Prima Secundae
189. Is God the Cause of Sin? Summa I-II Q.79, Articles 1–3: The Act of Sin, Blindness and Hardness of Heart
Class of 2014-11-20
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/189-is-god-the-cause-of-sin-summa-i-ii-q-79-articles-1-3-the/

[0:00] Name of the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. God, our enlightenment, Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, Lord illumine our images and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Help us to understand what you've written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. So we're up to question what seventy-nine here on the exterior causes of sin, and the first heretical thing here is on the part of God, right?

[0:43] Secondly, on the part of the devil, and third, on the part of man, right? It's quite a combination those three. About the first four things are asked: first, whether God is the cause of sin;

[1:03] secondly, whether the act of sin is from God; third, whether God is the cause of blindness and obdurance, stubbornness. and fourth, whether these things are ordered to the salvation of those who are what blinded or made stone, or hearts, or made obdurate. It's bringing the prosecutor with God, right? That's a little dangerous thing here, right?

[1:42] To the first, then one proceeds thus. It seems that God is the cause of sin, huh? For the Apostle says in the Epistle to the Romans, chapter one, about some that God handed them over to a what?

[2:02] Yeah, false sense, they might say, that they might do those things which are not what suitable to be done, huh? Not fitting. And the gloss says there, huh?

[2:18] That the what God works in the hearts of men, inclining their wills and whatever he wants to, whether in the good or in the bad.

[2:30] But to do those things which are not suitable, and to incline, look at the will according to the will to evil, is a what sin, right? Therefore, God is to men the cause of what sin, huh? That's pretty damning consideration, huh?

[2:53] Some some heretic new scripture better than we know it. You know, he could really give us a rough time, right? Moreover, Wisdom, chapter fourteen, the creatures of God are made in what hate, and in a temptation to the soul of man.

[3:27] Used to be amused with this text of Albert the Great, you know, he's talking about women and the danger one, right? He ends up his discourse saying, "And if I said everything that I know about women, he says the whole world, he says it'd be stupefied." But temptation is a custom to be called a provoking to what sin. Since, therefore, creatures are not made except by what God has been had in the first book or shown there, it seems that God is the cause of sin, provoking men to what sinning.

[4:19] Moreover, whatever is a cause of the cause is a cause of the effect. But God is the cause of free what will, free judgment, which is the cause of sin. Therefore, God is the cause of sin.

[4:36] What a guy this Thomas is, huh? He must have been sweating when he wrote this. However, everything bad is opposed to the good, but is not repugnant to the divine goodness that he be the cause of the evil of what punishment, huh? And about this evil, Isaiah says, is said in Isaiah, chapter forty-five, that God is creans malum, right? Creating evil, right? And Amos, chapter three, the prophet Amos, if there is what an evil in the city that God is not made, huh?

[5:24] And therefore, also, it is not what repugnant to divine goodness that God be the cause of guilt, huh? So guilty or not guilty, would you, as jury, at this point, huh? Say, huh?

[5:44] But against this is what is said in the book of Wisdom, chapter eleven, about God, that you hate nothing of those things that you have what made, huh? But God hates what sin, according to that of Wisdom, chapter 14.

[6:04] Hate, for God is the impious and his impiety, right? Therefore, God is not the cause of what sin. Yeah. How is he going to get out of this?

[6:25] Talk about Houdini. I mean, Aristotle. There, you know, in the metaphysics area, compares, you know, the mind when it's got arguments on both sides, you know, to the legs when they've been tied and you can't go forward, right? Huh? Until you untie the knot, huh? And therefore, he says, when the mind hears opposing arguments, it's in a similar situation; it's tied, huh? Unless you examine the knot and find out how to untie it, you can't go forward, right?

[6:54] Huh? That's one of the reasons he gives there. You know where you're going to have to consider the difficulties, huh? In wisdom, huh? Then he goes through what twenty-three questions, right? The third book of wisdom. Quite a guy, Aristotle too. Dick kind of used to say Aristotle was somebody.

[7:19] That's a nice, nice antonomasia. I like that. I answer: It should be said that man is in two ways a cause of sin, either of himself or of another.

