Prima Secundae
171. Augustine's Definition of Sin and How Sins Are Distinguished (ST I-II q.71 a.6 – q.72 a.2)
Class of 2014-05-22
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/171-augustines-definition-of-sin-and-how-sins-are-distinguished/

[0:00] To the sixth one proceeds thus. It seems that unsuitably is defined sin when it is said that sin is something said or done or desired against the eternal what law.

[0:26] For it is said either done or desired implies somewhat act, but not every sin implies some act. Therefore, this definition does not include every sin.

[0:48] Moreover, Augustine says in the book on the two what souls is that? That sin is the will of retaining or what pursuing but justice what?

[1:08] forbids. But will is what comprehended under concupiscence. According as concupiscence is taken in a large way, right? For every what desire, right? Therefore, it suffices to say that sin is something wanted or desired against the eternal law. It was necessary to add said or done.

[1:44] Incidentally, you probably have a note there in your book uh that the definition that that you're discussing here is apparently taken from Augustine's *contra Faustum*, right? Okay.

[2:05] So it's a celebrated definition, right? You know, assuming you find Thomas, you know, takes up the definition say of eternity, right? And it's beautiful what he does because each objection is against one part of the definition, right? So it focuses the mind of the student upon that one part of the definition, and you think about that one part just by itself, you know, and then you have to answer that eventually, right?

[2:31] So it gets a real distinct knowledge of that, right? If I was smart enough like that, I have, you know, well, this is a good definition of reason, you know, the ability for large, and then say, well, no, no. And you say, you know, the ability for large discourse. Well, that leaves out small discourse, right? You know, that'd be an objection you give to that, right? And then the reply would say, you know, well, when you say that you're able to, you know, lift a 200 pounds, it includes your ability to lift 100 pounds, right?

[3:08] And therefore, when you say ability for large discourse, that includes the ability, right? And you say, well, that leaves out, you know, distinction, right? Yeah, but when you say that you look before and after, that includes distinction because there's only a before and after if things are distinct, right? So that's included, right?

[3:30] Or you make the objection say, well, the mind, the mind, the reason is not capable very much of large discourse, only of what small discourses are really capable of fully, and therefore it should be defined in terms of small discourse, right? And you say, well, we don't define an ability by what it can do most easily, right, or most adequately, but by the utmost that it can do, right?

[4:00] Okay, that California Chrome, you know, not by the slowest race that he can comfortably come in last, you know, but the speed, you know, the utmost that he can do, right? The time, you know, he sets a record after. He said, no, he set a record for time, but it's marvelous. So it's kind of beautiful the way the Thomas will mark this in that part of the definition, right?

[4:30] And it's very appropriate for for a beginner, right? This is what the summa is for a beginner, and not a beginner in the life of the mind, but a beginner in theology, right? But it makes you really appreciate the effort you have to make to understand a definition, right?

[4:50] But not just any jerk's a definition, hey? But some of like Boethius, you know, or some of like Augustine, you know, or Aristotle has a definition. Well, think twice, thrice more about that.

[5:19] Moreover, sin properly seems to consist in a turning away from the what? End. For good and bad are chiefly considered according to the end, as is clear from the things said above. Hence

[5:38] Augustine says in the first book about free judgment there. How did they translate that in English? That they are doing good. Some other English text. Did you

[5:52] do it free will or did you? No, they don't. They give the Latin one, yeah, yeah. The next thing, free judgment, right, and it's significant, you know.

[6:07] Once Augustine says in the first book of free judgment that by comparison to the end sin is defined, right? Augustine's not even consistent, right? Saying that to sin is nothing other than neglecting eternal things to follow what temporal things.

[6:28] In the book of the eighty-three questions, he says that all human diversity is in using things that should be enjoyed and enjoying things that should be used. Your number makes a lot of that text, right?

[6:54] But in the fore said definition, there is no mention about the aversion from the what suitable end. Therefore, insufficiently is defined, right? Not the average average person, especially average woman, say, "Isn't this confusing the issue? " My old teacher Casarec used to say, "You know, it's the business of the teacher to confuse the issue. " He's kind of you know gets the mind you know. I remember a priest was during Holy Week was reading the Gospel of John and and you have continuation of the Gospel of John for several days in Holy Week Mass and he was saying we have more of these confusing Gospels from Saint John.

