Prima Secundae
173. Q.72 aa.6-9: Negation rests on affirmation; sins of heart, mouth and deed; excess and defect; circumstances
Class of 2014-05-28
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/173-q-72-aa-6-9-negation-rests-on-affirmation-sins-of-heart-mouth/

[0:00] Thomas uses this principle he's talking about with people who say we can only know God negatively, right? Can't know anything affirmative about God. But could you know anything negatively about God if you didn't know something affirmative about God?

[0:40] Did you? What do you think? God doesn't exist. How do you know that God is unchanging? That's saying, right? Unless you knew God was, let's say, pure act, right? That is,

[0:53] you wouldn't see that he's unchangeable, right? Unless you knew God was simple, right? Her style shows in the first book of the physics, right, that what changes is what composed, right?

[1:16] So if God is simple, then He's not composed, right? Of course that involves negation. too, doesn't it? At least in words, it involves negation. Or you might argue

[1:36] that what is composed as a what cause, right? Composed means put together, right? So what is put together has to put it together. Has something before it, right? So God is the first cause, right? Doesn't have something before it. Yeah, you could say. Why is there nothing before it?

[2:03] Yeah. So in here, I mean, we're talking about the general principle that every negation is based on an affirmation. Seems like the examples he brings up with the sins is based on an inordinate affirmation or love of a certain thing. So, like for instance, the gluttonous man loves food too much, and that causes him both to do bad things and to omit good things. So, like for instance, another example would be like the envious man might sing his praises too much and withhold praises from someone else who deserves it, or something like that.

[2:43] So the affirmation in these cases, the examples, seems to be more like the inordinate love for something. That would be some good after a certain degree, and that goes back to every sin is always some some kind of turning away from God toward a creature. It's not so much turning away from God Our principle. moves us It's the excess love of the creature. That's the affront. There's a love.

[3:16] There's a love behind it. It's a disordered love, but because we're not loving what we should love most. Because the the avaricious man loves money so much that he will, it's not for the sake of justice that he takes money, but he takes more because he loves money, not too much. And then he neglects to give as much back. Also, but it's going back the other way.

[3:42] The envious man he moves towards self-love, so to say, and turns away from God. That's that sounds like an affirmation to me. Yeah, but it's based on but it's based on why would he turn away from God? Do he love this too much? You know, with a reason. Well, I was thinking for the avaricious man, what's most obvious in his omission is he ought to he doesn't give credit to another man when he ought to give credit to another man.

[4:16] So he omits giving credit. but he is very pivotal about his own credit. It's something of logical too, though you know, and state the syllogism, right? In no form of the syllogism or no figure of the syllogism can you draw a conclusion to negatives. You can draw a conclusion to affirmatives, right? And you get affirmative conclusion. You have a negative conclusion. One of the premises is going to be negative, right?

[4:53] But one of them's got to be by affirmative, right? So any negative conclusion is based in part at least upon a affirmative statement. You can't syllogize a negative statement into negatives.

[5:14] Can't give me two negative statements in which there follows a negative statement. That's kind of way of seeing the kind of yourself, you know, the negative statement is conclusion is based upon an affirmative statement, but the affirmative conclusion is based upon two affirmatives, not upon a negative.

[5:47] It's amazing how Thomas sees, you know, this beginning, you know, as the beginning of all these things, right? He just sees that, huh? When we're talking about Shakespeare's definition of reason, we ask, "What does 'large' mean?" Instead of what discourse, and he said, "Well, a discourse could be called large because about the large, or because its beginning or end is large, right? Or because it's what the discourse itself is large or long, right?

[6:26] " And there's two ways we talk about from its limit. If you arrive at something, you know, from what they call like a large induction, right? That's a large discourse, right? But from its beginning, right? But if you have a principle from which you can what deduce many conclusions, right? Then that's a large discourse from its what its end, right? And that's what you see in a mind like Thomas, right?

[6:52] He can see, right, from one beginning, many many what conclusions, right? And other people don't see all the consequences, right? Of course, as time goes on, of course, maybe you see more consequences of this, right? The famous showdown between Einstein and Bohr there at the Solvay Congress, right? Einstein comes in with this, I was this definitive objection, right? And there's actually a picture of them leaving the meeting when he proposed the thing, and Einstein's like, you know, you know, like you know, kind of restrains, well, you know, and Bohr, you know, kind of like, you know, this is the end of, of, and then Bohr, of course, stayed up, you know, that night, and he realized that Einstein had failed to see one of the

[7:42] consequences of the theory of relativity, and destroyed Einstein's argument, right? So Bohr came back the next day and showed that Einstein didn't see one of the conclusions, one of the Consequences of his own theory, and it destroyed his argument, right? And that shut up Einstein for the rest of his life, you know. He didn't publicly challenge the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. He didn't want to accept it still, but he wouldn't attack it again publicly, you know.

