Prima Secundae
161. Charity Never Fails, and How the Gifts of the Holy Spirit Differ from the Virtues (Summa I-II q.67 a.6, q.68 a.1)
Class of 2014-03-06
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/161-charity-never-fails-and-how-the-gifts-of-the-holy-spirit/

[0:00] Now, how about charity? Does that remain? Yeah. It's article six now, right? To the sixth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that charity does not remain after this life and glory,

[0:18] because as is said in one First Epistle to Corinthians, chapter thirteen, the tenth verse, when there comes about what is perfect, there is evacuated what is imperfect or ex parte, right? That is what is imperfect. But the charity of the via, right, is imperfect.

[0:45] Therefore, it will be what removed, coming the perfection of what glory, huh? Moreover, habits and acts are distinguished according to their objects. But the object of love is a good grasp. So the first cause of love is the good, and then the second cause is what knowledge, right? But they kind of go together, right? Thomas says in that treatise, right? It's the good as known, right?

[1:21] If Romeo did not see the beauty of Juliet, right, he had no love for Juliet in the beginning of the play, right? Never seen her, right?

[1:34] Since therefore, other is the grasping of the present life, the knowledge of present life, and other the grasping of future life. It seems that there has not remained the same what charity.

[1:53] Moreover, of those things which are of one what ratio, one definition, the imperfect can arrive at the what equality of perfection through a continual what growth, growth. But the charity of the via, the road, can never arrive at equality as the what charity of the fatherland, no matter how much it is what.

[2:25] Therefore, it seems that the charity of the road is not does not remain in the fatherland, right? Huh? I don't know if I interpret that right, but you know, when Christ says, you know, there's no one greater born of woman than John the Baptist, and then he says, but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than him. You know, it seems to me, what I understand it is, he's talking about the charity of the person who sees God face to face will be greater than even the charity of John the Baptist in this life, right?

[2:54] Huh? Although John the Baptist had a higher, you know, status in next world, right? As if you know the charity of this life is never equal to the charity, and I don't think I'm interpreting that right. It could be, you know. I've seen an interpretation of Christ Himself, as He was the least in the kingdom, and He had a vision too. Yeah. But against all this nonsense is what the Apostle says, huh?

[3:24] First Epistle Corinthians, chapter thirteen, verse eight. Caritas numquam excidit. Charity is never what. Cut off. Yeah, extinguished. Yeah. excidit falls out. Now Thomas, with his usual clarity, right?

[3:50] With enviable clarity. I was talking to Warren Murray talking to me on the phone, you know, and he says he's telling the students up there, you know, two things you need to be a philosopher, right? One is a good mind, and the other is humility, and one without the other is not enough.

[4:14] You're humble, but don't have a good mind, you're not going to be a philosopher. Have a good mind, and not humble, you're gonna. I told you what my old teacher Kasurik said. You know, he says he was the best guy in the whole philosophy department, right? In fact, Nobody else is worth listening to. me And Kasurik was the whole thing. He says compared to Aristotle, he says I've got the brain of an angleworm He says.

[4:39] And then these other you know second-rate professors would never say that, you know. Yeah, compared to Aristotle, I've got the brain of an angleworm No, De Koninck was so much more famous than Dionne, you know, and you know, but yet his his respect for Dionne you know, is just humility. Face of Dionne is kind of a marvelous thing to see, you know. You know. I know Warren Murray went up there, you know, and De Koninck made perfectly clear that Dionne was the greatest mind up here, you know, and when when

[5:29] the American girl students went up there, you know, and and she got to know Mrs. De Koninck you know, and De Koninck made perfectly clear to Mrs. De Koninck that I'm not the greatest of all, but she admired her husband the great, you know, but he was Dionne, you know, huh? So it's interesting to see that, you know.

[5:59] Then we'll be David Hume, you know. Oh, you know the famous Aristotle's decay, you know. He's gone, you know. His time has come and gone. Okay, the answer should be said that when the imperfection of something is not of the definition of its species, right? Nothing prevents the same thing in number that before was imperfect to afterwards be what perfect, Perfect, right? Just as a man is perfected through growth, right?

