Prima Secundae
177. Summa I-II q.73 aa.8–10: Harm Done, the Person Sinned Against and the Standing of the Sinner
Class of 2014-09-26
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/177-summa-i-ii-q-73-aa-8-10-harm-done-the-person-sinned-against/

[0:00] So to the eighth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the gravity of the sin is not what increased according to the greater what harm done, right?

[0:15] Doesn't Augustine have that definition of the bad, that which is harmful, right? For nocumentum, how would you translate that harm? Is a certain event fouling upon the act of the sin, right? But an event fouling does not add to the goodness or badness of the act. Therefore, a sin is not aggravated to come to greater what harm done. These people haven't heard about the last judgment, right?

[0:49] That's one of the reasons the last judgment, right? To see all the evil of what you've done, right? With your book, Karl Marx, you know, or that

[1:02] you know, when the psalms are and says, you see, so see your children's children, right? I think that refers even to the preacher, right? Now, because he preaches and he converts some people, and then they convert other people, right? And that see your children's children, right? Not just the grandchildren. I have to go see.

[1:32] Whoever, harm most of all is found in sins which are against one's what neighbor, because no one wants to what for himself, huh? And God, no one is able to what? Yeah, how can you harm God, right?

[1:51] For a sin, according to that of Job, chapter thirty-five, huh? If your iniquities, right, are multiplied, huh? What do you do against him, right, huh?

[2:05] For to the man who is like yourself, your impiety does what harm, right, harm. If therefore a sin is aggravated in account of a greater harm, it would follow that the sin by which one sins to against one's neighbor is a graver sin than that which one sins in God or in oneself.

[2:32] Which which is worse, to kill your neighbor or kill yourself? I would think yourself Yeah You should love your neighbor as yourself Yeah, yeah, yeah. Most people don't realize that. You know, they think it's a very sound Christian state. It's going to punish you more for trying to kill somebody than trying to kill yourself, right? But.

[3:03] Moreover, a greater harm is inferred to someone when he is deprived of the life of grace, right, than when he is deprived of the life of nature, because the life of grace is greater than the life of nature. In so far that a man ought to what have contempt for him, I'd say the life of nature, Lest he lose the life of grace. yeah, lest he lose the life of grace.

[3:30] But the man who induces some woman to fornicating, as far as is of itself, he deprives her of the life of grace, inducing her to a what mortal sin. If therefore a sin is more grave in account for greater harm, it follows that the simplex, the simple fornicated, more gravely sins than the murderer, right?

[3:58] Which is manifestly false. Therefore, a what sin is not more grave and account of a greater harm that cell there, and that's the only part of the article you've been given. And you got nothing else to read, and there's no TV there, no radio.

[4:23] Yeah, so the guy's got to find a way to this, because he'll go out of his mind if he doesn't. This was that ideal way to teach us, but you'd have to go much slower than we're going, right? So you're sitting around there, you know, and you can't sleep at night. Time you're trying to find out the answer to that objection, you know. But you really appreciate the answer when it comes, huh?

[4:55] If you got yourself, you'd be even more tickled. But even if you get yourself and tell us to solve it, right? But against is what Augustine says in the third book on free judgment, huh? Free will, because vice is what opposed to, huh? Adverse to nature, right?

[5:37] To that extent, is added what to the malice of vices when the what? But the diminution of the integrity of nature is what harm. Therefore, greater is the sin. The greater is the what? As greater is the harm

[6:10] this guy? Does he know there are the numbers besides two or three? He probably does. When he played the music too much. I told you I used to say if two or three, you know, I'd say Socrates and some of the dialogues is always dividing into two. He's giving us that as kind of a rule. And Hegel is always dividing into three. And to the best of my knowledge, there's no other philosopher, right, stands out in my mind that always divided according to the same number, right?

[6:54] But Plato into two, and he's pretty famous guy, and Hegel into three, and he's pretty famous, right? So I made a rule then, not two or three, but two or three. And maybe there's some exceptions to that, but for the most part, that's what true, right?

[7:16] A rule is good if it's true for the most part, right? Answer. It should be said that *nocumentum has itself in three ways to sin, right? Then I skip a line, and then I start the first way, and then I skip another line, give the second way. That's why I would write the text. I would edit the text, right? But they don't let me edit the text.

