Prima Secundae
202. The Stain of Sin (Q86) and the Debt of Punishment (Q87 a1): Lost Brightness, Returning to the Light, and the Threefold Order
Class of 2015-02-12
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/202-the-stain-of-sin-q86-and-the-debt-of-punishment-q87-a1-lost/

[0:00] Okay. So let's look at the stain of sin here now. Is that a metaphor? Now about this, two things are asked: whether the stain of the soul is an effect of sin, huh? Secondly, whether it remains in the soul after the act of sin has what passed away, right? To the first, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that sin does not cause a stain in the soul.

[0:37] I was glad to know that, right? Okay, let's see, see. Hope he doesn't change his mind again. He does every time, huh? It's always good. I've never seen a man change his mind. so much, do you? Used to be a guy in graduate school, you know, who could could imitate the professors and all their little mannerisms and so on. And at the Christmas party, you know, he'd he'd kind of get in the front there.

[1:08] He'd he'd pick on professors, so and so, and he didn't say who he was, taking off. Everybody knew, recognizing the way he was so clever. He could imitate all the little quirks, and then every professor's got quirks in his the way he says things, and so. And he'd be clever the way he did it, you know, huh? Like I'm going to have some fun with Thomas. So once I got relaxed with him, I'd be at least.

[1:37] For a superior nature cannot be what stained from contact of a lower nature, right? Whence the ray of the sun, the sun rays, is not what stained through touching fetid bodies, right? Huh? That's always thing. As nobody less than Augustine says, right? In the book against five what heresies, huh? Yeah.

[2:09] What say? Oh yeah, I think it was Thomas coming to in Matthew there where. Oh yeah, he's talking about the the parable there where Christ tells the story about the good grain was planted in a field, right? And now came what all these tares among the wheat, I guess. And the servants come to the what master and says, what happened? We plant, we didn't plant good stuff.

[2:39] He says, an enemy hath done this, you know. And then they said, we want us to to tear it up, you know. He Said, no, no, no. And so, why not? Say, because it's bad stuff, right? Well, then Thomas goes into kind of a thing. There's about four different reasons why why one maybe might not destroy the bad, you know. And one reason, of course, is that you would what

[3:14] lose out on a lot of goods, huh? Of course, the argument he gives there is the one where the Augustine is attacking the heresies, right? And Augustine's knowledge of of grace and the necessity of grace and so on. When he was fighting the what?

[3:33] Yeah, yeah. And how Augustine, after he worked with them, he spoke much more carefully and much more profoundly about these things, right? Huh? Okay, and that's one way, huh? There are some goods that would not be, right?

[3:50] I've learned to help my patience, unless I had. Stupid. goods. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He goes on like that, and and sometimes you don't know when somebody's really bad, right? And so on, and then sometimes you know

[4:10] people will, you know, some people will be pulled away with him, you know, and so on. It gets various reasons, huh? Anyway, contra quinque heresies, huh? Against five heresies, huh? Books this Augustine writing.

[4:26] I have a law against writing so many books, huh? But the human soul is what of a much superior nature than changeable things, to which it has been what turned by sinning. Therefore, from them he cannot what contract what stain by sinning, huh?

[4:51] That's a famous example of the solar ray, right? Kind of a subtle argument, huh? Moreover, sin is chiefly in the what will, as has been said above. But the will is in reason, as is said in the third book about the soul. But reason or the understanding is not stained from the consideration of any things whatsoever, but is more perfected. So we're being perfected here by studying sin and vice and so on, right?

[5:32] Therefore, neither what is is the will stained from sin. You know, when Aristotle takes up in the beginning of the De Anima, he's saying you know that holding as we do that all knowledge is good, he says. Yet, one knowledge is better than another because it's about better things, or because it's more certain, right? And both of these regards we should consider the study of the soul, great value, and so on.

[5:59] So I was I was giving a lecture one time or a talk up at Trivium, you know, and you know, talking about how all knowledge is such as good, right? And I used to you know talk to my students about this, and they'd say, let's compare knowledge and love, right? And I'd argue, you know, it's all love, good. See, you know, and what Aristoteles well of course it's easy to see, you know, I love to torture you.