[7:43] In one way, directly by inclining his own will or that of another to what sinning. In another way, indirectly, when he does not what pull back, huh? Others from what some from sin. Whence it is said in the book of Ezekiel, chapter three, to the speculator, if you what did not say to the impious, death, his will require from you, right, from your hand, his blood, right, huh?

[8:28] Cardinal Dolan the other day was saying, you know, we didn't give many sermons, you know, on the, you know, the church's teaching, you know, about reproduction and so on.

[8:42] So it's very important. So some of them are kind of afraid, you know. One priest has told me, you know, he's in the parish there in some other city around here, but the Catholic parish is really tough, you know, and also he's got nobody coming to church. So they're they're afraid, right? You know, but.

[9:05] God, however, is not able to be directly a cause of sin, either of himself or of what, or another. Right? Why? Because every sin is by receding from the order which is in him. Right? As in an end.

[9:30] But God, however, inclines all, right, and converts, turns towards himself as an ultimate what end? As Dionysius says in the first chapter of the Divine Names, and as Aristotle says in the twelfth book of Wisdom. It takes you the twelfth book of Wisdom to get there.

[9:59] Whence it is impossible. That for himself or for others, that he be a cause of their what departing from the order which is in himself, whence he is not able to be directly a cause of sin.

[10:20] But likewise, neither what indirectly, it can happen. He says that God to some does not give the aid to avoiding sin, which if he what bestowed, what

[10:39] they would not sin, right? But he does the whole of this according to the order of his wisdom and what justice, since he is wisdom itself and justice itself, right?

[10:55] Whence it should not be imputed to him that another sins as to the cause of sin, just as the pilot is not said to be the cause of the submersion of the ship from this that he does not what Govern the ship, except when he subtracts his governing, when he is able and ought to be what governing. And thus it is clear that God in no way is a what cause of sin.

[11:37] Let's see. I can hear the objections. To the first, therefore, it should be said as regards the words of the apostle Saint Paul. From the text itself is clear the what solution, which means the untying, right?

[12:04] Dissolution, solution. I was thinking about that today about dissolving bonds dissolving the marriage bond that ordinarily happens with death Yeah. For if God turns some into a what reprobate sense, all already therefore they have a reprobate sense to doing those things which are not what suitable.

[12:36] He is said to hand them over to a reprobate sense, in so far as he does not prohibit them, but that they follow their own what sense. Just as we are said to what expose those whom we do not protect, huh?

[12:58] What Augustine says in the book on grace and free will, whence was taken the gloss that was in the first objection, there, right? That God inclines the wills of men in good and bad, should be thus understood: that in the good He directly inclines the will; in the bad, however, in so far as He does not what, prohibit, as has been said. And nevertheless, this also happens from the merit of a preceding what, sin.

[13:52] So that some people follow their own will out of this, huh? To the second, it should be said that when it is said that the creatures of God are made in hate and in temptation to the soul of men, this preposition "in" is not laid down causally, but what, consequently, right?

[14:30] For God does not make creatures for the harm or evil of men, but this follows on account of the foolishness of what, men. Whence it is subjoined, and in what, a trap you might say, right? For the feet of the what, foolish, huh, sapiens, opposed to sapientia right? Savory knowledge, huh?

[15:04] There's truth. Who, through their foolishness, use creatures to something other than they were what made for, huh? To the third, it should be said that the effect of the what middle cause, proceeding from it according as it is subject to the order of the first cause, is reduced also in the what first cause, right, huh? But if it proceeds from the middle cause according as it goes outside the order of the first cause, it is not reduced to the what first cause, huh?

[15:52] Just as as if the servant minister does something against the mandate of the Lord, huh? This is not reduced to the Lord as to a what cause, and similarly, the that's not my fault.

[16:15] And similarly, the sin that what free judgment commits against the precept of God is not reduced, and God is in a what cause. I was going that thing from Mozart's sister there. You know how Mozart is conducting. He could tell if there's any note off. You know, what instrument was making the thing off. So if if somebody makes a mistake, huh, is attributed to the conductor, huh?

[16:46] No, because he's not following the order, you know, of the the conductor, right, huh? You know, I was going to get was it the magic flute of Mozart, you know? I was looking around, and then I saw oh yeah, von Karajan. That's the guy I want, you know, conducting, right? So I was looking at reading some reviews of it, you know, and it's kind of funny because you know they're saying that von Karajan had an absolutely iron hand.

