Prima Secundae
190. Blindness for Salvation or Damnation, and the Devil as a Cause of Sin (Q.79 a.4; Q.80 a.1–3)
Class of 2014-11-20
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/190-blindness-for-salvation-or-damnation-and-the-devil-as-a-cause/

[0:00] Whether blinding and hardening are always ordered to the salvation of the one who is blinded and hardened, right? To the fourth one proceeds thus. It seems a blinding and hardening are always ordered to the salvation of the one who is what? Hardened, right?

[0:25] For Augustine says in the Enchiridion. It's in the Enchiridion of faithful maturity, right? Yeah, yeah, have it in hand, yeah. Manual, yeah. It's kind of a Latin word Greek word. That God who is what summa bonus, huh?

[0:45] In no way would permit some evil to come about unless He could, from any evil, he doesn't something what? Good, huh? But much more, huh? Does He order to good that evil which He Himself is the cause? But God is the cause of blinding and what hardening, as has been said, right, huh? By the subtraction of grace, right? Therefore, these are ordered to salvation of the one who is blinded or hardened.

[1:22] That's a nice argument, huh? Moreover, wisdom one, it is said, God does not delight in the loss of the impious, right? But He would seem, however, to delight in their loss, their perdition, if they're what? Blindness. He did not convert into their what? Good, right? Just as the doctor would seem to delight in the affliction of the infirm, if a bit of medicine which what?

[2:00] He. Yeah, to the infirm, he would not be ordered to his what? Health. yeah. Okay, he might do some operation that is not agreeable, right?

[2:15] Therefore, God does not convert what? God does. Does convert, yeah. Blindness to the good of those blind. Moreover, God is not an acceptor of persons, as is said in Acts ten, verse thirty-four. But the blindness of some He orders to their what salvation? Just as some of the Jews who were blinded that they did not what believe Christ, and not believing, they what? Killed, right? And afterwards, what?

[2:59] They were struck to the heart. Yeah, they were converted, as about some it is said in Acts two thirty seven, as is clear through Augustine in the book on the questions of the Gospels. Therefore, what? Yeah, that's kind of fulfillment of what our Lord said in the last supper. Some will kill you, thinking they're serving God. Mm. Therefore, God converts the blindness of all to their salvation, right?

[3:44] Against this evil, things should not be made that good things might arrive. Yeah, but blindness, blinding, is is bad. Therefore, God does not what blind some on account of their good, huh? They're ordered to their good. Here is a nice example of the word preambulum. The answer should be said that blinding is a certain what? Preambulum. Walking before. Yeah, walking before, right? Going before to sin, right, huh?

[4:23] Now sin is ordered to what? Two things. To one per se, to wit, to damnation. But to another, from the what merciful providence of God, to wit, to what healing.

[4:48] In so far as God permits some to fall into sin, that knowing their or recognizing their sin, they would be humbled and converted, as Augustine says in the book Nature and what Grace. Augustine says that about the some of the virgins there in the early church. You know, became proud, right? And he said it would be better if they fell into sins of the flesh, right? So they would be cured of their what pride, right?

[5:21] Because spiritual sin is even worse than what fleshly sins, right? Speaking of the early virgins of the church, there is a wonderful series of books called Christian Spirituality by Reverend P. Kura. Pronunciation may be a bit off. They're considered to be spiritual treasures. The University of Toronto, which has. Electronic versions of great books, and so there are copies there. We have some in our library, but it gives a wonderful history about how the virgins essentially came to be, how how they came about, and formed a foundation for the development of monasticism as well.

[6:19] Very interesting. Oh, it seems to be you know a very common example there about pride is being, you know, how can I make such a mistake? Me, the almighty.

[7:06] When I was little, I was pretty good at checkers, you know. I'd be ever in the family, you know. Finding my my father's cousin came over, and she beat me in checkers, you know. My mother says that she's a little bit sorry for me, you know, but she feels good for me, you know. Getting getting a little bit too.

[7:30] Well, it's just as well that you didn't go on to be a checkers champion because the pressure's too high. My brother marked me. My older brother didn't like it at all. I beat him in check checkers, you know. He get a little bit aggravated by that.