[6:43] And whiteness by what intensity, right? But charity is what amor, huh? It is love, of whose definition there is not any imperfection, right? For it can be both a something had and not had, right? And a something seen and what not seen, right? Huh? It's interesting. So I say to God, "I'm introducing to a really marvelous, beautiful woman tonight. He's already, He's already, he's already falling in love.

[7:24] She's unseen, right? And she's that good. He's going to be even more. " The time goes. Okay, I'm going to give you the best meal you've ever had. I'm hungry. Sounds. I'm already in love with that meal, right?

[7:46] Does he know how to prepare a steak? It's left. Knock it off. When charity is not what, yeah, evacuated, huh? Made empty to the perfection of glory, but remains the same in what number? Marvelous thing charity is, then, right?

[8:22] Now, what about the imperfection of it, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the imperfection of charity per accidens has itself to it. Why? Because it is not of the definition of love imperfection, right?

[8:49] Removing, however, that which is per accidens. it nevertheless remains the substance of the what thing. Whence the imperfection of charity removed, there is not taken away charity. Right. I was thinking of this example I was using earlier there about a guess and understanding. Right? Huh? A guess by definition is what got imperfection in, right? Does understanding by definition have imperfection?

[9:27] No, no. But yet you can understand something more or less, can't you? Right. And some things understand, you know, and then as I study them more, I understand them better, right? Huh? So my understanding is becoming what? Is growing, right? Huh? I'm understanding more, right? Huh? But it's can be the same understanding in number, right? That is what being perfected, right? Huh? So why a guess seems to me to be by definition something what imperfect, right?

[10:01] Huh? If I guess that the interior angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, right? Something imperfect in my making a guess, right?

[10:14] But you can understand that there are more and less, can't you? Well, love is like that, right? It's not by definition imperfect, right? And so your love can what grow, right? Okay.

[10:48] That's very interesting. Per accidens I didn't see per accidens It calls it per accidens because it's not the very definition of the thing, right? It happens to be that way. Yeah.

[11:06] Now, to the second, it should be said. This is the one saying, "Now, hey, don't you have to know in order to love, right? " So, a different kind of knowledge, you got a different kind of love. That seems to make sense, right? To the second, should be said that charity does not have for its object the knowledge itself,

[11:29] because if that were so, it would not be the same on the road and in the what fatherland, right? But it has for its object the thing known, right? Which is the same to it, God, right? The

[11:52] act of the will is always presupposes. Yeah. So, as the knowledge of God grows, the love could grow, right? But still be the same object, right? It's not the It's not the knowledge that is the object of the thing, but the thing known, right? So, you know, I know God a little bit from theology, right?

[12:20] And I'm knowing the same thing that I'll know in heaven, right? And that's the first part of the definition. The first part of the definition of charity, I mean, of faith, is what the substance of things hoped for. I think a hypostasis, I think, in Greek, right, which is etymologically like the word substance, right? So the the translation into substance is even etymologically closer than you know when you translate them via by substance, right?

[12:47] But substance and hypostasis, they both have sub or hypo under and standing, yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's why is it called the the the substance, right, of things hoped for, right? Now. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Even though you are not knowing it as it is in itself, right? You are knowing the same thing.

[13:18] But that's what he points out, right? Charity does not have for its object the same knowledge, the knowledge itself, rather. For if this were the case, then it would not be the same in the road and in yeah, yeah. So I suppose the love of theology and the love of the beatific vision are not the same love exactly, right? Not loving the same knowledge,

[13:45] huh? But the love of God would be the same, right? Because by theology you are knowing the same thing you know in the beatific vision. Same God, not the God of theology, God of the beatific vision, right? Two gods.

[14:04] But it has for object the thing known itself, right? Which is the same to it, God, right? I think that's why you call it the substance of things hoped for, right? Now, it's already in the sense you have a foundation, right? You believe what you are going to see, so you believe the same thing you are going to see.