[7:43] So here they here they making bold. Sometimes, huh? A harm that comes from sin is foreseen, right? And intended, right? Huh? As when someone does something, right, with the soul of harming another, as homicide or what theft, right? And then directly, the quantity of the harm increases the gravity of the what sin. Because then the harm is through the what?

[8:26] Object. Yeah. Because then the harm is per se, right? The object of the what sin, right? You can't you can't hear confessions without knowing this distinction, can you? I think

[8:43] you can hear confessions. You're not very responsible here. Yeah, yeah, it's hard to be to hear confessions. I would think. Um. Sometimes the harm is what foreseen, but not intended. My goodness!

[9:05] Just as when someone going through the field that he might what, or compendiosus in a shorter way, come to foreign things, he what bestows harm upon those what things which are

[9:25] yeah knowingly he does this right, although he does not do so at the uh But soul of harmony, right? Things are not in in the Israel thing, you know, right? And you intend to kill the innocent that are around the terrorists, right? But you might foresee that this is going to Be right, but is that what you're intending? Right.

[10:04] So it's different, right? Intending to kill the innocent, want to get get those bad guys, want to get innocent around them too. That's that's a different thing, right?

[10:22] Okay. And thus the quantity of the harm aggravates the sin, right? But indirectly, he says, right? In so far as from a will very much inclined to sinning, right, it proceeds that someone does not what

[10:47] omit, huh, to do harm to himself or others, which simply he does not what will, right, huh? Okay. I want to get you, and someone else is standing in the way, so I shoot anyway, right?

[11:09] Sometimes the harm is neither foreseen nor intended, right? Huh? Now he makes the distinction, right? What's this distinction under this third one? And then if it is per accidens to the sin, it does not aggravate the sin directly, but on account of negligence, right? In some cases it would be of considering the harms which could follow, right? Huh? They are imputed to man for punishment the evils which happen even apart from his what intention, right?

[11:49] Huh? If he gives labor to an illicit thing, right? Huh? If, however, the harm per se follows from the act of sin, even though it is what not intended nor foreseen directly, yet what aggravates the sin? Yeah. Because whatever things per se follow to the sin, they pertain in some way to the what? Yeah. As if someone, for example, publicly what fornicates, they would follow the scandal of what of many.

[12:31] Because although he himself does not intend this, nor even perhaps does not foresee it, right? Directly this what aggravates sin, huh? Okay. Altogether differently, huh? Seems to have itself about the what penal, huh? The punishment harm, huh? That one incurs the one who sins, right? Huh? For if this harm per accidens has itself to the act of sin, and is not foreseen nor intended, it does not what aggravate the sin.

[13:15] Nor does it follow a greater gravity sin, just as if someone running to what kill, pins his foot, hits his foot. If, however, such a harm per se follows to the act of sin, even though perhaps neither is it foreseen nor intended, then the greater harm does not make a graver sin, but a contrario, the graver sin induces a graver what harm. Just as someone who is not of the faith, right, who has heard nothing about the punishments of what hell, will suffer a greater punishment.

[14:07] Hell for the sin of what homicide, then for the sin of what theft, because he neither intends nor foresees this, right? There is not aggravated from this sin, from this the sin, just as it happens to the faithful person, who from this the believer sees that the sin is what, yeah, because the greater punishment see what, that he might fulfill the will of sin yeah, he might fulfill the will of sin, but the gravity of this harm is only caused from the gravity of the sin.

[14:56] Well, that's a different part to that second, that last paragraph. I don't know what you're responsible for the first three here. in your exam. To the first, therefore, it should be said that as has been said above, when one treated of the goodness and badness of exterior acts, the event following, if it is foreseen intended, adds to the goodness or badness of the what act.

[15:42] To second, it should be said that although the harm makes the sin more grievous, it does not, however, follow from what this harm alone that the sin is made more grievous.

[16:02] Nay, rather, the sin per se is more grave, an account of the what disorder. Whence the harm aggravates the sin in so far as it makes the act itself to be more what disordered.

[16:22] Whence it does not follow that if the harm, most of all, has place in the sins which are against one neighbor's, that those sins are what. More, the most grave. Yeah. Because much more is followed disorder in those sins which are against what God, and in also those which are against oneself. What did Shakespeare say? His ability for a large discourse, what? Before and after. Yeah, and before and after is a definition of what order.

