Prima Secundae
174. Comparing Sins I: Are All Sins Connected or Equal, and Does Gravity Depend on the Object? (ST I-II q.73 aa.1-3)
Class of 2014-09-11
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/174-comparing-sins-i-are-all-sins-connected-or-equal-and-does/

[0:00] Son Holy Spirit Amen God, our enlightenment Guardian angels, through, the lights of our minds, order and Luminar images, arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, Pray for us and help us to understand what you have written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:30] So what did Vatican II promise, or say that Thomas is good for? What did he say? What did Vatican II say? To penetrate the most into the scriptures, I said several things, about, I don't remember what. they're saying. I didn't say scripture, but in order to what penetrate as much as possible into the mysteries. of things. The mysteries of things. And then to see the connection of one what.

[1:00] Mystery with another. Yeah. I was looking at Thomas's exposition of the first decretal from the Fourth Order Council. That's a famous council in twelve fifteen. That's where I guess they say St. Francis and Dominic met at the council. But anyway, in the first decretal, there it's talking about God, right, and says He's what eternal, right, and He's you know all powerful and He's simple and He's unchanging, right.

[1:35] But you don't want a connection between this being eternal and this being what unchanging, right? In the Summa Theologiae, you have the God being unchangeable, one question, and then immediately following this is being what eternal, right? So the fact that we are in motion and subject to motion is why we're in time. That's because God is unchanging, that He has eternity, right? So you see the connection among these things, right?

[2:10] But Thomas doesn't crack before a Lateran Council. We just comment on each thing that it says, right? So you kind of see the excellence of Thomas and the Summa because he sees the connection of one thing with another.

[2:28] How many ways is God a cause? Being four kinds of causes, huh? And how many kinds of cause is God the first cause? Two and a half. Two and a half. Two and a half. Yeah. The four kinds of causes are what

[2:49] matter that from which something comes to be existing within it, right? And then form, right? Both the intrinsic cause of the thing being what it is, but also the model or exemplar that things are designed to look like in some way, and then the mover or maker, right? That's the third kind of cause, and the fourth kind of cause is the end. Yeah, that's the sake of which, right?

[3:20] So, in what senses of cause is God a cause? The mover or maker. In the end. In the end. In the end. Is the exemplar? Yeah, the exemplar, the extrinsic form, right? Is not the intrinsic form, right? But how can he be a form and a mover and an end and not matter, right? What does the mover, the maker, the end, and the form, the exemplar, what do they have in common that could all belong to God, who's altogether what?

[3:55] Simple, right? And matter can't be a cause, which God is a cause, I mean. What is that? Action. Yeah, God is pure act, right? And form, and mover or maker, and end are all based upon what? Actuality, because act is the end of passive ability, right? The mover, insofar as he has a form, right, he's able to act, and of course the exemplar is an act. But matter is what?

[4:35] Passive ability, right? So God can't be a cause in the sense of what? Matter, right? But in the other three senses, he can, right?

[4:45] Have you ever seen this appropriation that they give in theology? They appropriate these three ways that God is a cause to the three members of the Trinity. So which one is appropriated to the Father, and which one to the Son, and which one to the what? Holy Spirit. Yeah. Mover or maker to the Father. Power, example, art

[5:15] to the Son. Yeah. And as the Holy Spirit. Yeah. The goodness of it. Yeah. Power, wisdom, and goodness. Yeah, yeah. It's kind of beautiful to see that.

[5:27] What does it say in the Epistle to the Romans? I think it is chapter eleven. At from him and through him and in him. Under him. yeah. And they appropriate that to the three again. From him, from the Father, right? Through him, the Son, and in him, the Holy Spirit. And we can talk about that, but today we've got to talk about the comparison of sins to each other, right?

[5:53] So you know what I think of you. So let's look at the proemium here. Then one has to consider about the comparison of sins to each other, and about this ten things are asked. First, whether all sins and vices are connected. I hope not. We have problems as a man.

[6:26] Secondly, whether all are what equal, I guess. Are we done? Third, whether the gravity of sins is to be observed according to their objects.

[6:43] Fourth, whether according to the dignity of the virtues to which the sins are what opposed. If a sin against charity is at worst, then to sin against temperance, right? I don't think we know certain. Fifth, whether carnal sins are more grave than spiritual. I bet he'll say the opposite, right? Six, whether according to the causes of sins is to be observed the gravity of the sins.

