Prima Secundae
170. The Compendium of Theology and Sins of Omission (ST I-II q.71 a.5)
Class of 2014-05-22
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/170-the-compendium-of-theology-and-sins-of-omission-st-i-ii-q/

[0:00] In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. God, our enlightenment, Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, an angelic doctor. Amen. Help us to understand all that you have written. Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. So we're up to I guess question seventy-one, Article Five, I think, is where we left off.

[0:41] I went down to with the grandchildren. I said I gotta still continue to do some reading, you know, but I can't read the Summa Contra Gentiles when I'm down here right So I, said I'm going to read the Compendium of Theology, right? Have you had a chance ever to read the Compendium of Theology by Thomas? I'm not covering children. No, the monk that stayed with Thomas, right?

[1:05] Kind of, you know, kind of his secretary, you might say. Asked Thomas, known to give him a kind of shorter explanation of theology and so on that he could carry with him, you know, on a daily basis and so on. So Thomas wrote this thing called the Compendium of Theology. He didn't complete the whole work, but the,

[1:24] but again, he follows the rule of two and three, right? And of course, he divides sacred doctrine there in the same way he does in his Catechetical Instructions. In the same way, Augustine does in the Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Charity, which he wrote for this layman, right? He wants some orderly presentation of the faith and so on. And you divide according to what faith, hope, and what charity, right?

[1:51] So the first part corresponds to faith, the articles of faith. The second part is the one where they talk about prayer, which is tied up with hope, and that's expounding basically the Our Father, maybe the Our Lady too, but basically the Our Father. And then the third part is on charity and the commandments, and you do the two commandments of love and the Ten Commandments. But Thomas finished the first part, and then he was doing the part on what the Our Father, right?

[2:20] That's about as far as it goes, right? So if you're going to get the rest of the Our Father, you got to go to the Catechetical Instructions, or well, the other basically talks about the Our Father too, of course. And of course, I think about this division. He was very good that Augustine has, and Thomas chose it again. He's going to expound it more than he does in the Catechetical Instructions, right, for his friend, but

[2:46] interesting things he says in there, you know. But guess how he divides? He's part on faith, huh? He divided into three or two. How does he divide it? in that? He's going to fall to creed, but what he does is to recall first of all the definition of faith. I guess it's in Hebrews. It's the substance of things hoped for, right? The conviction of what is not seen, right?

[3:21] And he says, "What's hoped for is the beatific vision, right? " And then he uses a text from Saint John in the Gospel, where Christ prays, "You know, the eternal life is to see you and the one whom you sent, right? " So he divides it into two parts, right? One about the divinity of Christ, which of course is shared by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit too, and then on the humanity of Christ.

[3:44] He divides it into those two parts. Well, then, in the first part on the divinity, he divides that into what three? And he talks first of all about the substance and operations of God, right? And then the second part is about the Trinity, right? And then the third part is about the effects of God, right? Okay. Now, I was kind of comparing in my mind with what Thomas does in the Summa Contra Gentiles, right?

[4:19] Where he has this division of God in Himself, God is the Maker or beginning of things, and God is their end and governor and so on, right? I say, well, why does Thomas do that differently here, right? Well, of course, in the Summa Contra Gentiles, the first division he makes is into what two parts, right? These things that we know about God in Himself, and God is the beginning and the end of things by natural reason, as well as by faith, right?

[4:52] Things that even Aristotle, the old pagan, right, was able to reason out, right? And then in the what? That's first three books, right? Then the fourth book he does the same three things, insofar as they are known only by faith, right? And so it's in those last that fourth book that he takes up the Trinity and the Incarnation and the Eschatology and the last things, right? So the Trinity is separated from the consideration of the substance of God and his operations, so it makes a better balance there, right?

[5:30] To make the or even you might say, right, the consideration of God in Himself, God is the Maker, the Creator, and so on, and his main effects and so on, and then God is the end and the governance that he has with a view to that end. But both cases is beautiful. He does it right. But if you put the Trinity with, you know, it's a big thing, that Trinity, right?