[8:12] It's kind of funny because I see the pictures of one of the books that were, you know, coming out of the meeting, you know, and just look on the two guys' faces. You can see Bohr is very worried, you know, and Einstein is pretty, you know, I hate those damn quantum Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. That was the first day. What? That was the first day. The next day.

[8:34] Next day, Bohr came back, and he he had figured out, right? But but Einstein was giving a number of objections, you know, thought experiments they call them, and Bohr was answering the first one. It took him maybe all night to figure out how to answer it. This was Einstein's last one, and boom, he sounded pretty bad, and Bohr figured out, you know. But even you know, as great of mind as Einstein, didn't see all the consequences of his what theory, right?

[9:01] And I guess when they started to develop Einstein's theory and apply it to the cosmos as a whole, there came out consequences that Einstein didn't even want to accept, but he had to because there were consequences of his own theory, right?

[9:16] But I mean, you know, the greater the mind is, the more it can see the consequences of these beginnings, right? And Socrates asked, you know, what do you think? So what follows from what you think, and eventually maybe something follows even you can't accept, right? And but someone like Thomas will see all these consequences that maybe numb skulls don't see right away. He's capable of large discourse.

[9:43] Yeah, yeah, a large discourse in the sense of what? From something one, you see many, many things, right? From its end, as opposed to from its beginning, right? But I see another. Often speak of a large induction, right? They're using large there in the sense that Einstein, that Shakespeare has in mind. When the planets in evil mixture wander to disorder, Shakespeare says, "What portents what calamities! "

[10:21] It's a disordered act here. So always in things, negation is founded upon some affirmation, which is in a way its what cause. What did God say when when the great Moses asked him, "Well, I got to have your name. Who sent me? " Where's my authority, right? What did God say? I am who I am, yeah, yeah. I am.

[10:58] Everything else is based upon that, right? So, always in things, simply, right? That's a strong statement, huh? Always in things, negation is founded upon some affirmation, which is, in some way, its what cause. So it's

[11:31] because of what God is, which is something affirmative, right? That He's not composed; He doesn't change, and so on, right? At five a. m. this morning, I was thinking about God being unchanging. You know, when I was a little boy, I used to hear all the time. You know these things. Variety is the spice of life. You know, didn't hear that, huh? You know, let's not have the same meal.

[11:52] You know, you know, three or four times in a row, right? My cousin's daughter was in the navy there, you know, and they had an overload of spam or something, you know. For two weeks, they had nothing to eat for dinner except spam, you know. Of course, the sailors were so tired of it that they would eat donuts instead, you know, fill up their stomachs rather than eat damn spam.

[12:12] You say variety is spice of life, huh? You know, everybody says something like that, right? Huh? No variety in your life, huh? And my wife can't figure out. Oh no, he's reading another Shakespeare. He's getting another edition of Shakespeare. What is wrong with the man? But but God, what's wrong with Him? I mean, He doesn't change at all. There's no change in God.

[12:38] No variety. No variety in God's life. Yeah. It's you know I'm just trying to think about that. See, it's amazing. The way I say, we tend to look at God through the wrong end of the telescope. Yeah. No, at the end of the first book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, there, Thomas shows that God is blessed, right? And then His beatitude itself, right? That God's beatitude excels out of what anything else could have, right?

[13:08] Say, well, how could He have this? Is no variety in His life, though. You really, really have to think hard about this guy, right? He's something. He's something. He's somebody too. And and what's in? Is it in the book Revelation? There, right? There will be like a pillar in His temple, right? And not go out anymore. So no, we're not gonna Going out for a walk. For some other activity.

[13:37] for divers- diversions. Yeah. yeah, yeah. On vacation. But Tom, it seems to indicate there'll be vocal praise in heaven, right? Except we'll sing better than we sang on Earth. I hope. I hope. I hope some people are going to sing better.

[14:05] So that's often important what Thomas says. semper always. It's also in natural things. It's of the same what ratio that fire heats and does not what chill right now.

[14:27] So in reply to the first objection, he says therefore that that division, which is by commission and omission, is not according to diverse formal species, as he saw the distinction in the body of the article, but material only, right?