[7:46] What's confusing about them? We're confused. Gospels are confusing. Well, in the companion of theology, it's beautiful when he takes up the three graces of Christ, right? The grace of of union, right? The beatific, I mean, the hypostatic union, and then the grace of what him as individual man, right? And then the grace of him as the head of the church, right? But he ties up beautifully, you know, with the text of of John beginning the Gospel there, right?

[8:16] It's just it's just marking the order of of him, right? Because he says first of all, you know, that the Word was made flesh, and that's the union, the hypostatic, and then we saw him but full of glory and grace and truth, right? And then of his fullness we have all received, you know. It's perfectly ordered, you know. It's absolutely amazing, you know. Amazing. The beautiful

[8:50] way he explains that too, you know, that Christ didn't merit the the hypostatic union, right. But he's full of grace and truth because of the hypostatic union. He says because the closer you are to God, you're the you're what is a cause of what comes afterwards, right? And there's no way of being closer to God than than the hypostatic union. So being close to God, then in his human nature, right, he was what full wisdom and full grace.

[9:24] Yeah, it's a beautiful, beautiful chapter in there on the infinity of Christ's grace, right? Because simply speaking, he can't be created; thing can't be. But yeah, so of course the grace of union is is infinite, right? Because you're being joined to the divine person, right? But then in in the grace of Christ as a man, right, Thomas there says three ways that it's infinite, right? Can't ever get off that text there.

[9:53] That was my that was my reading when I was with my grandchildren. You know, You have to leave us with a little. teaser. so we can find out what it is So I asked I asked Lady Lady Wisdom, right? I said, "What is theology?" She said, "The knowledge of God." And I said, "Is God simple or put together?" She said, "He's simple, right?" I said, "Is God perfect in some particular way, or universally perfect?"

[10:16] She says, "Universally perfect, right?" Did you ask her how you s how you get double the square? See how she figured that one. part of a tree there, you know, but like a staff, you know, and she's taking care of the sheep there, you know. So look at the little shepherds out there, you know, Command them around the sheep. They come out there and they eat the grass, and then they see one of the plants there on that they don't want them to eat, you know, and then go over and you know, you know, get away from the plant.

[11:03] Yeah. So I guess he keeps him out of trouble all this farming. Yeah. Keep him busy. Tires him out. Oh yeah. sleep well and so on. Okay, this is pretty exercise in the mind, dear. Okay.

[11:26] Moreover, this is the fourth objection, all right. From this, something is said to be prohibited because it is contrary to the law. But not all sins are bad because they're prohibited, but some are prohibited because they are bad, right? Okay. So that shows you the importance of the Socratic question, there, right? Because you know, if I go out here on the highway and I start driving the left side of the highway there, that's bad because it's against the law, right?

[11:56] It's not a law because it's bad to do like the English do, you know, driving the left side, right? And you know, Thomas talks about the the the tree that they ate off, you know. It was bad to eat off that tree because it was prohibited. It wasn't prohibited because the tree was itself, but a bad tree. It wasn't poisonous tree like that, you know.

[12:26] Therefore, in the common definition of sin, we're not not to lay down is against the law of God, right? I mean, Brother Mark and I were going to, you know, straighten out some of the professors there, you know. You know, we had to work in the mind, and you had to confine the man in a prison cell, more or less. And you drop in one day the objections, right?

[12:57] And let him stew at those, right? And then another day you know, but that's the way it should go, right? Now you know, you know, swim around the objections for a while, you know, and really, yeah, of course the disputed questions you have, you know, sometimes fifteen, twenty objections, huh? You know, so this is just, you know, cut down. Small. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[13:31] Okay. Moreover, sin signifies a bad act of man. But the bad of man is to be against reason, as the great Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the Divine Names.

[13:50] I might teach ethics. I'd say that, right? You know, a good human act is a reasonable act, right? Any bad human act is an unreasonable act, right?

[14:02] Therefore, more ought one to say that sin is against reason, than that sin is against what eternal law, right? Can we check the definition of Augustine, right? Yeah, yeah, nothing new. Come on, yeah, yeah.

[14:25] You can see if one is not inclined to follow Augustine, right? This would be sufficient to, you know, I could reason now to not follow that guy, right? Right.