[5:53] I mean, it's no small thing, right? You have to, you know, separate the consideration of substance and the operations of God. And the Trinity, and then the effects are kind of jammed together, right? But you'll you'll make that distinction between the effects between being the maker and the end, right? So it's beautifully what ordered, huh? Beautifully ordered,

[6:16] yes. So you divide the thing into three, and then the first part into two, and the first of those two parts into three, right? This this is the way he does it now. But when he goes through that, you know, it's so simple. Like when he's talking about some of the great things there that God's providence, you know, extends down to what they call the future contingent things, and it's very hard to understand, right?

[6:40] And Thomas says three things, you know, indicate that this is not a problem for God, right? Future contingent. And he says, first of all, he says the infallibility of the divine foresight, and the second thing is what the efficacy of the divine will, and third, the wisdom of the divine disposition, right? I see. Well, now, I've heard all these things before, but it's put together in a very complete way there, right?

[7:15] So he begins with the the infallibility of divine foreknowledge, and then following the great, you know, Boethius there that God's knowledge is what not measured by time, but measured by eternity, and eternity is what all at once, endless life, right? And so he's he's the now of eternity, the eternal now, right? Is opposite every now of time, right? So you know, I have infallible knowledge that this man over here is sitting now, right?

[7:54] But I know that because he's sitting there now, right? I see him sitting there, right? And I'm very sure about it. But you know, a half hour ago, I couldn't be saying that I'm sure he'll be sitting. He may be called off to work there at the

[8:08] incoming uh, uh, retreatants or whatever it is, right? Um. So that's beautifully said, right? And then the efficacy of the divine will, right? That not only what God wills comes about, right? But it comes about in the way He wants to come about. whether he wants it to happen necessarily or contingently, right? And then he gets the third part there, and even those things, you know, where you could possibly fail, right?

[8:41] God arranges so that you will not fail, right? And the contingency will not happen, right? And see, it's beautifully he lays it out, huh?

[8:55] The same when he gets into talking about the Christ there, you know, just another example of a beautiful three in there, you know. He says. He's arguing that the Christ's death on the cross was voluntary, right? And that doesn't mean that he killed himself. It doesn't mean that the Jews are not responsible for his death and so on. But he said, "Why did Christ want to die?

[9:19] There's three reasons why he wanted to die. What are the three reasons why Christ wanted to die?" He doesn't say that. No He's got to touch upon that you know in the third of the three reasons, right? Well, the first reason why he wanted to die, which it is perfectly ordered where these are, the first one why he wanted to die was to assume the punishment for original sin, because you know once you do that, that's what God told him, right?

[9:52] Moses and so on. And so what? So I wanted to die to ass assume the punishment. that is due to original sin so that's beautiful. It begins there, right? Okay. Now, what's the second thing he does? Huh? The second thing.

[10:12] Well, that's going to be under the third one, The third one reason he gives, he wants to give us a good example, right? And then he singles out a good example of what charity and fortitude and patience, right? So on. Those are the virtues, right? Huh? And obedience, right, is the fourth one, right? He says beautifully laid out there. It's almost the same as in the Thomas's Prayer after Communion Communion, you know, where he talks about, you know, diminishing the vices and growing the virtues.

[10:43] He mentions those same four, except for fortitude, he substitutes what humility, right? Okay, it's beautifully said, right? But but what struck me was the the those two you kind of were. What's the middle one, right? See, this is the spiritual sense of we're dying to the flesh, right, and going to the what spiritual life, right? Okay, it's a little bit like you know when they say we're buried with Christ in baptism, so on, right?

[11:10] And then when he goes on, he says, "And why do you want to die on the cross? Why that, right? Well, Christ, he says, first of all, going back to Adam, right? They sin by what taking that fruit from that tree, right? Do you want to be nailed a tree, right? I guess the cross was probably a tree, right? I don't know, you know, the painters haven't much represented that too much.

[11:36] You don't usually see the cross in the form of a tree, but sometimes you see it in a tree, right? So that's kind of beautifully ties it up with the first of those general reasons, huh? Then the second one he says, why do you want to die on the cross? Well, because you what you're lifted up. If I lift up, I'll draw all men to myself, right?