[6:23] You know, not all love is good, right? But all knowledge is such as what good, you know. So knowledge is better than love. It's always good, right? This is kind of using this argument. here Right, that that he quotes the authority, you know, that's just dialetical, right? Probable opinions, right? It says right in the third book of the of the soul, right, huh? That the will is in reason, huh?

[6:49] And reason is not what stained, you know? Well, of course, I had somebody in the audience there, someone, one parent, you know, saying, well, you know, this the sex education is very bad, and they don't need that, and it's harming the kids, and so on. So I had to explain, right? And sex education can be very bad, but is that an effect per se of knowledge or per se of something else?

[7:17] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But that's the fallacy of the accidental, right? it doesn't mean an objection that is good against all knowledge being good, right? But still, you know, is it good for the is it good for the the terrorists know how to make a bomb or something? See, but is that per se or per accidens it's good for me to know something about a knife and how to use it?

[7:52] My poor wife could be a bit. Thanksgiving. Yeah, every morning I get up and I kind of cut an orange usually there for breakfast for breakfast, and I know how to use that knife and how to cut things, you know. That good? Yeah, but I might go out and you know. Some of some of the stabbing somebody, I was in the paper the other day about stabbing somebody and then finishing him off.

[8:19] But per se, all knowledge is good, so the will. Moreover, if sin causes a stain, that stain is either something what positive, huh? It's having something, or it's a pure what lack, right? A pure privation, huh?

[8:59] But if it is something positive, it cannot be anything except a what disposition or habit. For nothing other would seem to be caused by a what act, huh?

[9:17] But a disposition and habit, it is not, for would it happen that the disposition or habit being removed, there would still remain the what stain? As is clear in the one who has sinned mortally by prodigality, right, huh? And afterwards is changed, right? By sinning mortally in the habit of the opposite, what vice? Therefore, disdain does not lay down something positively in the soul, but neither is it a pure privation, because all sins have come from what?

[9:57] Come together from. turning away Yeah, from the part of aversion, and what? Yeah. Therefore, it follows that of all sins there is one what stain. which is always the same one in any sin, right? Therefore, stain is not the effect of sin.

[10:27] Okay. But against this is what is said in the Book of Ecclesiastes, forty-seven. Do Solomon, huh? You put a stain upon your glory. Glory too, I guess it's a sin. Yeah, of course.

[10:48] Woman done, woman done a man, right? Bunch of women. Now, as at Laval, there we used to go in the library there, and there's some volumes of of

[11:02] Albert the Great, right? And he's talking about woman and so on, and he's doing saying, and if I told the whole truth about these, the whole world would be stupefied.

[11:17] I mean, I mean, I mean, Solomon was a pretty wise guy, wasn't he? Wasn't this about anybody else, right? And and look what happened to him, right? You heard that nasty. There's some guy who in ancient times had very nasty stories about people, you know. There's one about Aristotle. You heard that one? And Alexander was getting cocked with some girl's attention, right? Huh? And so Aristotle, you know, said, you know, you know, you got to watch out, you know, so on.

[11:47] She got annoyed at it, right? So she decided to tame Aristotle, right? So she tamed him to the extent that he would walk around all fours, and she'd ride him around the room, right? So one day when she's riding around the room, in comes Alexander, you know. Now you're attacking me, yeah? He says Aristotle gets up and says, "Look, if she can do this to me, who am old and wise, what could she do to you, who are young and foolish?

[12:19] " Well, there's the famous. You take an example. Solomon. Yeah. King David. Yeah. Samson. Yeah. And then the old monk says to him, "You're not wiser than Solomon. You're not holier than David. You're not stronger than Samson. " Okay. Close.

[12:36] Watch out. That's good. That's good. Actually, I saw a good a good little cartoon the other day for one of the the capital sins we're talking about, right? The one of avarice, right? It reminds me, you know, kind of the way the reply because we had been talking at the counting house there before the the Super Bowl, right? I says to one of the guys across the table, Jack.

[13:05] I said, Jack, who do you think's going to win? You know? And Jack said, I'm kind of worried about that that Seattle team, you know, because of their defense, what it was, you know. And another guy, he said, You should have answered, Dwayne. he said to Jack, You should have answered, you know, either the Patriots or Seattle will, you know. So, you know, try to avoid God, you know.

[13:30] Okay, so anyway, the in Hagar, the terrible whatever his name is, the guy, the old guy is talking to the young girl, and he says, Did you marry him for love or for money? And it is kind of old question, right, huh? Because they used to call one who marries for money a gold digger and so on, right? Did you marry him? Did you marry the young man for love or for money?