[7:26] Seven, whether according to circumstances. Eight, whether according to the quantity of the harm done. Nine, whether according to the condition of the person against whom one has sinned.

[7:47] And ten, this is now aimed at you guys. Whether, on account of the magnitude of the person sinning, right, that aggravates the sin, right, huh? So if when he gets drunk, is that the worst sin in the back of the talk, huh? Because I'm just a lowly, worldly fellow, right? Okay.

[8:12] So we go to the first article, right? The first, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that all sins are what connected. Oh, good! I think he's going to take the opposite side. But it's

[8:33] said in the Epistle of what James, chapter two, that whoever right observes the whole law, but offends whoever in one of them, is made what guilty of all them. Doesn't sound very good, does it?

[8:52] But it's the same thing to be guilty of all the commandments of law and to have all sins. Because as Ambrose says, and he's one of the what four or five great doctors of the Western Church, because as Ambrose says, sin is a going out of right the divine law, transgression of the divine law, and disobedience to the heavenly commands.

[9:23] Therefore, whoever sins by one sin is made subject to what all sins. An apostle and a doctor of the church. Moreover, every sin excludes the virtue opposed to it, right? But the one who lacks one virtue lacks all them, as is clear from things said before. They're all connected. They're all connected human virtues and But prudence, huh? Practice The moral virtues are.

[10:06] Therefore, the one who sins by one sin is deprived of all the virtues, but who lacks a virtue has the vice opposed to it. Therefore, the one who has one sin has all sins. That would make you very sad, couldn't it?

[10:38] Moreover, you're departed. All the virtues are connected because they come together in one what beginning. Has had been had before, but just as the virtues come together in one beginning, so also sins, because as the great Augustine says, huh? The love of God, which makes the city of God, right, is the beginning and the root of all the virtues, huh? So the love of oneself, which makes the city of Babylon, is the root of all sins, as is clear Augustine in the fourteenth book of the City of God.

[11:30] Therefore, also all vices and sins are connected, so that the one who has one of them has them all. Simplifies confession, doesn't it? I'm guilty of everything, Father. I did it all. I did it all. I committed all the sins that can be committed.

[11:58] But against this, some vices are contrary to. To each other, son. To each other. As is clear to the philosopher in the second book of the what ethics, huh? So cowardice is contrary to foolhardiness, right? So can I have both those vices?

[12:24] It's impossible for contraries to be at the same time in the same way. Therefore, it's impossible that all sins and vices be what connected to each other, huh?

[12:43] Now Thomas begins by seeing a what distinction. I'm seeing the newsletter there, Thomas Aquinas College there, and once in a while they have a student there that talks to the to the chairman and so on, you know, and I mean the board, the trustees and so on. And I went around to Fr. Diage. He said, "He taught me to read Thomas sentence at a time."

[13:15] So now I edit these for my own reading, you know. I, you know, divide them up you know, in each little separate thought. My answer should be said that in a different way it has itself the intention of the agent according to virtue to follow reason, and in another way the intention of the one sinning to what depart from reason. huh? Turning away from. For of every man acting according to virtue, his intention is that he follows the rule of what reason.

[13:54] Reason. And therefore, the intention of what all virtues, he intends what the same. Into the same. In account of this, all virtues have a connection to each other in right reason of things to be done. That's the definition of what Prudence. prudence. What's the English word for prudence? Foresight. Foresight, right?

[14:27] Just as has been said above, huh? But the intention of the one sinning is not that he recedes from that which is in accordance with reason,

[14:44] but more that he intends in some desirable good from which is what sin has its species, right? But those goods to which the intention of the sinner tends, receding from reason, are diverse, right? Having no connection to each other, nay, rather among them, as we said, in the objection earlier are contrary, son.

[15:16] Whence, since vices and sins have a species, or have their species according to that to which they turn, it is manifest that according to that which perfects the species of the sin, the sins have no connection to each other, right? Just

[15:39] want to eat too much and we're trying to be an hour or two at the same time. For the sin is not committed in what going from multitude to unity, as happens in the virtues which are what connected, huh? But more in receding from unity to multitude.

[16:14] What's that crazy thing that Sunday Minican told me? His teacher said, "You know, never affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish." It's a little bit of exaggeration because I think you should affirm or deny, but shows the importance of what distinction, right?

[16:35] I was asking my other class there. Look before and after distinction, right? Don't you give away though? They were they're pretty slow coming up with the answer, right? What's before distinction in the mind?