[16:59] Yeah. So disorder is the main thing, right? You are not following the rule of reason. The order that reason should what know and direct us in, right?

[17:23] So it's more disordered for me to blaspheme God, right, or this sort, and to kill my neighbor, huh? Is that the question? Is it more disorder? Yeah. Yeah. Because God is the end of the whole universe, right? And so everything is ordered to God ultimately, right? Would be more disordered than to blaspheme God or do something like that It's disgusting. Nobody would say that. What? You asked the man on the street, he would say, Oh, it's much worse to you know hurt your neighbor than to sin against God."

[18:03] What's the reason why it's it's worse to take your neighbor's life than your own? No, it's worse. I think to take your own life. Yes, yeah. Because you love your neighbor as yourself. Yeah, Thomas, you know, takes that. I used to collect. I got a whole collection of those texts where Thomas talks about that, right? It doesn't mean that you are supposed to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself, right?

[18:32] Doesn't mean that, but you are supposed to love your neighbor in the way you love yourself. That is for your own sake, right? Okay. Why? Yeah, it doesn't mean equally, right? See, and you are

[18:49] supposed to love your own brother, I'd say, right, more than the stranger, right? Okay. But you are supposed to will the good of your neighbor just as will the good of your brother, right? So Thomas is very clear about that. What's the order of charity? Yeah, yeah. God first. Yeah.

[19:13] Try to people to understand, right? That's important. Now, which would be worse for me to kill the governor of the state or to kill the president? It's hard thing to say.

[19:41] We need to weigh this more carefully. Or to betray the governor, to betray the country, right? You know, you know the the common good of the country is a greater good than the common good of the what. State right now, okay.

[20:03] So, for me to act against the the town of Shrewsbury, would that be as bad as me to act against the state? For me to act against the state, would that be as bad as me to act against the good of the country? What about then act against the good of the whole universe, which is what God, right? That's most what disordered, huh?

[20:35] See how good Shakespeare was, right? It's in Hamlet. Act 4, Scene 4, something like that. Working on the old paper there, The wisdom of Shakespeare, right?

[21:00] But after that exhortation, as they call it, to use reason, what comes next in in the wisdom of Shakespeare, right? Well, you are going to be taught by Shakespeare, right? It had to be in seeing some before and after, right?

[21:29] And what before and after does Shakespeare see? You know that is so striking. It's also in Hamlet too. Know thyself. Or, what he says at the exhortation at the beginning, like the Polonius there. Thy own self be true. That's kind of involved in the exhortation, right? What is a man, right? Okay. But when he talks to the players, right? He says, "Or step not the modesty of nature."

[22:06] He says, "For anything's overdone is from meaning away from the purpose of playing." The end, he says, right? Both in the beginning and now was and is, as it were, to hold the mirror up to nature, to show virtue her own feature scorn her own image and the very age and body own image, and the very age and body that time is forming pressure. Right. What's perfectly ordered, nature?

[22:32] He gives before virtue and vice, and virtue and vice before the age, right? Because nature is the measure of what is what good or bad, and therefore virtuous or vicious. And an age is known by the virtues or vices that what predominate in that age, right? So it's perfectly what ordered, right? Okay. You know Shakespeare is a play. You know, very obvious to show this order there.

[23:04] You know, the As You Like It, right? And As You Like It, you have two pairs of brothers, right? And in one pair of brothers, the older brother is being what unjust to his younger brother, right? Denying him his share of the father's inheritance and so on. And then the other pair of brothers, the younger brother has usurped the throne of the older brother, right? Who's now exiled in the woods, you know, and living like Robin Hood and so on.

[23:34] Okay. And then you have the two what cousins, huh? Who are you know as close as sisters, right? Well, you see, there's something wrong with the the brothers who are one brother is being unjust to the other, but it's against nature, right? And then eventually they all end up in the forest, right? And they're reconciled in the forest, right? That's we had a beautiful speech, you know, the Duke, you know, and this our you know our life exempt from public haunt finds tongues in trees and books in the running brooks, you know, and and sermons in stones and good in everything he says, right?

[24:16] See, that's nature is the measure there, right? And when the when the older brother and younger brother end up in the forest, they both are converted, right? And he's so relieved to be freed from this unnatural bid, right, in mistreating his his his brother, right? So Shakespeare is kind of an image, a poetic image there, right? How returning to what is natural, right? It's represented by the forest, right?