[13:54] And she says both. And then next one is, I love money. That was very sorry, you know. You know, it's kind of interesting, you know, about you know the desire for money, you know, avarice being the root of all of all evil.

[14:17] Okay. In Ephesians, that I'm an exhibit to God, I guess, huh? The glorious church, not having a what stain or wrinkle, I guess, yeah, yeah.

[14:37] They don't wrinkle the soul either, do you? And in both places, you know, these two quotes, they talk about a stain of sin, right? Therefore, the stain is the effect of sin.

[14:56] I answer it should be said, and that stain is said properly in what bodily things. So maybe it's a metaphor when said of the soul, but in some what clear shiny, I guess body loses its what shine from contact with another what body. I thought it happens to silver, right? Isn't it something like that? Happens to silver, yeah. And you got a woman has to do something to shine it up again, just as a what vest.

[15:33] Well, I notice now because you know the the the snow is so piled up so high, you can hardly get over the mountain, and so the driveway doesn't have much room. I mean, putting that the car there in the driveway, that pile of not much room to get on. And then we go along it, and you get the the dirt on the car rubbed off on your your nice clothes, and

[15:57] so that's okay. And gold and and silver, right? Okay, the silver plate. I mean, forks and knives and so on, or something other of this sort, right? Now, in spiritual things, to the likeness of this, it is what necessary to speak of what stain, yeah?

[16:27] Now, what is this? It's marvelous. For the soul of man has a twofold what? That's interesting. isn't it Hey Thomas what a great guy he was huh

[16:45] One from the what? splendor Yeah. The light of natural reason, right? By which he is directed in his what, actions. Another from the what? But what is supposed to be transmitted refulgencia.

[17:14] It's kind of got the idea of repeating. I mean, you're like returning something, right? Refulgencia. of the divine light. Now, that's a different light, right? Huh? Get two lights here. to wit, of wisdom and grace, but which also man is perfected, right? To acting well and suitably, right? Huh?

[17:40] Now, there's a certain what touch Touch of the soul, right? When it adheres to some things through love, huh? Do we say that we talk about love, huh? Yeah, you're attached to somebody. I'm attached to my Washington Irving volumes. I'm attached to my my wine. I'm attached to candy or something, whatever I'm attached to. Lemon heads. Yeah, yeah.

[18:12] Okay, so that's that's the contact, right? Huh? Now, when one sins, huh, one adheres to some things against both the light of what reason and the light of divine law, as is clear from things above.

[18:35] Whence this detriment of shine? Any other translation besides shine? Is that the best? Comeliness What? Comeliness Yeah, but shine's got more the idea of the light, you know. Comeliness yeah, Yeah, maybe shine. What do you? Yeah. Yeah. Refulgencia would be more like reflecting. It has to do with fulgur means to shine, rays of light, it's like shine against those

[19:04] like brilliant shine, really brilliant shine. I was talking about you know Lady Wisdom here, right? You can see it. If you haven't seen it yet, I'm sure you guys here. But but I was remarking to to Brother Michael here, my friend Washington Irving, right? Huh? He talks about Sophia sparkle. So we almost say sparkle here, right? Too, huh? She's a real sparkle this girl, and she's brilliant.

[19:34] Oh yeah, sparkle yeah, oh yeah. So the sparkle or the shine, right? I can see one of those things. Okay, whence this detriment of sparkle or shine, coming from such contact, is called the stain of the soul, metaphorically, right? Huh? So Thomas comes down here now to speaking what? Metaphorically, huh?

[20:13] Okay. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the soul is not what stained from inferior things by their power, right? Okay. Virtus often has a sense of power in Latin, huh? As it were, them acting in the what? On the soul or upon the soul, we could say, right? But more a converso, huh? A reverse. The soul, by its own action, right, stains itself by adhering, huh?

[20:49] By attaching itself, you could say, right? Attach comes from touch, doesn't it? Almost attach. Yeah. By attaching itself in a disordered way to them, right? In inordinata huh? Now, of course, as you know, my good friend Shakespeare defines reason by what order, doesn't it? He defines it by order, right? Looking before and after. So here you have what? One adhering in a disordered way, right? And now the shine and the sparkle is lost.