[7:57] They used to arrange these things. I remember they. I was always beating, you know, before I was married. There, I'd play Rosie's sisters and brothers, you know, brothers and sister, and so on, and beat them all, you know. Finally, they they got their uncle, you know, come in. He's gonna beat you. You know, he thought he he had a good chance of you know beating me. You know, he's a teacher, so so we started playing.

[8:19] I was kind of you know confident, kind of careless, and he got one when he hit me, you know. Boy, I concentrated there. How do you beat the guy, you know? But but I mean, if you'd played right, you know, I'd made a stupid thing and lost one piece, and that could be you know the guy knows he's doing, you know. That's that's a fatal mistake, you know.

[8:40] But they would have been good for me. Him to beating me. He's a nice guy, though. They're all they're all they're all cheering for him, you know.

[9:07] So, so, okay. Let's go back to the body of the article again here. Excaecatio huh, blinding, is a certain preamble to sin. But sin is ordered to two things: to one per se, to what, to what, damnation. That's that's a. We're not quoting that to people, right?

[9:45] Have Pope Francis give us a homily on that What is what is abortion per se ordered to? Damnation, yeah. But to something else. From the what merciful providence of God, right? To wit, to what healing, right? Okay, insofar as God permits some to fall into sin, that recognizing their sin, they are humbled, right? Converted, Yeah, that's the great importance of humility, right? In the spiritual life, kind of the foundation, in some ways.

[10:22] As Augustine says in the book on nature and grace, right? Whence blindness, from its very nature, is ordered to the damnation of the one who is what blinded. On account of which, also, is laid down the what. Reprobation, right? But from divine mercy, not from divine justice, apparently, but from divine mercy, blindness is ordered what? For a time. Yeah. In a medicinal way, right? To the salvation of those who are what blinded.

[11:07] But this mercy is not what. Bespoke, it's not given to all, I guess. Who are blinded, right? But only to those who are what? Yeah. For whom all things cooperate in the good, right? As is said in Romans eight, right? Whence, as regards some, blinding is ordered to healing; as regards what others, to what damnation, as Augustine says in the third book of the Questions of the Evangelia, right?

[11:49] So I don't know about the Hitler there and Stalin, you know. Stalin started there, you know, describing Stalin and his last moments there, you know, kind of like cursing his attendants, you know, about a, you know. Hitler committing suicide, of course. you know, So this is a difficult teaching, right? I think Pius XII said, "I read this someplace. In certain mysteries of the faith that are hard to understand, he said some of them are hard to believe, and he said eternal damnation is one of them.

[12:41] Hard to believe that God would do that. Well, see, some of these things are to his justice, and some to his mercy, right? To manifesting his justice, right? Others to manifesting his what mercy, right? Because maybe the same thing can't manifest equally mercy and justice, right? You know,

[13:16] teacher Casimir could say you just can't beat God, you know, you just can't win with him. No, can't do. To the first, therefore, it should be said that all evils that God makes or permits to come about, right, are ordered to some good, right, huh? But not always to the good of the one in whom what there is evil, but sometimes to his to the good of another, right, or even for the good of the whole what universe, huh?

[13:57] Just as the guilt of the tyrants he orders in the good of the martyrs, right, huh? And the punishment of the damned he orders in the glory of his what justice, huh?

[14:12] You know, Thomas says there in the Psalms there, huh, that you need to what hope in the divine mercy and fear the divine justice, right? Well, it's very clear, you know, when you see read this text here, right? Then you go back to the Psalms, you know.

[14:30] You know how does Saint Mary say in the in the in the Magnificat, right? What does she say? Yeah, yeah, but it seems like a contradiction, right? Instead of saying, you know, and his mercy is on those who hope in him, right, huh? But you know that kind of goes without saying, right? And but he says instead of fear, right? She says instead of fear. huh? Good.