[14:28] Very subtle. To the third, it should be said that the charity of the road, huh, the Via, through growth, right, is not able to arrive at equality, right, of the charity of the fatherland, right.

[15:05] Why, on account of the difference, which is on the side of the what cause? For vision is a cause of love, as is said in the ninth book of the Ethics, right? If you remember the article on or the question on the causes of love, right? The first cause was the good, right? Second cause was what knowledge. Third cause was what likeness. Yeah, yeah, that's a beautiful, beautiful.

[15:35] It's orderly, right? So, because the vision is a kind of knowledge and so superior to the knowledge of what faith, right? Hence, a cause of love. That's why the love is always greater in heaven, right, than on the what road, huh? Okay.

[15:58] For God, the more perfectly He is known, the more perfectly He is what loved, huh? So you never love God in this life as much as you'll love Him when you what see Him face to face, huh?

[16:34] It's very subtle to see that, huh? Knowledge is a cause of love, but yet it doesn't make it a different what charity, right? But but just a more what perfect charity, right? A more perfect love of God, huh?

[16:57] So the saints talk tough to God sometimes. You, I can't love you the way I should if you don't give me the vision. Give me the vision, and I'll love you the way you should be loved. You know.

[17:20] So let's go take a little break now because starting a new question here, on the gifts, whatever they are, they do this. De donis, question sixty-eight. huh?

[17:40] That's a little bit like you know Aristotle, you know, when he when he gets to talking about the various virtues, the moral virtues and the virtues of reason. Then, in the seventh book, right, he talks about things that are less and things that are more than human virtue. He invices them, you know, bestial vices, and then he talks about heroic virtue, right? It's interesting, you know. What is a hero in Greek fiction?

[18:14] Half god. Yeah, he's the one who has one parent who's immortal and one parent who's an immort immortal. And sometimes the the father is a god, and sometimes it's the mother, you know. So for Achilles, it's his mother is divine, right? So heroic virtue, right? And Thomas compares the gifts sometimes to heroic virtue, right? It's something more than the human what, than human virtue, right?

[18:45] So he takes up these things after the virtues, right? Similarly, Aristotle takes up heroic virtue after virtue. Consequently, we're not to consider about the donis, and about these eight things are asked. Did you know that? Okay. And first is whether dona or gifts, right, differ from the virtues, right? Well, they do, and what is that difference, though, right? Secondly, about the necessity of the gifts, right? Do you need the gifts in addition to the what virtues?

[19:24] Huh? I'm afraid we do. Third, whether the Dona are habitus, right? Because the virtues are habits, right? That's important, right? And finally, which and how many of them there are. I guess there are seven gifts.

[19:45] Then, the question that he asks about the virtues: whether the gifts are what connected, right? Whether they remain in the patria, in the fatherland, huh?

[19:58] And about the comparison of them to each other, right? Some better, I suppose. And finally, the comparison of them to the what virtues? huh? You can see how much man's perfection differs from perfection of God in terms of simplicity, right? Because you need all these different virtues, you know, and now you got all these gifts too, you know. Oh my God! Infused virtues. So if I know these things, you know, just you know, get around.

[20:28] And you need the angels too, right? The angels, too, they do, yeah. yeah, yeah. I try to remind myself to call for that kind of angel every time I drive in the car because I think I'm getting too old. You know, you know, the old men just. I think my friend Warren Murray's first car. You know, they they took away Grandpa's car because he came down to the the intersection in the red light and he put on the gas pedal instead of the brake and shot through the thing.

[20:55] Unfortunately, he, didn't hit anybody, but anybody ganged up on poor grandfather. That was the end, you know. He gave up the car, you know. He came up for independence, but. So Warren got this old junky car.

[21:15] The car was in too good condition. He knew it just breaks. When you put on the wrong, wrong thing, yeah. And I know one one of the the relatives there. You know the the wife could stand the husband is driving, so she got out of the car, and of course he went off and smashed up the thing. You know, and but not not on purpose, but I mean just it goes into him, you know.