[14:43] My answer should be said. On the contrary, the authority of Augustine suffices. Yeah. Who is this Augustine that Tom says? This this new saint there, huh? The John Paul II. He's got a nice encyclical on Augustine, right? Don't know if you know that one at all. But it's kind of a nice, nice, you know, traditional teaching of the Church about the great Augustine. Do you realize how how central he is, right?

[15:12] Or if you go to the what they're always talking about now, the the catechism of the Catholic Church, right, and see just how many how many quotes there are from Augustine, right? You know, realize that he's the authority of Augustine's spices, you know. I mean, he's he's

[15:32] somebody. Deaconic would say. Do you see how dependent the mind is upon belief? Though, unless you, you know, believe a man of such great authority, you are not going to make the effort to really understand him.

[15:52] I answer. It should be said that it is clear from what has been said that sin is nothing other than a bad human act, right?

[16:05] Now that some act be a human act, it has from this that it is what voluntary, right? Whether it be voluntary, as it were, elicited, right, by the will, right, as the willing itself and choosing, right,

[16:24] so that's an act of the power itself intrinsically. or a act what commanded by the will, right, as our exterior acts, right, either of speaking or of what? Yeah. Emitted. Distinguished a lot, right? Huh? When they say in the maths today, I know you haven't your maths, and I don't, but you know, yeah, you know, they they talk about words and so deeds.

[16:58] Now a human act has what that be bad from its what lacking something, right? And what does he say here? A suitable measure, right? Okay.

[17:17] Not so good measure. Men comes from the mind, right? Come men. Mensura. Mind. Now every commensuration of anything of anything is to be noted by its comparison to some rule, from which, if it deviates, it is what?

[17:42] Not measured or standard. Yeah. Okay. What's the measure in food, right? How much? See, what's the measure in drinking? Usquered Hillary Thompson. That's a common sense, yeah. Yeah.

[18:02] That was quite a. Stupidity, right? Okay. But now the rule of the human will is what? Two-fold, huh? One which is what near. Approximately, right? And homogeneous, right? The same kind, right? To wit, human what reason? Okay. So that means reason is what the ruler, right? Our act should be reasonable. Another is the first rule, which is the what? Eternal law. Eternal law, which is as a worthy reason of God, right?

[18:45] Yeah. And therefore Augustine, he says, in the definition of sin, lays down two things, right? One that pertains to the substance of human act, which is, as it were, the matter in sin, right? When he says something said, or done, or what, desired, huh?

[19:14] Another that pertains to the notion of what, Bad. of bad, which is the word formal. The definition of what sin, huh? When he says against eternal law.

[19:28] That's all you need, right? So. Hmm. Only come to this question of law. We'll see this again, you know. Now to the first objection, right, which is based upon the previous what. Article where you took it up, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that affirmation, negation are reduced to the same what genus, right? Just as in divine things, generated and ungenerated are what reduced to relation, right?

[20:18] As Augustine says in the fifth book of the what Trinity, right? So we say the Father is what. Not begotten. Yeah. Reduced to that, right? This is a common thing when you talk to logic when you talk about the categories, right? So if knowledge is in the category of quality, to what category do we reduce ignorance? Qualify some people's minds, so to speak, right?

[20:50] And therefore, for the same is to be taken what said and not said, right? Done and not done, right? Huh? And what about the second objection here, which is talking about the will, right? Which Augustine seems to say in this book. To the second, should be said that the first cause of sin is in the will, which commands all voluntary acts, in which only is found what sin.

[21:26] And therefore, Augustine sometimes through will alone defines what sin, right? That's the root of it, right? Prima causa, right? But because also the exterior acts pertain to the substance of the sin, since they are what in themselves bad, right? Like murdering you or something, right? Is necessary that in the definition of sin be laid down to something pertaining also to the what exterior acts, right?

[22:06] So to want to kill somebody is is as bad as killing somebody got the same root there, right? Yeah. Yeah. I remember one time I learned about colleagues in the English department. Came out University of Minnesota to take some more course and so on. And he went to see this. He wanted to go see this one play there, you know, some modern play, you know, and so on.

[22:35] And it was kind of a depressing play, right? And it's about a husband and wife who are in some kind of conflict, right? And a friend of them comes to visit and stays with them for a while, and he's hearing the husband complain about the wife, and the wife complain about the husband, so on. And he's trying to kind of reconcile them a bit, right? Huh? And it's kind of depressing, anyway.