[14:57] all right. I think I have both, right? We were talking before about this balance of fear and hope, even in human sense, there in philosophy, right, huh? Once you have Socrates and so on, huh? The hope of finding the truth and the fear of being what? Yeah. Just like not seeing it again Yeah, yeah. Or like Socrates there, you know, where he has this great fear of thinking he knows he doesn't know.

[15:30] You know, it's just kind of like it's a common human thing, right, huh? The low informed voters—they talk about low information voters—that's kind of a phrase that's common, you know. Well, I hear it all the time now on Fox News. You know, the low information voters. I think I think it may have been coined by what's his name, Rush Limbaugh. I'm not sure. Could be, yeah, yeah, could be.

[15:56] It's a good phrase. Good phrase, yeah. The second should be said that God does not delight in the what destruction of or loss of men as regards the loss itself, right? But by reason of His justice, right? On account of the good that what? Yeah.

[16:28] The third should be said that God orders the blinding of some to their salvation is a matter of what mercy, right? But that the blindness of some He orders to their damnation is of justice, right?

[16:49] That the mercy of what on some, not all, does not make a exception of what persons in God, as has been said in the first. We got to go back there. Question twenty-three, Article five, part three.

[17:11] To the fourth, it should be said that the evils of guilt should not be done that evil that good things might come about, but the evils of punishment should be in regard to the good, right?

[17:27] So spank those kids, right? Take a break here now. Then we have to consider about the cause of sin on the side of the what, devil.

[17:43] And about these four things are asked. First, whether the devil is directly a cause of sin. Second, whether the devil leads one into sinning by persuading one inwardly, right? Third, whether he is what, possible to what, induce necessity of sinning, right?

[18:10] Fourth, whether all sins arise from the suggestion of the devil, right? I guess not true. So he handles that. To the first, one proceeds thus: It seems that the devil is to man directly the cause of sinning,

[18:30] for sin consists directly in what, the affections. But Augustine says in the fourth book about the Trinity that the devil, through his what, association, inspires evil malignant affections, right? And Bede huh, upon that of Acts chapter five says that the devil draws the soul into the affection of malice. Sounds pretty bad. And Isidore says in the book on the highest good that the devil fills the hearts of men with hidden desires.

[19:24] But therefore the devil directly is the cause of sin. Moreover, Jerome says that just as God is the perfecter of the good, so the devil is the perfecter of evil.

[19:44] But God is directly the cause of our what, goods? Therefore, the devil is directly the cause of our sins. Moreover, the philosopher proves in a certain chapter of the Eudemian Ethics that it is necessary that there be a certain extrinsic beginning of human what counsel, right? It's a text that Thomas often talks about. But human counsel is not only about good things, but also about bad things.

[20:16] Therefore, as God moves to good counsel and to this directly is a cause of good, so the devil moves man to taking bad counsel, and to this it follows that direct the devil is directly a cause of sin.

[20:38] But against this is what Augustine proves in the first and the third book on free will that what by no other thing does the mind of man become what a slave of lust except by its own what will. But man does not become the servant of lust except through what sin. Therefore, the cause of sin cannot be the devil, but only one's own what will.

[21:14] I answer: It should be said that sin is a certain act, whence in this way some is able to be directly the cause of sin, through the way in which one is directly the cause of some what act.

[21:33] But this does not happen except through this, that the what it moves the proper principle of that act to what acting. But the proper principle of the act of sin is the will, because every sin is what voluntary, right?

[21:56] Whence nothing is able to be directly a cause of sin except that which is able to move the will to acting. But the will, as has been said above, is able to be moved by two things. In one way, by the object,

[22:17] as it is said that the desirable being grasped or known moves what desire. In another way, from that which inwardly inclines the will to what willing. But this does not except the will itself or God, as has been shown above. But God cannot be the cause of sin, as has been said. Whence it remains that from this side, inwardly, only the will of man is directly a cause of his what sin.

[22:59] Now, from the side of the object, it can be understood that something moves the will in three ways. I didn't know about that three.

[23:12] In one way, as the object itself what proposed, just as we say that food excites the desire, arouses the desire of man to eating.

[23:29] In another way, the one who proposes or offers an object of what this sort, huh? And in the third way, the one who persuades the proposed object to have the ratio or something what good, huh? That's more the marketing agent.