[11:56] This is going from the sense world to the what spiritual world, yeah. And then in terms of the virtues, right, this is a very shameful death, and therefore some men are not afraid to die, but they don't want to die in a shameful way, right? Remember how Major Andre didn't want to be hung, right, by Washington, right? It's okay to be shot in the firing squad. That's the way for a soldier to go, right?

[12:24] I mean, I don't mean to be hung either for a soldier. That's that is that is you know, crucifixion, of course, is worse than hanging, right? And so he wanted to, you know, humility, right?

[12:40] But he's talking about the reason why our forefathers there sin, right? And he talked about our friend there, Eve, right? And she's guilty of five things, he says. It's really laid out beautifully, right? You know, and her first sin was what? Pride, right? You know, she's going to get all these great things. Okay, what is her second sin?

[13:18] He says curiosity. Huh? You'll be like gods, right? That's interesting. Pride and curiosity, right? The curiosity is the sort of desire to know, right? Okay. The big danger for a philosopher is pride and curiositas in the sense of the vicious sense of the word, right? Maybe it's curiosity sometimes for synonym for wonder, but curiositas, in Latin, there, it's the disordered desire to know, right?

[13:51] And then the food was what? Delicious looking, right? Beautiful yeah Gluttony right? For food, yeah, yeah, yeah. The first, the first three, right? Okay. And then what's the fourth sin? Down.

[14:09] Disbelief. Sin of disbelief, huh? Oh no, that's you know, you're not going to die if you eat this. you're going to be you know gods, yeah, yeah. And then what's the fifth sin?

[14:27] What? Disobedience. Yeah, right. But it is beautifully laid out there, you know. Now it's kind of thinking about it. You know how you know how when Thomas in the Secunda Secundae the second part, the second part, he takes up the virtues more in particular, right? He takes faith, hope, and charity, and then he takes the four cardinal virtues, right? And then he attaches a consideration of other virtues to the four cardinal virtues, according as these virtues have a likeness, right, to the mode of the temperate, you know.

[15:03] So these first three defects in and and our our mother Eve are all tied up with what virtue or vice as opposed to that virtue? They all tie up to temperance, right?

[15:24] Curiositas is a excessive desire to know, right? Now, you know, gluttony That's what St. Bonaventure calls it: concupiscence of curiosity. Yeah, yeah. And and pride is is a excessive desire for one's own excellence, right? Huh? So that kind of you know, I mean, just the way he he ordered those three, you know, and then you get to the kind of the crux of the matter, the disbelief and the disobedience, right?

[15:53] I mean, interesting that that. It begins from too much, why too much of a little of a good thing, right? And I got thinking of of the of the seven wise men of Greece, right? The first thing they said, you know, know thyself, and nothing too much, right? And you know, we used to always say, why does it say nothing too much? And not nothing too little, right?

[16:18] Because nothing too little, you know, is true too, right? But emphasis upon nothing too much, right? And so you know, this love of one's own excellence, right? Or this love of what knowledge, right? Or this love of the pleasure even of senses, right? These are all good things, right? You had too much of a good thing as he told you, yeah, right? And and so that's kind of the way that someone who's you know quite innocent up to this point, right, is going to be led what astray, right?

[17:01] It's a danger of pride too, is it pride? Pride starts from what even good things, right? You're proud of your what knowledge, right? Huh? I was saying to my students at night there. I said I love to think about God, right? And sometimes people you know say, well, he must be a very holy man, Mr. Perkins. He's always thinking about God, right? Which is true. Every day, yeah, I do a little bit of theology every day.

[17:30] I try to do a little theology, a little theology, a little bit of scripture, you know, and find time to do you know every day and so on. And but that doesn't make me holy, you know. I think

[17:46] it's a good thing, you know. I wouldn't deny the goodness of it, you know. But really, to be holy, you have to what love God above all other things, right? And all the things for the sake of God, right? Even yourself for the sake of God, right?