[16:56] Difference. And what's after? Let this answer the first part. What's before distinction in the mind? Confusion. Yeah, yeah. Confusion is before distinction. That's right. Yeah. Confusion before the distinction. Now, what is distinction before?

[17:29] Clarity. No, yeah. Distinctions. Why? Why do we say that when Shakespeare defines reason as the ability for large discourse? Huh? Looking before and after, that in looking before and after is included and understood. Looking for distinction. Why is that?

[18:11] The question was, why does Shakespeare say? Well, when he defines reason as looking before and after, right? Why does that include looking for distinction?

[18:27] Because reason separates. Yeah. But what is the axiom that we have about before and after? Nothing is before or after itself. Yeah. So before you can see it, before and after, before you can see some order, you have to see what. Yeah. Yeah.

[18:50] If I couldn't distinguish between today and yesterday, I couldn't see that yesterday was before today, or today is before tomorrow. If I can't distinguish one day from another, right?

[19:06] If I couldn't distinguish between beer and wine, I couldn't see that wine is better than beer. I've got plenty of beer left over here

[19:20] If you were trying to guess how many bottles have been Consumed. So confusion is before distinction, right? The mind is confused before it sees the distinction, And distinction is before seeing order, right? Now distinction is also before something else.

[19:50] If you take distinction, division, and find the definition, right? Division is a kind of distinction. But not every distinction is a division, but every division is a distinction. That's very important to see the distinction between distinction and division, right? Because why would Thomas say that there's no division in God,

[20:26] but there is a distinction in God between the Father and the Son, and between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, right? But God's not divided into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, right?

[20:44] Because distinction is more general, but also yeah, yeah. If this is not that, right? They're distinct, right? But division is the distinction of the parts of some whole. Okay. So Thomas will deny that you can speak of there being any division in God, right? God is not divided into the Father the Son, Holy Spirit. Then they'd be like parts of God, right? Which would be a great mistake, right?

[21:18] But they are distinct because they're just they're relative to each other, right? Okay. Says in the beginning, John's Gospel. You know, if you look at the Greek,

[21:34] this man over here is going to go back and study Greek now, and all the words you? say. But in the beginning, of the Gospel it says, "In the beginning was the Word," and we see in English the word was what? With God. Yeah, but in the Greek, it's what? And the word was toward God, right? Which is the word you use in talking about the opposition or relations, pros ti right?

[21:59] But Aristotle calls it right, ad aliquid in Latin, now towards another, right? So because of this opposition of relatives, the Father is not the Son, right? And the Son is not the Father, right? The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Father, right? Illustrated over here too. And but there's no division there, right? God is not a whole. God has no what? Parts. Parts.

[22:41] It's very important to see, right? Now the definition involves a division, right? When I define the square, let's say, as a equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral, right? I'm in a way dividing the square into its genus and what differences, right? Well, not every division is doing that, right? When I divide number into odd and even, that's not a definition, is it? Okay. When I divide quadrilateral into square and oblong and rhombus and rhomboid and trapezium, right?

[23:20] Or into parallelogram and trapezium, right? You got to divide into two or three with you. Um, that's not a definition, right? Okay. So distinction is before division, and division is before definition, right? So that's another way that distinction is before something, right? But something that is a distinction, but particular kind of distinction, right?

[23:48] But distinction and order not the same thing exactly, right? But what is presupposed to the other, right? So distinction is kind of really very fundamental in our knowledge, right? And all reasoned out knowledge, you know, begins with distinctions, divisions, and definitions. Definition having to do with the object of our mind.

[24:22] What's the object of our mind? The third book on the soul. We'll get there. What it is and what it is yeah. What's the connection between what a thing is and definition?

[24:41] Definition is what. Speech making a what a thing is. Yeah, speech signifying what a thing is. Speech making known what a thing is, right? Let's tie that up with the object of our mind: what a thing is. I

[24:58] love to ask that question. I get. Is a definition of definition which I just gave him right? Is a definition of definition a definition of definition of definition? What would you say?

[25:22] I ran out of black. I thought about. I was teaching philosophy in some college or state college out west. Seems to be, you know, looks down at the students' faces and they look up and they say, "Why are you doing this to me?" That's an expression of their face seems to be saying.

[25:41] So is a definition of definition a definition of the definition of definition? I think so. Gotcha. It was a toss-up, brother. We can't even show up. But it's not signifying. The definition of definition is a definition of what a definition is in general, right? So when you define definition, you say speech signifying what a thing is. Well, not only is the definition of definition tell you what a definition is, right?