[21:25] Against the light of reason and the light of what the divine law. You want to avoid this stain, don't you? This is. It reminds me of what is said about souls when they go to purgatory. What you bring with you to purgatory is combustible material, and that's the things to which you're inordinately attached. You bring combustible, and it gets burned away. You won't let go. That's a descriptive way of thinking.

[22:03] Purge. Okay. Now the second objection, right? The second should be said that the act of the understanding is perfected according as understandable things are in the understanding through in the way of the understanding itself, huh? Okay, now this is the famous distinction Aristotle makes in the sixth book of Wisdom, right? That truth is primarily in the what, mind, but the good is in what, things. So the first act of the mind is sometimes said to be simple what, grasping.

[22:56] So I grasp what a whole is, I grasp what a part is, and then I put them together and I say a whole is more than a part.

[23:07] But notice when I grasp something, it's what, contained in my hand, right? And so when the mind grasps something, gets a hold of something, right? It's in the mind, right? And the learning is in a sense getting something into your head, right? Which is sometimes hard. My head.

[23:27] Okay. But in the case of love, what, and the will, you're going out to the thing itself, right? Okay. So you're said to give your love to someone, right? Okay. I left my heart in San Francisco, right?

[23:46] Ah, as if the love is in the thing what, loved, rather than the thing loved in the will, right? But but, and that's why we say you know that

[23:59] the will is more in some ways proportioned to God than the reason, right? Because like the little boy told Augustine there on the beach, how can you get the ocean into this little thing? How can you get the Trinity into your little mind, Augustine? Right. But you can jump into the ocean, right? Huh? You know, so since the will goes to God in Himself, right? It's like jumping into the ocean, right?

[24:25] So it's easier to jump into the ocean than to get the ocean into you, right? I've jumped in the ocean many times down there in Newport, Second Beach, actually not Newport, New Town, the Second Beach, but um, but never got the ocean into me.

[24:42] So it's it's a very important thing. That's where we use the word, you know, you know, give and take, right? Which is perfection of the mind.

[24:55] To take, yeah. You know, if you want to define the square, you take the genus of square, and then you add, you know, take the differences, and then you got the definition finding, right? Huh? Okay. But is loving mainly a taking? No, we we use the opposite, the contrary word to give, right? Giving is, I say it's beautiful the way we understand that, you know, giving, giving your love.

[25:32] So he says the action of the understanding is perfected according as understandable things are in the understanding, in the mode of the understanding itself, right? Like square is in there in a non-continuous way, right? It's according to the the way of it, right? Okay. In the case of of what, the bad, which is basically a lack, right? Huh? You know, within the definition of lack is what?

[25:59] The good, right? So ignorance is a what? Yeah. So the professor knows your ignorance better than you know it, huh? Because he knows what you lack. You know what you lack. You know you lack something. You know what? What is it you lack? Yeah. Okay.

[26:17] But the act of the will consists in the motion to the things themselves, huh? See. This is the famous distinction Aristotle makes in the sixth book. of wisdom he's a pretty smart guy that Aristotle, you know. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thus that. Love what? Glues run right. The soul to the thing what? Loved. Okay.

[26:48] I become attached to the music of Mozart, right? I'm stuck with it. Can't get get it out of my love. Get my love out of it, I should say. And from this the soul is stained, huh? When it adheres in a disordered way, huh? According to that of Osee 9: 10, this is a beautiful quote. They were made abominable just as the things which they loved. if you're talking about homosexual marriage, all these abominable things, you know.

[27:23] But they're being made abominable themselves, right? Just as the things which they what? Loved. I was kind of surprised he didn't, you know. Sometimes he distinguishes the way in which the will is in reason, right? You know, because there's two ways to look at that, huh? And Thomas sometimes says that there's two ways of dividing the powers of the soul.

[27:56] And one way we divide the powers of the soul by their objects, huh? By their acts, and ultimately by their objects, right? When Aristotle distinguishes the five genera of powers, right? The vegetative powers, right? The sense powers, right? The locomotive powers, the desiring powers, and the understanding powers. He's distinguishing them by their acts and by their objects, ultimately, right? Okay.

[28:29] But then there's another way of dividing the powers, and that is in the way that they what? Rise above what? Matter, right? Huh? In the ordinary ways. And a little bit of rising above matter, and even the plants, huh? Because they take these, you know, raw materials and they make something up. But in the what? Sensitive part, right? The animal part, you might say. And there is a start of some real immateriality, right?

