Prima Secundae
193. Original Sin in Its Essence: Habit, Unity, Concupiscence, and Whether It Is Equal in All (ST I-II q.82)
Class of 2015-01-08
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/193-original-sin-in-its-essence-habit-unity-concupiscence-and/

[0:01] 82 here. Yes. In the name of the Father, the Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. God, our enlightenment guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds, ordain our riches, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint John Damascene Doctor pray for us help us to understand what you've written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:32] Original sin as regards its essence here, huh? 1682, that's where we. And we ought to consider about original sin as regards its essence, huh?

[0:48] The times of one of the essence original sin. About this four things are asked. First, with original sin is a what? Abitus. Firm disposition, right? That makes sense to me.

[1:10] Secondly, whether it is what one only in one man, right? Third, whether it is concupiscencia. That makes sense to me. And fourth, whether it is equally at all. Hmm. Good question No, that's gonna be interesting you know. Some are more equal than others. To the first, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that original sin is not a habitus, huh?

[1:48] For original sin is the lack of original justice, huh? As Anselm says in the book on the original conception, huh? Hmm. And thus, original sin is a certain privation or lack. But privation or lack is supposed to happen. But you don't have. Yeah, is your ignorance a habit? Some people. Are you habitually ignorant? Some people. Some people. I've known them. Some are firmer than habit. Some people.

[2:27] That's enough. Their original sin is not a habit. Habit. Privation. Moreover, actual sin has more of the notion of what guilt is than original, huh? Hmm. Insofar as it is more of the notion of the voluntarium. But the habit of actual sin does not have the. Aspect of guilt, otherwise we find that the man sleeping would sin culpably. Yeah. While he's sleeping. Therefore, no habit,

[3:16] original habit, as a notion of what guilt. Guilt. Hmm. Moreover, in in bad things, the act always precedes the what Habitus. For no bad habit is infused, but acquired. That's worth remembering.

[3:44] Yeah. But then you sermon. Bad habits are not infused; they are acquired. The user picks up the head. But some act does not but precede original sin. Therefore, original sin is not a habit. Hmm.

[4:15] But against this is what Augustine says in the book about the baptism of boys. Mm-hmm. That according to original sin, little ones are concupiscible.

[4:32] Even though they are not in act, what? Desiring, having concupiscence. Yeah. But ability is said according to some what habit. Habit. Therefore, original sin is a what habit. Habit. Hmm.

[4:54] Thomas is going to begin a little distinction here. The answer should be said that has been said above. The twofold is what habit. Habit. One by which a power is inclined to acting, just as sciences and moreover virtues are called what habits. Habits Habit is the first species of quality, right in the categories,

[5:29] and in this way, original sin is not a what habit. Habit. In another way, a habit is said to be the disposition of some nature composed from many what things. Things. Huh. According to which one has oneself well or badly to something. Hmm. And especially when such a disposition was turned, as it were, into what something nature,

[6:06] as is clear in the case of sickness and what else. So, what's the doctor call sickness? Habit or disposition. Disposition, usually. And in this way, original sin is a habit, huh? For it is a certain disordered disposition,

[6:35] arriving or coming about from the dissolution of that harmony in which consists the notion of original justice. Just as the sickness of the body is a disordered disposition of the body, huh?

[6:56] According to which a quality is untied, in which consists the ratio health, huh? Some point view of health, then. We got. Whence the original sin is called the what? Languor or sickness of nature. Of nature.

[7:26] The first end, argument from Anselm. The first therefore should be said that bodily sickness has something of what privation or lack, in so far as it takes away the quality of what health.

[7:47] And something what positive, that is the humors, the bodily fluids, of disorderly disposed. Thus, also original sin has both the lack of original justice, right? But it's not just that, right, or that alone. Yeah. But with this, a disordered disposition of the parts of the what soul. Soul. Yeah. Whence it is not a pure privation, just a lack, but it is a corrupt act, right? What's the difference between ignorance and error?

[8:41] Ignorance is not knowing. Yeah, ignorance is just a lack, right? No. Could we say just be a pure lack, right? But error is what actually wrong. Yeah. Yeah, involves the lack of knowledge, right? But then it involves a. As it were, claimed knowledge. Yeah, that's correct.

[9:04] I was looking at Euclid there at my daughter's house. There, you know, taking up the Euclid every day, just a kind of different mind. But I was in college at the time, you know, and I graduated from college before I first read Euclid. My old teacher, Kasurik, said, "Dwayne, you should go out and get Euclid and start studying it." And I said, "Why?" "Go and get a and start studying it."