[22:58] And one of the complaints about the wife is the time that she was standing in the dock, and he pushed her off the dock, and she almost drowned, right? Why he says that's some kind of serious thing, right? So, so the next conversation with the man, he asked her about, you know, and why did you do that? He says, well, there she was standing at the end of the dock; it just seemed the thing to do.

[23:23] Everybody fucked up laughing, you know. Just seemed the thing to do. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Everybody, yeah, started laughing, you know. My friends, it wasn't supposed to be a joke, you know. We're looking for some kind of comic relief from this terribly depressing, depressing story, you know.

[23:42] We don't have opportunities like that every day. That's what I'm saying, you know. We pick up the place, you know. I can relate to that. Yeah, yeah.

[24:00] So he's seeing something good in that definition of Augustine, right? That's the first cause, right? Prima causa, right? I suppose, if I go so far and want to kill, you, they actually don't kill you. Well, My will has become even more inclined to it, right? Even more intensity to it.

[24:29] To the third, it should be said, huh? That the eternal law first and chiefly orders man to the end, right? I suppose the first commandment is, you know, love God above all things, right? Okay. And then, as a consequence of this, it makes man have himself well about those things which are towards the end, right? And therefore, in this that he says against the eternal law, he touches upon the aversion from the end, and consequently all other.

[25:07] You didn't see that, you dummy, huh? Okay, you know. I mean, the objection made you what? Clarify that, right? Huh? The objections concentrates you upon what seems to be defect, right? And you see that the defect is not in the definition, but in your understanding of that part of the definition. Now you understand part of the definition better, right? Huh? Okay. I suppose

[25:36] we can understand this maybe better when we study law here later on in that premise, right? To the fourth, it should be said. This is the objection from some things are not bad because they're

[26:01] against the law, right? Okay. Um. To the fourth, it should be said that when it's said that not every sin is bad because it is prohibited, it is understood about the prohibition made through what the positive law, right? Like you driving the right side of the street. That's the positive law, which means what the law laid down, right? It's not the nature of things that you drive in the right side of the street.

[26:31] If our word refers to the natural right, which is contained first in the eternal law, secondly in the natural judgment of human what reason? Then every sin is bad because it is what right? Yeah, prohibited, huh? Because from this, right, that it is disordered, is repugnant to the what natural law?

[27:01] Okay. Mind you, what I was saying before there, right? Are you like God because you're good? Or are you good because you've been made like God, in some way?

[27:50] Now, what about the fifth objection here, right? To the fifth, it should be said that by theologians, sin is considered especially praecipue right? According as an offense against God, right? But by the moral philosopher, according as it is contrary to what reason, Reason, right? And therefore, Augustine more suitably defines sin from this that is against the eternal law than from this that is against what Reason. reason, huh?

[28:34] And especially because through the eternal law we are ruled in many things which exceed what human reason, huh? Um. And the theologian defines things a little bit differently than what philosopher, right? That goes back to a more general thing that the way of defining in different sciences is not the same, right? I don't know if you remember when Aristotle in the second book of the Physics, second book of natural hearing, when he distinguishes natural philosophy and what mathematics, right?

[29:20] And they differ in their way of what defining. Did we talk about that earlier years ago? Maybe, yeah. Because in natural philosophy, you define with what sensible matter they say, right? Okay. But is the geometrical cube, you know, hard or soft? Is the geometrical sphere, you know? I used to say to a student, if you took a geometrical sphere and you threw it against the wall, would it bounce off like a rubber balloon, or would it shatter like a glass thing, you know?

[29:56] Or what would be the melting point of a geometrical sphere, right? So you define in a different way, right? Okay. And then sometimes Aristotle will say that in natural philosophy you define with matter and motion, right? Huh? But in mathematics you abstract from, right? Matter and what? Motion, right? Huh? Kind of funny in the modern mathematical description of the atom, right? Huh? We have kind of a mixed science, you know, or what they call middle science, you know, a mathematical science of nature, right?

[30:38] But as one of the great physicists said, huh? The modern atom consists of no stuff at all. It's just, you know, mathematics, right? Huh? And but that's because you're what? Applying mathematics back to the what? Natural world, right? Right. And that's. But when you get sometimes Aristotle, though, will speak of there being a kind of matter in mathematics, which is its continuous extension, and so on. And then in wisdom, you're dealing with things that are altogether immaterial, right?