[29:04] Because when I receive the shape of the chair over there, the chair is not in my eye. It would be rather uncomfortable, you know. Put the chair in. But it's in there in in a kind of immaterial way, right? And when you get to the the universal understanding, huh? The one that discusses, you know, as a larger discourse about the universal, then you still can complete the immaterial, right?

[29:33] And so they have a division into what three, right? So, in in the first level there, the the plant, you know, digestion, growth, reproduction, right? That's what it is. And in the second level, you have what the senses and the irascible and concupiscible, the emotions, right? And then in the more spiritual part, you might say, or immaterial part of the soul, you have both the reason and the will, right?

[30:04] So sometimes Thomas would say the will is said to be in reason in that particular text that's quoted from the third book. In this way of dividing the powers of the soul on those three levels, right? And so it doesn't mean that the will is in the reason in the sense that it's a part of the the power called the reason, right? Quite two different powers that are contrasted here, you know.

[30:27] I'm surprised Thomas doesn't say that because a lot of him does say what that means, you know. Now, a very subtle thing here. To the third, it should be said, huh? That the stain is not something what positive, huh? Affirmative in the soul, right? Huh? It's not a bump or something, right?

[31:02] Nor does it signify the privation or lack alone, right? But now you got to be careful what he's saying there, right? I mean, which is it? See, what involves a a lack, right? Rather than something positive, right? But it doesn't signify the lack alone, right? But it signifies a what lack, a certain lack of the sparkle of the soul, the shining of the soul, right?

[31:34] But in order to its what cause, which is sin, right? Huh? So there's a lack of the what shining or shining or the sparkle of the soul from a sin, right? Okay. And therefore the diverse sins induce diverse what stains, right? Huh?

[32:04] And it's like what a shadow, which is a what lack of light, but a lack of light from what the. Some body. Yeah, no, no, no. So it's the object, you know. Yeah, yeah, I think it's an objection, you know, something putting the way, you know, what you're saying. Okay. From the yeah, putting the weight of somebody, right? Huh? And according to the diversity of of what bodily objects, then the shadows are what diverse, huh?

[32:38] It's almost like stained glass. It's interesting because the different sins I'm thinking of with this is that in a certain way, rather than reflecting the light from its source, either reason or God's goal if you say um, since we're turning away from God to some other things, so the light's reflected differently by the different objects we turn to. to the other light

[33:07] Yeah, Thomas would often talk about the difference between anger, say, and concupiscence in the way they, you know, stain the soul. You know. Okay. To the second one proceeds thus: It seems that the stain does not remain in the soul after the act of sin. For nothing remains in the soul after the act except a habit or disposition, right? So I'm not thinking of the Pythagorean theorem right now, but I got this habitual knowledge of it.

[33:47] I think I used to do it in exams, and I was waiting for the kids to finish their exams. I do it on the board. They see twenty, so I remember the damn thing, you know. How to do it.

[34:02] But stain is not a habit or disposition, as we say above; it's a privation or lack, right? Therefore, the stain does not remain in the soul after the act of sin, right? That convinces me. Moreover, in this way, right, the stain has itself to sin has a shadow to the body, as has been said above in that example. But the body going away does not remain the shadow.

[34:30] Therefore, the act of what sin going away does not remain the stain, right? Oh boy, this is this is good. Moreover, every effect depends on its cause. This is getting even more. This is really. I don't see any way he's really tied himself up. He's not going to get out of this one. There's no way he's going to get out of this one. The cause of the stain is the act of sin, right?

[35:04] Therefore, removing the act of sin, there's not to remain the stain in the soul, right? I'm no longer murdering you, or whatever it is.

[35:15] So no stain in my soul at all because the act, the so-called cause, is not there anymore, right? But against this is what is said in Joshua 22.

[35:34] Is it little to you that you have sinned in what? They all figure out as a I guess that's the pagan god that's one of the pagan gods or something And up to the present day, the stain of this what

[35:48] bad act remains in you, right? Okay. That's very interesting, huh? Cool from Joshua. So Thomas could have been deceived by the arguments, right? But he had the authority of Joshua here, right? So now he's got to get out of this knot. I answer: It should be said that the stain of sin remains in the soul, even when the act of sin what passes away, right?