[18:06] I'm always struck, you know, by this argument that Thomas gives, who says that creatures and whatever goodness there is in creatures, it adds nothing to the what goodness of what of God, right? And he says, you know, yes, it's two likenesses, huh? To kind of help our feeble minds see this a bit. One is the infinite distance between God's goodness, right, and our goodness, right. So using mathematical analogy, our goodness is to God's goodness not like a shorter line is to a longer line, whereby you know adding enough you could get up there, you know.

[18:47] But it's like a point is to a what a line. So if you add a point to a line, how much longer is the line? Yeah. No longer, right? And so, if you add our goodness and the goodness of all creation, right, of all the creatures, to God's goodness, that's no better than God alone.

[19:09] Or the other example Thomas gives is, of course, the goodness of the creature is partaking of the what? Divine goodness, huh? It's like a part of it, right? Well, Socrates and the arm of Socrates is no more than what? No better than Socrates alone. So God, what partakes of where has a part of what God has? Is no better than God alone. So you think you know think of this in prayer that they have at the end of Matins, I guess, where the Te Deum, right, where all the angels, you know, are praising God and the the seraphim and the cherub in particular, and then you have the what?

[19:57] The the apostles and the prophets and the martyrs. Right, and then in general the church, right. So you're kind of, you know, anticipation of what heaven is like. There we're all singing and and praising God, you know. And yet we realize that we all add nothing to Him, right? He is so self-sufficient, right? It's an amazing thing, right? It's an amazing thing. And now I got thinking, you know, you know about what the great Heisenberg said, you know, about he's giving the history of quantum theory, and he talks about how at a particular time the physicists began to what ask the right question.

[20:41] And then he made the very interesting point that often he says to ask the right question is to go more than halfway to the what truth, right? So now I try to emphasize this point with my students. At assumption, I draw a straight line on the board, right? And let's make the point here on the left. We'll mark it, call it ignorance. And the point at the right, we'll mark and call it knowledge, right?

[21:08] And the line represents the path from what ignorance to knowledge, right? Okay. Now what is that path made up of, right? What's made up of questions and and the answers to these questions, right? But asking the right question is to go more than what? Yeah. So we mark a little point here. It's halfway down the line, and and some point beyond that, we'll say the right question, right?

[21:37] And once you ask the right question, you seem to go all the way, right? And it's emphasized in the dialogues of Plato because Socrates asked the slave boy, you know, how do you double a square? The slave boy says to double the side. And then Socrates, by asking him questions, the slave boy recognizes his mistake, and eventually, out of the slave boy's own answers, comes the way to double a square, to take the diagonal.

[22:04] on. And Socrates, I didn't teach him. All I did was ask questions. He gave all the answers. Well, who contributed more to the discovery of the way to double a square? Socrates, the slave boy. Well, Socrates, by asking the right questions, the slave boy seems to what teach himself, right? That's kind of a marvelous thing, right? Well, going back then to this great suggestion there of Heisenberg about the right question, right?

[22:37] We see that in Socrates and Euthyphro, right? He teaches us one kind of right question because Euthyphro is asked to define piety, right? He's prosecuting his poor father for impiety, so you better understand what piety is if you.

[22:56] And so he says what the gods approve of, right? And Socrates says, well. Is it piety because is it pious because the gods approve of it, or do the gods approve it because it is pious? Which is it? Well, the gods approve it because it is pious, right? Okay.

[23:18] And you know, honor your father and mother, right? Is it good because it's a commandment to honor your father and mother? That's makes it good to honor your father and mother. Or is it commandment recognize that that is good, and therefore commands it, right? Well, now it's being the great uh uh guy called Augustine, I guess, of Hippo, right? and the De vera religione he had to do was.

[23:41] And he quotes the first definition of what the beautiful. The beautiful is what pleases when what seen. And he asks this Socratic question, to guess. Is it beautiful because it pleases our senses, or does it please our senses because it is what beautiful? He says, I have no doubt that it pleases our senses because it is beautiful, right? So you have to you know see what makes it beautiful, and it's not our delighting it.