[26:19] But the definition of square tells you what a square is, right? So the definition of definition is not a definition of that definition in particular, but the definition of definition in general, right? And every definition is speech signifying what a thing is. It can't be one one name, right?

[26:48] Now, how is Thomas going to answer these objections, right? So based on, I think it's based on what he says in the corpus about either turning towards something or turning away from something. The first, therefore, he says it should be said that James speaks about sin not on the side of what turning towards conversion, according as the sins are in fact what distinguished, right? But he speaks of them on the side of what turning away, in so far as man by sinning recedes from the commandment of the law, right?

[27:43] Now all the commandments of the law are from one the same. As has been what he himself says there, and therefore God is what held in contempt, you might say, in some way, in every sin. And from this side it can be said that the one who offends in one is made guilty of what all,

[28:11] because from what sinning in one for one sin, he incurs the guilt of punishment from this that he has contempt from God, from contempt of whom comes what the guilt of all sins, right? But is that per se a per accidens right? Per accidens Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because he intends to enjoy, wait, alcohol to excess, right? You know, as a pleasure of it is, mostly. Okay.

[28:50] So he's not in that sense intending per se, right, to depart from the law, right? If he intended to give up the whole law, that would be different, right? But then he would be in a different situation.

[29:11] Now, what about the second objection? Which talks about it being opposed to some sin and so on. Her voice. To second should be said, and this has been said above. Not through every act of sin is taken away the opposed what virtue. For a venial sin does not take away what Virtue. the virtue, right?

[29:36] Now, a mortal sin takes away an infused virtue. In so far as it turns one away from God, but one act of a mortal sin,

[29:54] but even one act of a mortal sin does not take away the habit of a what acquired. Virtue, right? Because that's produced by repeated acts, right? So it's not completely worn away by one act. But the virtues that are infused, they lost by one mortal sin, right?

[30:17] But if the acts are multiplied to such an extent that there is generated a contrary habit, then it would be excluded the habit of the acquired what virtue. That's what we were saying earlier that you can't neglect the what acquired virtues just for the what infused virtues, huh? Because they have a certain stability, right?

[30:43] That the infused virtues do not what have, right? So grace did not take away the need for an actual perfection. Which, being excluded, it excludes what foresight. Because when a man acts against any virtue, he acts against what foresight. They're all connected. And without foresight or prudence, no moral virtue is what able to be able to be, yeah.

[31:26] And therefore, consequently, he excludes what all moral virtues are excluded as regards what is perfect and formal in virtue, which they have according as they partake of what prudence. So Aristotle defines moral virtue in the second book of the Ethics. What does he say?

[31:48] Habit with choice, right? Existing in the middle towards us, right? Has determined by right reason. What the right reason is, you find out in the sixth book. It's foresight, right? So it's in the very definition of moral virtue.

[32:09] But there remains nevertheless inclinations to the acts of virtues, not, however, having the what full definition of virtue. But it does not follow, an account of this that a man incurs all the vices or sins, huh? First, because to one virtue many what vices are opposed. vices are opposed, so that virtue can be what eliminated or removed to one of them, although another one is what not not.

[32:49] Secondly, because sin is directly opposed to virtue as regards the inclination of virtue to act, hence remaining some what. Virtuous inclinations. It cannot be said that man has what. The opposite vices are sins.

[33:16] Now it's different with the virtues, as he points out and applies to the third objection. To the third, it should be said that the love of God is what gathering together, right? In so far as the affection of man is led from many things to something what one.

[33:38] And therefore, the virtues which are caused from the love of God have the what connection, right? But the love of oneself, huh? Scattered. Divide and scattered affection of man in diverse things. A description of contemporary man.

[34:01] In so far as man, by loving himself, loves for himself temporal goods, which are various and diverse. See these kids lined up, and I get the new iPhone or it is, you know. Some are spending, you know, the whole week there trying to get be the first one to get the new, the new one they're talking about, huh?

[34:30] And therefore, vices and sins which are caused from the love of oneself are not what. I'm trying to get out of that one. The most sins you confess, I confess all. You know, like each confession, I suppose. Yeah. It'd be easier for the priest to just give everybody a great big penance. Since my last confession was three months ago, since I've done everything. Broken all. I'm guilty of everything.

[35:05] You'd never, you'd never have to ask the penitent. Is there anything else? He did it all. There's nothing else to confess. To the second one goes forward. Thus, it seems. That all sins are what equal, right? Who would think that to be so?