[31:17] And then and no way involve any kind of matter, right? And it's hard for the mind to rise to that, right? But in theology, we tend to define things in reference to what? God, right? Huh? Okay. So that's kind of a good point he's touching upon it here, right? The way the philosopher would define, it. But it becomes kind of critical when you talk about what they call the natural law, The kind of later on when Thomas talks about the natural law in theology, he'll speak of the natural law as being a partaking of the eternal law in man, right?

[32:04] So he's defining it in a way by the eternal law, right? Where Aristotle would talk about what? Natural, right? Huh? Because the nature of things, right? Huh? And not he's not aware in some way of God, right? But it's not as appropriate, right? For the the philosopher to define things in reference to God, because God is not really the subject of of wisdom, right? God is the cause of the subject of wisdom, right?

[32:36] Which is being in one, right? Huh? But is not the very what? Subject of the science, right? So Thomas would say, you know, that in revealed theology that is to say, right? Because Aristotle calls wisdom theology too, right? But it's because it, you know, it ends up by talking about God, right? But the subject of of wisdom is determined, of first philosophy, as, Aristotle calls it, in the fourth book of natural of metaphysics metaphysics, and there he speaks of his being being in the one, right?

[33:10] But the the revealed theology, the subject is God, right? And nothing else is talked about in there except in relation to God is its beginning or its end, right? So it's kind of appropriate to define in reference to God, right? And so that's the way the natural law is defined there in theology. So different sciences have kind of a different way of defining. them

[33:38] So chew on that definition right You have to chew on these things, huh? Otherwise you'll get they would say mental indigestion, right? Or you'd be more vulnerable. Mental constipation, you call it. word. Yeah. Yeah. Take a little break here now. Yes. Then we ought to consider about the distinction of sins or vices, right? And about this, nine things are asked.

[34:15] First, whether sins are distinguished in species and of kind according to their what objects, right? Secondly, about the distinction of spiritual sins and carnal sins, right?

[34:35] So the prostitutes are coming in before the Pharisees, right? I don't know about the spiritual sins, huh? Someone said, if you're still in carnal sins, you know, wait till to get rid of your spiritual sins, huh?

[34:55] And whether they are distinguished according to their what causes, right? Fourth, whether they're distinguished according to those things in which one what sins, huh? Fifth, whether according to the diversity of what Guilt guilt, huh? Secondly, whether according to omission and commission, huh? Not to that stuff yet, huh?

[35:22] And seven, whether according to a diverse proceeding of the sin, my goodness. And eight, according to what abundance and defect, huh? And nine, whether according to diverse circumstances.

[35:43] To the first, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that sins do not differ in species according to their what objects, right? Now, for human acts are especially said to be good or bad by comparison to the end, as has been shown above. Since therefore sin is nothing other than a bad act of man, as has been said, it seems that according to their ends, sins ought to be distinguished in species more than according to their what objects, right?

[36:28] Well, that simply touches upon something needs to be clarified, right? Moreover, evil, since it is a privation, which is said in English to be a lack, huh? You're sadly lacking, students. huh. Tell my students.

[36:47] Um. Moreover, evil, since it is a privation or lack, is distinguished. In species, according to the diverse species of what opposites, huh? But sin is a certain evil in the genus of human acts. Therefore, sins ought to be more distinguished in species according to the opposites than according to their what objects, huh?

[37:17] Moreover, if sins differ in species according to their objects, is impossible for the same sin in species to be about to be found about different what objects, right, huh?

[37:32] But there are found some sins of this sort. For pride is both in what spiritual things and in bodily things, huh? So I can be proud about my knowledge or proud about my good looks, huh?

[37:53] As Gregory says in the book, 34 of Moralia, right? Avarice, however, is about diverse what genera of things, huh? Therefore, sins are not distinguished in species according to their what objects, huh?

[38:21] Okay, so some distinction about objects is needed, right? But against this is that sin is something said or done or desired against the law of God.

[38:36] But things said or done or desired are distinguished in species according to diverse objects, right? Because acts are distinguished by their objects, right? Therefore, also sins are distinguished according to their objects. are distinguished in species according to their objects, right? Like I was saying, you know, talking about my thinking, you know, I like to think about God, you know, and can't think anything better to think about, can you?

[39:09] Well, if I'm not thinking about God, I have to think about the what? The angels, right? If I'm not thinking about the angels, I'm thinking about the soul, right?