[36:27] And the reason for this is because the stain, as has been said, implies a certain defect of brightness or sparkle on account of the what recess from the light of reason or of the divine law. And therefore, as long as man remains outside this what light, there remains in him the stain of what sin. But after right, he returns to the divine light and to the light of reason, which comes about what grace.

[37:07] Then the stain what ceases. Trying to think of that passage there. Where is it in mechanical? Not mechanical, but the. I don't know what about shadow there. Shadow of. I can't think of the text. Although. Yeah, or or the one.

[37:40] No. Who bless Christ there? What's the temple there? Simeon. Yeah, or or or the father of John the Baptist, one of them. Saint Corneille. Yeah, did one use the word shadow?

[37:54] Something like that. Yeah. For although the act of sin ceases, by which a man has what departed from the light of reason or the divine law. Not ever does man at once return to that in which he what was right. But there is required some motion of the will contrary to the what first motion.

[38:32] Just as if someone is what going to a distance to someone some motion, he does not at once right the motion ceasing come what. Yeah. But necessary that he approach returning through the contrary motion. That's

[38:53] what I remember. But sin is not just turning away from it; it's running away from it. So that to stop from sin isn't enough to draw near; it's to run all the way back. Yeah. Yes. Just as to enlighten those who sit in darkness and the shadow. So to the first, therefore, it should be said that after the act of sin, nothing positively remains in the soul except what a disposition or habit.

[39:18] There remains nevertheless nothing positively remains in the soul except disposition or habit. There remains nevertheless something what. Lacking, to wit, the lack of a union to the divine light.

[39:38] To second should be said that passing away the obstacle of the body, right? There remains the body what transparent, in equal proximity and relation to the illuminating body, right? Huh?

[40:00] And so you say to somebody what is the expression I always hear from my mother? Make a better door than a window, you know. You're blocking the light. Did you hear that expression from your mother or something? Your grandmother.

[40:12] But all you do is is you move the body, right? And then and then the the light and the thing are the same distance, right? That they were before. But this case it isn't. you've got to come back.

[40:25] But removing, but the act of sin being removed, the soul does not remain in the same what relation to God. Whence there is not a similar what ratio. That's pretty good, Thomas. And and he says you can't argue from metaphors, but he's you can argue about metaphors, right?

[40:47] But metaphorical theology is not argumentative. Of course, you you can't slam the metaphorical theology, because it's very important, right? Father Boulay should talk about how, in some ways, metaphorical theology is is better because you know these things are not being said properly of God, right? And therefore you're not really understanding them as they are, right? When you have you know the the speaking properly of God and not using metaphors or figures of speech, you might think you understand more than you do, right?

[41:23] I am who I am. I know who he is. Yeah. You might think I really understand what he is now, right? Okay. To the third, it should be said that the act of sin causes a what, or makes for a distance from God, right?

[41:50] Which distance, right? Follows the defect of what? Yeah. Just as what local motion causes a what local distance, right? Whence the motion what ceasing, the local distance is not taken away, right? So neither ceasing the act of sin is the stain taken away, right? Huh? Okay. So I was close to you, and then I went for a walk away from you. Now I'm no longer walking away from you, so now I'm close to you again.

[42:27] Well, that's that. No, I, I got to come back. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a marvelous, it's a marvelous guy, this Thomas. What you doing out there,

[42:44] you are? Okay. Want to take a little break or not? Here now. Eighty-seven, right? Yes. Then we'll have to consider about the what? How do you translate? reatus, guilt.

[43:01] Okay. And first about the guilt itself, Secondly, about mortal and venial sin, which are distinguished according to your what? The guilt, or what, or what you're you're subject to.

[43:20] But this reatus this word reatus I always had a problem I think it means it has different senses but Yeah, I mean culpa is more punish. It means more guilt, right? Culpa, yeah, reatus is more the punishment, right? Huh? Okay. So, but you look at the articles here. You know, like whether some sin makes one what subject to eternal punishment, right? It's more the idea, you know, that you're worthy of punishment, so to speak, right?

[43:52] Okay. See. So this is yes. The second thing here is going to be the next question, right here. Question eighty-eight: The distinction of mortal and venial sin. Okay. About the first eight things are what asked, right?