[23:52] That's the first thing though, in the premium too, you know, to show the desirability of the knowledge, right? So you want to know these

[24:01] things. So in the third way, the one who persuades the object proposed to have the aspect of being good, because he in some way proposes the what proper object of the will, which is the good of reason, true or what apparent. So in the first way, therefore, sensible things, exteriorly appearing, move the will of man to sinning. But in the second and in the third way, either the devil or also a man can incite to sinning, either by offering something desirable to the sense, or by persuading what reason.

[24:48] But in none of these three ways can something be direct, the direct cause of sin, because the will is not moved of necessity by some object except by the last end, as has been said above. Whence it is not a sufficient cause of sin, neither the thing outwardly offered, nor the one who proposes it, nor the one who what persuades.

[25:21] Whence it follows the devil is not a cause of sin directly and sufficiently, but only by way of what persuading, or of proposing the what. Yeah.

[25:37] So suggest something to you, huh? Or he persuades you that something is. Didn't he persuade Eve? First he distracted her. Did God tell you, and then he lied. You won't die. You'll be like the gods. And then he showed her the fruit. So first he distracted her, then he attracted.

[26:04] He persuaded her didn't he that he'd be like she'd be like a god, doing good and evil. To the first it should be said that all those authorities and some similar ones are found should be referred to this that the devil by suggesting.

[26:27] Either or proposing some desirables leads one into the affection of what sin, huh? Now the second, the similitude there, right? You got to be careful of likeness, huh? Likeness is a cause of what? Deception, huh?

[26:57] The second should be said that that likeness should be noted, as as far as this goes, that the devil is in some way a cause of our sins, just as God is in some way a cause of our what? Good, huh? But not over as regards the mode or way of causing, right? For God causes the good by inwardly moving the what? Will, which it does not.

[27:24] The devil. Because it belongs to the devil. Good cannot belong to the devil, right? To the third, it should be said that God is universal beginning of every what inward motion, human motion. But that it be determined to what the human will to a bad counsel, this is directly from what the human will, and from the devil, right, by way of what persuasion or proposing the desirable thing.

[28:13] So rhetoric is the art of persuasion, right? And Aristotle says, you know, to regard a man as a good rhetorician if he doesn't persuade.

[28:28] Well, he says, if he admits none of the means of persuasion, right, that could be used in the case, right, then he's a good reparation, right? Doesn't necessarily persuade, right?

[28:51] Okay. To second one proceeds thus: It seems that the devil is not able to lead us into sinning by instigating inwardly, right? For the inward motions of the soul are certain works of life, but no work of life can be except by an intrinsic what principle. That's a living thing is something that moves itself, right?

[29:23] Not even the work of the what vegetable soul, right? Which is the lowest among the works of life. Therefore, the devil, according to inward motions, cannot instigate man to what evil. Moreover, all inward motions, according to the order of nature, arise from exterior senses. But to act outside the order of nature is only possible for God, right? Therefore, the devil cannot do something in the inward motions of man except those things which appear to the exterior what senses.

[30:09] What did Shakespeare say? There, fie, fie, in sinful fantasy, the imagination, right? Moreover, the inward or interior acts of the soul are to understand to imagine, but as regards neither of these is the devil able to operate, because, as is said in the first book, the devil does not impress upon what. Yeah. In the fantasy, he's not seen to what he's not able to impress. because the imagined forms, as it were, being more spiritual, are more what.

[31:05] More dignity than the forms which are in sensible matter, which nevertheless the devil is not able to what impress. It is clear from those things which are added in the first book. Therefore, the devil is not able, according to interior motions, to induce man to what sin.

[31:26] But against this, because according to this, never would a man what. You never would tempt man except by what. Yeah, which is clearly what false.

[31:46] I answer: It should be said that the inward part of the soul is the intellective part and the sense power, right. Now the intellective part contains the understanding and the will, and about the will has already been said. In what way the devil has himself towards it?

