Hi Penguin —
In traditional Christianity the devil is a generic name commonly given to the fallen angels, demon is another. With the article (Gk:
ho) it denotes Satan, or Lucifer, as their chief (cf 25:41 "the Devil and his angels").
St. Gregory says of the word angel, "the designation of an office, not of a nature". Devil derives from the Greek verb
diaballein, "to traduce", and meant 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 accords with the Hebrew name Satan which signifies an adversary, or an accuser.
In Catholic doctrine, the Fourth Lateran Council declared "the Devil and the other demons were created by God good in their nature but they by themselves have made themselves evil."
So the Devil and the other demons are, or rather were, spiritual or angelic creatures, created by God, but whom became corrupt — evil — by their own act.
The suggestion that Adam and Eve sinned by the suggestion of the Devil is common, but not given. The serpent of Scripture is not identified with the Hebrew Satan, and signifies a
tendency more than a person.
If there had been no serpent, no tempter in the Garden, then we would be obliged to believe that man was
not made good in his nature, and his fall was thus an inevitability. The view that human nature, from the outset, cannot help itself but sin, implies that sin is endemic to human nature, and if such was the case then the human cannot harbour any hope of union with the Divine
as a human being, but would require we undergo a fundamental change of nature, that we cease to be human, to enter paradise.
Christianity upholds the idea of an external cause and source of evil because it upholds the essential dignity of the human as a creature made in the divine image and likeness.
The devil is not there, however, for us to use as an excuse. Indeed it is never acceptable to say "the devil made me do it". I would argue with Alex that if that is his view of Christian doctrine (well, mine at least), he's got it wrong. If only it were that easy!
The poet and artist David Jones said this:
"A man can not only smell roses (some beasts may do that, for lavender is said to be appreciated in the Lion House) but he can and does and ought to pluck roses and he can predicate of roses such and such. He can make a signum of roses. He can make attar of roses. He can garland them and make anathemata of them (anathemata: something consecrated to divine use). Which is, presumably, the kind of thing he is meant to do. Anyway, there's no one else can do it. Angels can't nor can the beasts. No wonder then that Theology regards the body as a unique good. Without body: without sacrament. Angels only: no sacrament. Beasts only: no sacrament. Man: sacrament at every turn and all levels of the 'profane' and 'sacred', in the trivial and in the profound, no escape from sacrament." (Epoch and Artist, p 166-167)
This ability to see things beyond their extrinsic materiality is what sets us apart from all nature ... however, it can go wrong, for it necessarily sees the 'wrong' use of things as well as the 'right' ... and I would argue it is this, the perception of how man might wrongly use his gifts for his own ends, that led the Primordial Couple into sin.
Assuming that angels fell before man, then there is no doubt that some presence was there to say "go on, you know you want to!"
Thomas
(Some might prefer a more Greek Orthodox approach to the idea. Although they do not discount the devil, demons, fallen angels, etc., they tend to a more abstract and psychological view. I shall post on this separately.)