[44:16] First, whether the what reality of punishment is an effect of sin, right? Secondly, whether sin can be the punishment of another sin. Third, whether some sin makes one subject or subject to eternal punishment.

[44:47] Whether some what some punishment, which makes one one subject to some an infinite punishment, right? According to quantity, right? Punishment is infinite according to quantity.

[45:08] Five, whether every sin makes one what? Subject to eternal and infinite Yeah, this sounds pretty bad here. I'm getting depressed. Maybe the guilt, huh? The

[45:28] what? I think it refers to the debt that's owed. Yeah. Somehow. Whether the debt of punishment, maybe translate that way, is able to remain after sin, huh?

[45:42] Seven, whether every punishment is inferred for some what sin. And eight, whether one is what? S um due punishment for the sin of another, right? The bishop better watch out.

[46:09] People complain though. Sometimes you know they don't explain too much from the the popery, right? You know the Baltimore Order. Okay. So how do we agree to translate reatus The debt of punishment. Okay. Okay. To the first one proceeds thus: it seems that the debt of punishment is not a what? Debt, yeah, supposed to be debt. Debt, it is something you owe, right? Okay. Okay.

[46:51] For what per accidens has itself to something? Does not seem to be what a proper effect of it. But the debt of punishment has itself per accidens to sin, since it is outside the intention of the one sinning. Ah, I can relax now. I can relax. Therefore, the debt of punishment is not an effect of sin. huh It's per accidens to sin, right? Wasn't mine. Yeah, that fits people, doesn't it?

[47:24] Don Giovanni, there, the great opera Mozart. Oh, I know. One guy in the counting house, so he's always quoting that thing from Padre Pio, you know. And I told him one time. Yeah, you better pick that from me, but I didn't know. You know, the guy said, "I don't believe in hell," you know. And he says, "You will when you get there." Still,

[47:57] you don't find much much preaching about hell. Whereas as a kid there, you know, they had they had these retreats in the parish kind of you know the missions where they call me. You know, guy was talking about those things, you know. Christ, somebody walking out the church afterwards in the front step, he just fell down dead, right? So that was an opportunity for the for the the preacher, you know, takes time to come back, you know, because couldn't be you.

[48:29] Yeah. Okay. To the first one proceeds thus: it seems that the debt of punishment is not an effect of sin, right? Per accidens. Second, moreover, the bad is not a cause of the good. But punishment is good, because it is just and ideal and from God, right? Two middle terms there. Punishment is just. What is just is good. Punishment is from God. What is from God is good.

[49:03] Here go. Therefore, it is not an effect of sin which is evil. Ah, that relieves me now. More of Augustine says in the first book of Confessions that every disordered soul is to itself punishment.

[49:27] But punishment is not what causing the debt of another punishment, because that would go on forever. Therefore, sin does not cause the debt of punishment.

[49:48] But against this is what is said in Romans chapter two, verse nine: tribulation and what? Anguish. Yeah. In every soul of someone doing evil, right?

[50:04] But to do evil is to sin. Therefore, sin induces punishment, which is designated by the name of tribulation and anguish. Get over the anguish, you get somewhere. Anguish.

[50:22] Yeah. And it should be said that from natural things to human things is derived this that what is against something, right? What rises up against something suffers some what from it, huh? For we see in natural things that one contrary vehemently acts, right, huh? When another contrary comes, huh? Like the water boils, huh? An account of which water is what? Water heated. More congeal, huh? As is said in the first book of Meteorology one of Aristotle's more particular works.

[51:18] Whence in men this is found from natural inclination that each one is what depresses or pushes down the one who rises up against him.

[51:35] Now it is manifest, however, that whatever things are contained under some order are in some way one in order to the source of the order, right? Beginning of it. Whence whatever rises up against some order, it follows that from that order itself, or from the source of the order, he is going to be what pushed down.

[52:05] Since, however, sin is a disordered act, it is manifest that whoever sins acts against some order, and therefore from it follows that he be depressed, right? Which pressing down, punishment. yeah.

[52:33] Whence, according to three orders to which human will is what subject, a man is able to be punished by a threefold punishment. First. First, human nature is subject to the order of his own what? Yeah. See how important it is when when my friend Shakespeare defines it by order, reason, right? Looking before and after, right? Pretty smart guy, that Shakespeare, you know. Don't know how he got to be so smart, but

[53:11] don't know how he got to be so smart. But these people, I don't know, are they naturally wise? Secondly, to the order of a what? Outside man, right? Governing them either governing them spiritually or in a temporal way, right? Or in a what? Civil way or in the household, right? Okay.