[32:10] Now the understanding per se is moved by someone enlightening it to the knowledge of truth, which the devil does not intend about man, but more to what darken reason, to consent to sin, which darkening comes from the what imagination and sense desiring, whence the whole inward operation of the devil would seem to be about the fantasium, the imagination, right, or and the sense what desiring power, which both by what moving them commotion now commotion I guess I think it's very very commovendo can what

[33:04] yeah he can what operate to what to this that he presents to the imagination some imaginary forms right and he can bring about that the sense desire is what excited I guess huh to some passion huh as far as been said in the first book that the bodily what nature actually obeys the spiritual as far as locomotion is concerned now not as far as growth or other things whence the devil can cause all things can cause all those things which from the locomotion right of lower bodies can are able to come about unless it be what repressed by the divine power

[34:05] so he made the swine run off the cliff yeah now that some forms are represented to the imagination can happen sometimes as result of locomotion right or consequence of that for the philosopher says in the book on sleep and being awake nice little book Aristotle that when the what animal sleeps they are descending much blood to the sensitive power right at the same time they descend motions or impressions left from sensible motions right which are preserved in the what species and they move the desire the knowing grasping power right.

[35:02] Thus it appears as if what the sensitive power is being changed by the exterior things themselves, right? When such a local motion of spirits or humours can be procured by the demons, whether men sleep or yeah, and thus it follows that man what imagines something, right? Similarly, the sense-desiring power can be what excited, you might say, stirred up to some passions according to a certain determined motion of the heart and the spirits.

[35:48] Whence, for this also, the devil can what cooperate, huh, work with, and from this that some passions are aroused in the sense-desire, it follows that emotion or a sensible intention, in the foresaid way, is reduced to a what

[36:12] to a grasping principle. The more man what perceives, whence the philosopher says in the same book that those loving by a little similitude in the grasping of the thing loved are what moved, huh?

[36:35] It's the hint, right? It happens from this that a passion is what aroused, huh? That that which is proposed to imagination is judged as something to be what pursued, yeah.

[36:56] Because to the one who is detained by passion, it seems to be good that to which he is inclined by what passion, huh? And in this way, the devil inwardly induces one to sin, right? So he can move the what sense-desire, and he can move the imagination, right?

[37:24] It's communion prayer there, where you're do you have the asking Christ to what preserve you from the evil one, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the works of life are always from some what inward beginning, right? Nevertheless, some exterior agent can what work with these, huh?

[37:58] Just as to the works of the Living soul, the vegetable soul, operates what? Exterior heat that might, easy one might digest the food, like this. Okay.

[38:22] The second should be said that this apparition of imaginable forms is not entirely apart from the order of nature, nor is it through only command either, right? But it is what through locomotion.

[38:42] Whence is clear the response to the third, because those forms were taken originally from the what senses? I can't remember the dream I had this week. It was kind of an odd dream, you know.

[39:01] Strange dream. Can't figure out the source of it. I was dreaming that somebody in the parish, the judge's wife, had been in Europe or something, and she had been knocked down by some ruffian,

[39:27] and she was suffering from it, and I don't know. It wasn't. No, he was kind of being clear to me, and I was trying to say, Rosie, was she? What? She had a bad time in Europe.

[39:42] I remember it being very, very determined to find what the problem was, you know, and no, no reality to it all. No reality to it all. I don't know.

[39:57] So should we stop or go on? One more. Okay. Whether the devil possesses a necessity to infer us to sin, right? To lead us into sin, carry us into sin, infer, carry us into sin. To

[40:17] third, it should be said, it seems that the devil is able to infer necessity to sinning. For a greater power can what infer necessity to a lesser, but the devil is said in Job forty-one, there is not a power upon the earth which can be compared to it.

[40:40] Therefore, he is able to what infer necessity to sinning to earthly man, right? Omnino. Secondly, the reason of man is not what able to be moved except according to those things which are proposed outwardly to the senses and represented to the imagination, because all our knowledge has its origin from the sense, and there is no understanding without the what image, as is said in the third book of the De Anima book about the soul.