[24:48] Brothers are reconciled, their brothers, right? So it's something unnatural for brother to be what? Yeah. I remember how Shacker was as a little boy, you know, you know, getting another boy down the block here, and he just couldn't stand his cousins. For us, it's a wonderful, wonderful thing, you know, to go see your cousins, right? At Christmas time, you know, we'd go over and someone would go and step in the cousin's house, right?

[25:18] You know, pillow fights in the morning, so on, Until the feathers start coming out of the pillows. But I mean, you know, I was kind of surprised, how can we not love your cousin, right? You know, when your brother said, you know, one brother in disagreement with his brother, you know, and you see them in the neighborhood sometimes, right? But you realize there's something bad about this, right?

[25:42] Because it's what unnatural, right? And but you know, Friar Lawrence here is very good in that. For not so vile that on the earth doth live, but to the earth some special good doth give, nor art so good but strained from that fair use revolts from true birth. From true nature, right? Stumbling on abuse, right?

[26:08] So there you see the wisdom of Shakespeare, right? He sees that nature is more fundamental, right? Than virtue or vice. And virtue is a habit that is in what accord with nature, right? Vice is a habit that is opposed to nature, right? And then they are what measures the the age itself, right? So there you see the wisdom of Shakespeare, right? He sees the before and after.

[26:39] That's really the key to ethics and so on. Too much into Shakespeare right now. Okay. We're in the second objection, right? Okay. Let's go back to the middle of that. Whence it does not follow that if harm, most of all, has place in the sins which are against one's what neighbor, right? That those sins are the most what grave, right?

[27:44] Because much more disorder is found in those sins which are against God, right? And in those of those which are in some of those, right? Which are against what oneself, right? Huh?

[28:03] Nevertheless, it can be said that although no one is able to what harm God as regards his what substance. He's the first substance, as we said, right? And we take up God in theology after his existence. The first thing we talk about is the what substance of God, right? In the Summa, that he's simple,

[28:28] perfect, right, and therefore good. He's what infinite and therefore everywhere, right? He's unchanging and therefore eternal, and that he's one. And the same five in the Summa Contra Gentiles, but in a different order. Same five in the Compendium of Theology, right? Substance of God, the first substance.

[28:55] So though you cannot hurt God as regards his substance, huh? Nevertheless, there can be what harm to be noticed in those things which are of God, right? As it were, what? Up rooting the faith. Yeah, neither you conform to Muhammad, right, or leave the place or die, right?

[29:19] Violating sacred things, right, and so on, which are the most grave sins, right? To those when someone what knowingly and willingly infers what harm, as is clear in those things who what? Kill oneself. Yeah, that's suicide, right?

[29:43] Even though finding this refers to some apparent good, right? Huh, as that they are freed from some what Romeo and Juliet, right? Huh. Okay, now what about this third objection, which is talking about killing the life of grace or killing the life of what? The natural life, right?

[30:19] That argument does not follow, on account of two things. My gee, Thomas, you're such a smart guy. First, because homicide intends directly the harm of one's what neighbor, right? Huh? The fornicator, however, who provokes the woman, right, seduces her, does not intend harm, but what pleasure, pleasure, good time, right?

[30:50] So the intention is quite different, I don't want to hurt anybody. That's what everybody always excuses themselves. I'm a good person. I never want to hurt anybody.

[31:03] Secondly, because homicide is per se and sufficient cause of the death of the body, right? Huh? But no one can be the cause to another per se and sufficient, right? Of spiritual death, right? Huh? Because no one spiritually dies except sinning by his own what will. It's an interesting objection, all right. Gives

[31:36] something to think about, right? That's an awful common distinction there, per se and per accidens, huh? What's intended, what's not intended, right? So I might do more harm by seducing the woman, right, than by murdering somebody, right?

[32:02] But maybe I don't intend to harm as much as in one case as the other, right? What I intend is more evil in one case, right? The other, right? Well, I can

[32:17] go break after that, huh? God here, you know, made a terrible statement there that there's ten articles here, right? And where's the two and three rule, right? What's going on? They should know that we talked about the ten categories that Aristotle distinguishes, right? And in the ten, he just kind of, you know, lists them and exemplifies them, right? He doesn't give any division into two or three, right?