[17:12] You know, everybody was doing exactly what he said, right? But in one scene, he thought that one of the the sopranos or something was was trying to assert himself a bit.

[17:27] But they might, you know, get off if they didn't, you know, follow the the thing. You know, they tell the story, you know, of a prima donna there that wasn't doing what she's supposed to do with Handel, you know, and Handel just you know picked her up and held her all over,

[17:43] you know, brought her back. So she had to do exactly what he he wanted, you know, huh? Yeah, for fear of Handel, at least, huh? Yeah, he's a great man. That was John Paul II's favorite musician. Oh man, better readiness, yeah, yeah. And John Paul, I mean, Beethoven was Mozart, I think, you know, but those are my two favorite composers, too. I think. Very good. I know when I was when you get the

[18:20] Christmas time there, you know the they got yeah, Messiah, you know, and I remember in the store down Boston there, I mean, oh yeah, all different performances. I said, what's going on here? You know, huh? And and some of them would say, you know, Handel, some would say Handel dash Mozart, because Mozart, you know, perfected it, I guess, you know, But I said, oh, Beecham, that's what I want.

[18:49] Beecham. Performance. My brother Mark said, you know, Beecham taught the other guys how to how to conduct Mozart. So, when did he conduct? What years was he conducting? Oh, during the, you know, Second World War and before, you know.

[19:14] Could a conductor? Cause talk about you know, the orchestra doing the second thing he did, you know, he he he'd be rehearsing. You know, the guy says, "Okay, gentlemen, I see you can play it backwards. Now let's play forwards." But he really was like a, you know.

[19:43] I heard the Jupiter Symphony the other day in the classical music station Boston in the car there, and I said, "I knew the guy was playing it too fast," you know. We were seeing one time too, Toscanini's version. You know, he's playing Mozart's Jupiter Symphony like like a Beethoven symphony you know. he doesn't understand, you know, how to play Mozart. Beethoven knows exactly how to do it. So it's important to

[20:13] get some performances. saying to my old teacher Cassidy there," you know, talking between Beethoven or something like that, and some other performance. And I said, "That's as much difference as between, you know, De Koninck and Maritain and Saint. Thomas." You know, "Oh no," he said, "There's that much difference."

[20:42] Okay. To the fourth, it should be said, that punishment is opposed to the good of the one who is what punished, who is deprived of some what good, right? But guilt is opposed to the good of the order which is in God, whence it is directly opposed to the divine goodness. An account of this is not the same reason about what guilt and punishment. Punishment, in a sense, is putting back order into things, right?

[21:24] Step out of mine, you're gonna be punished. yeah. Like I said, Sister Mary Cyril. when. I was in the sixth grade. The kids were acting up, and she had us all lined up in the schoolyard. She was walking up and down right in front of the school gym, and she said, "And you kids get out of line, and she slammed her fist against the wall. She said, 'I'm going to put your head through this wall.

[21:49] ' Where she hit the wall, there was already a large crack. Got our attention. Wait, test sister. Her nickname was Sister Corona, but her nickname was Cannonball Corona.

[22:11] Unfortunately, didn't have her, but you know, they talked about you know coming down. Kids would throw out their pencils, you know, at the top of the thing, and come down with the pointer, you know, wham, and she actually cracked the pointer here. The second one proceeds thus. It seems that the act of sin is not from God.

[22:40] For Augustine says in the book on the perfection of justice, he's got a lot of books, Augustine, wherever he is, that the act of sin is not something, right? Well this is Augustine's way of speaking I suppose too. Evil is what nothing, huh? The man who sins becomes nothing, right? Kind of way of emphasizing huh, that uh evil is basically a what? Lack. A lack, huh? None being or something something is able to have and should have, but doesn't have.

[23:15] Everything, however, that is from God by God is something, right? Therefore, the act of sin is not from God. I got to watch Augustine's way of speaking sometimes.

[23:32] Moreover, man is not said to be the cause of sin, except because man is a cause of the act of sin. But no one intending to evil works or does something, as Dionysius says. Huh? Everybody, because what all want, huh? But God is not a cause of sin, as has been said. Therefore, God is not the cause of the act of sin.