[9:31] Don't ask stupid questions. Yeah, yeah. And so my politician friend, Fred Monroe you know says, "Duane, "What are you doing these days?" And I said, "I'm studying geometry." He cut, you know, long fitter, complicated all this, turned it up. What did you do that for? I said, "Well, I studied this theorem in in book three, you know, where Euclid shows that if a straight line is tangent to a Circle touches at one point, you know.

[10:04] Between that straight line and the circle, you cannot what insert a what another line. Another line, right? Huh? But I was getting more aptly slow. I said, you know what a rectilineal angle is? You know, two straight lines like that. We can kind of, you know, like scissors, close them up and make them smaller and smaller, right? Huh? So could you make an angle that would be smaller than any rectilineal angle?

[10:27] Of course you couldn't do that, could you? Right? Because you can always have a smaller rectilineal angle, right? You can always bisect it, like you know. And if you just kind of, you know, think of the straight line being tangent, there you say, okay, they meet at just a point, right? But above that point, there's open space, right? So obviously you can stick in a line there, right?

[10:47] Huh? You would think that, right? Huh? Well, this is a theorem where not only are you ignorant of what the what truth about this matter is, but you're apt to think something false about it, right? Mm-hmm. So your wonder's aroused when you find this out, right? Not only because you didn't know it before, but because you thought the opposite of that, right? So he was kind of full of wonder, right?

[11:17] You know? And so was after that, make fun of me for studying geometry, like kid stuff or something, you know? Was was was taking away, right? Yeah.

[11:29] Well, I was looking through the third book this time. I saw this this beautiful theorem. I said, well, but could you insert a curved line between the thing? Mm-hmm. Well, of course there's a beautiful theorem there but he shows that internally two circles can touch only at a point, huh? Mm-hmm. So if you had you know a smaller circle inside the bigger circle touching at a point, then the what straight line drawn to that what point would what touch both circles, right?

[12:01] Mm-hmm. But the bigger circle, its curve would be what below that of the what smaller circle, and then you could have even a bigger circle in them, you know? But I always wonderful things. Or the other theorem used to get me was was theorem five there in book two, you know, where Euclid says if you divide a straight line into equal segments and unequal segments, the rectangle that takes you know the unequal segments

[12:35] will always be smaller than the what one on the half of the line than the equal line, but by how much? Well, it's magnificent, you know. It's by what the square and the line between the points of what section. It's amazing, right? So there you have the delight you have in geometry, you know, where you find something very simple, right? Because you say, well, I mean, how these two figures going to be related, right?

[13:07] Well, one always be bigger than the other, right? But exactly by the square. We just like the way he does this. And but once you realize that, then you realize that you can have what a rectangle with less perimeter but more area. That's it. I would think, you know, that if the perimeter rectangle was more, the area would have to be more, right?

[13:42] And I always used to call this story. When I talk about this in class, sometimes I think it's a Russian story, but it's a guy who was, you know, he could have all the land he could run around in a day. Of course, the the moral of course, is that he tried to take up too much land, with a heart attack. And, so he got nothing. In the sense, but I mean, if you're going to get as much try as much land as you can in the day, should you run around, you know, in a in an oblong or in a what square?

[14:13] I mean, as far as amount of land, right? And so these these ones arouse wonder, right? Where they're contrary to what you'd expect, right? You'd expect if

[14:30] the perimeter is greater, that the area would have to be greater, right? But you could actually have more perimeter but less what area. That's why when Thomas and Aristotle gives example there of the the incommensibility, you know, of the side of a square with the diagonal. And that's kind of you can't no matter how small you take, you can't find something to measure both, right? You know, that kind of is contrary to what you'd think at first, right?

[15:02] And Einstein himself he talks about wonder, right? Talks about his father bringing home a magnet, right? And it seems that one thing is moving another thing out coming into what contact with them. And that seems to be contrary to what you'd expect, right? And that kind of arouses wonder, Einstein, right? How could that be? Of course, it really something there hidden there that Einstein and Einstein talk about something there, right?

[15:34] Beautiful. That's the beginning looking philosophy. Mm-hmm. Metro philosophy is the middle, and wisdom where first philosophy is the end. Okay. So he doesn't deny the fact that there is a what a lack of regional justice there, right? But there's also a what disordered disposition in the parts of the soul.

[16:17] Thomas speaks there. He talks about the sum kind of gentleness of original sin and all this probable evidence, right? Something has gone wrong, right? Yeah. Let's go to New York City. Yeah. You don't have to go that far, but still, it's sufficient.

