Prima Secundae
211. First Motions of Sensuality in the Faithless, and Whether Venial Sin Can Exist with Original Sin Alone
Class of 2015-03-19
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/211-first-motions-of-sensuality-in-the-faithless-and-whether/

[0:00] Father, Son, and of the, Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, and help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. What

[0:36] you see in Washington is respect for the common good, right? Of course, the common good of the country is better than any other good in the country, right? So we have to respect that. And God is the common good, of, the whole universe, right? And it's obviously, you know, common good par excellence. But to respect the common good, you know, is a kind of a good sign, you know.

[1:00] Okay. Missed all our praise of George Washington. He's preparing supper. He's thinking of the common good. Okay. To the fifth one goes forward. thus, it seems that the first motions of sensuality in the faithless are what Mortal sins.

[1:31] For the apostle says, the Epistle to the Romans, the eighth chapter, that there's nothing of damnation in those who are in Christ Jesus, right? Who do not walk according to the what, Flesh? yeah?

[1:49] Now, do the Americans walk according to the flesh? There's no one awake. Yeah, yeah. I was at the meeting of the pro-life committee there at the parish last night, and one of the women, you know, who had not paid something or other, she had to take the dog to the to the veterinarian, whatever it is, you know. And uh, but the thing is, you know, you know how crazy the world is now, out there, you know.

[2:15] Well, somebody is pushing now, you know, that um, people be allowed to uh, uh, prescribe, you know, marijuana and other things for their pets, right? That they this would be legal, you know, to to buy marijuana for your pet. So I said, so I said to her, you know, be sure to pick up some marijuana on the road.

[2:36] You know, they should be proposing this. I mean, it's just absolutely, uh, you know, mind-boggling. It could be used as a reason to argument that we're different from them, we're higher than them because we can come up with these laws. Yeah, yeah. We can buy marijuana for our cats. Or we could make the argument that we're lower. D- dare to tell you this one? this one thing that one of my students did one time.

[2:57] You know, he knew these two guys were taking drugs, right? I don't know if I ever told you the story, and and they. And they were talking about how their mind was expanding under these drugs, right? So he didn't, you know, say anything opposed. He said, "That's very interesting, you know. Tell me the next time you're on drugs, right? Call me up." And so they called him up, and he came over.

[3:20] He brought his little recorder, right, and recorded them under the influence of drugs, right? Apparently, they spent the whole time talking about the little light that lights up on the on the recorder, you know, little little red light or something like that. And so they're, oh, oh, oh, you're like, so they're

[3:41] doing, right? Well, well, then when they were s- sober, right, you know, not under the influence as I say, of drugs, he came back and played the thing for them, and they couldn't stand their own, you know, it's like there's a red light on top. That's what you think about it, you know.

[3:59] What a good way of handling these guys, right? You know, rather than arguing about this thing, you know. My parents went to San Francisco back in the 60s, the Haight-Ashbury. days, and everybody on drugs. Yeah. They said they went down to Haight, what's the park MacArthur Park, whatever it is. Yeah. And all the hippies are Yeah. all zombie. and they're all on their drugs, and somebody had like a guitar, and he'd go ding, and they'd all go.

[4:23] oh. The whole afternoon doing that. It's crazy. It's insane. Yeah. I know what an assumption is, priests used to say, you know, they can get high on drugs, right? But, if they get high on drugs, what must be their low?

[4:45] When I was in high school after track practice, Yeah. a group of us bumped a ride with a hippie couple from my school, Yeah. and they were sort of uh, calmly, serenely driving down the road, and then they saw some friends of theirs coming from the opposite direction Yeah. in another car. Yeah. They pulled up to each other, rolled down their windows, and our driver said, "hey, man, how's it going?

[5:07] The other one goes, "I'm just doing some lunar cruising." Never forget that I mean if they want to introduce the animals to this. I mean, you know, I mean, somebody's got to be sober. At least the animals protect them. Don't get them. Okay.

[5:35] And the Apostle, meaning Saint Paul, right, speaks there about the concupiscence of what sensuality, as appear from the foregoing things. This, therefore, is the reason or the cause where, why, to what? Yeah, concupiscence is not damnable in those who do not what walk according to the flesh. By consenting to the concupiscence, right? Because they are in Christ Jesus. But the faithless are not in Christ Jesus, right?

[6:10] Therefore, in the faithless, it's damnable. The first, therefore, motions of the faithless are mortal sins. huh? Thomas's going to defend the faithless, as we'll see. He does the oddest thing. doesn't he Yeah, he will defend them better than they can defend themselves. Yeah. Moreover, Saint Anselm says in the book on grace and free will, free judgment,

[6:38] those who are not in Christ, sensing the flesh, follow damnation, even if they do not what. According to the what flesh, right? But damnation is not owed except to mortal sin. Therefore, when a man senses flesh according to the first motion of the concupiscence, it seems that the first motion of concupiscence in the faithless is a mortal sin. huh?