[32:47] But when Thomas takes up the ten, right, he does it two places. One it is in the third book of the physics, and the other is in the fifth book of the metaphysics, huh? He divides the ten into three, and then he subdivides what the second into what of these three into three, right? And then he divides the wait, the two really, and one them into two, and then the last what six he divides into what two, right?

[33:22] Huh? He's been dividing into two or three until he gets them all, right? So go back to the proemium just for a moment here to answer who's like that, huh?

[33:35] Beginning of question seventy-three here, huh? He enumerates ten, right, huh? Well, just like Aristotle doesn't know he's what do this, right? And Thomas is very clear in the body article to usually divide into two or three. But if you wanted to divide these ten, would you divide them into three as Thomas divides the ten categories of Aristotle into three, or would you divide them into two, huh?

[33:59] Because it's got to be one or the other, right? Maybe I divide into two. Yeah. The first two articles and the rest. Okay, and I divide into two, but I divide the first article against the last nine, right? Because the first is asking whether all sins and vices are connected, right? And the second one is setting the stage for the other eight, right? Because if they're all paria or equal, then you want to have this comparison of some being more grave than others, right?

[34:41] Huh? And the various ways it can be unequal, or some can be more grave than others, presupposes that they're not all equal, right? So then I divide two through ten. I divide the second one against the last what eight, right? So that's the second division, right? The first division would be the first article against the last nine, then the second against the what? Yeah. Now how do you divide the last eight?

[35:13] Yeah, Maybe we into two I don't know I think if you look at three, four, and five, they are dealing with the gravity of the sin more, and what is specific to that sin, right? Because the object is what is fundamental distinguishing the acts, right? And then the dignity of the virtues. Let's tie up with the acts, too, isn't it? And then the very common distinction between the carnal and the what spiritual by their objects, right?

[36:11] So three, four, and five are more what the essential, right? Then the last what five are dealing with something somewhat extrinsic, right? Okay. Um. Because the cause is something outside the sin, right? The circumstances are something outside the sin in a way, right? Okay. And the harm done is something outside the sin itself, right? And then the persons involved, either on the side of the one the one sins against or the you know, is something kind of outside the the act itself, right?

[36:55] Okay. I committed murder. Murder is an act of you know killing, but then you know, who am I and who did I kill? Right. Yeah. Yeah. Now I divide those last five. Then I divide the what

[37:16] six, seven, and eight against nine and ten. Nine and ten deal with the person, right? And the other are dealing with what? Yeah. Yeah. So I'm divided always by two or three, right? Fanatic, as you can see, right? Okay.

[37:39] I noticed Thomas, you know, when when he like in the commentaries on scripture, he's always dividing the text. It's almost always into two or three, right? So Matthew is divided into three parts, and what John into two parts. Then he subdivides; he'd be dividing into three or two.

[38:01] To me, the the the the main apparent exception to the rule of two or three seems to be distinguishing the senses of words, right? Well, even there, you might try to do something, you know. You take all those eight senses of in. Well, it's kind of hard, you know, but the first sense, right, and the second sense, and the third sense, something is in something actually, right?

[38:24] So you get three ways in which something is in something actually in those first three senses, and then the fourth sense, the fifth sense, the sixth sense, and so on. You're getting senses of what in some kind of ability, either passive ability or an active ability, right, and so on. So you you end up you know probably dividing into two or three, you know, to try to understand the different senses, huh?

[38:53] So I thought I should make some reply to who was like God, you know. The critics. You're up to article nine now. In 9 and nine and ten, as we say, are dealing with the person, right? Huh?

[39:14] What's this thing about not respecting a person? Well, be careful about that. I understand understand that particular thing, right? To the ninth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that on account of the condition of the person in whom one sins, sin is not what more grave, yeah. For if this were so, it would most of all aggravated from this that someone sins against a man who is just and what holy.

[39:54] But from this sin is not made more grave, because less is injured, right, or hurt from the injury you know given to him, the virtuous man who what equanimity, yeah, tolerates it than others who also are what

[40:19] scandalized, yeah. Therefore, the condition of person whom one sins does not what aggravate the sin, right? Huh? Who's that first martyr there? There in the saw in the Acts of the Apostles. Stephen. Stephen, yeah, yeah. He's saying, you know, yeah,

[40:38] he's actually what converting Paul, I guess, at this time, isn't he, or something, you know? No, he's praying for Paul, so they say, so it's you know.