[16:45] To the second, it should be said that actual sin is a what disorder of an act, right? Original, however, since it is a sin of nature, right? Yeah. It's a what disordered disposition of the nature itself, which has the notion of guilt insofar as it's derived from the first parent, where it was voluntary, right? The act.

[17:22] But this disordered disposition of nature has the notion of what the aspect of a habitum. Hmm. But the disorder disposition in an act does not have the what notion of a habitum.

[17:41] An account of this original sin is able to be a habit, but not what actual sin. Yeah. So the word sin here, in 72, is not what univocal, right? Exactly the same meaning, right? And he's saying now that actual sin, right, is a disordered act, right? But original sin is a disordered, what nature disposition disposition of the nature itself. He doesn't explain what he means when he says it's a sin of nature.

[18:17] Yeah, except that it's well, it doesn't mean that nature itself is responsible for that, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it's a disordered disposition of nature, right? Of the nature itself. Yeah. So it's called therefore peccatum naturae because that's a subject, right? Yeah, yeah. It's a disordered disposition now in one's nature. Yeah. Um. So that's why Adam and Eve are covering themselves, right? No. Who told you you didn't have any clothes, right?

[18:42] You see, but then they they realize that that their um passions are not obeying the reason anymore, right? Because their nature, I guess, as images, to correspond with the original, right, and that's that's what they, in some way, officiated. They had original justice, yeah, Yeah. And they were created, yeah, and that was to be passed on, you know, to the offspring. By disobedience, disobedience introduced introduced the disorder, and

[19:25] now if you're late for class, is that a disordered act or a disordered disposition? It could be both. Depends on how many times he's late for class. How was just pointed out, huh? That that actual sin is a disordered what act, right? But original sin is disordered disposition of one's what nature, nature, huh? One's natural parts, right? And involves also the lack of original what justice, right. And so he ends at the end of the reply to the second objection, and therefore original sin can be a habit, but actual sin cannot be a habit.

[20:18] It may proceed from a habit, but the act itself is not a habit. Now the third objection, this goes back to ignorance of the what distinction of the two meanings he gives of habit in the beginning of the body of the article. He says that objection goes forward about habit by which a power is inclined to its act. But such a habit is not what original sin is.

[20:55] Although also from original sin there follows some inclination, right, to a disordered act, not directly, but indirectly, to it by the removal of what would what prevent this. So that's a accidental cause, right?

[21:21] That is of what original justice, right, which would prevent this, which prohibits or prevents disordered what motions. So there weren't any disordered motions in God in Christ, rather, I mean, because he what didn't have original sin, right? I guess not in Mary either. Saw the Thomas saw his sin. Just as from what bodily sickness indirectly follows an inclination to what disordered bodily what motions?

[22:10] Yeah, like throwing up and stuff. But that actually that has a purpose. I think that's not a bad. Although it's not it's not normal for us to do that. Nor ought it to be said that original sin is an infused habit,

[22:28] or acquired by the act, except in the first parent, but not in this person, right? Right. But something born to a what? Initiated beginning, I guess. you'd say.

[22:45] So you can no longer pass this on the original justice, right, to their offspring. They're going to have good talking to in heaven. Yeah, it's going to be a long day, a judgment day. Or Adam and Eve, yeah. They got a lot to answer for. Every single child that ever came into the world, they got to talk to about. it

[23:06] Yeah. There's a mini article there, on the, on the, the order there, the Sisters of Life, you know. Mm-hmm. And of course, you know, they deal with young girls who are, you know, maybe in high school or something like that, who got pregnant, right? And they were scared stiff, you know. to tell their parents and so on, right? So what the sister says now, why don't you come to the convent, right?

[23:36] Huh? And we'll invite your parents, and we'll both tell them. Oh, beautiful. And so as they did, you know, and and the father, you know, said, "Well, I'll be the father of this child," you know, you know, he'll take him on as a as if his own child, right? And kind of relieve the girl, you know, and so on. Beautiful. It's kind of kind of beautiful to see how often a good order this is, you know, Yeah, yeah.

[23:59] Really, really, very impressive. Yeah. The kind of work they do It's such a difficult work, you know. Yeah. You know? It is. yeah. I mean, you know, a girl in high school, but even in college too, they're under tremendous pressure to to get an abortion, you know, to go on to normal life. Yeah, yeah.

[24:18] And it's really, really, Yeah. Okay. Now let's look. The second article. The second one proceeds thus: It seems that in one man there are many original sins. That sounds pretty bad. I think one wasn't bad, enough. Yeah, really.