[35:31] For this, it is to sin is to do what is not what right to or not listened to. But to do what is not listened is reprehensible in the same way in all. And therefore, to sin in one and the same way is reprehensible. Therefore, one sin is not what more grave than the other, right? In the same reason why you say this is sin, I guess.

[36:03] Moreover, every sin consists in this: that man transgresses the rule of reason, right? Which thus has itself to human acts as a linear ruler in bodily things.

[36:24] Therefore, to sin is similar to that which is to what go beyond the lines, right? But to go beyond the lines is so equally in one way, even if someone what receives longer or what stands closer. Yeah, because privations do not receive more and less.

[36:55] Therefore, all sins are what equal. That's true, privations do not receive more or less, in some way. That first sentence of the objection, to, What does he mean when he says, "which is to human acts what a linear rule is in corporal things"? I suppose you're talking about being a carpenter or something, you know, or even you could say just to draw a line. Draw a line.

[37:32] Yeah. You go. You if you're shorter the line, little or much makes no difference. You're still shorter the line. It's like my dad used to say when he played golf: "So at least get it past the hole, because then you got a chance it's going to go in. But if you never hit it to the hole, it's never going to win. " That's that's kind of what he's talking about.

[37:49] This: if it's short, it's short. It doesn't matter how much. I was constructing something. He's not showing this picture here, you know. But you have to use this sweat thing with the low. the level. Yeah. And you say, "Well, either it's low or not, right? "

[38:04] And you're putting it, lumping it all together. and it's not low, right? It's not right. Yeah. Same thing, right? Yeah. So in one way it's right, the other way it's wrong, right? Same thing. It's two lines. Yeah. It's like,

[38:21] like I say, you measure three times, cut once. Because if you cut it short. It doesn't matter if it's a little or a lot. It's short. That's it. You know. Whoever sins are opposed to virtues, but all virtues are equal. Did he say that? Tullius, Cicero, in his paradoxes, huh? How could he be so stupid?

[38:50] Therefore, all sins are what? Sin. But that makes no authority there. But against this is what the Lord says to Pilate in John 19, who handed you over. Handed you over. You has a greater sin, right?

[39:12] Yet it is clear that Pilate had some sin too, right? Therefore, one sin is in fact greater than another, right? Adultery is worse than what? Fornication, right?

[39:30] Answer should be said. Those crazy guys, the Stoics, right? Answer should be said that the opinion of the Stoics was, which Tullius, and that's one of the names of what, Cicero, right?

[39:51] Pursues in the book called the Paradoxes, right, that all sins are what equal, right? And from this is derived the error of certain what heretics, heretics, huh?

[40:08] Who laying down all sins to be equal, right? Say therefore that all punishments in hell are what equal, equal. That's not what Dante said, right?

[40:25] And as far as can be perceived from the words of what Tully, Tully, the Stoics removed from this that they considered sin only on the side of what privation, right? In so far as it is a what proceeding from reason, right?

[40:48] When simply estimating that no privation or lack exceeds more or less, they laid down all sins to be what equal, equal, right? Privation is a kind of what non-being, right? How can non-being be more or less, right? It's just non-being.

[41:16] But Thomas, huh? But if one diligently, huh, lovingly. Consider this. You will find that there is a twofold genus of what privations or lacks.

[41:35] For one is a simple and pure lack, which consists in being what Corrupted. corrupted, right? Just as death is what a lack of life, huh? So is one man more dead than another?

[41:57] You know, if you work in the mortuary, this guy is more dead than that guy. This guy just came in, so he's only a little dead. This guy was here yesterday, so. Seems like you know this kind of privation. I thought more of that, huh? Containing privation is really dark, darkness, right? It's privation of light.

[42:19] And such lacks or privations do not receive more or less because nothing left over remains, right? You might say of the opposite what habit, right? Huh? Whence one is not less dead. Someone the first day of death, as we're saying, or the third, or the what fourth, than after a year, right? Huh?

[42:50] So we can say he's been dead a longer time, but is he, but is he more dead? No. When you're dead, you're dead. When the cadaver, huh, body, corpse was what already dissolved, dissolved, worked out. Even though since those bodies are preserved, right, they're just as dead, aren't they? Yeah. But it's in sign there. Something.

