In my previous article I suggested that the spirit of Jersey City might be envious of the spirit of Nee York City which itself had been corrupted by mammon. It occurred to me today that this cannot be true, as to suggest an angel has vices just is to suggest that it is in fact a demon. Demons do not get dominion over anything, and Angels are faultless by their very nature and essence.
The truth is probably closer to that of Guardian Angels, who are custodians of evil men as much as good men. Evil men aren’t guarded by demons, but they probably are tempted by and in some cases maybe even “possessed” by them. Angels can be custodians of evil or ugly cities. The evil or ugliness of cities says more about the collective virtue of the people than the faultless spirit which watches over them.
So I offer my sincere apologies to the Angels of Jersey City, New York City, Las Vegas, and any other place Whose spirit I may have maligned. May the residents of those places discover the benefits of your care and join you in offering God praises for those blessings.
AMDG
Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth 
The classical genius loci was a tutelary spirit or guardian angel. I don’t see any reason to suppose that a fallen angel cannot be a guardian angel, and suggest this may explain the many places that have a decidedly creepy or sinister vibe. It seems possible that Satan guards his own with spirits that ward off all instruments of grace. Perhaps this explains the “hardened sinner” to whom it is almost impossible to appeal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting thoughts, Scoot.
I feel certain that cities, even entire countries, like families and houses, can be “haunted,” and it is at least partly a spiritual element. The least needed said of these things the better, but I have particularly been struck by places in Los Angeles and certain cities in the South as “haunted.”
This “hauntedness” I think is in large part a mimesis or vicious cycle that seems inherent to all of fallen humanity, i.e. concentration of population in an area leads to a concentration of certain types of people and then the crowd effect amplifies.
This seems to have more to do with failing to live up in some way to particular ideals, e.g. Flannery O’Connor describes the American South as “Christ-haunted.” Nearly every modern major city, especially in architecture, it is like you can see the negative space or even photo negative of what the ideal form of that city would be. I sometimes get the feeling that this is like how one would feel walking around in Babylon.
LikeLike
@JMSmith:
Angels cannot change, so to suppose a man has a fallen angel for a guardian is to suppose that he is permanently guided by a fallen spirit. His path to Heaven–which must be open to all souls–would be more difficult if possible at all, since his guardian angel would be actively working against his salvation and not encouraging it.
Your observation though, and the observation of DavidtheBarbarian in his comment, is anecdotally true though, so there must be an explanation. One such is that it is possible for a man to sufficiently open his heart to the demonic such that he becomes an agent of the demonic. I think he’s still got a perfect and faultless guardian angel doing his best to guide him back to the straight and narrow path.
The places that have a sinister vibe, and which DTB describes as “haunted”, I think that is a consequence of a collective attachment to the demonic. I don’t think anyone describes hauntedness as being a good thing, and all good things come from God, so it makes me think it can only be a sense that comes from the other place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Guardian angles are not, for me, an item of faith. They don’t seem to be Biblical or to explain some aspect of spiritual life that would otherwise make no sense. I suppose we might define them as personifications of sufficient grace. If everyone has a guardian angel, however, we must explain why some GA are so much more successful than others, and what exactly a GA guards against.
I understand the argument that spiritual beings cannot change because they are timeless, but I must somehow reconcile this with the notion that some angels fell. Man was certainly changed in his essence by Adam’s fall, so it would seem that the Rebel Angels must have been changed by their fall. I think the answer to this is that Angel’s are creatures that exist in time and are therefore subject to change
Bonald, who knows far more about Catholic theology than I do, says that Catholics do not really disagree with the Calvinists about predestination. I’m agnostic on this, although the parable of the sheep who know the voice of their shepherd strongly suggests that there are other shepherds and other flocks.
LikeLike
When I looked into this to reply to your comment I was surprised to learn that the Church has not made any (many?) doctrinal assertions regarding angels. So theres no necessity to have a particular devotion to guardian angels. They seem to me to be a logical extension of the function of Angels in general, and while there is no scriptural reference to Guardian Angels there appears to be a pretty strong tradition behind them. Commenter NLR posted a long excerpt from tolkein which described them as personifications of Gods love and attention—grace in short, I suppose. That description would also make sense to me, in a strange way, if we are the “image” of God, they are God “looking at the image”.
I think the question “why are some GA more successful than others” is the wrong way to look at it though. Guardian Angels accompany us and perhaps prod our conscience but I would not blame them for my own failings any more than I would blame a childs babysitter if he hits his sibling and makes them cry. We have the power to invite demons into our lives amd to make the angels wait outside. We also have the power to invote our angels deeper into our lives—they do not bear passive responsibility for us, but we must form a partnership with them.
As far as the fall, the explanation i saw and which I liked is that Angels have free will but are perfect so they make one choice, the moment they are created, for or against God, and they abide by that choice perfectly.
I think Kristor has described Angels as existing in “aeviternity” which is somewhere between our reality and Gods eternity, but I confess I know very little about it. I dont know if theres some facsimile of time in Aeviternity but i imagine there would be, since when reality is glorified and resurrected there will be some kind of time that passes—so i imagine, anyway.
I disagree with Bonald on that, though I cannot profess any profound knowledge of theology either. The seeming paradox that Ive discussed with Hambone is that God is omniscient, so when a person is created he knows whether they choose heaven or hell. The key distinction is that they choose, whereas my understanding of calvinism is that God decides for us. Even God knows where we end up he doesnt invalidate our free will to choose.
LikeLike