[24:44] For it is said in Psalm fifty, "Behold, I was conceived in what? Iniquities. " That's in the plural. Hmm. And my mother conceived me in sins. Yeah. Wow. Don't say that to your mother now, because this has a really major typo. Huh? This has a major typo. When is? It says Psalm one. Oops. And it says in both the Latin. Are you sure it's not Psalm L, like a lowercase L?

[25:12] Oh, this one is. Yeah, but the English. Psalm. Yeah, it's L, it's fifty, Roman numeral fifty. You're right. That's much better. But the sin in which man is conceived is the original sin. Therefore, there are many original sins in one man. Boy, I thought it was bad. This is worse.

[25:36] Moreover, one and the same habit does not incline one to contrary things. For a habit inclines by way of nature, right? It's like a second nature, he's saying, which tends towards one thing, not towards all contraries. But original sin, even one man, inclines to diverse sins and contrary ones. Like despair and presumption. Yeah. Therefore, original sin is not one habit but many. I'm convinced, aren't you? Wow.

[26:16] Please take this time to convince you of the opposite of what he thinks. Nice to do that. Gets you mixed up. That's why. Is the purpose of the teacher to confuse things? Yeah.

[26:33] Moreover, original sin infects all the parts of the soul. But diverse parts of the soul are diverse subjects of what? Sin. Sin. As is clear from the foregoing things. Since therefore one sin cannot be in diverse subjects, it seems that original sin is not one but many. This is pretty convincing, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Just snap, snap off like. like, uh... Sends it to the Pope. See what he has to say.

[27:08] I'm not supposed to do that, you know. Yeah. Just what you were saying before. But against this is what is said in John chapter one verse twenty-nine: "Behold the Lamb of God. Behold the one who takes away peccatum mundi. The sin. " the sin. Singular. That's the. In the singular, right? Right. It's a good little bit of grammar, right? This is in the singular, right? Yep. peccatum mundi, right?

[27:36] Right. Which is said singularity, right? Singularly, because the peccatum mundi, the sin of the world, that is original sin is what one. As a gloss, there expounds. Okay. What does Thomas going to

[28:01] do in the face of these objections? I don't know. I think he's. He's like. I think he'll probably figure it out. I was thinking the likeness between Thomas and Houdini right? Houdini allowed himself to be tied in all kinds of knots, Yeah And somehow he got free of these knots, you know. I used that expression, right, in the third book of wisdom, right? It's like having your legs tied together, right?

[28:26] You know, you can't go forward, right? So untieing the knot, right? We use that in the plot of a play too, right? Aristotle says a plot should have tying of the knot and untying the knot, right? We say even in sports. This game is all tied up, you know. Until he gets up and knocks it out of the ballpark, this game is untied, right? It's no longer tied up, you know.

[28:50] Yeah. Well, I think Thomas is. He's going to be drowned. He's got. He's got a trick. He's got a trick up his sleeve here. Something's going to. Hence, it should be said that in one man there is one original sin, right? But in one man, right? Okay. So maybe there's two original sins, one in you and one in me, right? Okay. But in one man there's only one.

[29:20] He's saying. That's his opinion, all right. That's his reason for saying. The reason for which can be taken in what two ways. In one way, on the part of the cause of original sin, it has been said above that only what the first sin of the first parent was carried over to their posterity. Mhm. Not all their what. Actual sins that had been committed after that.

[29:59] Whence original sin in one man is one in number, and in all men is one by proportion, with respect to the first what beginning. Beginning, which I guess is Adam.

[30:19] In another way, one can take the reason for this from the very essence of what original sin. For in every disordered what disposition, the unity of the species is considered on the side of the what cause. The unity, according to number, on the side of the what subject.

[30:51] Just as in bodily sickness, there are diverse sicknesses in kind or in species which proceed from diverse causes, as for example from the superabundance of the hot or the cold. My tires are sick lately. You wonder whether it

[31:18] tracks on because of the coldness, huh? Why would it happen at this time? you know, that the to register, you know, that the tires are low. First one tire, then today two other tires, right?

[31:35] So that's one cause, the superabundance of the hot, or it might be the superabundance of the cold, or from the injury of the what? Of the lungs. Lungs, yeah, or of the liver, right? The liver, I guess, yeah. Hepatitis, I guess, is what? Come from, I guess, it comes. from the liver, right? Yes. Hepatitis is from the liver. Yes. It's a disease in the liver.