[7:15] Moreover, Anselm says in the same book, thus man is made that he ought not to what sense concupiscence. But this debt is found what seems to be, for man, through baptismal grace, which the faithless do not what have. So they don't have baptism, they don't walk in Christ.

[7:43] Therefore, whenever the faithless one desires, even if he does not consent, he sins mortally, acting against what. What he ought to be. But against this is what is said in Acts 10, verse 34. God is not an acceptor of persons. That's interesting. They should read that as a counterargument. What, therefore, is not imputed for one to damnation, neither to another. But the first motions are not what in the faithful are not imputed to damnation.

[8:17] Therefore, neither to the what faithless. You wonder how this got this got to be a question there, you know, in the Middle Ages there. But anyway, I answer. It should be said that irrationally, unreasonably, right? It is said that the first motions of the faithless are mortal sins if they do not what consent to them. That's what you meant by first motions, you know. And this is clear in two ways, huh?

[8:47] First, because sensuality itself cannot be the subject of mortal sin. It's got to be in the will, right? Okay. But there is the same nature of sensuality in the faithless and in the faithful. Whence it cannot be that the motion alone of what sensuality in the faithless is a what mortal sin.

[9:14] And another way from the state of the sinner. For what never does the dignity of a person diminish the sin, but more increases it. Whence neither is a sin less in the faithful than in the unfaithful, but multo magis, much more. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, right? That's something to. For the sins of the faithless, more merit, what forgiveness, on account of their ignorance, according to that of what Saint Paul himself says, right, in the first epistle to Timothy, that I obtained the mercy of God because I ignorantly, right, in my Yeah, in my unbelief.

[10:02] Yeah, I acted, yeah. That when he persecuted the church, right? Okay, and they're they're afraid of him, right? Even after he was converted, right? They'd be after he had knocked off his horse. I was like what Ananias told our Lord, what I've heard about this guy. It's like our Lord didn't know what he was talking about.

[10:28] And the sins of the faithful are what aggravated and made greater on account of the sacraments of grace. It's more, you're more ungrateful, it. So on. And and gives a text there from Hebrews ten, right? How much more, right? Do you think, right? Bad things, bad punishments ought to merit those who what?

[10:58] Lead polluted the blood of the testament in which they are sanctified, right? Okay, they temple of the Holy Spirit, and then you go out and desecrate the temple, right? So if you're not made a temple of the Holy Spirit, then you're not as as bad, yeah.

[11:23] All these Catholics practicing birth control and things of this sort, right? It's worse than for the. Yeah, yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the apostle speaks of the damnation owed to what original sin, which is taken away through the grace of Jesus Christ, although there remains the what? Fervor the foams of concupiscence, huh? Whence that the faithful desire is not in them a sign of the damnation of original sin, as it is in the what?

[12:08] Yeah, that's why they get confused on this thing, huh? And this way also should be understood what Anselm said, right? Once it's clear the solution to the second.

[12:27] To third, should be said that that debt of what not desiring was the original justice, right? That was owed them. Whence that which is opposed to this debt does not pertain to actual sin, but to what original sin? That's why they don't have the freedom from that first motion.

[12:56] I'm glad somebody's defending those faithless people, huh? Good, good man, Thomas. There, not a respecter of persons, right? Okay, that's what he hasn't said. respecter, right? He's imitating God, right? Who's not a a respector huh? How's he translate a respector there? Not a respecter of persons. Yeah, I guess we say that, yeah.

[13:38] Okay. The sixth. One proceeds thus. It seems that venial sin can be in someone with only what? Yeah, that's an odd article. For a disposition precedes what habit, huh? Okay.

[14:05] But a venial is a disposition for what mortal sin, as has been said above. Therefore, the venial sin in the faithless person, to whom is not what taken back original sin has not been remitted, is found what before the mortal. And this sometimes the faithless have venial sins with original without what mortal sins. Um, they have what is disposition of mortal sin, but that's not to have mortal sin, right?

[14:42] Tact tortured argument there, there Thomas. Okay, for us, us weak dimwits here. Okay. Moreover, less does it have a connection, an agreement venial with mortal than a mortal sin with a what mortal sin.

[15:03] But the faithless subject to original sin is able to commit one mortal sin and not another. Therefore, also he can commit a venial sin and not a mortal.

[15:18] Interesting. He's reasoning for the fact that they can commit this mortal sin without committing that one. Therefore, they can commit the lesser sin without committing the greater sin. Interesting argument, huh? I don't think they could doubt to a place there, right, huh? Okay.