[40:53] Well if you kill somebody you know in a drunken brawl, you know, the guy's not in the state to go up, you know. I haven't wanted to kill the king, you know, but he's but he's drinking or something, rather than he's trying to repent. Moreover, at the condition of the person, aggravated the sin most of all would be aggravated from pro pincuitate, right? Going back to nature.

[41:22] For because as Tullius says in the Paradoxes, in killing a what slave, one sins what. Yeah, but in the life of one's father, I guess, huh? Father, multa peccant alter, huh? Even Tullius says so. But the propinquity of the person whom one sins does not seem to weigh down the sin or make it more grievous, because each one is to himself most of all what nearest. And nevertheless, less does he sin who infers some harm to himself than to another, as if he what kills his horse, than if he kills the horse of what another, as is clear through the philosophy in the fifth book of the Ethics.

[42:17] Therefore, the propinquity of the person does not what. Yeah, that's like that reminds me of St. Francis freeing his body. His brother asked, "So your horse, my horse, somebody else's horse? Who cares?"

[42:34] More with the condition of the person sinning, most of all, what makes more grievous the sin by reason of dignity or what knowledge? According to the Wisdom, chapter six, that the powerful will be powerfully tormented, and the servant knowing the will of the Lord and not doing it, he will be put greater beating. Yeah.

[43:03] Therefore, for like reason on the part of the person whom one sins, one is more what aggravates the sin. It makes yeah, it makes more grievous the sin the dignity or knowledge of the person whom one sins. But one does not seem to sin more gravely who does an injury to a what more wealthy person, right, or more powerful person than to some what Pauper. because there is no accepting of persons before God, according to whose judgment the gravity of sin ought to be measured.

[43:41] Therefore, the condition of the person whom one sins does not what weigh down the sin. But against this, that is in sacred scripture, specially what held bad a sin that is committed against the servants of God,

[44:05] for they destroyed your what altars and they killed your prophets, right? Um. And Vituperate what's the first? Mostly, I guess, blame or yeah, reproach or something.

[44:26] Yeah, especially the sin committed against one near one's. Yeah. For the the son who does insults to his father, right, and the son who rises against the daughter who rises against his her mother, huh?

[44:45] Especially blame is a sin against the person. Yeah. Established figure. Yeah. Who says to the king, right? Yeah, Apostate, huh? Who calls the leaders impious, right? Therefore, the condition of the person whom one sins aggravates the sin. huh?

[45:06] Hence it should be said that the person in whom one sins is in some way the object of sin, right? Huh. Quod dicitur, he says, so right, huh? Now it is said above that the first weight of a sin is to be observed on the side of the what object, right?

[45:29] From which also, so much is intended the greater gravity of the sin, that the object is a nearer or more principal end, right? But the end, the principal ends of human acts are what? God. God, the man himself, and his what? Neighbor.

[45:53] For whatever we do on account of one of these, we do it. Although also one of these three is ordered under another. One can therefore consider from the side of these three things a greater or lesser gravity in sin according to the condition of the person whom one sins.

[46:18] First, on the part of God, to whom the more some man is what joined, the more virtuous is he or more what sacred to God, right?

[46:33] Remember when they when they shot Regan, you know, didn't kill him, but you know, then a couple of days later, then the John Paul, you couldn't believe it, you know, but the shock of that, huh? And therefore the injury bestowed upon such a person or inferred upon such a person more redounds to to God, huh? According to that, it's sacred too. Who touches you touches the the apple of my eye, yeah.

[47:09] Whence a sin is more grave from this that one sins in a person more what joined to God, right, huh? Either by what virtue or by reason of their what office, right?

[47:29] From the part of oneself is manifest that one sins more gravely the more one what sins in a person joined to one, either by natural necessity, right, or by benefits, right, or by whatever conjunction there is, right? He sins because one seems more to sin in oneself and what? All the more gravely. Yeah.

[47:59] For who is what harmful to himself, to whom will he be good, right, huh? Okay. It's a scriptural thing, but Saint Paul says, you know, that no one hates his own flesh, right? So. Not just to hate your wife, right? That's right. Your own flesh, you know. A couple years ago, some priest out Florida ran off with a woman and became a Episcopalian or something. And I thought to myself, that poor woman, if she thinks he's going to be faithful to her, he wasn't faithful to God.