[43:27] Likewise, a house is not more what dark if the light is covered by many what veils, yeah, covers. If it is covered by one veil, that excludes the whole what light, light, huh? So I suppose if you cover the window, right, and you get something that covers it so much that anything else added will not make it any darker, right? You know, you could. I can stay inside the room.

[43:54] You keep on putting things on the outside. I see it getting darker, getting darker. There's another privation that is not simple, but retaining something of the opposite habit. Opposite habit. Habit there is taken as the opposite of what privation, right?

[44:25] Privation is not having something you are able to have and should have. in a strict sense, right? Which privation or lack consists more in what being corrupted, right, Emotion. than in being what corrupted, huh? Just as what Sickness, what Which

[44:52] lacks a due... Commensuration of humors, right? Thus, however, that something of it what remains, huh? Otherwise, the animal would not remain alive. And it's similar about ugliness, huh? Those of this sort, right? So you know it's going to be longer and longer, right?

[45:19] But these privations we see more or less on the side. Of that which remains as a contrary, habit. for much does it refer to what sickness or pertain to sickness or ugliness, right? These are two different vices of the body, whether more or less from the suitable commensuration of humors, or members, one what receives, right? So they give me pills there to regulate my, you know, heart there, you know, and sometimes make me stronger, you know, and sometimes they're weaker.

[45:54] So, but they don't do that for a dead man at all, right? And there, and likewise, it should be said about vices and sins, for thus in them is deprived the suitable measurement of what reason. Reason. That not holy is the order of reason, what taken away.

[46:18] Otherwise, bad if it is what integral, would destroy itself, as is said in the fourth book of ethics, right? I was reading Thomas there in the part of the Summa, first part of the Summa, there he's talking about distinction, right?

[46:38] And he's talking about Does evil entirely what eliminate the good, right? Well, of course, since the subject of evil is something good, it can't entirely destroy the good, right? So it would destroy its own subject, then be nothing, right? And he quotes this text from Aristotle, right there in the prima Paris there you'll see quoted again

[47:09] The Commentator says that Aristotle is somebody. Let's see what Thomas here. He's somebody. For there could not remain the substance of the act or the affection of the agent unless there remains something of the order of what reason, right? And therefore, it pertains much to the the gravity of the sin, whether more or less one receives from the rightness of what reason, right? And in point of this, it should be said that not all sins are what equal, right?

[47:58] When Aristotle is talking in the second book of ethics about virtue, and wants to lead into the idea that virtue is in the middle towards us, right? Neither too much nor too little, right? What does he compare it to, huh? That's more known. That virtue lies in the middle.

[48:25] It goes over to the arts, right? The practical arts, right? That's when I was cooking steaks for all these people here. I'm very proud doing it. You cook the steak too much or too little, right? Huh? When you put salt in something, you can put too much or too little, right? Huh? Okay. And so you can see very clearly the piece of the arts. If you cut a piece of wood, right?

[48:50] You know, if the leg of the chair is broken, you want to cut a piece of wood. You can cut a piece of wood that's too short or one that's too long, right? And then you see what virtue lies in that middle, right? Huh? But obviously, you can depart from what it should be more or less, right?

[49:12] So you go from what the Baroque and the classical period to Romantic period and so on. Music starts to get less beautiful, right? And then it becomes positively ugly, right? You see, with some of these rock bands, you know, even the characters who are playing they look, you know, ugly. Scary, yeah, they're scary, right?

[49:51] I told you that American package store there at CK is coming in with Grateful Dead on the right. And I didn't know nothing about. There's the name of a band called Grateful Dead, you know. I just thought this was some sick slogan. I'd like to be dead, you know. Please kill me. I said. I thought to myself, what a sick thing to say. Grateful Dead, being grateful if I was dead or something.

[50:15] They realize there's people who follow the band around, you know, when they go on their concert tours. But the deadhead, you know, beautiful dead. No. The dead kind of ugly.

[50:29] Yeah, being a deadhead isn't being beautiful. Yeah, I mean, rejoice that I'm dead. Funny they call them deadheads, not dead foot or you know dead elbow or something. No, deadhead. It tells you a lot, right there.

[51:01] The first, therefore, should be said that sins are what. Not listened to commit, but come to some disorder that they have, right? Huh? Whence those that contain a greater disorder, right, are more what? Illicit, right? huh? And consequently, they are what? More grievous sins, right? So he asked me the other day, you know, what's your favorite play of Shakespeare? Was kind of hard thing to say. I've had to see something.