[14:45] I got to see what that distinction was. Go back to the beginning of the body of the article, right? That in sins is found a twofold difference: one material, another formal. Material is noted according to the natural species of the acts of sin. The formal according to the order to one, end right. Hence, there are found some acts that differ materially in species, which nevertheless are formally in the same species of sin, because they are ordered to the same thing, right?

[15:39] So does it belong to the philosopher to teach the truth. Does it belong to the philosopher to eliminate error. Does one of those follow upon the other? Yeah.

[15:57] It's ordered. to Yeah. I want to know the truth, right? I don't want to be mistaken. Why do I want to avoid being mistaken? Yeah, that's affirmative, right? That's the cause Yeah, that's kind of the cause of my opposition to it. Why do I hate the ugly? Because you love the beautiful. Because I love the beautiful? Why do you not want to read certain authors? Because you want to read the right ones.

[16:40] Is that is that the distinction with everything? In other words, there has to be a, the reason I'm doing this is because. I... He's saying that the negative is based on the affirmative. Always. Why do you? yeah, as I said, semper, always. So you want to avoid error. You don't want error because you love the truth. You want the truth. We can apply that to anything. then, huh?

[17:04] That's what he's saying, yeah, semper. Yeah. But you know, it takes a long time to understand the beginning, right? Because you kind of see it in a partial way first, and then go on and you see it better and better, you know. But

[17:22] after a lifetime of thinking, maybe we'll get to seeing that. Oh yes, Thomas. that's semper right? Semper in rebus I wish you'd think more about that. huh.

[17:34] I mean, that is true. and I was a logician, you know, I, taught logic for years in the syllogism, right? And you can't draw any conclusion from two negatives. You always got to have an affirmative premise to get even a negative conclusion. And to get an affirmative conclusion, you have to have two affirmatives, right? So a negative is not the foundation of a. affirmative statement at all, right?

[17:58] There's got to be an affirmative statement to support a negative statement. You can't support by the syllogism. That's the the greatest kind of argument. The syllogism is an argument which some statements lay down, another one follows necessarily, right? Because the ones laid down, right? There's no way to lay down two negative statements to get a negative conclusion. Can't get any conclusion. And the only way to get an affirmative conclusion is to lay down two affirmative statements, right?

[18:26] Even that doesn't work all the time, but you know. And but to get a negative conclusion, you have to lay down not only a negative statement but an affirmative statement, right? And so affirmative statement is necessary to prove a negative statement. There's an idea of cause there, right? I mean, the definition there: speech in which some statements lay down, another follows necessarily because of those laid down, right?

[18:56] That the premises are the cause of the conclusion, right? And forcing the mind to go to that conclusion. But one of those premises has to be affirmative before it can have a negative conclusion. huh?

[19:19] Put down your pipe and smoke it. But you gotta you gotta smoke it. or y you gotta you gotta think about it for a long time, huh? But you know, Monsignor Dionne would give one some statement, and I go around thinking about it all day, all night, and next day, you know, so. Monsignor Dionne says to me, "Do you remember everything I say?" And I said, "Yes."

[19:44] I don't know if that was true, but but you can take something Thomas says, you know, and go around, you know, thinking about it, you know, for sometimes days, sometimes years, you know, sometimes something else you read, right? I know myself when I see something, I say, "You know, I don't fully understand that, you know, but maybe years later, I'm reading some other text and cast some light upon it, and comes more and more clear to me, you know."

[20:10] De Koninck said he was teaching the physics in the book we're mentioning earlier there. Since the 1930s, and he said he still sees something new when he goes through, right? Monsignor Dionne points something out in the physics to De Koninck and De Koninck said, "How could I have missed that after all these years of teaching?" You know.

[20:49] Okay. Now, what about the second objection from the affirmative and negative? Right. I answer it to second. It should be said, it was necessary in the law of God to propose diverse what affirmative and negative precepts, right? That men might be gradatim in the Latin, right? Bit by bit, step by step. That's the way our mind grows. That men might be led into step by step to virtue, right?

[21:29] First by abstaining from the bad, to which we are led through the negative precepts, abstaining from it, right? And afterwards to making the good, to which we are induced through. Yeah.

[21:48] I remember one time uh my teacher Kasurik says to me, "uh Gustin said the only part of logic worth teaching is the part about errors, how we make mistakes." I don't know where Gustin said that. I know That's what Kazerik said. I don't know, but it's kind of Shakespeare, right? Huh? You know, we mentioned negative precepts first, right?