[48:33] Yeah. He's a dumb woman. Whether Dominican or not Dominican, the assumption is saying to me, you know, that when you leave the priesthood, there's always someone around waiting to pick you up. He's probably an ex-nun. They figure you'll be a docile husband. I had thought that. I know who else they want to pick you up.

[49:13] Okay. On the part of one's neighbor, right? Huh. The more one, the more one, one gravely sins, the more his sin touches what many, right? And therefore, the sin which takes place in a public person, right? Huh. As a king or prince, right? Huh. Who bears the person, the whole multitude, is more grave than a sin that's committed against some private person, right? Mm-hmm. Whence it says, especially in Exodus 22, huh?

[49:47] You will not what curse. them Yeah. And similar, the injury which is given to some famous person, right? Seems to be more grave. From this, that it redounds to the scandal and the disturbance of the what many, right? Okay.

[50:14] Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that the one who infers injury to the virtuous man, quantum in se est as far as is in itself, disturbs him both inwardly and outwardly, right? But, but that he is not disturbed inwardly, right? Huh. Happens from his what goodness, huh? Which does not diminish the sin of the one what. Injuring, right? Okay. To the

[50:53] second, it should be said that the harm that one infers to himself in those things which are under what the lordship of his own will, right? As in things possessed, has less of sin. Then what?

[51:15] Yeah. Because by his own will he what does this? But in those things which are not subject to the lordship of his will, as are the what natural and spiritual goods, right? So this distinction he's making here is a more grave sin to what? More grave is the sin is the harm that is inferred to himself, right? Again, to himself. Yeah, that's the thing of every time somebody gets himself sterilized.

[51:48] Yeah, yeah. That's worse than if you just burn your house down. Yeah, yeah. More grave, therefore, peccadent, or the one who kills himself, right? Than who what kills another. And because things of what

[52:08] those who are near to us are not subject to the lordship of our will, the ratio does not proceed, right? As regards the what injuries done to Their things Things,

[52:25] because about them, what? Yeah. Unless perhaps what they wish or have what? Approach or something Yeah, it's kind of an obtuse text there. To the third, it should be said that there is no what, accepting of persons, if God more grievously punishes the man sinning against more excellent persons, for this comes about on account of it redounding to the what harm of what many, right? So the king that put to death Boethius, right?

[53:09] Scandalous. It's pretty obvious. that sin is weighed down, right? It's made more grievous to the person you're hurting, right? In all these different ways.

[53:39] To the tenth, one goes forward thus. It seems that the magnitude of the person sinning does not what make more grievous the sin. For a man is most of all rendered magnus, right? From this that he adheres to God, according to that of Ecclesiasticus.

[54:08] That's Ecclesiasticus twenty-five. Quam magnus es, qui vint sapientiam et scientiam. I like that. How great is the one who finds wisdom and science? But he is not above the one what fearing God, huh?

[54:32] But the more someone what adheres to God, the less is what imputed to him something as a sin, right? For the Lord is what the good Lord is what propitious to all those who, in their whole heart, require the Lord,

[54:59] the God of their fathers The God, Father. Yeah. And is not imputed to them that they are what less holy. Yeah. Strange text. Therefore, sin is not aggravated from the magnitude of the person sinning.

[55:16] Moreover, there is no accepting of persons before God, as is said Romans two eleven. Therefore, it does not more punish for one the same sin one than another. That he's accepting of persons, right? What does that mean? The accepting of persons is not therefore made more grievous from the magnitude of the person sinning.

[55:43] Moreover, no one ought to be what should should receive something in commodious, right? From something good, but he would if that which he does is more imputed to him for what guilt. Therefore, on account of the magnitude of the person sinning, the sin what? This is not. Yeah.

[56:15] Just because I'm better, I shouldn't be punished more for doing the same thing that you did. But against this is what Isidore says in the second book on the highest God. I don't know that book don't know that book.

[56:40] So much greater is known the sin to be, the more greater is the man who is what. Who sins has that knowledge, right? Is that what it means? Yeah, The greatest man who sins is had, right?