[24:03] Moreover, some acts, according to their species, are evil, right, and sins, as has been said above, huh? Whatever is a cause of something is a cause of that which belongs to it according to its what species. If, therefore, God is the cause of the act of sin, we would find that He was the cause of what sin. But this is not true, as has been shown. Therefore, God is not the cause of the act of what sin, huh?

[24:43] Against this, the act of sin is a certain motion of free judgment, huh? Free will. But the will of God is the cause of all motions, as Augustine says in the third book of the Trinity. Aristotle says too.

[25:02] Therefore, the will of God is the cause of the act of the sin, huh? But maybe he's not the cause of the what privation, huh?

[25:16] Answer should be said that the act of sin both is a being and is a what act, and from both of these it has that it be something from what God, huh? For every being, in whatever way it is, necessarily right, is derived from the first what being, as is clear through Dionysius in the fifth chapter of the Divine Names.

[25:52] I guess we're not too sure exactly who Dionysius is. They don't think he's a Dionysius that was converted by Paul, so he's called Dionysius the Areopagite and then the pseudo Areopagite I guess who he is. Yeah. There's some speculation he was actually a Syrian monk. Yeah Couldn't have been married. Disciple of Saint Mary. I know Saint Thomas has respect for him. You know, like you know, he doesn't attain to Dionysius' understanding of things.

[26:24] You know, he's trying his best. You know, and I remember him saying that even about Augustine or even Aristotle. You know, so interesting. Every action is caused from something existing an act, because nothing acts except according as it is an act. But every being an act is reduced to the what first act, which is the pure act, to God as in a cause, who is through his essence right act, so he's pure act.

[27:10] Whence remains that God is the cause of every action, in so far as it is a what action. But sin names being and an action with a certain defect,

[27:28] and that defect is from a created what cause, namely libero arbitrio, free judgment. In so far as it what falls short, from the order of the first what agent to what God. Whence this defect is not reduced in God as in a cause, but in free what judgment.

[28:04] Just as is this very common example at times uses the defect of what limping, I guess right, is reduced in the curved what tibia.

[28:18] Okay. As in a cause, not in the motive power, right? Huh. From which nevertheless is caused whatever there is of motion in the what limping, huh? And according to this, God is the cause of the act of the sin, not, however, in so far, but not however, is the cause of sin, because he is not a cause of this that the act is with a what? Defect.

[28:50] Hmm. Tibia, fibula, together, and then the humerus. I think. Is it the Latin word for just leg? No, it's um. I just looked it up. But it says the inner. This is the English definition of the inner and typically larger of the two bones between the knee and the ankle. So it's actually one of two bones, but generally from Latin it refers to the shin bone. But I guess since there's two there, it makes it one refers to one.

[29:22] So it's more precise than we anticipated. Okay. So if I thinking, you know, is God the cause of my thinking? Pope Francis and acts. Yeah, is it the cause of my being deceived? Yeah, making a mistake, being deceived by the fallacy of equivocation or some other fallacy.

[29:49] I'm responsible for the defect there, right? I go up to Laval there after I was out teaching assumption you know, at my doctor and so on. I go up there, you know, sometimes I'd run into, you know, somebody's student there, you know, and I say, what's what's Dion talking about these days, right? And I get kind of a garbled version of what Dion is saying, and I can recognize right away, you know, that they that they haven't understood Dion, you know, and therefore, you know, I know where the defect is coming though, and they're accounting for what Dion said, right?

[30:27] I'm sure he didn't say it quite that way, you know, or didn't quite say it the way you you got it, you know, huh? Yeah, that's that's like Pope Francis's remarks. and I guess the media Yeah. Yeah. I don't get exactly. what's it. I used to teach sometimes, you know, the there are books of the physics there, and you do the definition of motion, so on. And one time I just for the fun of it, I took the different misquoting of the definition, just you know, and garbled, and somebody's really, you know, giving a false meaning to it, right?

[31:00] Huh? It's surprising how many different, you know, a whole page of them. Some a few students here, if they get exactly right, you know, that we explain it, but you know, large number of them have not be able to repeat what you said, right, or repeat what Aristotle said, you know.

[31:22] There was there was this philosophy professor I had when what the Franciscans had in Grandi and and we were learning history philosophy and referred to SCOTUS and his whole idea, about Chegitas, which is translated. Thisness. Yeah.