[15:39] What is more likely is not so than what is less likely is not so, right? Yeah. More, there can be determined the time in which a boy is first able to be the actor of a what actual sin as opposed to original sin which he has. And to that time when he arrives, he can be at least right able to stand for some brief spatium? Before he what sins mortally.

[16:23] Because this also happens in the most wicked, huh? The most sceleratis. But in that space, however brief. He can what, sin venially. Therefore, venial sin can be in someone with original sin, without mortal. I'm perfectly convinced, aren't you, fellow dimwits, huh? Yeah. Yeah.

[16:52] It's nice we have this book for beginners, huh? Because I'm reading the, the, the, re-reading, I should say, the, uh, question disputate de veritate et bonitate, as I say. And you got sometimes, you know, fifteen objections, you know, huh? So he gives you down about three or usually, you know. So he cuts down, you know, to, out of pity, pity upon the, the Dimwit beginner, yeah.

[17:27] But against this is because for original sin, men are punished in what? Of boys, yeah, where there's not the pain of sin, says will be said below. But in hell, huh, are what pushed down men? Yeah. On account only of what mortal sin.

[17:52] Therefore, there will not be a place in which can he punish the one who has venial sin with original only. Interesting Yeah so if you come to the age of reason, and you commit some venial sin and then die, you wouldn't go to limbo. But he, no, you see, he would go to limbo, right? Would you say? You would go to limbo. Yeah. But he's maintaining that that's not a possibility that somebody reaches the age of reason, and commits a lot of venial sin, and then dies.

[18:25] Yeah. He's talking about. Well, this is the sed contra, right, eh? Yeah. And an argument you can have original, you can have original sin with just venial sin, right? As a boy, right? That you can. Yeah, and that this is the sed contra, isn't it?

[18:54] Oh wait, it's the opposite, you mean? huh? Yeah. It sounds like if you there's no place, there's no place to go for somebody who just has venial sin. Yeah. Of venial with original. Right. Because his original sin is limbo, mortal sin is hell, which would include. Well, if you didn't have mortal sin, you wouldn't go to hell, but limbo. So that's what he's saying. If you don't have mortal sins, you're not going to hell.

[19:23] If you have only original sin, original sin by itself goes to limbo. Right. Any mortal sin, whether you're baptized or not, you go to hell. So he's saying there's no, but there's no place for those with original sin and venial sin. There's no place. There's no third place. There's no third place. That's what he's saying. He doesn't say where they're going to end up. I say,

[19:45] I think he's going to be arguing. Well, what? Oh, you see, the limbo. is just for those who just have original sin, right? They don't have haven't had time time yet to commit the venial sin. Yeah, yeah. Okay.

[20:01] Answer: It should be said that it is impossible that venial sin be in someone with original sin without mortal. So that's why he argues. Yeah, because there's no place for him because it's impossibility. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Which is pretty strange.

[20:22] The reason for which is because before one comes to the years of what discretion, the defect of age, preventing the use of reason, excuses him from what mortal sin. Whence much more does it excuse him from what venial sin? If he commits something that, from its genus, is what such. a. That's interesting. Baby crying in church there this morning. Then is not being considered guilty of venial sin, right?

[20:56] Disturbing the the mass. How old was the child? 29. Just recently weaned. When, however, he begins to have the use of reason, right, he is not altogether excused from what guilt, mortal sin, from the guilt of venial and of mortal sin, right. Oh I'm sorry that's right Okay But first, it occurs then to man what

[21:42] thinking is to deliberate what. And he must think about it. yeah because it must be thought to deliberate about himself Yeah, about himself. Or of himself.

[22:03] Thinking about. sense as an obligation I got to think about this. Yeah. And if he orders himself to a suitable end, through grace he what achieves the remission of original sin. If, however, he does not order himself to a suitable end, according to the fact that in that age he is what capable discretion, he sins mortally, not doing what is in his power. And from this there will not be in him.

[22:40] venial sin without mortal, except until the whole was what taken away through grace. Huh? That's a strange. Yeah. I mean, is is he saying then that the reason the first like real moral act of a person, you know, starting with original sin, the first moral act is going to be either something that takes away the original sin or something that's moral? He seems to speak that way.

[23:07] Yeah, it's kind of strange, you know. Strange position. It's interesting that he that he says about the first thing that occurs to a man is that I should reflect on myself. I should basically reflect on what to order my life, how to order my life in some way that occurs to somebody. I know that's what St. Boniface says about if a man were to neglect the business of his soul, like to the concern of his soul, at least when he obtains the age of reason. if he Neglects that for the space of a month, he's not free of mortal sin just for that, for that neglect.

[23:47] That by itself is a mortal sin. Neglect, pretty serious. So, can you apply the objections here? To the first, therefore, it should be said that venial is not a disposition of necessity preceding mortal, right? But this is contingent, just as labor disposes sometimes for fever,

[24:20] not however as heat disposes for the form of fire. I got so hot, I burst into flames. The second, should be said that it is not impeded venial sin to be with only original sin on account of the distance or the convenience, but on account of the defect of the use of what reason.