[51:36] I see King Lear, right? But when you have sons or daughters both in there, right, who are doing awful things to their father, right, and to his death, you know, this is even worse than doing it to a stranger, right? Even more, more disorderly, right?

[51:57] Much more severe than as you like it, brother against brother, right? Which is worse, to connive at the death of your father or brother? Both serious, right? Pretty serious, but seems like even more to your father, right? Yeah. Because you owe your life to your father, you don't owe your life to your brother. What do you do to your father? So King Lear is dealing with this aberration, you know, Revolts in true births, don't abuse, him, as Friar Lawrence says, even more so in.

[52:32] Bemadding sorrow that King Lear has, right, as these two evil daughters, you know, revolting him. Go and read the English critics and some of them, and it was just painful, King Lear. See, you know, it's beautiful play. Each time I saw it being acted, you know, was was as close to them to you. Oh, really? The actor, you know, wow, playing these things. Really, really

[53:04] well done, too. The second objection that argument proceeds about sin as if it were a pure what? Privation, right? That's the distinction he saw.

[53:22] Yeah, yeah. One man is dead as another, right? Hopefully You chop your head off like these terrorists do these days, and that's more dead. Somebody dies in his bed, right? You know, they wake up in the morning; they did in the bed. Virtues are equally proportionally and one and the same.

[54:01] Nevertheless, one virtue precedes another in worth according to its species, and also one man is more virtuous than another in the same species of virtue.

[54:16] Nevertheless, if the virtues were equal, would not follow that the vices are equal? Because the virtues have a connection, not over the vices or the sins. Mm-hmm. Supposed to help you here, this year? Yeah, at your own risk.

[54:40] Okay. The third one precedes us. It seems that the gravity of sins is not varied according to their objects. The gravity of the sin pertains to its mode or the quality of the sin. The object is the matter of the sin. Therefore, according to diverse objects, the gravity of sins is not varied. Moreover, the gravity of the sin is an intention, or the intensity of the malice of it.

[55:23] But sin does not have the notion of malice on the part of conversion to its own object, which is some desirable good, right? Pleasure of the senses. But more on the part of what? Aversion, Aversion right? Turning away. And therefore, the gravity of sins is not varied according to diverse objects.

[55:51] Moreover, sins which have diverse objects are of diverse genera. But those which are diverse genera are not comparable, as is proved in seventh book of the physics.

[56:10] Therefore, one sin is not more grave than another according to the diversity of what objects. You can say that one line is bigger than another line. Could you say that? One line, isn't it? Yeah could you say that a triangle this triangle is bigger than that line. Different genera, right? You can say one line is longer than another, right? One triangle is bigger than another triangle, right?

[56:48] But is one triangle bigger than another line? No For different genera, you can't compare. Can a piece of candy, be sweeter than a girl? Metaphorically.

[57:17] Against this, sins receive their species from their objects. But of some sins, one is more grave than another according to its species, right? As murder than what? Theft.

[57:36] Therefore, the gravity of sins differs according to their objects, right? So what negative things do you have? what? Thou shalt not commit murder. And then what? Thou shalt not commit adultery. And then what? Thou shalt not steal. Steal, yeah. And then bear false witness.

[57:59] Kind of strange, huh? Maybe false witness could be worse than. it should be said but from the foresaid it is clear The gravity of sins differ in that way in which one sickness is more grave than another.

[58:25] For just as the good of health consists in a certain what commensuration of the bodily humors, right? Very simple medical science these days. In a way that is what suitable to the nature of the animal, it wouldn't be the same about commensuration of different animals, right?

[58:51] So likewise the good of virtue consists in a certain commensuration of the human act according to agreement to the rule of what reason. But it is manifest that the more what has more grave or the sickness when the what is taken away a suitable commensuration of humors through a commensuration of a prior principle. Just as the sickness that comes in human body from the heart, which is the principle of life, or from something that is close to the heart, is more what dangerous.

[59:37] Yeah. Has to think as little boy, huh? Everybody seems to die, die, die because of heart. Heart failure, yeah. Not everybody seems. I know die of of you know

[59:55] what do you call it? Cancer. Cancer. Everybody seems to die cancer. I guess. I think we we get medicine for heart and live longer. You don't die. You should die in the old days. Heart problem. Then you get get cancer, right?

[1:00:16] Two hundred something. Okay. Whence is necessary also, right? That sin is more grave. The more it disorders, right? There is disorder about something that is what a beginning, which is before the order of reason. What's this guy doing here, Thomas? Is he using his reason? Looking before and after. Yeah, let me see what he's doing here.