[31:40] So one of the students wrote a whole paper. Yeah. On this notion of Scotus of thinness. Because he couldn't read how he wrote it on the board.

[32:02] Whatever it was, it wasn't what Scotus said. Yeah, yeah. But like a great pianist who's playing the piano, you know, if one of the keys was defective, right, he hits it, you know, and then is he responsible for that? See, but what there is of sound there, you know, he hit the key. I mean, he's responsible for the the sound, right? But not for the the defect in the sound, right? To the first, there, therefore, it should be said that Augustine names there a thing that which is a thing what?

[32:46] To what? What? A substance, huh? But thus the act of the sin is not a thing, right? So that's a whole different explanation than when I was giving, right, from the text of Augustine there.

[33:00] Some of these objections, you know, taken just from the, you know, the famous text, but he'll misunderstand the text, right? You have to correct them.

[33:15] To second, should be said that in man, as in a cause, is reduced not only the act but also the defect, because he is not subject to the one to whom he ought to be subject, right? Even though he himself does not intend this what? Principally, right? And therefore, man is the cause of what sin? But God thus is the cause of an act that in no way is he a cause of the defect accompanying the act, huh?

[33:48] And therefore, he is not a cause of what sin? No, they talk about God giving the human soul there in generation, so on, which he does. And of course, one of the objections, of course, is well, what about this adulterous thing, you know, huh? No, it's in God cooperating with sin, right? He's a cause of what is natural in the act, right, huh? But he's not a cause of the disorder in the adulterous act, right, huh?

[34:26] So he's not in that sense cooperating with the adultery, right? He's cooperating with what? Nature, right? What about this third objection about the species, huh?

[34:49] This is a very subtle point now. To third, it should be said that as has been said above, acts and habits do not receive their species from the privation itself, right? In which consists the ratio of evil, right? But from some object to which is joined such a privation, and thus that defect which is not said to be what? from God. pertains] to the species of the act consequent there, consequently, and not as it were a what specific difference, huh?

[35:34] That comes up, you know, that same distinction there when you're talking about well, nobody. As what does he says? Quote there from Dionysius earlier there, where he said that no one acts except for the good, right? So how does the evil arrive, right? Well, the evil, the good is what.

[35:57] It's apparent Yeah, but it's attached to some kind of what lack, right? Okay. So does the sinner want to be punished, right? No, but that's a consequence of what he's done, right? It's something that follows upon it, right? Is this there some connection in understanding this with, for example, generation of human life? The human, human life, God's creating the soul, but there's original sin there. This is connected with that.

[36:39] Because he's not creating the sin and the soul. Yeah, not responsible for the defect, right? Sin is nothing. The sinner becomes nothing. Augustine says, "that we are emphasizing that." But the God is. The cause of what? Blinding, right? And hardening.

[37:17] There's a lot of people who are blind in our society now, and hardened hearts. To the third one proceeds thus. It seems that God is not the cause of blinding and of what the hardening of the heart. For Augustine says in the book on the eighty-three questions that God is not the cause that a man become worse, right? But to blindness and

[37:54] what's the best way to translate that? Obduracy, that's a translation. Hardness, yeah. Hardness of heart, right? A man becomes what worse, right? Therefore, God is not the cause of blindness and the hardening of the heart. Moreover, Fulgentius says that God is not the what avenger is it of that thing of which He is the what? Author. But God is the punisher of a what? Yeah. That he

[38:36] Hardened heart. Hardened heart. Will have it bad in the end. In. The end, yeah, yeah, the last day, huh? It's called the novissimo It's always kind of funny. Anyway, speaking in Latin, the novissimo also means the last day, the most new. Hard heart will have a hard time. Yeah, yeah. Therefore, God is not the cause of the hardness of the heart. Moreover, the same effect is not attributed to contrary causes.

[39:08] But the cause of blindness is said to be the malice of man, right? Huh. According to that of Wisdom, chapter two, that their malice has blinded them, right? Huh.

[39:21] And also the devil, according to that of Second Corinthians, the God of this age, right, has blinded the minds of the faithless, the unfaithful.

[39:38] Which causes seem to be contrary to God, right? Therefore, God is not the cause of blindness or of the hardening of the heart. It's your malice that made you blind, huh? Or the devil blinds the minds of men, right?