[21:46] So you never never know. I'm gonna take the car away from you, you know. They talk about you know they get more more of a test you know to get your license you know renewed you get to be old men like me you know.

[22:02] So so to the first one precedes us, huh? It seems that the gifts are not distinguished from the virtues, huh? For the great Gregory in the first book of the Moralia,

[22:20] expounding upon that of the Book of Job, huh? They were born to him what? Seven sons. Seven sons, huh? Seven are the sons born to us, right? When through the what conception of good thought, right? The what seven virtues of the Holy Spirit arise in us, right? We call them virtues, right? Huh?

[22:53] And he induces that which is had in Isaiah 11. There, what rests upon him the spirit of understanding, and he goes through and enumerates the what seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, huh? Therefore, the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are what virtues, huh? Gregory's a big guy, especially in the Moralia, right? For Thomas often goes through that, you know, the Moralia right? Capital vices and so on.

[23:24] Gregory really had a really really good understanding of moral theology, right, and other theology too. But he really stands out, you know. It's a master there, right?

[23:37] There comes another big name there. This guy Augustine, right? He's got quoted a lot too. Moreover, Augustine says in the book on the questions of the Gospels, right?

[23:51] Expounding that which is had in Matthew chapter twelve, verse forty-five. Then he went and took seven other spirits, right? He says these seven vices, huh, are contrary to the seven what virtues of the Holy Spirit, right? That is the seven what gifts, huh?

[24:16] For there are seven vices contrary to the virtues commonly said. Therefore, the gifts are not distinguished from the virtues commonly said, right? Moreover, in those things of which the definition is the same, they also are what the same, huh? But the definition of virtue belongs to the gifts. For each gift is a what? This is the definition that he gave from Augustine of virtue earlier, right? Is a bona qualitas mentis qua recte vivitur, which no one uses badly, right?

[24:56] Which God in us, without us, right. That's the definition we had before. Likewise, the definition of gift belongs to the what infused virtues, right? Huh? For a gift is a what? A gift that is not to be returned, right? According to the philosopher. Therefore, the virtues and the gifts are not distinguished. What did Shakespeare teach us, right? He said, looking before and after, he included what looking for distinctions, right?

[25:38] You know that from the axiom of before and after, nothing is before or after itself, right? So there's always a distinction between what is before and what is after, right? So distinction is fundamental for a reason, right? This is question about distinction, isn't it? Got the name distinction and distinguished in the in the statement.

[26:07] Moreover, many of those that are enumerated among the gifts are virtues. For it said above that wisdom and understanding and science are intellectual virtues, right? Counsel pertains to prudence, right? Piety is a species of what? Justice towards God. Fortitude is a moral virtue, right? Huh? Therefore, it seems that virtues are not distinguished from what gifts. What did Aristotle say in the book on Sophistical Refutations? The most common mistake in thinking is from mixing up the sense of the word, right?

[26:48] Maybe these words are what equivocal when said of the moral virtues or the virtues of reason, when said of the what gifts. Just like when Sophia said of a little lady I know, and and wisdom, right? I mean, there's an equivocation there that kind of caught me up, you know. Pleasing, yes. Pleases you, many things. But against this, now he's quoting Gregory against Gregory, right? But against this is what Gregory says in the first book of the Moralia.

[27:39] He distinguishes the seven gifts, which he says are signified through the seven what? Interesting, huh? He Distinguishes them from the three theological virtues, right? Which he says ought to be signified through the three daughters of Job huh. Okay. And in the second book of Moralia, he distinguishes the seven gifts from the four what? Cardinal virtues, which he says to be signified through the four what? Corners of the house Angles of the house, right?

[28:14] Yeah. That's interesting, huh? Okay. Because the the wind smoked the four corners of the house and killed them all. Hmm. And. What does the master say?

[28:37] I answer it should be said, that if we speak of the gift and virtue according to the what ratio of the name, Thus they have no opposition to each other, huh? Strange, he says.