[32:03] But one sickness in kind or in species in one man is not except in one what number, one in number, right? Now the cause of this corrupt disposition, which is called original sin, is one thing only, namely the lack of original justice,

[32:31] to which is taken away the subjection of the human mind to what God. And therefore, original sin is one in species, and therefore in one man it cannot be except one in number. But in diverse men it is one in kind, in proportion, but diverse in number, right? I can't multiply original sin in myself, but I can my offspring.

[33:10] Told you this one guy I used to work with, he saw me in church there with a bunch of the grandchildren. he said, Are you responsible for this? " Because they're well behaved, you know. Yes, yes yes So original sin is not noticeable in their behavior.

[33:24] Give them time. Now, what about this first objection from Psalm 50, right? The correct number, of course, Hmm. It's the one that uh, Saint Teresa of Avila is very fond of saying, right?

[33:50] And so Augustine takes that as being representative of a characteristic of the first like 50 psalms, right? That they're concerned with repentance, yeah, and purification. Yeah, it's beginning the spiritual life, right? To stop sinning, right?

[34:08] Then the second 50 is for what? To progress in the virtues, right? And the third to rest in God, right? This nun says to me, "On Sunday we just rest in God. " That sounds pretty good, you know. That's kind of the

[34:28] reward of the week, or something, you know. Rest in God now on the on Sunday as he said To the first therefore it should be said, that plurality is said in peccatis according to the custom of divine what scripture, which frequently lays down the plural number for singular. I heard something like that about the name for God there. Elohim, yeah, it's plural. Yeah, yeah, grammatically somehow it's plural, but it's not.

[35:02] Yeah, yeah. Let's see what he says. I'll mention something. Just as in Matthew too, it says, "Defuncti sunt." They are dead, right? Who sought the soul of the what boy? But it's just one guy. Yeah, it's just Herod, yeah. Herod, yeah.

[35:26] So Shakespeare's got that out, out. Herod, Herod, right? Or the second reason why you could say this, right? That's one explanation he gives, right? In terms of the peculiarity of the Hebrew language, maybe, huh? Or because in original sin, in a what power you might say, virtually, right, preexists all actual sins, right? Just as in a certain what beginning, right?

[36:03] when sin is multiple, and it's what power, right? just like a great principle which is the beginning of many conclusions, right? Now that's the second explanation he gives, right?

[36:39] Or this is the third. He says because in the sin of the first parent, which is what passed on to origin, there were many what deformities, huh?

[36:55] Of pride, huh? You'll be like the gods doing good and evil. Disobedience the command of God, right? They were told not to eat that? Gule, right? huh? Mm, delectable, huh? Yeah, the fruit. Ali huyas modi, right? huh?

[37:13] And then finally, another one. or because many parts of the soul are infected, original what sin? This could be. It's maybe under the the sense of it being manifold power. Yeah, I know. We even use it in English sometimes. We refer to something that's usually. Either great in power, or even in extent, extension, size. We use the plural. We speak of the waters of the ocean. Well, there's not more than one water there.

[37:43] Why do we say plural? Or the skies, or going to the whatever, the heavens. Why do we say that? It's not. They do that in Hebrew, and I don't know about other languages, but like the word for life, because it's so, it's such a great thing in its power that in we always use it, and I think in Hebrew, like like you say the toast for the the Jewish lehayim is in the plural.

[38:09] We just translate as to life, but actually it's in the plural in in Hebrew. I think when you toast somebody, yeah, in Hebrew you say lehayim, which means to life, but it's actually a plural. Yeah. And um, and I think it has to do with this sense of it being a great power or something. So that could be another way of expressing it.

[38:42] To second, this the one about you know people the original sin they go to even contrary things, right? To second, it should be said that one habit is not able to incline per se to itself directly, that is through its own what, form to contraries, right? But indirectly and by accident, that is by the removal of what prohibits. Nothing is prohibited by this. Just as when the harmony of the mixed body is dissolved, the elements tend to contrary places.

[39:22] That's like hydrogen oxygen, don't they? One goes to one part, one goes to that part. And likewise, the harmony of original justice, being what dissolved, the diverse powers of the soul now are carried into different places. Mm.

[39:54] The third, it should be said that original sin infects diverse parts of the soul according as they are parts of what one whole. Just as original justice contains all parts of the soul in one, right? And therefore, there is only one what original sin. Original sin. Just as there is one fever in one man, although diverse parts of the body are being what weighed down. which is our question original sin Okay.