[40:06] But against this is what is said in Isaiah's chapter six: blind the heart of this people, right? And weigh down their what? Ears, huh? It's interesting.

[40:22] In Romans nine, whom he wishes he has mercy on, and whom he wishes he what? Hardens. It's frightening, huh? Hence, it should be said that blinding and becoming hardened imply two things.

[40:47] One of which is the motion of the human soul adhering to the evil, right? And turned away from the what? Divine light. Don't tell me. I don't want to know.

[41:03] I don't want to know what the church teaches. I fear my freedom. Yeah, I was reading something there about this one of those crazy committees there, the United Nations there, you know, the one on on cruelty. You know, they try to attack the Vatican for being cruel for their teaching on on fornication and on you know I mean on contraception, so on, and abortion, yeah, yeah, yeah, just cruelty.

[41:41] They want children to live. Are you stupid about Islam's teaching? That's it. That's it's the same with with. Ron Emanuel calls in Islam these Muslim guys to patrol the neighborhoods of Chicago, right? But he, Ron Emanuel, is in favor of the gay marriage. But Islam, it's a death penalty for that. But he seemed to turn a blind eye to that one. He just he just had to patrol the streets or whatever.

[42:24] And as regards this, right, God is not the cause of blindness, right, and of the hardening of the heart, just as He is not the cause of what sin.

[42:36] Another thing, however, is the subtraction of grace, right? From which it follows that the mind, right, is not divinely illumined to seeing correctly, right? And the heart of man is not what soft to living well. That's interesting. There, just that text there, because it makes you see the difference between those two words. Not just synonyms, are they? Excaecatio is more in the mind, right? The reason that it's blind, doesn't see, and the hardening is in the heart, right?

[43:16] In the will. Okay, you see that when he says there that um mens non illuminatur ad recte videndum it's not enlightened to seeing correctly, right? And the heart of man is not softened to living what well, huh? It's interesting, isn't it?

[43:44] Is a soft heart good? Soft brain isn't. But a hard heart doesn't seem to be good, right? But hard headed seems to be good, right? And soft in the head. Soft in the head. It kind of. I gave a talk one time in the. I forget where it was. Some college on the contrariety, right? Of of reason and the will, right? A kind of contrariety. Not a.

[44:16] It's not simply a contrariety, you know. But you see in these words, all right, huh? It's kind of striking. I'm kind of puzzled by this this way of speaking. You know, talking about time there, and with these students coming to the house there, and that's an expression we have in English. We say, "What time is it?" Right? And you say, "Well, okay, it's three o' six. " Is three o' six time or an example of time?

[45:01] Measure. No, exactly three o' six wouldn't be time. It's it's a now, but it's not time. See. Now, if I say, you know, what day is today? Right. Well, today I guess is Thursday, right? Now, what day is a part of time, right?

[45:29] But you see, what time is it? We're not asking for what day it is, or what month it is, what year it is, right? All which are parts of time, right? But what time is it? It's three o' six. What part of the day is it It's not even a part of the time. It's not a part of time because it's something indivisible, right? When I say three o' six, I mean that's supposed to be pinpointing it, right?

[46:00] Huh? You see, but you know, it is a line composed of points. No, and is a is time composed of nows. There is anything continuous composed of indivisibles, right there. Aristotle argue against this, right in the the sixth book of Natural Hearing. It's interesting our way of speaking, right? Huh?

[46:39] I say now, I can. We meet, you know. Usually we start at seven o'clock, right, and we end at nine o'clock, right, so people can get home and not be tired the next day, right? Huh? So

[46:53] we begin at seven. Was that a part of time? The beginning of. You know. But the way he's speaking is kind of interesting, isn't it? What time is it? What time o'clock, is it? What time is it? So but you said it's between 306 and 307 Is that what you mean

[47:24] Yeah Well, if they say you know we meet in the evening, right? We don't meet in the morning or in the afternoon. Well, the morning, and the afternoon, the evening are all different parts of time, right? I see. We we meet at seven o'clock. Don't be late.

[47:47] Well, seven o'clock, sometime. It's a longer time some longer But yeah the wrong time has by default as it were. It's kind of mysterious, you know, to to see this, right? I I was reading the the second book of wisdom, re-reading it, the short book there, second book of wisdom, and it's divided into three parts. And the first part is how man is towards knowing the truth, huh?

