modern commentators take this text in a different sense, and refer it not to the
original fall of Satan, but his overthrow by the faith of the disciples, who cast
out devils in the name of their Master. And this new interpretation, as Schanz
observes, is more in keeping with the context.

You were the seal of resemblance, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. You were
in the pleasures of the paradise of God; every precious stone was thy covering;
the sardius, the topaz, and the jasper, the chrysolite, and the onyx, and the
beryl, the sapphire, and the carbuncle, and the emerald; gold the work of your
beauty: and your pipes were prepared in the day that you were created. You a
cherub stretched out, and protecting, and I set you in the holy mountain of God,
you have walked in the midst of the stones of fire. You were perfect in your wave
from the day of creation, until iniquity was found in you. (Ezekiel 28:12-15)

There is much in the context that can only be understood literally of an earthly
king concerning whom the words are professedly spoken, but it is clear that in any
case the king is likened to an angel in Paradise who is ruined by his own
iniquity.

And in the first place what was the nature of the sin of the rebel angels? In any
case this was a point presenting considerable difficulty, especially for
theologians, who had formed a high estimate of the powers and possibilities of
angelic knowledge, a subject which had a peculiar attraction for many of the great
masters of scholastic speculation. For if sin be, as it surely is, the height of

folly, the choice of darkness for light, of evil for good, it would seem that it
can only be accounted for by some ignorance, or inadvertence, or weakness, or the
influence of some overmastering passion. But most of these explanations seem to be
precluded by the powers and perfections of the angelic nature. The weakness of the
flesh, which accounts for such a mass of human wickedness, was altogether absent
from the angels. There could be no place for carnal sin without the corpus
delicti. And even some sins that are purely spiritual or intellectual seem to
present an almost insuperable difficulty in the case of the angels.

regarded as being actually the great offense of Lucifer, to wit, the desire of
independence of God and equality with God. It is true that this seems to be
asserted in the passage of Isaiah (14:13). And it is naturally suggested by the
idea of rebellion against an earthly sovereign, wherein the chief of the rebels
very commonly covets the kingly throne. At the same time the high rank which
Lucifer is generally supposed to have held in the hierarchy of angels might seem
to make this offense more likely in his case, for, as history shows, it is the
subject who stands nearest the throne who is most open to temptations of ambition.
But this analogy is not a little misleading. For the exaltation of the subject may
bring his power so near that of his sovereign that he may well be able to assert
his independence or to usurp the throne; and even where this is not actually the
case he may at any rate contemplate the possibility of a successful rebellion.
Moreover, the powers and dignities of an earthly prince may be compatible with
much ignorance and folly. But it is obviously otherwise in the case of the angels.
For, whatever gifts and powers may be conferred on the highest of the heavenly
princes, he will still be removed by an infinite distance from the plenitude of
God's power and majesty, so that a successful rebellion against that power or any
equality with that majesty would be an absolute impossibility.

intellectual illumination, must have the clearest knowledge of this utter
impossibility of attaining to equality with God. This difficulty is clearly put by
the Disciple in St. Anselm's dialogue "De Casu Diaboli" (cap. iv); for the saint
felt that the angelic intellect, at any rate, must see the force of the
"ontological argument" (see ONTOLOGY). "If", he asks, "God cannot be thought of
except as sole, and as of such an essence that nothing can be thought of like to
Him [then] how could the Devil have wished for what could not be thought of?

surely was not so dull of understanding as to be ignorant of the inconceivability of any other entity like to God" (Si Deus cogitari non potest, nisi ita solus, ut nihil illi simile cogitari possit, quomodo diabolus potuit velle quod non potuit cogitari? Non enim ita obtus mentis erat, ut nihil aliud simile Deo cogitari

posse nesciret). The Devil, that is to say, was not so obtuse as not to know that
it was impossible to conceive of anything like (i.e. equal) to God. And what he
could not think he could not will.

will anything against the Divine will is to seek to have that independence which
belongs to God alone, and in this respect to be equal to God. In the same sense
St. Thomas (I:63:3) answers the question, whether the Devil desired to be "as
God". If by this we mean equality with God, then the Devil could not desire it,
since he knew this to be impossible, and he was not blinded by passion or evil
habit so as to choose that which is impossible, as may happen with men. And even
if it were possible for a creature to become God, an angel could not desire this,
since, by becoming equal with God he would cease to be an angel, and no creature
can desire its own destruction or an essential change in its being.