[39:22] Most people I know, what they think about is is the game or something, right? Nothing wrong with the game, but it's not the greatest thing we can think about, right?

[39:36] What the fun priests say, you know, watching other people play, right? Yeah. So. Okay. So one thinking can be distinguished from other thinking, by what you're thinking about, right? Thomas says I think about the body, so I can think about the soul. I think about the soul, so I can think about the angels. I think about the angels, I can think about God, and that's the end.

[40:10] That's it. It's over. You stay there, you don't go out again. it says in Scripture. Bellarmine has a work on the ladder. You wonder how we're going to carry on the conversation, Kevin. Right? Don't distract me.

[40:38] I answer it should be said that as has been said, two things run together, right? For the definition of sin, right? To wit, a voluntary act, right?

[40:54] And then it's what disorder, right? So sometimes we say a bad act, it's an unreasonable act, and a disordered act or a what unmeasured act, right? Use those words order and measure, right? But the lack of of that.

[41:18] And it's disorder which is by what it's it's yeah drawing away from the law of God. Now of these two, one is per se compared to the one sinning, who intends such a voluntary act to exercise in such a matter, right? Another, to wit, the disorder of the act, per accidens has itself to the intention of the one what sinning, right? For no one intending acts towards what intending evil acts, right?

[41:55] You're always aiming at what a good or an apparent good, right? As Dionysius says in the fourth chapter about the divine names, huh? It is manifest, however, that each thing achieves its what species according to that which is what per se, not, however, according to that which is what per accidens, because those things which are per accidens are outside the definition of species, and therefore sins and species are distinguished from the side of the voluntary acts more than from the side of the what disorder existing in the sin.

[42:46] But voluntary acts are distinguished in species according to their what objects, as has been shown in the things above, right? Whence it follows that the sins are properly distinguished in species according to their objects.

[43:06] Interesting, Thomas, that you, you answer that question. He's not saying that the disorder is what accidental to its being a sin, but accidental to the man doing it, right?

[43:35] To the first, therefore, it should be said that the end chiefly has the notion of the good. That's Aristotle taught us. And therefore, it is compared to the act of the will, which is first in order, right? In every sin, as a what object, right? Whence it comes back to the. Same that sins differ according to their objects or according to their what? So we're

[44:17] saying that the end is Object, right? That's it makes sense, huh? Kant doesn't want to admit that the good will is the will that wills the good. Seems simple enough, right?

[44:37] And the good is primarily the end, right? Now this thing about opposites. The second should be said that sin is not a pure what? Privation. But it's an act, right? Deprived of the suitable order, right? So it's not simply disordered; it's a disordered act, or it's an unmeasured act, right? That's what reason does is order things and measures them, right? huh?

[45:13] We're talking about what Anaxagoras last night, right? It's reason that measures things, right? And therefore, sins are more distinguished in species according to the objects of the act, right? Than according to the what opposites, right?

[45:40] However, if they are distinguished according to the opposite virtues, right, this comes back to the same thing, right? For the virtues are distinguished in species also according to their objects, as has been had above.

[45:55] Learning is what recalling that Shakespeare says. I mean, Socrates Yeah Or repetitio mater studiorum. Yeah, yeah. Recalling is learning, huh? So we're saying that it's by what discourse, right? Because discourse is come to know what you don't know to what you already know. So you have to recall what you already know, right? So you don't recall what you learn, but you recall that through what you learn.

[46:24] So in that sense, learning is recalling, right? We can defend our master, Socrates, right? Okay. To the third, it should be said that nothing prevents, in diverse things in species or genus differing in species or genus, to be found but one formal ratio the object. So this distinction that you know he's going to make use of, right? From which what the catum. We seize its species, right?

[47:01] And in this way, pride about seeks excellence about what diverse things, right? Avarice seeks an abundance of those things which are accommodated for human use. Okay.

[47:23] So is Obama proud? Seeking excellence of power and authority, right? When I was out at my son's house, there he had an interesting biography of Mao. You know what a monster Chairman Mao was. You know, and he was—he buried people alive. You know, that's a common thing he did. You know, and in order to consolidate his power, right? You know, even within the communist movement, there, right?

[47:58] He would let an army be destroyed. You know, and so the guy would fall out of power and so on. So, you know, a monster, incredible. I mean, you know, incredible evil man. Makes Stalin look innocent almost. Yeah, that's what Father Hardin was asked to write. Father Fessio asked Father Harden to write a favorable little blurb for von Balthasar's book von Balthasar's book about whether we dare.