[48:26] In this book. And the second part is to what reason out knowledge does the knowledge of truth belong most of all. And then, in what third part is in what way a man ought to what pursue the truth, right? Anyway, the first part is kind of beautiful. How man is towards the truth, right? Because Aristotle says that in some ways it's easy to know the truth. In other ways, it's difficult, right?

[48:56] And he says easy to know the truth insofar as everybody, right, sees some part of the truth, however small and insignificant it might be in life, huh? Even if you make McDonald's hamburgers all day long, that's your life. You're going to see something about hamburger and how it turns out and so on with the heat and so on. You can see some part of the truth about things, right?

[49:19] And and then he says that there's a part of the truth that everybody sees, like you know the axioms on the whole is more than a part, right? So you can't go through life without seeing that, right? Everybody knows the whole is more than a part, right? And someone says he doesn't know it. We give him part of his salary this week, or part of his dinner, you know, when he orders it, and part of a car when he buys a car.

[49:47] So he'll fully admit, you know, that the part is not equal to the whole, right? And then he says with the efforts of many men, right, you know, you get a certain bulk even of truth, right? Then he turns to the difficulty of truth, right. And he says, "Well, there's two causes of difficulty. It can be in the object, or it can be in the what, the subject, right?

[50:11] The weakness of it. So I used to take the example there. You know, some things are hard to love, right? If you find it hard to love God, or hard to love wisdom, is it defect in the thing or in you? Yeah. Ah, if you don't love the common good, right? Huh? It's hard to love the common good, right? People are kind of selfish and so on.

[50:38] But there, the difficulty is not in the common good not being very good; it's very good. But the difficulty is in you, right? But

[50:53] if you find difficult to love cancer, is a difficulty in you? No, it's in it's in the object, right? He says the same way in knowing them, right? And he's giving the reason why mathematics is more is easier for us than natural philosophy, and easier than wisdom, right? But the difficulty, the reason why natural philosophy is more difficult than mathematics, is in the thing because these things hardly what exist, right?

[51:28] Aristotle says, you know, time is what in the past and the future, but the past no longer is, and the future is not yet. So time doesn't even seem to exist, right? It hardly exists. And

[51:44] but the difficulty in wisdom is the weakness of our mind. So you see, but think what you're saying. You say, "What time is it? " You know. This

[52:01] just throwing into mathematical area, or something. No, no, this is this is the this is the second book of wisdom, right? Yeah. But if somebody if somebody doesn't love salmon, is the problem in the thing? Ah, definitely.

[52:15] You hit it! You hit it! You hit it! You hit it! If a man prefers beer to wine, yeah, difficulties in him. Refers Beethoven to Mozart? Difficulty is is in him, right? Yeah. You know, when G. C. King said when they got to recording the solo piano music of Mozart, there is only Mozart. You like Wagner, huh? Yeah, one of the guys on Sunday. There, when he counted money, there, one of the guys is is liking for Wagner, you know.

[53:02] Puts him in the company of mad Ludwig and the King and Hitler and so on. But anyway, I said, you know what Wagner said about Mozart? Said Mozart is above all the masters in all the arts and in all the ages. Wow, that's that's pretty definitive. Yeah,

[53:27] read something, you know. Sometimes I get into bad habit there, you know, of reading something when I'm listening to Mozart. I say we should just, you know, put the books down, just listen to the Mozart and make my cousin's advice, you know.

[53:49] Okay. So this is beautiful, huh? This this distinction here. So the subtraction of grace. As regards this, God is the cause of what? Blindness, right? And the hardening of the heart, right?

[54:17] Now it should be considered that God is the universal cause of the enlightenment of souls, huh? According to the out of John one nine, he was the what? True light, which enlightens every man coming in this world, huh? Just as the sun, huh, is universal cause of the enlightening of bodies, huh? Just a nice little comparison there.

[54:52] But the sun in a different way than God, right? Aliter tamen the soul acts by enlightening through the necessity of what? Nature, huh? So nature operates what? You might say automatically, right, huh? In the presence of its object, huh? So fire burns, right? When paper is put in front of it. But God acts voluntarily through the order of his what? Wisdom, huh?