[57:02] The greater you have, the man who sins, right? The more his sin is, right? Answer. It should be said that twofold is sin. One coming from what? The sudden surreptione on account of infirmity of human nature. And such a sin is less imputed to the one who is greater in virtue, in that he less neglects to what repress sins of this sort, which nevertheless human what infirmity does not allow altogether to be what avoided.

[57:47] Other sins are those proceeding from deliberation, and these sins, the more are imputed to someone, the more he is what greater, huh? And this an account of four, huh? Now next day we'll drop you the rest of this article. Stop there. Yeah, Brother Mark and we thought we had a wonderful way of of cleansing the minds and and reforming. Well, he's still a bird, or he's having to do this.

[58:18] Except the questions are harder. He didn't read them before. And this an account of four things. First, because the greater are more easily able, right, to resist sin, right, huh? Because they exceed in knowledge and what virtue. Whence the Lord says that the servant, knowing the will of his Lord and not doing it, will be what whipped more, yeah, yeah. Thomas gives the example. He says that the that the educated man is more guilty of what sins of the flesh than the common man, right?

[59:10] Because he's more able to resist these, right, huh? Okay. But the common man doesn't have you know any you know things he can turn to, right, huh? Thomas says there sometimes that no man can live without pleasure, right? And therefore the man who has no taste for higher pleasures, right, who hasn't acquired a taste for higher pleasures, tend to maybe go to excess in the lower pleasures, right?

[59:37] So the common man there doesn't know any pleasures beyond those of the eating and drinking and and reproducing and so on, and so it's hard for him to avoid these, right? But I can think of more pleasant than the state of pure nakedness.

[59:55] I can be like homeless in the woods or something, right? And so it's easier for for an educated person, right, to divert himself, you know, from these things, right? Okay.

[1:00:18] Second, an account of ingratitude, right? Huh? That's interesting, huh? Because every good by which someone is what Magnified is a benefit of God, right? Huh? To which a man becomes ungrateful by sinning, right? Huh?

[1:00:38] And as regards this, each what greaterness, right? Even in temporal goods, huh? Aggravates a sin, according to that of wisdom six. The powerful shall suffer powerfully torments, huh?

[1:01:00] So if you thank God for creating your immortal soul, you thank God for your parents, you know, prepared your body, huh? For that soul, thank God for your teachers, right? Huh? Thank God for people who helped you on the way. So, an account

[1:01:30] of ingratitude, right? That's why it also is better worse to harm your parent, right? It's more ingratitude, right? Apart from the fact, you know, the person you sing against, you know, but you're guilty of more ingratitude, right?

[1:02:03] I don't owe anything to a stranger, right? I shouldn't harm him for that reason, but I mean, but someone I owe a lot to, then to harm him would be really even worse, right?

[1:02:18] Third, an account of a special repugnance of the act of sin to the made to the person, as if the prince violates what justice, huh? Who was laid down to be was placed there. It is the custos, the guard, keeper of justice, right? And if the priest what fornicates, who vowed chastity, right?

[1:02:48] And fourth, an account of the example or the scandal, right? Because as Gregory says in the Pastoralia, in scandal exemplum, guilt is what vehemently extended. When for the reverence of the great, the sinner is what honored. I am not those Renaissance popes. Some of them, I don't know. It's that it's, but to be good in that position, how?

[1:03:25] Because to the knowledge of many, come the sins of the great. Yeah. And more men what bear the scenes with you know. Yeah, those are the 4 things. How very interesting, aren't they? Because they can more easily resist and they count foolishly, right? Huh? This is the wise man acts foolishly, right? Isn't that worse? If a fool acts foolishly.

[1:04:12] Scandal. To the first, therefore, it, should be said that that authority speaks about those things which, by the what, eruption you might say of human infirmity, are negligently what done, right? Huh?

[1:04:36] In that case, the person what sinning is not sinning more, right? The second should be said that God does not accept persons if what He punishes the greater more He punishes the devil more than He's going to punish us, because their greaterness makes for the gravity of the sin, huh?

[1:05:02] So the devil will be punished most of all, right? He'll be down there in the ice, as Dante puts him down there in the ice.

[1:05:13] And a man, a great man, does not do what we see something incommodious from the good that he has, but from the what bad use, huh?

[1:05:31] Okay, like Shakespeare says. We're gonna stop there, right? Because you got another...