[28:58] Why, for the ratio of virtue is taken according as it perfects man for acting well, right? But the ratio of donia, the gift, is taken according to a comparison to the cause from which it is. So the gift is something that I give you, right? Expecting nothing in what return, right, huh? But the virtue is what makes its habit good and its activity good, right?

[29:33] So no opposition between those two, right? For nothing prevents that which is given from by another, right, as a gift, right, to be perfective of something to operate well. That's what you have with the infused virtues, right? They're obviously given to us, right? And Augustine's definition of virtue there too, right?

[30:02] Especially when we say that the virtues, huh, that some virtues are infused in us from God, right, huh? Whence, according to this, gift cannot be what? Distinguished. Yeah. As if the one perfects us in doing something, and the other is a gift of God, they're not opposed. The same thing can be both of those things, right? So that doesn't really tell you what the difference is, if there is a difference, right?

[30:30] But you don't know yet, huh? And therefore, quidam, right? Huh? They down that gifts are not distinguished from the virtues, huh? But to these there remains a not what lesser difficulty that they assign the reason why some virtues are called gifts and not what all, right?

[31:15] And why some things are computed to be among the gifts which are not what counted among the virtues, among the virtues, as is clear about fear, right? Okay. Whence others distinguish the gifts from the virtues,

[31:41] or whence others say that the gifts should be or ought to be distinguished from the virtues, right? But they do not assign a suitable cause of the what distinction, huh?

[31:56] Which thus is common to virtues that in no way is it common to the what gifts or the reverse, huh? For some considering that among the seven gifts, four pertain to what reason, wisdom, science. What do you call it knowledge in the translations we get usually. Knowledge. And intellectus would be understanding and counsel, right? Huh? And three pertain to the appetitive power, fortitude, piety, and what fear.

[32:41] They lay down that the gifts perfect free will according as is the faculty of reason, right? The virtues according as is the faculty of the will. Because there are found only two virtues in reason or the understanding, to wit, faith and prudence, huh? Others in the desiring power and effective power.

[33:11] But it would be necessary if this distinction were suitable that all the virtues were in the desiring power and all the gifts in reason, right? Okay. Giving you quite a history here, right? Yeah.

[33:33] Some considering that Gregory says in the second book of Moralia, that the gift of the Holy Spirit is in the mind, subject to it, forms temperance, prudence, justice, and fortitude. Now those are the four what? Cardinal virtues. The same mind it guards against what? Singular temptations to the seven gifts. They say that the virtues are ordered to operating well, the gifts to resisting temptations.

[34:09] That's kind of weird, right? Huh? Like like the tendency to drink moderately, and and the other gift is to to avoid taking excess. As if it were the same thing that perfects you for both, right? But neither does this distinction suffice, huh? Because also the virtues what resist temptations, right? That induce us to sin, right? Which are contrary to the virtues, right? Huh? For each thing naturally resists its what?

[34:41] Contrary. Which is especially clear about charity, about what is said in Canticles Chapter Eight. Many waters cannot extinguish charity. How are these things going to be distinguished, right? Huh? See the excellence of Thomas's mind that he's going to see eventually. I'll bet. I'll distinguish these.

[35:12] Others considering that these gifts are treated in Scripture, according as they were in what? Christ. This is clear in Isaiah chapter 11. They say that the virtues are ordered simply to doing well, right? But the gifts are ordered to this that by them we are conformed to Christ, especially as regards those things which he suffered, right? Because in his passion, especially these gifts are what? shining.

[35:51] But this also does not seem to be sufficient, because God Himself, the Lord Himself, especially induces us to what? Conformity to Him, according to humility and what? meekness. Learn from me, because I am mild and humble heart. And according to charity, as is said in John Fifteen. Love one another as I have loved you. And these virtues also, especially, shine forth in the passion of Christ, right?