[55:29] So the sun, although as far as from itself it enlightens all bodies, right, huh? If ever it finds some impediment in some body, it leaves that what? Dark, right, huh?

[55:49] As is clear about the house whose windows are closed, huh? Okay. But nevertheless, that obscurity in no way is the sun a cause, huh?

[56:08] For is not by its judgment that the what light is not brought in inwardly, right? But the cause is only the one who closes the what? Yeah. I suppose you have these kind of the wooden things, don't you? Closing. Yeah. Shutters. Yeah. I mean, so that you really exclude the thing.

[56:35] God, however, by His own judgment, right, does not send the light of grace in those in whom He what finds an obstacle, right? Huh?

[56:51] Whence the cause of the subtraction of grace is not only the one who places an obstacle to grace, right? But also God, who by His judgment does not what

[57:09] place yeah place the grace there and in this way God is a cause of what of blindness right Notice he's got all three things here now right because the eyes and the ears are both used in instruction right and in this way God is the cause of blindness and of the what weighing down of the ears huh but you have the in the Acts the apostles there you know where didn't they close up their ears Stephen was preaching to them and they didn't want to hear it yeah yeah and they close up their ears and then Stephen was preaching to them they didn't want to hear yeah yeah and they closed their ears and they shouted yeah yeah

[57:59] and in this way God is the cause of blindness and of the the weighing down of the ears huh and of the hardness of the what heart

[58:14] okay then it goes back to just two huh which are distinguished according to the effect of grace which both perfects the understanding by the gift of what wisdom that's one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit

[58:32] and what softens huh the affection by the fire of what charity yeah and because for the knowledge of the understanding most of all serve to what senses to wit sight and hearing of whom the one serves for what discovery by oneself is it to wit sight and the other two what being taught namely hearing huh

[59:11] therefore as regards seeing the sight is laid down what blindness Blindness as regards hearing the what Weighing down. yeah how do they translate that weighing down in your English text Heaviness of the ears heaviness of the ears yeah yeah weighing down so this expression is used in whatever the prophets are and why that is I don't know but that's kind of interesting you know I mean why why do they do that you know instead of saying closing the ears or something right why do they say the weighing down huh yeah you know you speak of someone who listens well as someone with light ears I don't understand that comparison that that use of the word that's interesting.

[1:00:11] I suppose if your ear is weighed down, it's not alert to hearing something, huh? Yeah. It's interesting. So, as regards sight, he lays down blinding, because the ears hear, weighing down of the ears. as regards the affection, they're hardening.

[1:00:50] To the first, therefore, it should be said: this is the idea of making a man worse. That since blinding and hardening, from the side of the what subtraction of grace are certain what Punishments. punishments, huh? From this part, what by them a man is not made worse, huh? But he's what Punished. brought back to order, right?

[1:01:22] But being made worse through guilt incurs these things, just as other what punishments, huh? Second objection, huh? That objection proceeds about hardening, according as it is what guilt, right, huh? Goes back to the beginning of the body article again, too, right? We talked about that, right?

[1:01:57] The motion of the what human heart adhering to evil and turned away from the divine light. And as regards this, God is not the cause of these things, huh?

[1:02:15] Malice, huh? Talking about malice now. Malice is a cause of blindness that demerits blindness, right, huh? I guess there's some kind of blindness in the devils too. Now you see. Yeah, yeah. Just as guilt is the cause of what

[1:02:43] punishment, right? And in this way also, the devil is said to what blind, in so far as he induces one to what to guilt, right? I mean, apart from that, the devil himself suffers a certain blindness now, right, huh? Because of his sin, right.

[1:03:13] Pride blinds you, I guess, huh? But Thomas says blindness. I mean, pride is the cause of error, right? In two ways, huh? In one way, because it makes you evaluate yourself as better than you are, and therefore you apply your mind to judging something unable to judge, and therefore you make a mistake easily. And then the other way is what? That doesn't make you to want to listen to the teacher, right?

[1:03:45] huh? Could you say that all the seven deadly sins lead to some form, one form of blindness or another. Yeah, we'll be coming to those sins pretty soon here. All in good time, my friend.

[1:04:16] Can't get out of order here, you see, and and, take that before you get there. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We should go into Article 4 here before we take our break here, but.