[40:50] Now the much-desired question here, with the 12 7. It's concupiscence. The third one goes forward thus: it seems that original sin is not what concupiscence. Yeah. For every sin is against what nature. Nature, as Damascene says in the second book, huh? Orthodox, the thing is. I was kind of summing for Thomas, right? What am I summing this? But concupiscence is according to nature. It is the what act proper to the concupiscible power, which is a natural power.

[41:44] Therefore, concubiscence is not an original what sin. It's a desire for candy. Yeah, it's just so wrong. The kid doesn't want candy. That's what I said. Yeah, there. I can't argue with that one.

[41:58] The priest in my mother's hometown. I used to have a bag of candy there, you know, and we'd go visit the priest. You know, give us a loaf. The guise of piety. Good morning, Father.

[42:13] That's what I used to do with Sister Mary Alphonsus. She always she was our English teacher. She always promised that if at recess you used one of your new vocabulary words in front of her, she would give you a piece of candy. So I made sure I used as many vocabulary as I could. My, my, famous one goes. My, aren't the girls loquacious today?

[42:48] Moreover, through original sin, there are in us the passions of what sins. Sins, as is clear through the apostle, means Saint Paul, Romans chapter seven, right? But there are many other passions besides concupiscence, anger, and so on. Therefore, original sin is not more concupiscence than some other passion.

[43:18] Moreover, through original sin are disordered all the parts of the soul, as has been said. But the understanding is the highest among the parts of the soul, as is clear through the philosopher in the tenth book of the Ethics. Therefore, original sin is more what ignorance than concupiscence. Well, that's the first I haven't heard that one before. That's the little argument. Yeah. But against this is what Augustine says.

[43:49] Who is this Augustine? He's always quoting? In his book Retractions, huh? That concupiscence is the what. Original sin, there's a guilt of original sin. guilt of original sin. Yeah. Well. it's going to be part of this.

[44:09] I answer it should be said that each thing has its species from its what form. Now it has been said above that the species original sin is taken from its what cause. Cause. Whence it is necessary that that which is formal, as opposed to material, an original sin, is taken on the side of the cause of what original sin.

[44:48] But if opposites opposite are the what causes. Causes, huh? Empedocles says love and hate, right? One causes things to come together, the other one separates them, right? So I used to tell students that hate is more intellectual than than love because it distinguishes, more reasonable, it separates things. Well, out

[45:17] therefore to what note? Note the cause original sin from the cause of what original original justice, To which, which is opposed to it. I told you how this rule here. I was using that when I started to study comedy, right? Huh? Well, this is the contrary, right, of tragedy. Therefore, the contrary passions, right?

[45:53] But the whole ordering of original what justice is from this that the will of man was subject to what God. God. Which subjection, first and chiefly, was through the will, to whom it belongs to move all the other parts towards their what end.

[46:20] There you go. Whence, from the turning of the will away from God, there follows a disorder in all the other powers of the soul.

[46:38] Thus, therefore, the lack of original justice, by which the will was subject to God, is what is formal original sin. But every other disorder of the powers of the soul. Has itself an original sin as something what material. Material.

[47:07] Now the disorder of the other powers of the soul is especially to be noted in this that they are turned towards in a disordered way to a what created good I guess you could say yeah a changeable good right which disorder by its common name can be called what concupiscence

[47:37] and thus original sin materially speaking is concupiscence formally the defect of what original justice original justice that's a mouthful right huh I find it very very helpful I come back to it again and again this sense of every sin is the twofold thing, is turning away from God and turning towards the creatures yeah which he says earlier we talked about

[48:16] the punishment for turning away from God is to miss out on God right but then you got to be punished for turning towards other things and then you get the fire or something yeah yeah

[48:32] now what about this first objection that says concupiscence is what wanting candy is natural the first therefore it should be said that because in man the concupiscible is naturally what governed by reason governed by reason ruled by reason

[48:56] in so far as to desire is natural to man in so far as it is according to the order of what reason but the concupiscence which goes beyond the limits of reason is to man against what nature against nature and such is a concupiscence of what original sin huh too much too much yeah to the second it should be said huh

[49:34] that just as been said above all the passions of the irascible are reduced to the passions of the concupiscible as to the more for principal ones among whom concupiscence more vehemently moves and is more what felt sense yeah

[50:02] And therefore, it is attributed to concupiscence as the word to the more principal one, right? And in which, in some way, all other what passions are included in.

[50:28] To the third, it should be said that in good things, the understanding and reason have what principality. Yeah. Are the chief son. But in bad, the lower part of the soul is found more principal, which clouds over, right? Yeah, yeah. And draws reason, as has been said before. An account of this, this original sin is more said to be concupiscence than what ignorance.