[36:31] Greater love than this hath no man to lay down his life for his friends. And therefore, for distinguishing the gifts and the virtues, we have to follow the way of speaking of Scripture,

[36:53] in which there is treated for us not under the name of gifts, right, but more under the name of what? Spirits. Yeah. Now this might be a whiskey bottle. Spirits. That's because you work in a liquor store. It's getting dangerous, here. But notice the beautiful quote he has here For that's what is said in Isaiah. Chapter eleven. There, what rested upon him the spirit of wisdom and understanding, etc.

[37:37] Right. From which words manifestly is given to be understood that these seven are enumerated there, according as they are in us from divine inspiration, which is related to the word spirit, right?

[37:57] For inspiration signifies a certain motion from the outside. So if God inspires. inspires you to do something right now. It's coming from outside you, right? This inspiration.

[38:17] Now it should be considered that in man there is a twofold moving beginning, right? Mover beginning. One which is within him, right? Which is reason. And another which is outside him, which is God. This has been said above, huh? And the philosopher also says this in the book on good fortune. It's amazing the way Aristotle you know, says things that Thomas. brings to our mind, huh? It's kind of amazing in the Eudemian Ethics, you know.

[38:58] where Thomas goes to the text of Aristotle's Eudemian Ethics, where he talks about how God actually moves our will and so on, huh? He has kind of a unmoved mover, you know, in the will as well as in the material world, huh? That's incredible what Aristotle saw. De Koninck said, "De Koninck says Aristotle is something he's somebody."

[39:28] Now it is manifest that everything that is moved is necessarily proportioned to the what mover, huh? That's one of the corollaries Aristotle gives about causes, right? And this is the perfection of the mobile, the movable, in so far as it is mobile or movable, right? The disposition by which it is disposed for this that it be moved well by its what mover, right?

[39:59] Now the higher the mover, right, the more necessary is it that the mobile be what proportioned to it by a more perfect disposition. Just as we see that more perfectly is necessary for the student to be disposed for this that he might grasp the higher teaching from the one who is the teacher, right? The one teaching.

[40:30] It's an interesting comparison, huh? That's why I was taught first by Kasurik and then by De Koninck, and finally by Dion, right? And have them just in the right order, right? Because one was preparing the way for for the next man, right? I was thinking of a material example too. Is just working with wood. If you have a master craftsman, he's got to have really good tools because he can't do as good a work if his tools are kind of dull and poor quality.

[41:03] Yeah, he needs better tools. Follow his motions, yeah. Yeah. Something similar to it. Now it's manifest that the human virtues, right, perfect man, according as man is apt to be moved by reason, right, in those things which are within him or he does outside, right, is necessary therefore that there be in man higher perfections, according as he is disposed towards this, that he be moved what, Divinely.

[41:45] Divinely, or by God. In these perfections are called what gifts, huh? Not only because they are infunded by God, like in the infused virtues, right, huh? But because according to them, man is disposed that he might be promptly movable by divine what inspiration.

[42:12] So John the Twenty Third always insisted he was moved to call the Second Vatican Council, right? I was teaching an assumption, to Cardinal Wright during one of the intermissions there, from the Council came through and he talked a bit about it, right? And he he explained it in terms of he said John the Twenty Third would say you know that the the grain is under the the soil, right?

[42:41] What the grain, grain? It's under the soil, right, in the seed, right? Huh? That he's going to plant seeds in the Vatican II, and they would eventually sprout, not right away, you know. Sprouted right away was not the Vatican II. Some the so-called spirit of Vatican II to be distinguished from the spirit of the which is a gift of the spirit. Which opposed to a letter of the Vatican II.

[43:07] Okay. So necessary therefore that there be within man higher perfections, according to which he is disposed to be moved by God, right? Huh? In these perfections are called gifts, huh? Not only because they are poured in by God, but because by them man is disposed that he might what. Be properly movable by divine inspiration, as is said in Isaiah fifty. The Lord what opened to me an ear, right?

