from the heavens.” at became the whole story of the fallen angels, but the truth it was
trying to maintain is that evil rst looks like light. It rst looks like the answer. It rst is
attractive.
Richard Rohr: As omas Aquinas said, “No one intentionally chooses evil. ey choose what they think
is good.” What they think. at’s a good explanation of why we need to name something
Lucifer. Satan or Satán means the accuser. Now again, these words are so archetypal really.
at negative voice inside of every one of us that rst of all wants to negate us, “You’re not.
If you are the Son of God. If you are the Son of God,” trying to plant the doubt. Always the
planter of doubt. Why Jesus probably calls Satan the “father of lies,” telling you lies are true
and truth are lies. e names themselves are good. ey’re telling. ey’re archetypal.
Now, how did we get to this personication of them, again this literalization of them? Well,
I’ll go back to my own theological education. I think I was the one who raised my hand and
said—I was a 26-year-old cynic; well, not really a cynic, but wanting to be. It was the late
‘60s—do we really have to believe in this, that there’s a devil?—my systematics professor
closed his eyes for a minute and then said, “Well, let me just start with this, that no imagery
would persist this long in almost all the religions of the world”—I mean go to temples in all
of the East. You will have demons at the door or evil spirits somehow personied—”if you
would not have to take them seriously.” It persisted that long, and we call that an archetype,
an image that just keeps reappearing, reappearing, because the psyche needs it. Why does it
need it? It doesn’t take that concept seriously without personication.
I think that’s why we tell myths, and stories, and legends, and now we watch movies. We
need personication to take concepts and abstractions seriously. “Okay, now I can stop
ghting it.” I’m not really believing nor teaching that there is a red-tailed devil with a
pitchfork ying around the world, but I’m not saying that evil isn’t real. I’m not saying you
shouldn’t take evil seriously.
Now, let’s add onto that. Maybe Freud’s idea of a complex or psychological idea of an
obsession where a bunch of ideas are operating together as one, and they have great power
over us at the non-rational level, at the irrational level. We know it’s not true, like little kids
thinking there’s something under their bed or something. Freud would say there’s a complex
at work of fear, of demons, of badness. We’ve got to take that badness seriously, which is why
your kids, I don’t know if yours do at any stage?
Paul Swanson: Yeah, my daughter right now is having dreams of monsters.
Richard Rohr: Yeah, okay. I’m glad I asked. ey’re needing to personify the agency of evil. “It might be
here. It is here. What if it’s here? How do I protect myself”? Let’s, those of us who think
we’re educated or progressive, not be too quick to throw it out, because, I think, as our
present politics is revealing, you end up being very naïve about evil. We’ve got a whole
country on left and right that’s very naïve about evil. ey’re all pointing in the wrong
direction, really, left and right. ey can’t see it.
Richard Rohr: Lucifer and Satan are very needed images, archetypes, metaphors, symbols, words for
something we’d better learn to address. I use the word address in particular. Give it voice and
recognize that it’s non-rational. Nazi Germany, most people consider the Germans the most
9