[22:14] And thus the affirmative and the negative precepts do not pertain to diverse virtues, but to diverse grades or steps in what virtue, right? And consequent is not necessary that they be contrary to diverse species according to diverse sins according to species, right? This is awfully subtle what Thomas is saying here, right? How often have you thought about those Ten Commandments and not seen the truth of what he's saying right here, right?

[22:53] Now he says sin does not have a species on the part of aversion, because according to this it is a negation or a privation, a lack. But on the part of what conversion, right? Turning. According to a certain act Whence according to diverse precepts of law are not diversified sins according to species. That sounds almost heretical, doesn't it? Tell that to a confessor. I don't know what he said.

[23:24] Just obey the command. Judge and pay your penance. Yeah. Come back next week. You had to hear Thomas's confession, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. You want the compendium for right? The three hundredth confession. To the third, it should be said that that objection proceeds about the material diversity of the species, huh? It should be known, however, that negation, although properly is not any species, nevertheless it is constituted a species by what kind of reduction to some what affirmation which it follows.

[24:09] You know, I mean, it's almost all this subtlety here in distinguishing the sins, right? Not alone in avoiding them, right? I mean, the stuff is here. Wherefore, the affirmative and negative precepts do not belong to different virtues, but to different degrees of virtue. Yeah. Yeah. That's something affirmative virtue, yeah. But since you've got to first stop

[24:48] doing these bad things, right? And then you've got to kind of work your way into the doing the good things, right? Yeah, that's what somewhere I don't remember where I just read it recently, but I think it's in the Catechism of Catechism of Bellarmine. Is it enough for a man to just not hurt people, not doing them wrong? No, he has to do good work. Yeah, yeah.

[25:12] Who was the famous guy committing all these abortions there, then you know, gave up abortions when he saw kind of what Nathan? Yeah, Nathanson. Yeah, yeah, and he stopped committing this horrible sin, right? And then later on, he eventually converted, right? But and he started to do a lot of good, right? He made the famous film there, you know, that Reagan was showing in the White House, right?

[25:34] You know, about the babies and so on going on in the womb, right? And so he did a lot of good, right? We had to stop, you know, iniquity first, you know, and he gradually grew and even converted, you know.

[25:49] Bishop Sheen, I forget who it was that had something to do with his conversion, but I don't know the bishop Schino. Kind of easy now, who it was? He was something else doing the work.

[26:04] Was supposed to be that was that Salas Green was supposed to be showing the White House or what? Reagan was showing it to the staff. Yeah.

[26:15] Because Reagan had a conversion too, right? I mean, he was governor of California. He had signed something that was kind of you know pro-abortion, you know, and he gradually began to realize that this is not right. So you got to stop doing these bad things, I guess, first.

[26:44] A little break now. Okay. To Article Seven, is it? To the seventh, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that unsuitably, sin is divided into a sin of the heart, a sin of the mouth, and a sin of what deed, huh? Doing.

[27:04] For Augustine says in the twelfth book of the Trinity, he lays down three grades, right, of sin, which the first is when a what?

[27:21] Illicit or I guess you'd say that, right? Yeah. Sin, sense of it. What do we say? Carnal sense right. Engenders a certain what? unlawfulness, right, huh? I guess. yeah. Which is the sin of cogitationis, right, huh? Of thought, right, the heart, huh?

[27:41] The second grade is when the what? With only the what? Pleasure. Pleasure of thought. But so one is content, right? Mm. And the third grade is when something should be done is discerned by what? Consent, right? Mm. But these three things pertain to what? The heart. Yeah. Unless this here thought, it would seem that sins are unfittingly divided into sins of thought, word, and deed. You said heart.

[28:13] Yeah. Yeah. But here, here he's talking about a distinction of three that seems to be inner, right? Mm. I think I'm thinking something, you know, and then start taking delight in it, you know, and then. And what that translates into? Thought. It's heart. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

[28:27] Moreover, Gregory in the fourth of the Moralia lays down four grades of sin, right? Of which the first is guilt hidden in the heart, huh? Secondly, when it is exteriorly published, huh? Third, when it's strengthened with custom. Mm. Fourth, when it goes what? All the way to the presumption of divine mercy. Or desperation. Or desperation, the man proceeds, right? Whence it does not distinguish the sin of doing from the sin of the mouth, and he adds two other grades of sin.

[29:07] Therefore, unsuitable was the first division. Well, Thomas has great deal respect for Gregory and Augustine, right? They're two of the four great doctors of the Eastern Western Church.