[41:16] But the devil is able to move the imagination of man, as has been said, and also the outward senses, for Augustine says in the book on eighty-three questions that what serpent.

[41:41] What? He says that this evil of which to which the devil is the cause is that serpent. Anyway, he brings in this, huh? He creeps in this malice, evil, that is from the devil, through all the what entrances, sensual entrances, gives figures to it, accommodates it to colors, colors adheres to sounds, tons, yeah. Therefore, he's able to what incline, you know, yeah, the reason of man, this necessity to sinning.

[42:27] Moreover, according to Augustine, there's no sin or there's some sin when the flesh, what, desires against the spirit, huh? It's some sin, right? But the concubiscence of the flesh. The devil is able to cause, just as the other passions, in the way that has been said above. Therefore, from necessity, he can induce to sin. But against this is what is said in one Peter, first epistle of Peter.

[43:01] The adversary, your adversary, is the devil, who, like a what, Leo, roaring lion, like a Leo, yeah, running around, circling, seeking whom he can devour. To whom resists those fort strong in what faith, right? So, and that's talking about the idea of metaphor, right? Now, the Leo can be, you know, Christ is said to be the the Lion of Judah, yeah, and there was Leo the Great there?

[43:32] The Great, and so on. But so you can use it for the good and the bad. The metaphor is lends itself a different way. So, ah, but in vain would such admonition be given if man of necessity succumbed, right? Therefore, what? He's not able to lead man to sin by necessity. Yeah. Those who are strong in faith.

[44:08] To the I answer that the dab the devil by his own power, unless he be refrained by God, right, can induce someone of necessity to doing some act, huh? Which of its genus is a what sin, huh? But he cannot induce to the necessity of sinning, huh? Which is clear from this that a man, huh,

[44:34] by motive, huh, to sinning, does not resist except through what? Yeah. The use of which is what? Able to impede totally. Yeah. Nation, in the sense desire, as in those who are are their mind, I guess. Huh? It's clear. But then, reason thus bound, whatever a man does is not imputed to him as what sin.

[45:14] But if reason is not wholly bound, right? From that part by which it is free, it can resist to what? Once it is manifest that the devil, in no way, can what induce? Necessity leading man. to be able to do that. Yeah.

[45:36] To the first, therefore, it should be said that not any power greater than man is able to move the will of man, but only God.

[45:47] To the second, it should be said that that which is grasped by sense or imagination does not in necessity move the will, right? If man has use of reason.

[46:02] Nor always does the grasping of this sort bind what reason? To the third, it should be said that the concupiscence of the flesh against the spirit, when reason actually resists it, is not a sin, but the matter of exercising virtue, right?

[46:26] But that reason does not resist it is not in the power of the devil, right? And therefore, is not able to induce the necessity of sin. That's kind of like Paul Francis said about somebody who's inclined to the same-sex attraction, but is trying to serve the Lord. There's no judgment against that. That's matter of virtue. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what everybody's misunderstanding. I know. It's terrible.

[46:56] That's because they want. That's right. Well, we covered that. Well, one of the complaints. What Warren Murray is telling me, he saw this interview with Father, with Cardinal George. You know, he's kind of retired now. You know, he's those concerned about the Pope. You know, that he says things. You know, that he should realize going to be misinterpreted, right? And if I had time to talk to him, you know, I would ask him why do you say those things?

[47:20] That that fellow had interviewed him twice last year. Who and eventually I was thinking about this today. He was he's the ex-Catholic atheist who interviewed him twice. I thought to myself after the first interview and it got eventually it got canned from the Vatican website. He was so bad they realized how bad it was. I said, "Well, why does he go back and give him another interview?

[47:42] " I figured he's going to be good to him and they give him a chance to reform. Fool me once, you know, shame on you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I was thinking about that today. So, if whatever he says in there that Pope Francis said, I I wouldn't believe him. Why? Not because Pope Francis didn't say it, because I don't believe liars. That's why. Yeah. Don't be a don't believe a liar even when he tells the truth.

[48:08] That's why our Lord told the demons to shut up when they confessed him, but he told Saint Peter, "Blessed are you." What's the difference?