[51:15] Although also ignorance is contained among the material defects of what original sin. Should we take a break or should we? Sure. Okay. Now we can find out. We find out. We're lucky or not lucky. The fourth one goes for it thus. It seems that original sin is not equally at all.

[51:54] For original sin is disordered concupiscence, huh? but not all are equally prone to concupiscence. There you go. Therefore, original sin is not equally at all. That convinces me, because I'm kind of dimwitted. Yes. Dimwitted or something. You heard my famous distinction of the three minds: the wits, the dimwits, and, the nitwits.

[52:24] The wits, you know, can discover the great things by themselves. Dim wits can learn them from the wits, but can't discover them themselves. And the nitwits, sir, can do neither. Kind of the one that Hesse had on the three groups you know, Aristotle talked about the ethics. Best of all, is a man who can discover these things himself. Next best, a man who can learn them from them.

[52:47] And then the man who can, is useless, you know. Thomas is kind, you know, as far as knowing. He's got charity. That's why. Moreover, original sin is a disordered disposition of the soul, just as sickness is a disordered disposition of the body, huh? When we say you said, I'm disordered or something, and I get sick, you know. Mm-hmm. You're a bit disordered sometimes. Indisposed. Father Robert.

[53:19] Yeah, Father Robert has a cold right now. Yeah. But sickness receives more in what? Less. Less. Therefore, original sin receives more and less. You'd be more or less sick, right? Yeah. Yeah. That sounds reasonable. Very reasonable objections. Yeah.

[53:44] Moreover, Augustine says in the book on nuptials, right, and concupiscence, huh? That libido, huh? That's a type of concupiscence, right? Mm-hmm. Transmits original sin to one's offspring, right? Yeah. You're responsible for all this. Um, but there can be greater what? Lust shall we say? I don't know how to translate it? That's how they translate it. They trust that. Yeah. Of one in the act of generation. And another.

[54:17] Ah, then of another, yeah. Therefore, original sin can be more in one than in what? Another. Another. It's funny that how that word got moved into English. The libido. Mm-hmm.

[54:38] Against this is that original sin, is a sin of what nature. But nature is found what is equally in all. Therefore, it is what, therefore also original sin is equally in all. I know in times they say they classify adults. You know, we're all created equal, you know. Well, is one of us? What sense is that true, right? Is one of us more a man than another, right?

[55:11] And that's the sense in which we're really equal, right? That's that's nature, right, that he's talking about. Yeah. Answer: It should be said that there are two things in original sin. One of which, which you said, was the formal aspect, right? Was the defect, right? Original justice.

[55:39] Another is relation of this defect to the sin of the first parent, from whom it is derived, right? By the origin being vitiated, huh?

[55:54] As regards the first, original sin does not receive more and less, because the whole gift of original justice is what taken away. Privations, however, totally depriving something, right? As death, right, and darkness do not receive more and less. One pitch darkness, right, is not more so than another, right? Yeah. Or one's, you know, really totally blind. One man is not more blind than another, right? Okay.

[56:34] Um. Likewise, neither as regards the second, huh? For equally all have relation to the first beginning of this vicious what Origin, Origin, from which original sin receives the notion of guilt. But relations do not receive more and less. I'm more double than something else is double, right? I'm more double some of my grandchildren. You're. Yeah, you're more you're more uncle than. Yeah. Than your brother. Whence it is manifest that original sin cannot be more in one than another.

[57:26] It's awfully subtle, isn't it? He's quite a subtle man, this Thomas. But he's consoling. Eugenian theology. As we're all in this mess together. That's right. To the first, therefore, it should be said that being dissolved the what bond, you might say, original justice under which, right, in a sense, in a certain order, all the powers of the soul are contained, right? Huh? Then each power of the soul tends to its own what motion.

[58:06] Motion. And the more vehemently, the what stronger it is. But it happens that what some powers of the soul are stronger in one man than what in another. And it comes to the diverse complexions of the body, right?

[58:32] Then that one man is more prone to what Desir. Concupiscence than another. Is not by reason of original sin that he is more of original sin. Thomas, is saying it right? Mm-hmm. Since in all it equally unties the bond of original justice, and equally, huh, in all the inferior parts of the soul are left to themselves, right? But this happens from a diverse disposition of powers. So he's not denying that somebody may have cupidity, another, right?

[59:10] Or some people are more given to anger, right? Huh? Some of the saints there, you know, had had overcome anger, didn't they? Did Jerome have a problem with anger? Yeah. And and even did who's it? Did the French saint there? Saint Francis. Yeah. Was it he? Wasn't he? I've heard it said. I've heard it said. Yeah. I know that's what Jerome. I think one of the ways that he would get over that was when the pilgrims would come, he would wash their camels.