[24:09] That's an effect of is being beautiful, right? And so I've been very much impressed with with Socrates there, you know. taught us how to ask the right question. And then I was thinking about this again, and I was thinking about myself, and I was reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, right? He begins that with a little induction to show that the good is what all want, right? And then you have to ask the very important question: Is it good because we want it, or do we want it because it is good?

[24:38] And it's important to see that we want it because it is good, right? This is a question again that Socrates would say, Shakespeare would say, of cause and effect, right? Which is the cause? Which is the effect, right? So now I got kind of a little more ambitious in my thinking here. I was thinking about these things in in the in the compendium and so on. I was saying now,

[25:07] insofar as as the creature is good, right? The creature is like God, didn't you say? Okay. But now, is the creature like God because he's good, or is the creature good because he's like God? Which is it? Yes. Both Oh, different ways, you know. And you you might be tempted to say, well, he's like God because he's what good, right? Because like God's in a direct relation to God, right?

[25:53] It's a little bit like you know we say, what's half of four? What's two, right? Okay. But is it two because it's half of four, or is it half of four because it's two?

[26:11] It's two first. Yeah, yeah, and and the relation is the result of being two, huh? I just and because it's two, it's also a third of six, right, or a fourth of eight, right? Okay, it's not two because of a fourth of eight. Okay, these things follow from it, right? So you may be tempted to say, "Well, it's because we're good that we're like God." That seems to be a true statement, right?

[26:38] But and the likeness to God is kind of like an effect, of our being good, right? But maybe if we're good, our goodness came from God, right? And Aristotle teaches us, Thomas is always repeating, every agent makes something like itself, right? So in a way, we're good because we're what like God, because God is the source of this, right? So that's a pretty clever you're doing. That's a pretty clever, you know.

[27:10] But my guardian angel there was, you know, handing out. And he says, he says, yeah, yeah, but God's will is involved in making these things, and the object of the divine will is what the good. Yeah, so you better be careful there,

[27:35] Mister Breakfast. Yeah, be careful. But yeah, a little bit of a point there, you know. And then she became interesting to see these things, huh? So recommend the compendium of theology, right, for your light reading when you're visiting your cousins or your grandchildren.

[27:56] Beautiful, okay. Up to the fifth article now here in the seventy-first. To the fifth, fifth one goes forward. Does it seems that in every sin there is some act?

[28:18] How can you sin without doing anything, right? We're reading Shakespeare's play there. The, is she okay? Yes, I hope. Timon of Athens, right? The theme is what misanthrope, right? You know, but some of the denunciations, you know, of human kind, there, you know, we're really messed up, you know, human race, huh? Yeah. But can we sin without doing anything? You know, I just sit there, do nothing.

[29:01] Yeah, because I have to sin if I do anything. For just as merit is compared to what virtue, so sin is compared to what vice, huh? But merit cannot be without some what act, huh? Aristotle says you don't crown the man. There's nothing but the man who's completed right?

[29:30] Therefore, neither can sin be without some what act, right? What tool of dialectic is being used there? What? What? Likeness. Yeah, yeah. Tool of likeness, huh? The likeness of what? Ratios, right? Okay.

[29:52] Moreover, Augustine says in the book on free judgment, we say free will, but he says free judgment, right? That every sin is must be what voluntary, right? So much that if it is not voluntary, it's not a what sin, huh?

[30:14] But there cannot be anything voluntary unless it be an act of the will. I didn't consent. Therefore, every sin has some act, huh? This is very convincing, right?

[30:30] Aristotle says that first use of dialectic is to exercise your mind, huh? Get it in good condition, right? Moreover, if sin is what without some act, it would follow that if someone seizes from some act that is owed, uh, he sins. But continually, someone what Seizes from an act that is owed, uh. The one who never what does this act that is owed, right now. Therefore, it follows that he continually sins, right?