[29:21] Gregory's greater authority as well as Augustine. And moreover, there cannot be a sin in the mouth or in deed, unless first in the heart. Therefore, these sins do not differ in species. Therefore, they ought not to be divided against each other. See.

[29:44] It's the most frustrating, writer this Thomas, right? He's constantly, he's conflicted, constantly objecting to the truth, you know, objecting to himself, yeah, yeah. Against this is what Jerome says, huh, upon Ezekiel. Three are the general what offenses, yeah, that the human race is subject to, either in thought or words or in deed. We sin now. Answer should be said that some things are found to differ in species in two ways, huh?

[30:23] In one way, from this, that both have a complete what species, just as the horse and the ox differ in species, huh? I know about that now from being on the farm with my grandchildren. Another way, according to diverse grades in some generation or motion, are taken diverse species, just as aedificatio right? Yeah, is a complete generation of a house, but the gathering together, the foundation, and the erection of the walls are incomplete species, as is clear through the philosopher in the tenth book of the Ethics, right?

[31:06] And the same can also be said in the generation of what animals, huh? Thus, therefore, sin is divided through these three, with the sin of the mouth, the heart, and the deed, not as through diverse what complete species, for the consummation of the sin is in the doing, right? Whence the sin of doing has a complete species, but the first beginning of it is as where it's foundation in the what heart.

[31:40] The second is in the mouth, according to the man breaks forth easily to manifesting the concept of his heart. The third grade is when is now in the consummation of his what work. So I want to get even with you, right? And then I start saying things, and then

[32:03] somebody suing the ballpark there, right? He went out to the was it the New York team was playing, another team, the Dodgers playing the not the Dodgers but the Mets, Giants, whatever it was, whatever it was, was playing the Yankees, whatever it was, two different things, and he got killed out there in the parking lot, right? You know, and they're trying to trying to sue the park now.

[32:23] I know about who's he. Yeah, but there was something said, probably, you know. He didn't like the way the game went, and something was said, and some challenged the other thing, and then. Anyway, we'll see.

[32:43] And these three differ according diverse grades of the sin, right? Huh. For this is clear; these three pertains to the same what perfect species of sin, right? Since they proceed from the same what motive, huh? For the anger man, right? Huh. From this that he desires vindictam, right? Revenge. First, is disturbed in his what heart, yeah. Secondly, he breaks forth in tumultuous words. Third, he proceeds to what injurious deed, yeah.

[33:20] The same thing is clear in luxury, and in any other sin, huh? So what does Coriolanus do, right? First, he gets angry, right? Huh. And then he breaks out into words, right? And finally, he goes and joins the enemy and marches against Rome, right? Huh.

[33:46] Okay. To the first, therefore, it should be said that every sin of the heart comes together in the notion of something what hidden. And according to this, is laid down one grade, which nevertheless is distinguished through three grades of the thought, the pleasure, the thought. and the what consent. So that's a division of one member of the first what division, right?

[34:18] The second, it should be said that the sin of what the mouth and of the deed come together in their being manifest, right? What was hidden before inside, right? Is now manifest in the tongue and to the deed. And account of this, they are computed, correctly under one.

[34:45] Jerome, however, distinguishes them, because in the sin of the mouth is manifestation only, right? And chiefly intended. In the sin of deed is principally the what carrying out, yeah, of the interior conception of the heart. But the manifestation is from what Consent. Yeah. But custom and desperation are grades falling upon the perfect what species of the sin, huh? Just as youth and or adolescence and youth are after the what perfect generation of man, huh?

[35:31] Thomas has this thing about the the spiritual sense there of the dead that are raised by Christ, right? Huh. And the one is the daughter of the, Jairus yeah, and that's kind of where the sin is remained within, right? And then there's the son with the woman, and that's where it's proceed to the exterior, right? And then finally there's there's Lazarus, right, where he's been in the tomb, yeah.

[36:01] Well, that's where you come accustomed to this sin, right? So that's kind of adding something after the complete ratio of sin, right? You're dead the first day, you're dead, but but I mean once you've been in the tomb for a while, then it's like you've been accustomed to the sin; it's second nature to you now, right?

[36:24] You know, get drunk every weekend, right? It gets accustomed, you know. Some people that way, you know. Should be only every other weekend, right? You have to look for moderation. Yeah, moderation. Not too much. Not too much drinking. Just just enough.

[36:45] There's always a special. little section on that in the ethics there, right? There's no mean of the extreme. Yeah. I'm going to get drunk moderately, right? So no, he ain't getting drunk. Just steal a few men's wives. Or I'll be adult. could be moderate in my adultery. Only a few times a year. Yeah, yeah.