[59:45] I have the theory, you know, that that men who get to positions of great power, right, huh, and we're apt to what have a sense of anger, right, than other men, right? Like other cholerics. What? Choleric, yeah, yeah. I just met a man the other day. He's big, well-to-do businessman, very successful. Mm-hmm. And he's just choleric as a get-out. Yeah. I mean, he's he was a great basketball player.

[1:00:08] Yeah. College. He was a coach. He's he's just a born leader. Yeah. Because he's he's choleric, yeah. Yeah. Is to say, you know, if you give a man enough to drink, right, the passion that he's inclined to, you know, some men they drink, they get kind of you know ready to fight, you know. My old boxing friend there, you know. Other men get more cupidities, right? Got chasing women or something, you know, huh?

[1:00:37] But some some guys just get into fight once they get a little too much to drink, you know. And kind of give them to their ass away. You know, the control reason is kind of lessened by the the drinking. So if you're inclined to anger, then it's going to come out. You know, if you're inclined to, you know, control reason, it's going to come out more when you're drunk.

[1:01:02] Then it's kind of interesting to see that. I know when I was teaching at St. Mary's College in California, there and and it was a hundredth anniversary of the college, right? So there was some celebrations and all this and so on. And someone knew LBJ at that time. He was vice president, wasn't president, but he was vice president. And so they got him to come to to speak at the college, right?

[1:01:29] And you know, there is a uh there's a hill was a hill up above the campus there with white. Stones that were arranged in the initials SM for Saint Mary's, and it's a tradition when they had sometimes a real bloody football game or whatever it was with some opposite college that someone from another college would climb up on the hill and rearrange the stone. Um, well, the day that LBJ was going to speak, I looked up at the you know stones and it said J W B, and I guess that was the name of the guy.

[1:02:05] who assassinated, what, Lincoln, His initials. Oh, John Wilkes Booth. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I said, what what's that? JWB. And someone told me, yeah. So someone got up there in the hill before and rearranged to say L B J, you know. But L B J had a little bit of a cold in there or something, so he wasn't coming out until this was time to give his talk, you know.

[1:02:27] But he was in there, you know, in the way the Christian Brothers this Christian Brothers College. told me afterwards, you know, he was chewing out his subordinate, you know, real irascible you know. He was in the impression of this guy, he said, you know. You can take a sense of anger, you know. And you read about about Washington, you know. you know, once in a while, loses temper, like he was really, you know, formidable.

[1:02:52] You know, it would get you. The story that I told about a guy, but the other guy, you know, that he couldn't go over and slap him on the back, you know. You know, venting with his stupid things, you know, and kind of hit him on the back, you know. It wasn't like, I mean, Washington looked around and gave him such a look. It was not worth whatever.

[1:03:13] That was. Yeah, I heard some. Is they had like put their hand on his shoulder like that, and he just took the hand, took it off. Yeah. Okay.

[1:03:40] So in the reply there to the first objection, I guess. He's saying what that the original sin is not more right, huh? But that moves, but. Moves differently. It shouldn't work. Motion. What was it he called it? A certain control of the powers, and therefore they follow their own way, right? Some persons are more inclined to anger, some people more right, inclined to concupiscence than others, and so.

[1:04:08] on Okay. The second should be said, huh? That bodily sickness does not have in all an equal cause, even if it be of the same what species, huh? As if the fever is what. From cholera is what. corrupting, huh? Yeah. There can be more or less corruption between two traits, right? Yeah, yeah. putrefaction you know. And nearer or more remote from the beginning of life, right? The principle of life, the heart.

[1:04:50] But the cause, original sin, in all is equal. Equal. It is not similar. The third, it should be said, that the libido, which transmits original sin to the what? Child. Is not what actual libido, because given by divine power, it would be conceded to someone that he sensed no disordered desire, right? Libido in the act of generation. Nevertheless, he would still transmit original sin to what? The child.

[1:05:35] Yeah. So whether you enjoy the act a lot or not, would would not prevent original sin. Yeah. But libido, but that libido should be understood habitually, the way of a habit, according as the sense-desiring power is not contained under reason by the bond of what? Original justice. Being dissolved. yeah. And thus, what? Such libido in all is equal. Is equal, right?

[1:06:18] We all equally have the bond removed, is what he's saying, I guess. Okay, Thomas. You're quite a scholar of original sin, huh? Then we're not to consider.