[53:40] Do we punish our children? I guess so. Should sometimes. And third, is subject to the universal order of the divine rule, right? Okay. So I can act against my own reason, huh?

[54:04] Now, any one of these orders is perverted through what? Sin. In that the one who sins acts both what against reason and against human law and against the what? Divine law, right? Human law includes eternal law,

[54:30] okay? Whence he incurs a threefold what? Punishment. One, to wit, from himself, which is the remorse of what? Conscience. That's what every sinner experiences converted by God causing pain. Yeah. That's the first pain Because you know, I hate myself. They say, don't they? You know, not a very good position to be in. Being in bad order with yourself is in a bad order. Yeah. Another from what?

[55:06] The man, right? And the third from what? God, huh? It's interesting, huh? Distinction of three, of course. But this kind of interesting, huh? Who but Thomas would have pushed it that way, huh? Yeah. Or who would be who would be as? See. Of course, that's involved in Shakespeare's definition, right? Because he says it's the ability to look before and after. It's the ability to look for what?

[55:41] Distinctions. Just as in the term ability for large discourse is included, the ability for what? Small discourse, right? It takes a while to understand that definition of Shakespeare.

[56:03] You have to understand each part separately, and then you put it together, understand the whole. Something okay. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the punishment follows sin in so far as it is what bad, huh, by reason of its what disorder.

[56:35] Whence, just as the bad is by accident in the act of the one sinning, because it is apart from his what intention, right? So also the what

[56:52] death of the punishment, huh? That's kind of interesting. The way he seems to admit there, right? Tell him about this great bank robber, you know, and he was he was constantly before this judge, you know, and finally the judge said, Well, why do you do that?" He says, "That's where the money is."

[57:16] Well, you can see this guy Froude did this to him, right? There's something bad about this, right? He's taking orders not his own, right? It's kind of interesting. Tell him he planned it, isn't it, right?

[57:29] Because he's going for something good. He sees it as good. Yeah. He doesn't see it bad. So it's the good he intends. It's where the money is, right? And therefore, the death of punishment is something not intended either, right? Yeah, so it's no surprise he doesn't want to be punished for something he loves.

[57:54] I think the key thing is the first sentence there, huh? That punishment follows sin in so far as it is what bad, right, huh? That's not accidental, right? But that it follows it in so far as it is bad that is unintended by the man who does it, right? He intends the good. He the good he sees in it, right, huh?

[58:17] The rapist sees pleasure, I'd say, right, huh? Okay. To second, it should be said that punishment, just punishment, huh? Can be both from God and from man inflicted, right, from either one.

[58:41] Whence the punishment itself is not an effect of sin, what directly, but only it what disposes one, huh? But sin makes a man what? Do punished. Yeah. Which is bad. Which is bad, huh?

[59:09] For Dionysius says in the fourth chapter about the divine names that to be punished is not bad. Worthy of punishment. Yeah. Whence the debt of punishment is directly laid down to be the what? Sin. To the third, it should be said that that punishment of a what? disordered soul is owed to sin, right? And the fact that it what? Perverts the order of reason.

[59:53] It becomes obligated to a further punishment from this that it perverts the order of divine law or of human law, right? So if I drive home on the left side of the street, should I do that tonight?

[1:00:09] Will I be punished for doing that? You'll find out real fast. Yeah, yeah. And to be here already. Yeah. It's arbitrary. It's all arbitrary. It's all arbitrary.

[1:00:23] I went into Boston there last week that we had to go in for a funeral or for a wake, and and the you can see these signs up everywhere, you know. It's a law to remove the snow from your car. Really? Yeah. People. Yeah, yeah. People are, you know, you know, having this, you know, there's snow falling down your roof. It comes down over the over your window.

[1:00:44] Yeah, it does. Yeah, it's caused some accidents, right? So, so I said. So could I be punished for? Were these signs put up by the government or by the city? The government. You know, there's there's spaces where they're there, they're they can put a you know timely message up. So yeah.

[1:01:06] So maybe we should stop now at twenty-one. Has everybody seen Lady Wisdom?