[37:03] Shakespeare makes fun of that idea too. So he doesn't see this as really contradictory in the other one, does he? To the third, it should be said that the sin of the what heart and the mouth are not distinguished from the sin of deed when together they are joined with it, right? But in so far as each of these is found what by itself, just as also the part of a motion is not distinguished from the whole motion when the motion is what continuous, right?

[37:58] But only when the motion stops in the middle, right? I didn't stop in Barrie, I just came and went right through. Yeah. So I had. Two voyages. I went to Barrie and then I went from Barrie to the monastery, Or just one trip to the monastery. One trip to the monastery Yeah. Time for another one here. Sure. To the eighth one proceeds thus: it seems that the superabundance and defect do not diversify species of sin.

[38:42] For superabundance and defect differ according to more and less, but more and less do not diversify the species. Therefore, superabundance and defect do not diversify the species of sin. Right. So if I'm a little bit angry or a lot angry, same, same thing. Angry, same species of emotion, right?

[39:11] Moreover, just as a sin and things to be done is from this that one receives from the rightness of reason, so falsity and speculative matters is from this that one receives from the truth of the thing. But one does not diversify the species of falsity from this that someone says more or less than what is in the thing, and therefore they do not diversify the species of sin from this huh?

[39:41] The one receives from the rectitude of reason, more or less. So if I say two plus two is five, or I say two plus two is six, is two plus two is six more false than two plus two is five?

[39:59] And further away from the truth, right? But it's another kind of falsity there. Remember that when you check your bank account, right? Yeah. Because it never comes out, you know.

[40:18] Used to be in the old days, you know, with the automobile, the radios never seemed to work. My brother Mark used to say, you know, that if you get by the car and the motor runs, he said, I mean, the radio works. He says, be sure and take it in and get it fixed. It's almost like the whole. Yeah, it shouldn't work. It shouldn't work. It's not supposed to work.

[40:45] Further from two species, one does not constitute one species, as Porphyry says. Now he's the big authority. of genus species difference property and accident. But superabundance and defect are united in one sin, for people are at the same time illiberal and what? Prodigious. Prodigious. Of which too, illiberality is a sin according to defect, but prodigality according to superabundance. Huh? Therefore, superabundance and defect do not diversify the species of sin.

[41:23] Huh? My goodness. He walked around dictating these things, Thomas. Then he laid down on the bed. He kept on dictating. So, his descriptions of Thomas.

[41:39] But against this, contraries differ according to species. For contrariety is a difference according to form, as is said in the tenth book of the metaphysics. But vices which differ according to superabundance and defect are contrary, as illiberality to prodigality. Therefore, they differ according to what species.

[42:09] I answer: It should be said that since in sin there are two things, to wit, the act itself and its disorder. We wouldn't say in English inordered We'd say disorder.

[42:31] Insofar as one recedes from the order of reason, and from the order of the divine law. But the species of sin are not noted, are noted not from the side of the disorder, which is apart from the intention of the one sinning. But more on the side of the act itself, according as it ends in some object in which the intention of the one sinning is directed.

[43:02] And therefore, wherever there occurs a diverse motive, inclining one's intention to sinning, there is a diverse species of what sin. Now, it is manifest that there is not the same motive for sinning in sins which are according to superabundance, and in sins which are according to defect. Nay, rather, they are contrary motives, just as the motive in the sin of intemperance is the love of bodily pleasures.

[43:39] But the emotion of what? Insensibility. Yeah. Is their hatred of them? Is the hatred of them right? Aristotle in the Ethics says that we don't have a name for this insensibility, right? So he coins the word insensibility, like the man lacks what sense of taste or something, right? You know, something that would turn him off from eating. Yeah.

[44:13] Whence sins of this sort not only differ in species, but also are contrary to each other, right? And contraries are what species furthest apart in the same way. Genus, right?

[44:33] Now, what about the first objection, right? From more or less, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that more and less, although they are not the cause of the diversity of species, nevertheless they follow sometimes upon what different species, Insofar as they are awry, they come from what diverse forms, just as if it is said that fire is lighter than what air, right? Whence the philosopher says in the eighth book of the Ethics

[45:10] that those who lay down that there are not diverse what species of friends, on account of this that they are said according to more or less, do not believe by sufficient sign, right? Okay, what's he saying there, right?

[45:34] If you and I are friends because I enjoy your company, right? And then you and I are friends because I wish good to you, right? Is that the same kind of friendship?