[31:12] Huh. Which is false. Is therefore not some what sin without what an act, huh? But against this is what is said in the, except Epistle of James, huh, chapter four, verse seventeen. The man knowing to do the good and not doing it, it's a sin for him, right? No wonder, Martin Luther,

[31:47] Talk about being scrupulous, huh? But to not do something does not imply what, an act. Therefore, sin can be without act, huh? So I mean, if you have the fourth commandment, let's say, which is kind of different from the most commandments after it, ones come after are negative. I mean, don't murder, don't commit adultery, and so on. So you're commanded not to do some act, right? But to honor your father and mother, you're commanded to what do do something, right?

[32:25] So I don't honor my father and mother. Have I what, sin, right? I'm not kicking them or killing them or anything like that. If I'm not honoring my father and mother, am I sinning?

[32:48] People, you know, think we have to go to mass on Sunday. You know, they're not honoring God, right? And they should, yeah. Aren't they sinning?

[32:58] It's a beautiful poem by John Paul II on it, visiting his mother's grave, and he at least they translate. I don't know what, and all of this might imply, but at the end of it, basically, he makes a petition for repose, for her eternal rest, because that's the end of it. But he calls it a he calls it filial adoration, but it has that sense of he's honoring his mother by asking this, mercy for.

[33:32] I answer. It should be said that this question is chiefly moved on account of the sin of what omission, about which some people think differently in diverse ways, huh? For some say that in every sin of omission, there is some act, right? Either an interior one, right, or an exterior one, right, huh? Interior, just as when someone wills not to go to church, right. When he is held to go, huh?

[34:12] Exterior as when someone, in that hour in which he is held, or bound to go to church, right, or even before, occupies himself with such things that he is impeded by them from going to church, right? It's kind of funny because I'm in Quebec. They had this kind of a, I guess, kind of silly rule, you know. I go to mass, I, I mean, on Sunday, for example, and then go out to get breakfast afterwards, right?

[34:47] And if I buy myself one, get a magazine or a newspaper, like to, to look at when reading it, and so we can't sell until noontime, or you know, after the Sunday masses, right? Why he said anybody was going to be stopped from going to church because he bought a newspaper, you know. You know, it was kind of rule that that you you couldn't they wouldn't sell you the newspaper until I don't, know twelve Actual Masses were over or, something, you know, and even though you didn't do early Masses, you didn't need to skip Mass because you desired to read the damn newspaper.

[35:27] Yeah. And this, in some way, seems to what come back to what is it first, right? For the person who wishes something with which another thing cannot be together, right?

[35:47] As a consequence, wishes to what lack that, right? Unless perhaps he does not what notice, right? I suppose that through this that he wishes to do something, he is impeded by that for what he is held to what to do, right? In which case he is what able to be judged to be what to be culpable, right?

[36:19] Okay. Now in the Bible, my thing they they refer you to Peter Lombard for this first opinion. That doesn't mean if he necessarily thought himself, but he meant it as a reference to Albert in his second opinion. Others, however, say that in the sin of omission, there is not required some what act, right?

[36:47] For for one not to do what is what held to do, obligated to do, is a what sin, right? Now does Thomas come down here and one is being the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Why he says both opinions, right?

[37:11] Have, secundum aliquid, truth, right? For one understands in the sin of omission that only that pertains per se to the notion of sin. Thus, sometimes the sin of omission is with a what? Interior act, huh? As when someone wishes not to go to what? Church. Church, huh? Sometimes, however, without what?

[37:50] Any act, either interior or exterior. Thus it seems saying that both can take place, right? Just as when someone, in the hour in which he is held to go to church, thinks nothing about going or not going to. Yeah, yeah. My my wife tells me of one of her Irish girlfriends there. She was on a Friday, I guess. This is years ago now, you know. And she got on the airplane, right?

[38:22] It was flying, and they they served her a meat, something like that, right? And then she didn't realize that that was Friday. My one of my relatives, she was she was said it was a Friday, and she wasn't thinking about it. Yeah. She got on this really nice big burger. Yeah. She just put a bite in her friend and said, Isn't it Friday?

[38:48] she was really hungry too. Stops and she's like, but it's it's a problem. People, you know, this thing about you know if you're traveling, right? You know, you're obligated to to go to mass, right? You know, and because we arrange the time, you know, you don't, you know. I mean, you really obligated, you know. I don't think so.