[48:37] We hope that all men be saved, and Father Hardin refuses. No, he says he expects me to believe that in two thousand years of Christianity, nobody's in hell. No.

[48:51] Yeah. So we go on to the next article. Yes. Okay. we're not done. To second one goes forward. Thus, it seems that unsuitably are distinguished spiritual sins from carnal sins, right?

[49:11] For the apostle says in the epistle to the Galatians, chapter five, manifest are the works of the flesh, which are what? Fornication, uncleanness, it's lack of restraint there. I mean, yeah, luxury, huh? Lust, I guess, huh? The service of idols and so on, right? Or cursing or something. Yeah. From which it seems that all general sins are works of the flesh, right? But carnal sins are said to be works of the flesh.

[49:52] Therefore, they are not ones. that are not to be what? Distinguishing carnal sins from what spiritual sins? Moreover, whoever sins walks according to the flesh, according to that of Romans eight. If you live according to the flesh, right, you will die, right, huh? If, however, by what? Spirit. You put you put to death the acts of the flesh. You will live, right? Well, that touched upon that thing I was saying in the compendium there about the second reason why we wanted to die, right, huh?

[50:30] To lead us out from what? Death of of the flesh, right? To to to the spiritual things, right? That's why the cross goes up in the sky too. You say you've been raised up from the death of the flesh to the life of the spirit. But to live or to walk according to the flesh seems to pertain to the notion of carnal sin, right? Therefore, all sins are carnal, right, huh?

[51:02] There you go. If you live according to the flesh, therefore, not not to distinguish carnal sins from spiritual sins. Moreover, the higher part of the soul, which is the mind or reason, is called the what spirit, huh? According to that of Ephesians, be renovated in the spirit of your mind, where spirit is laid down for reason, as the glass says there, right?

[51:34] But every sin that is committed according to the flesh is derived by reason from reason by consent, right? Because is of superior reason to consent in the act of the sin, as is said what we said below. And therefore, the same sins are carnal and spiritual. Therefore, they ought not to be distinguished what from each other, right?

[52:06] Moreover, if some sins in a special way ought to be called carnal, this could be understood most of all about those sins in which someone sins in his what body. But as the apostle said, one Corinthians six, every sin whatever that a man makes is outside the body, but who, every other sin, right? But who fornicates sins in his own body. Therefore, only fornication is a mortal, sin, I mean, a carnal sin.

[52:42] Since, over the apostle in chapter five, Ephesians, also in numbers, what avarice among the carnal sins. But against this is what Gregory says. Against this, another thought right there. Gregory the Great, the thirty-first book of Moralia, he says that the of the seven capital sins, right, five are spiritual and two are carnal. There you go. So he's

[53:17] going to defend Gregory now. Answer should be said that as has been said above, sins receive their species from their what objects, huh? Now every sin consists in the desire for some changeable, right, good that is desired in a disordered way, right, and consequently

[53:46] in something had what. Or in that I guess which is already possessed, he delights in it too much. Yeah. Now, as is clear from things above, twofold is pleasure, right? Huh. One is of an animal, which is consummated in own in the grasping alone of something what. Yeah.

[54:24] The thing had according to desire. No, which is consummated in the apprehension alone, right, of something had in what. Desire. There I guess, and this can be called a what spiritual what pleasure, just as when someone delights in human praise on something of this sort. Another pleasure is bodily or natural, because in bodily touch, right, is perfected, right, which can also be called what Carnal pleasure. fleshly pleasure, right, carnal pleasure.

[55:04] Thus, therefore, those sins which are perfected in spiritual pleasure are called what? Spiritual sins. Spiritual sins, huh? Those which are perfected in fleshly pleasure, bodily pleasure, are called what? Yeah. Just as gula, gluttony, yes, which is perfected in the pleasure of food, right? And luxury, which is perfected in the what? Pleasure of venereal things. huh? Whence the apostle says, Second Corinthians, "Let us be cleansed from all what?

[55:42] Stain. Stain both of the flesh and of the spirit, right? " They seem to be giving the distinction that Gregory gives, right, between the the fleshly sins and spiritual sins, right? So we got St. Paul on the side of Gregory, right? Maybe it's Gregory on the side of St. Paul. Got a good point there.