[45:48] No, you tell all kinds of jokes. I enjoy your company, right? But I don't wish you good, right? But some guy over here, I wish good to him, right? Yeah.

[46:02] So you might say that he's he's more my friend, and I'm more his friend than you and I, right? But this more or less falls upon a different kind of friendship, right? Or if you and I are friends because I need you in my campaign, and you need me, you know,

[46:33] and someone else is based upon what virtue, right, or something like that, then there's a different kind of friendship here, right? And one is more friendship than the other, right? But that falls upon a different kind of friendship. So it's not enough to say, you know, that oh, all friendship is just a question; it's all the same thing. More or less. Yeah. See, it's not because the more or less is following upon a different kind, huh?

[47:06] You know, is is theology more desirable than logic? Yeah, but as you have one without sense of before me, but but is theology more desirable than logic in itself? Yeah, yeah. You talk; it's a different species of science, right? Because logic is about the syllogism, and theology is about God, and God's a better thing than okay. So,

[47:56] if theology is more desirable, then it's not different in kind from logic, because it's being more desirable because it's a different kind of science, right?

[48:13] Okay. Or if I say that, you know. Love of God is more what? Love than the love of candy. Just more, just more of that self. It's not really. It's a different kind of love, right?

[48:48] Because the love of what? God should be a love of what? Wishing well, right? The love of candy is a love of concupiscence, right? Different kind of love, right?

[49:02] Instead of say the students, they say you know you you go to the mixer, you know, and see a beautiful girl there, right? You love her, you like her right away, right? What kind of liking is that?

[49:15] Yeah, this is this is good for me. You know, you're not wishing good to her, right? You know, cutie needs me, you know. No, she's the good I want for myself, right? Okay, so that's a love of what? Of wanting, right? Okay.

[49:33] Now, if you come to to wish good to this woman, right, then you have different kind of love, right? And that's more love than the other love, right? But that doesn't mean the two loves are really what the same. Same kind. of. Just more or less the same thing, right? There's a real difference, huh? In the kind of love this is, right?

[50:04] So if the girl is a rich girl, you know, you love me or you love my money, right? You know. I love more or less. You love me or you love my money, right? Because if you want to marry her because of her money, right, then you really what? Love the money Love the money, right? If I love her for her money, then she might say you already love me then.

[50:33] What would I do with your money? Yeah, what's that? I do. Say couldn't quit. I do. Yeah. Suppose you got that money, right? Yeah, yeah. There was

[50:47] a beautiful play I saw years ago on the T V there called The Heiress. You know, it was set in Dutch to New York, right? And the wealthy man there, he had one daughter, right? And the young man wanted to marry his daughter, of course, and she wanted to marry him, and so on. And her her roles played by David Devlin was one I think Baroska's and the other actors should be do do as an actress.

[51:13] And the father is suspicious of the young man, right? So he confronts the young man, you know, privately, and and says. He offers him a sum of money, right? And he can have the sum of money and want to be, you know, tied down to this not so beautiful woman, right? And of course he takes the offer, right? And of course, then this is of course proof that he doesn't love the daughter, and she's done a good thing for his daughter, right?

[51:41] And of course she wanted to believe, all right? So she turns against her father. It's you know, was interesting, you know, thing to see, but you know, to illustrate the differences and kinds of love, right? Because if the man really loved her, he'd be insulted, you know. In fact, if anything, you know, offended, you know, that he'd offer him money, you know, just to satisfy. Yeah, yeah.

[52:07] It was the famous Capra movie. I think it was happened one night where the heiress is fleeing from her father. She meets the reporter Clark Gable, and she's fleeing from a marriage to a cad who's a pilot who's after her money. And so that movie sort of it gives a perfect example of both the true love of the woman and the love of money. Yeah.

[52:37] Okay. Down to this. We saw the first objection, right? Where they started. The second, it should be said, that the intention of the one sinning is not that he recede from reason, right? And therefore, it is not what of the same reason the sin of a superabundance and defect on account of the recess from the same what rectitude of reason. But quandoque whenever I guess the one who says the false intends to what hide the truth.

[53:32] Once, as regards this, it does not differ whether he says more or what less, huh? If, however, to recede from the truth is outside his intention, then it is manifest that is from diverse causes that someone is moved to saying more or less. And according to this, diverse is the ratio falsi. Just as the boaster, right, who excels in saying the false, seeking what glory, right? Was Shakespeare's character there, Parolles, which means word.

[54:08] Yeah, yeah, that's his name, Parolles. And the deceiver who diminishes, right, evading the solution of debt, whence certain false opinions are what contrary to each other, huh?