[39:19] Or if you're anyway you know If, however, in the sin of omission are understood also the causes or the what? Occasions. Now the real causes are just kind of accidental causes, right? Of omitting, right? Thus, it is necessary in the sin of what omission for there to be some what act.

[39:57] For there is never a sin of omission except when someone omits right what he is able to do and not do, right? Huh? However, someone declines to not doing that which he is able to do and not do does not take place except from some what cause or occasion joined or what preceding, right? Huh? And if the cause is not in the power of man, the omission does not have the.

[40:32] Partial sin. Yeah. Just as when someone, account of infirmity, omits to go to what church, right? Huh? If, however, the cause or occasion omitting lies under the will, the omission has the notion of a what sin. So I drink too much and I fall asleep and the past has already gone by.

[40:59] And thus, always necessary that this cause, in so far as it is voluntary, has some act. Huh? At least a, what, Interior act of the will, but this does not mean what simultaneous, right? Like in the, you know, the other distinction he's making.

[41:22] Which act sometimes is directly borne on the omission itself, as when someone does not wish to go to church, avoiding the what, labor, right?

[41:37] And then such an act per se pertains to the what, omission, right? Huh? For the will of any sin, the will to do it, I guess, huh? Per se pertains to that what, sin, in that the voluntary is of the what? Definition. Yeah.

[42:04] But sometimes the act of the what, will is directly born upon that thing to which man is impeded from the what, required act, right? Whether the will is born in that thing, whether that which the will is born is joined to omission, right? As in someone wishes to play, we have to go to, what, church, right? Or even the preceding, as in someone wishes to what, Stay up right?

[42:40] Stay up, right? yeah, from which he does not go in the, hour of matins, right? To church, huh? And then this act, interior or or exterior, per accidens has itself to the what, omission, right? Huh? Because the omission follows apart from the intention, right? Huh? For we call that per accidens. That is apart from the what intention has as clear in the second book of the Physics, right?

[43:24] Once is manifested, then the sinful omission has a certain act joined, or preceding, which nevertheless per accidens has itself to the sin of what? Omission. Okay. But judgment about things ought to be given according to that which is what, per se, and not according to that which is what per accidens, right?

[43:50] Whence it can more truly be said that some sin can be without what? Yeah. But another way, I guess, how do you open? Otherwise, yeah. Yeah, to the essence of other actual sins, retain the acts and occasions standing around.

[44:24] So, if you fail to read the companion of theology, right, would you be guilty of the sin of omission? But do I commit it? Well, if, people don't, you know, be informed though, with the knowledge they need for their status in life, right? That can be what The sin of omission, right? huh? You know, these pre-Cana conferences a lot of the time, you know, they don't really teach, you know, in the full way the church is teaching on these things, huh?

[45:18] Because there's many different levels of responsibility with these things, but. Okay. Now, how does Thomas reply to the first objection, which is based upon its likeness there right?

[45:41] To the first, therefore, it should be said that more things are required for the good than for the what bad. Thomas always quotes this authority, Dionysius right? Thomas says the same thing too. That good happens from a whole integral cause, but bad from what? Yeah.

[46:16] So, how many ways can a man be ugly? Huh? And Cyrano de Bergerac has a big nose, right? You know, and if you don't dare call attention to it, you know, for fear he may draw his sword, right? But all kinds of things, right? Your ears are too big, right? Or your nose is too big, or you know, all these things have to be right for you to be what beautiful, right?

[46:42] To be handsome, right? She has beautiful hair, the woman there, you know. And you see, but she turns around and say, "Oh, the hair was beautiful, right?" But,

[47:14] you know the type of perfection of say Homer, you know, and Aristotle says you know Homer taught all the Greek poets how to make a good plot. So here's the excellence of plot, right? And when when Hegel is commenting on the characters of Homer, you know, it's a beautiful comparison between the characters of Homer and the characters in the French tragedies. The characters in the French tragedies are kind of what, a voice personified, right?