[43:41] And I did not what contradict him. I did not go backwards. And the philosopher also says, huh? This philosopher is quoting this. Somebody. And the philosopher also says in the chapter on good fortune

[44:02] that those who are moved by divine instinct is not expedient to them to take counsel according to human reason, but that they follow the what? Interior instinct. Yeah, because they are moved by a better beginning than human reason. That's Aristotle you should see that huh see that, huh?

[44:26] And this is what some say. It says among these in a footnote, some say, "are Albert and Bonaventure right That you mentioned those?" right? Okay. That the gifts perfect man for higher acts than are the acts of the what? Virtues, right? Well, there is no higher act than

[44:57] charity. Maybe it makes a higher act than charity normally have. We have to see how he gets into more details, right? Okay. Now that's the first objection. Where he had a text from Gregory, where he seems to call them what virtues, right? This is a problem with the word, right? Huh? It's the first, and it should be said that these gifts are sometimes what called virtues, right?

[45:27] According to the common ratio of virtue, right? For they have, but they have nevertheless something what rising above the common notion of virtue, in so far as they are what divine virtues, perfecting man in so far as he is moved by what God, huh? Whence the philosopher also in the seventh book of the Ethics, above common virtue lays down a certain what heroic virtue or divine one, according to which some men are called divine men, right?

[46:08] St. Thomas. Yeah, yeah. We've meant that we're speaking before, you know, that sometimes the one that adds something noteworthy gets a new name, like these are called the donor, right? And then the other ones keep the name what virtue in this case, right? Huh? So they could be called virtues, right? Huh? Just against all, man is an animal, right? Some people don't call man an animal because there's something beyond what the other animals have, right?

[46:38] That makes it quite distinct from them, right? So it's like the biologist has said, no, man is an ape, but unusual one. I love when the tooth comes through. You know, he's an unusual one.

[47:00] You heard the professor there at Harvard, there who wants to give personhood to chimpanzees, right? Yeah. And give them rights. He wants to free some some ape that's he thinks is being imprisoned by some man. Well, maybe the ape, since he has rights, maybe he also did injustices, so he's being punished because he's a criminal. So maybe that's why. Somebody says, if I could call it for jury duty, I hope they'll bring the chimpanzees. Yeah, if I commit a crime, I hope there's a few chimps on the jury.

[47:34] I'll bring bananas. Yeah. Well, it proves evolution because some of these people are descendants of the game. Yeah. Likeness is a very slippery thing. But notice how Aristotle's distinction between heroic virtue, you know, and ordinary virtue, you know, is kind of disposed one to see this distinction, you know.

[48:09] To second should be said, vices, insofar as they are against the good of reason, right, are contrary to the what virtues, huh? Especially human virtues. Talking about. Insofar as they are against the divine instinct, they are contrary to the what gifts.

[48:35] Now the same thing can be contrary to God and to reason, whose light is derived from God, right? Enlightens every man who comes into this world, Saint John tells us.

[48:49] Now, in the, apply to the third objection, right? It goes back to the what definition that we had from Augustine, right? To third should be said that that definition given of virtue, that definition is given of virtue according to the common mode of virtue, right? huh? Once, if we wish to what restrict the definition to virtues insofar as they are distinguished from gifts, right? We should say that this which is said in the definition, qua recte vivitur, right?

[49:24] Should be understood about the rightness of life which is taken according to the rule of what reason, right? Likewise, the gift, insofar as it is distinguished from the infused virtue, right?

[49:40] It can be said that that which is given by God in order to what his motion, huh? Because it makes man what follow well the divine instincts, huh?

[49:57] Too many understanding, you know, you know, the new pope, you know, but he may be what following the divine instinct, right? Huh? The gifts of the Holy Spirit. We have to treat, you know, respect what he's doing. Now

[50:14] the fourth was talking about the what the names might be equivocal, right? To the fourth, it should be said that the wisdom is said to be a what intellectual virtue. According as it proceeds from the judgment of what reason, right? Huh? Is said to be a gift according as it acts from what operates from divine instinct, and similarly. So the word is equivocal, right?

[50:47] I stopped now. I guess there were.