[54:41] So it's different there between the boaster, right, and the man who's ruining your reputation. To the third, it should be said that the prodigious man, prodigal, and illiberal one can be someone can be according to diverse things. And one be what Illiberal in taking what he ought not, right? And prodigal in giving what he ought not.

[55:12] Nothing, however, prevents contraries from being the same person according to diverse things. Should we finish the last article? Yes, we have time. To the ninth, one proceeds. Thus, it seems, vices and sins differ in species according to diverse circumstances. Because, as Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the Divine Names, sin or evil rather happens from singular defects. But singular defects are corruptions of singular circumstances. Therefore, from singular circumstances, corrupt singular species of sins are what?

[56:06] Fifteen here. Carry on. Moreover, sins are certain human acts, but human acts sometimes receive species from circumstances, as has been said above. Okay, it's a long way back. Therefore, therefore, sins different species according to diverse circumstances. The diverse circumstances are corrupted. Moreover, diverse species of what? Gluttony Gluttony Are assigned according to particulars in this versicle Praepropere laute nimis ardenter studiose. Hmm Now, prae Praepropere Praepropere outside of propriety, I would guess that eating at the wrong time.

[56:51] Too soon, yeah. Laute. Sumptuously too much greedily daintily What Hastily sumptuously too much greedily daintily. Yeah. kind of fastidious Yeah Yeah. But these pertain to diverse circumstances, huh? Because pre-praepropere is before one ought to do something, right? Okay. Nimis my my daughter-in-law, she insists you know everybody you know before you say prayer, nobody starts eating anything, right? Someone, somebody, that I'll fight for you, waiting for saying prayer.

[57:30] She's quite quite insistent about that. Nimis is more than one ought to, right, and so on, clearing the other ones. To desired rate. Studiose, huh?

[57:46] Warren Murray says he'd gone to some gourmet's club or something like that, right? So he goes to the annual feast of the group, you know. And he sits down as a stranger there, who's come there, you know. and he's on the club. The guy's talking about the preparations for the meal, and they had to fly something in from here and this thing over there, and they almost didn't get this, you know, and and the guy was almost in a fit as to whether to quit the society

[58:16] That's kind of funny, though. you know, You may describe this guy as we almost didn't get the special mushrooms, you know, we get the special.

[58:26] Yeah, that's what Chesterton said about it. He said, "I don't take my body that seriously." Against this is what the philosopher says in the third and fourth of the Ethics. The singular vices sin by doing more than one ought and when one ought and so on, right? According to all the circumstances, therefore, according to what? This. Yeah.

[59:07] Circumstances. Therefore, not according to this should be species of sin. Answer: It should be said, as has been said, that where there occurs another motive to sinning, there is another species of sin, right? Because the motive to sinning is the end and the object. Now it happens sometimes that in the corruptions of diverse circumstances there is the same motive, right? Just as the illiberal man, from the same is moved that he accept when he ought not, right, and where he ought not, and more than he ought, right, and similarly of other circumstances.

[59:47] For this he makes an account of a disordered desire of gathering together money, right? And in such diverse circumstances, corruptions do not diversify what species of sin, but they pertain to one and the same species of sin, right?

[1:00:08] Sometimes, though, corruptions of diverse circumstances come from diverse motives, right? For when someone what? Eats before the time, or after the time. Yeah. You see, couldn't arrive from this that a man is not able to bear the what? Delay. Delay of food. On account of his what? Easy consumption of his humidity, right?

[1:00:35] What, however, pertains that he desires immoderate food, huh? Can happen on account of a what? A power of his nature, possible potent to converting much food, right? huh? That however someone desires food that are delicately prepared, it can happen on account of the appetite of pleasure which is in the food, right? Whence in such circumstances of diverse things, whence corruptions in such corruptions of diverse circumstances and such things can induce diverse species of what sin, huh?

[1:01:22] To the first, therefore, should be said that evil, as such, is a lack, right, and therefore. It is diversified in species according to those things which are lacked, right? Just as in the case of other privations. But sin does not get its species on the part of lack or aversion, as has been said above, but from conversion to the object of the act. To the second, it, should be said that a circumstance never transfers act to another species, except when it is a what?

[1:02:00] Another motive. To the third, it should be said, in the diverse species of gluttony, there are diverse motives. I didn't know how bad I was. Now I know.

[1:02:22] Okay, we're not going to see each other till the. Please God. Parting is such sweet sorrow, as Shakespeare says. Like MacArthur, I shall return.