[24:56] To third, it should be said that from other mortal sins, the boy beginning to have use of reason is able to abstain for some time, right? But from the sin of the forthgoing omission, he is not freed, except when he what turns himself to God, right?

[25:21] For the first, that occurs to a man having discretion is that he thinks about himself. huh That's very interesting That's interesting. To which other things are ordered as to a what end? For the end is before in intention,

[25:42] and therefore this is a time in which he is obligated from the affirmative precept of God, in which the Lord says, "Be converted to me, and I will be converted to you." Strange, Article Thomas. This reply to objection three possibly reflects his own experience as a young boy being sent to the monastery, and I just the thing he's considering the case of. Faithless here. Yeah, with original sin.

[26:18] Yeah, with original sin. Baptized, right? But what I'm talking about is his turn to God, his remembering his turn to God at that young age, which he apparently did very, very well, directing himself to its end. Anyway, it's just a thought that occurs since he had entered the religious life at such a young boy. I think part of it is too his. At least this is my reflection of what Saint Paul says to the Areopagus about God is not far from any one of us, and so this thought is not foreign to being a human, just coming to recognize the light that's in us.

[27:00] God is not far away, so that this is a thing. It's an actual grace for somebody to see this, and especially, I suppose, if you consider that this is God's desire that we order ourselves in the right end, so that this is a grace should be offered to everybody. This is a good word. Thomas's when he began to reach the age of reason, when he began to exercise reason, him exercising reason, his beginning of exercising reason is probably like years ago.

[27:31] Most people have been doing it for decades. Anyway, just uh that was a tempt at humor there. Interesting tangential about that. Okay. Well, mark, that with a little question mark, and you want to think a little more about that, you know, because it's difficult, right? But he's saying there, I think, very difficult. Strange.

[27:52] And the reference they have down here, you know, the parallel texts, you know, they're all to replies to an objection, you know, not a whole article, you know. So I don't think a whole article did that same thing. But now we're up to law, right? Now, so we have. Let's take a little break here because it's a little different thing now, right? Huh? Okay. Interesting. My my old professor, Derek Kasurik, there, you know, at the College of Saint Thomas in the old days, now University of Saint Thomas, they call themselves, but he used to get together.

[28:22] I don't know how it was once a month there, once there a couple weeks, something like that, with lawyers, right? Regular lawyers, and and they would you know be reading this treatise on law, right? And they talk about it to Chris. But you got to realize this treatise on law here is is theological, right? So you, the order in which you talk about the laws might be a little different than what a lawyer would understand, you know.

[28:49] Of course, he'd begin to see that after a while, you know. And I guess when it kind of came down to, he had to kind of talk to the lawyers too. That's kind of interesting. I never sat in those things, you know. Many lawyers, many law students now are introduced, encouraged to read writings by a famous judge Cardozo, who was a very progressive lad, is one of the leading lights in the legal profession over the last century and a half almost.

[29:20] And their perspective on law, I assume, is going to be very, very different. It's certainly not theological. It's very progressive, very political in certain ways. It's a shame. Con Aristotle talks about law there, like in even the rhetoric there, you know, you talk about so-called positive law first, right, and then you'll come and talk about the natural law, right, you know. Of course, when they think of law, they think pre-law, course, the positive law, right?

[29:47] They say another kind of law is a little, you know, less known to them, so to say, much less known, and so interesting. Especially because it should be better known to them by nature, but their education or their schooling brings certain dogmas. Yeah, but lawyers are used, yeah, some kind of training and thinking, you know. They're used a little more sharp, you know.

[30:15] I know, in my my father's lawyer was a very good lawyer, you know, and he came one day and you know ran the the board meeting, you know, he knows how an order it was, you know, and just you know, you know, and he was he hit hit

[30:34] it at the chamber of commerce and so on, you know, and that's how my father got you know got him as a lawyer. I always remember when when my father died, you know, and my you know we were with Gus Larson, the great lawyer, and he was saying, "Yeah, this is unusual, you know, that my father does everything to my mother, you know." He says most of the time they tap the money, he says, because you don't trust the wife.

[30:58] This is this is this is a compliment to you, you know. He said to my my mother, you know, because my father says, you know, full well she take care of the children, you know, and she'll just go and do all things with the money and so on. But it's kind of funny, you know, the way he was used to as a lawyer, you know, them you know they always tie up the money in various ways so that the wife so some would go down to the kids and we'd all go to the wife, you know, and and these lawyers are these lawyers are having to you know sure those things, right?

[31:34] Yeah. So let's look at the proemium, and then we'll take a little break, okay? Because.