[1:00:47] He's using his reason. Now, reason orders all things to be done from the what End. end, and therefore, the more a sin happens in human acts from a higher end, right? The more what grave is the sin,

[1:01:18] but the objects of acts are their ends, and therefore, according to the diversity of objects, is to be noted diversity of gravity in sins.

[1:01:34] I start to explain this a little bit with some examples here. Just as is clear, that exterior things are ordered to man as to a what end, but man is ordered further to God as to a what End. Whence a sin that is about the very substance of man has what homicide, killing a man, I guess, is a more grave sin than that which is about exterior things, as theft.

[1:02:16] Sorry, I'd be more mad if you took my arm than if you took my car, right? And that is an even more grave sin that is committed immediately against God, right? As infidelity, lack of belief, blasphemy, and others of this sort, right?

[1:02:46] They're still trying to have the black mass there down in. You read about that? Heard about it? Yeah. Yeah, well, they stopped against the consecrated homes, but they're kind of still put on some kind of. When they say that you're dealing with Satanists, how can you believe them? Yeah. Do you know they're not just because they say so? Yeah, you can see the seriousness of that, right?

[1:03:06] Yeah. That's more serious than fornication, or you know, Yeah. Would you say it sheds light also on the fall of the angels? Thinking about the incredible gravity of that sin compared to, say, blasphemy on a human level.

[1:03:39] And in the order of these sins, right, one sin is more grave than another. According to it, it's about something that's more principal or chief, or something that is less principal.

[1:03:55] Because sins have their species from their objects, the difference of gravity, which is to be noted among objects, is first and chief, right? This is what we're following upon the species. It. Must be hard to be confessor, huh? It's almost impossible. Yeah, it's hard.

[1:04:22] Now, one time I got ambitious and came back and I tried to confession in French. That was a mistake for me. I think the priest thought I had something to conceal, or I was embarrassed. I was, I was something like that. So he really grilled you. I was, and I realized he was doing he was starting to. Enumerate the sins like was it this was it this was this like I was afraid to or couldn't quite put into words what I had done or something.

[1:04:57] So then I always confessed in English. You learned your lesson. My brother Mark used to say, "you know, you say it in French, you're not quite sure you understand it anyway." So if you got, you got, you got, you need to know. Now my my friend Warren Murray had a woman there. She was German or something, and she couldn't speak English, right? So Father Steinberg, our parish priest, in German, you know.

[1:05:30] When he came out of the confession afterwards, he wasn't too sure. whether he gave the absolution he wasn't too sure whether he was absolving. So a lot of difficulties in being a confessor now? But even apart from you, you need a language. If you need a language, you still got. There's one little trick you can do that I learned. this I did this once with a lady who spoke Polish.

[1:05:54] She didn't speak English. Yeah, yeah. But her daughter was there, and before we went in, I said, "She knows the Ten Commandments, yes. She knows the first, the second, the third, yeah." So we went on a confessional. I said, "First Commandment, yes or no? Second Commandment, yes or no? Third Commandment, yes. That's all I can do. That's all you can do. So at least you got some matter there, you know."

[1:06:31] The first, therefore, should be said that the object, although it is called the matter about which the act terminates, right, it has nevertheless the ratio of an end of a what end, according as the intention of the one acting is borne towards it, right? But the form of a moral act depends upon its what end.

[1:06:59] That's the cause of all the other causes, right? Especially important. The second should be said that from a unsuitable turning towards some changeable good, there follows a turning away from the unchangeable good, and in this is perfected the ratio evil. And therefore, it happens is necessary that, according to the diversity of those things which pertain to conversion, there follows a diverse gravity of malice and sin.

[1:07:42] Yeah. Who was it, Dominican wrote the famous book? wasn't it on, uh, uh, Mary Magdalene? you know? I forget the name of that one. Right, she becomes such a great lover of Christ, right? Okay. Where someone's been involved might be in what? Not carnal sin, but sins of pride and so on. It'd be harder to come to love Christ, right, that you do, huh?

[1:08:35] Which is forgiven, right? Yeah. We forgot the greater debt. To third should be said, huh? That all the objects of human acts have an order to each other, and therefore all human acts in some way come together in one what genus, Genus, right? According as they are ordered to the last end, and therefore nothing prevents all sins from being what Comparable. Comparable. Should we take a break here.

[1:09:17] Mhm.