[47:46] Just kind of a walking voice. Why Homer's character is like a diamond, you know, It's, well shaped, you know, multi-layer, you know, so his excellence of what of character, right? And then Aristotle and Hegel praise the what the words of Homer. Right, you know, he has these beautiful what similes and so on. Absolutely beautiful, and just in the right way, you know. These horrible scenes of men dying in battle, you know, There's a sudden relief, you know, to the scene.

[48:20] So Homer has excellence of plot, character, and what, and words. Right, he's got everything. Right, what did Chopin say about Mozart? You know, he's got everything in his head. Right, I just got the poor the piano in my poor head. You know, Mozart could write for all these different instruments. Right, you know, not just the piano, but the human voice. You know, write for the violin, right, and concertos, and the bassoon concertos, and the clarinet concertos.

[48:56] You get everything right. Is an argument good if one of the premises is bad? No, everything's got to be good, right? It's integral causa, right? It's integral cause.

[49:20] And therefore, a sin can happen whether someone does what he ought not to do. do, right? Huh? Or in not doing what he ought to do, right? But merit cannot be except when someone does voluntarily what he ought to do, huh? So more is required, right, for merit and for demerit, huh? Okay.

[49:50] So when they inspect you, when I was in the military academy, right, and they inspect you, right, now, shoes have got to be shined, but your brass has got to be polished, your gun has got to be cleaned, and so on, right? You know, anything you're going to what fail, right? Now, see these guys, you know, carrying a second pair of shoes, you know, all polished to perfection, you know, taking off the last one, the other shoes in case they got a little dust on them or something, so they're all shiny shoes, so they'll be.

[50:22] But everything's got to be perfect, right? Huh? It never is. No. My father, my father was in the army, air force, and he said that they had inspections, and everybody had completely, perfectly clean little squad feet, you know. Yeah. And they had kept in the ocean, and then he's around and looking at you for that, and he had quite a few gloves on. Yeah. Take his finger and go and take one of the strings.

[50:56] Yeah. How many ways can you find something wrong? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think the guy been the German army in the Second World War, either, you know. And they would go right down into the you know the drains and so on and see what's so next time they were expecting them to be inspected they went down they cleaned the drain out shined up you know so all he gets always wants to do is shine the little drain the yeah yeah and if it didn't pass inspection you know I mean you make the whole the whole company you know be responsible for it right so the one time they had them scrubbing the floor with toothbrushes so they really feel disciplined

[51:45] okay and therefore merit cannot be without an act but sin can be without an act right that's beautiful beautiful see that doesn't Aristotle say something about that ignorance right huh Ignorance can come just by not studying right but also ignorance from false arguments right

[52:22] to the second it should be said that something can be called voluntary not only because it comes under some act of the will but because it is in our power right huh that it come to be or not come to be as is said in the third book of the ethics by Aristotle

[52:44] whence also for it not to will can be said to be what voluntary right huh insofar as it is in the power of man to will or not to will right when they distinguish these two causes nature and what and will that's and they say nature is determined to one right huh why the will is what be able to do this or to do that or to do this or not to do this right so you can what you have two kinds of what indetermination there right huh why the nature is kind of determined to one right can do it or not do it or do it do this rather than that right huh you know they're talking about the those farming grandchildren there you

[53:36] know about them the cows are going to drop their young you know and so on there's going to be another little cow right it's not going to be a you know pig or something you know nature is determined to one right huh okay but to cook I mean make a steak tonight or chicken or something else right huh bees yeah bees are going to stop making honey start making lemonade yeah

[54:05] To the third, it should be said that the sin of omission is contrary to the affirmative precept, right? Which always obligates, but not always, right? What does that mean? Well, I mean, you're obligated to honor your father, mother, but you're not to be honoring them all the time.

[54:29] And therefore, only for that time does one sin by what? Ceasing from the act by which he is obligated to what? When mother comes in, you stand up, right? He's saying that Theodore Roosevelt didn't approve of Churchill because he didn't stand up when a woman came into the room. That was

[55:00] his mother, I mean.