[56:10] The first, therefore, should be said that as the gloss says there, those vices are are said to be works of the flesh, not because they are what perfected in the pleasure of the flesh, but flesh is taken there for what man, who according as he lives by himself, right, he is said to live according to the flesh, as also Augustine says in the fourteenth book of the City of God,

[56:47] and the reason for this is that every defect of human reason has its beginning in some way from something what? Sensible or flesh. Yeah.

[57:01] From some what? From some. Every defect. Every defect of human reason, huh, has some beginning from in some way from some carnal or fleshly sense, right? Okay.

[57:20] And this also, that is clear response to the what? Second, right? Huh. After all, the word is said to be flesh, right? Huh. He took what was most weak in us, right? And he went all the way down to that. Taking it, that corresponds as what? Fathers all lay out. That's what corresponds to the sin, because the sin is something spiritual, but it was occasioned by

[57:44] a true, sensible. To third, it should be said in carnal sins also there is some spiritual act, right? To wit, the act of reason, but the end of these sins, from which they are what named, is the pleasure of the what? Pleasure.

[58:10] To the fourth objection, it should be said as the gloss says there. Especially in the sin of fornication, the soul what serves the body, right? Huh? Insofar as nothing other than that woman is man able to what think about, huh? But the pleasure of gluttony, although it is carnal, does not as much, huh? Reason, right? Huh?

[58:40] Or it can be said that in that sin also, a certain injury is done to the body when it is disorderly, what stained, I guess, and therefore through this sin alone, is a man specially said to what sin in his body, right? Avarice, which is numbered among the carnal sins, is laid down for what adultery? Huh. It's kind of interesting. Which is the unjust usurpation of another's wife?

[59:16] Huh. Or it can be said that the thing in which the avarice man delights is something what? Yeah. Is something what? Bodily. Yeah. And and in this respect, it is numbered among the what carnal sins? It seems to be almost like in between the two, right? Huh. You know.

[59:43] The man who goes on, you know, accumulating money that he doesn't need, right? Huh. Seems to be, you know, his mind. You know. Yeah. Chesterton has a good short story one of his Father Brown mysteries, and he's trying to figure out who the thief is, whatever it was. And he said he he found him because a thief is always a small-minded man because he's focused on something material.

[1:00:08] So his mind is narrowed to that kind of thing. You find that in greedy people, they really got small minds. Yeah. When you talk about the men who make a lot of money, you know, they keep on wanting to make more money, you know. They don't really need it, you know. So it's kind of a spiritual thing in a way, huh? You know, just the idea that they think of themselves as being more and more self-sufficient and more and more dominant, you know, and so on.

[1:00:38] You don't need all the money to eat and drink well, right? Okay, beautiful. You know, what do they call the trophy wife or something? Some officially have it. You know, that's part their their their their wealth, you know.

[1:00:55] Yeah. Trophy wife. Yeah. That's expressionism. I heard that. Yeah. Trophy wife. Just like a showpiece. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Trophy wife. See what I got? Look what I got. Yeah. I got one of those too.

[1:01:10] Okay. Or can be said that the thing in which the avarice man delights is something bodily, right? And as regards this, it is numbered among the carnal sins, right? But the pleasure does not pertain to the what flesh, Flesh To the spirit but to spirit. And because these guys they keep on working, they work hard, very hard. These guys, right? And therefore, according to Gregory, it is a spiritual what sin.

[1:01:41] Yeah. It's kind of interesting that you see it kind of there is in between those two, right? Timon of Athens, huh? All those who wrote about Timon of Athens before, there was a comedy, right? But Shakespeare's among his tragedies, you can see how this kind of a.

[1:02:11] And since these men make a lot of money, they're very disciplined in some ways, right? They're not kind of you know, giving up to the pleasures of the senses, you know. They work hard all their life. They make more and more money. God knows why. but... Yeah. She- uh, Belloc has it in The Four Men. He touches on certain of the capital sins. He talks about in terms of the.

[1:02:34] What is it? The best, the best thing in the world, and the worst thing in the world. And he talks about the best thing in the world is is to be chased to death by the money beast, because it's, it's like you you can be constantly on the go to get more and more and more and more, and then in the end you just die. because you're exhausted.

[1:02:51] You just wear yourself out. Yeah, it's an interesting little part of this book. In the in the four men, four the four men. Stop.