Prima Secundae
223. Natural Law I: Can the Natural Law Change? (Abraham, Hosea, Custom and Circumstance) and Whether It Can Be Wiped from the Heart
Class of 2015-06-11
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/223-natural-law-i-can-the-natural-law-change-abraham-hosea-custom/

[0:00] Goes forward. Thus, it seems that the law of nature is able to be what changed, huh? Because it is said upon that of Ecclesiasticus,

[0:14] there adds to it, right, discipline in the law of life, and the gloss says there. My footnote says it's Rabanus. He's quoted a lot in the Ingredium too. I'm not the Ingredium. I mean the the thing of the Gospels, right? Yeah. Containoria. Yeah. Rabanus. Yeah. He says the law of the letter, right? Well, that's not the natural law. The law of the letter, as regards the correction of the natural law, which is to be written, right?

[0:54] He wants to write the law of the letter as regards the correction of the natural law. It sounds heretical to me, right? But that's that's he says But that which is corrected is changed. Therefore, the natural law is able to be what changed, huh? Strange argument, huh?

[1:15] I was reading this morning there, in the article of Thomas there in the sentences. Does God will everyone to be saved? And he's going to take the position that no. But the first objection is a quote from Saint Paul there, you know, where it says God wills everyone to be saved.

[1:41] You know, you know how some people want to say this too, you know, huh? And Thomas quotes two explanations of that, right? And one is from Damascene, Saint John Damascene, and the other is from what Augustine. And Saint

[2:05] Damascene has a distinction between God's antecedent will, what He wills considering us simply as human beings and having human nature, right? And what He wills taking into account all the circumstances of our willingness to accept grace, yeah, and so on, yeah. And that this has been understood there for God's antecedent will, right, as opposed to His what consequent will, huh? That's for distinction. Now Augustine says it's the consequent will.

[2:33] I said, how can Augustine say that? So he has another explanation of it, right? And he says, you know, that it can be taken in the sense of

[2:45] everyone who's saved, God wills that. That's kind of really good of it, right? Or someone is saved from what every class or type of human being, right? So some. You know, professors are saved. Some workers, you know, some farmers are saved. Some, you know, mechanics are, yeah, everybody. Even some politicians, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so, so I was thinking about that. It says, okay, here you have these two great men here, Damascene and Augustine.

[3:18] Although generally Augustine, you know, is the greatest, you know, but they both have an explanation of how this doesn't mean that God, strictly speaking, fully wills everybody's salvation, you know. And I said, now who's got a better explanation of Damascene or Augustine? Do you think?

[3:41] Well, just by custom, I would want to say Augustine. Yeah. This is more precise, I think. Customs? I think so because he's talking about more precisely what God wills, meaning as he says, the ones who are saved, he wants to be saved. Yeah. He wants everyone that is saved to be saved. Yeah. Because, but Saint Paul says, you know, he wills everybody to be saved, right? Didn't say he wills everybody who's saved to be.

[4:06] That's kind of like. Yeah. You know. And to me, it seems that Damascene is better in this case. And Thomas doesn't say that one is better than the other. Right? Just you know, gives them an reply. But in the body of the article, he follows Damascene, right? So. I don't know. I thought that Damascene was a little better. I don't know. Augustine

[4:32] seems a little more, you know, stretched, you know. But of course, it can be said. This is in De Veritate, you said. No, this is in the sentences. One sentence. Yeah. Sometimes there are things in these, in the sentences that

[4:51] might cast a little bit of light. You know, sometimes he's a little more explicit about some things, or sometimes. Or you just hear it approached a little bit differently, you know. But but the sentences, you know, follows the order of the sentences. So I mean, it doesn't have the the order that the summas have, you know. And kind of jump around a little bit according to it.

[5:10] And like you take up the Trinity more more than take up the substance of God, you know, and then take these later on and so on, sort of thing. Yeah.

[5:21] So how do you get out of this thing here if you're not going to accept this conclusion? Moreover, against the natural law is the killing of the innocent. And against and also adultery, and theft. Yeah, those are three commandments, I guess, right? But these are found to be changed by God, right? As when God commands Abraham that he kill his innocent son. As is had in Genesis chapter twenty-two.

[5:55] And when he commands the Jews that they what. That they. uh run off with I guess you'd say Muchuad is loaned, I guess, or something. The Vasa, the Gips that they run off, you know, take their. There's an guessing play that you know we take over from the Pagans, you know, the glory of Aristotle and so on, you know, it belongs to us as the rightful owners, right?

[6:20] And he compares it to this, doesn't he? I guess, doesn't it? Okay. And we command Osi that he take a wife who's a what, fornicator or.

[6:33] Yeah, yeah, has just had an O. C. One two, right? Huh. That's when he's denouncing the the Egyptian, I mean the Israelites for being, you know, unfaithful, right? Huh? Like an unfaithful wife. Now see what it's like, you know, when you have to marry this woman of the streets. Therefore, the natural law is able to be changed, right? Huh? I don't know about these things, huh? However, Isidore says in the book on etymologies that the common possession of all things and one what, liberty is of the natural law.

[7:13] But we see these things to be changed to human laws. Yeah. You know, this is my property, and I get out of here. You know. You're not afraid to stand for it. Yeah, and not all men are free, right? Huh. Okay. Therefore, it seems that the natural law is what. Changeable. Yeah. Now Thomas doesn't know how to confuse the thing. Is the old teacher, Cicero said, you know, it's business of the teacher to confuse the issue.

[7:37] Put him in their place, yeah. Against this is what is said in the decrees, huh? Decretals. Distinction five. The natural law, right, from the what beginning of the rational creature. Nor is it varied in time, but remains unchangeable.

[8:03] So. Is it unchangeable in some way, and some way not? I don't know. I answer should be said that the natural law is able to be understood to be changed in two ways, huh? In one way, through this that something is what added to it. And thus nothing prevents the natural law from being changed. Huh? That's kind of a strange use of the word "change" there, right?

[8:35] If I say so, Thomas. Okay. Now we say clothes make the man, right? But when you put your clothes on, you've been changed. A little strange. Yeah. You don't think of it that way. Yeah. Okay. It says many things are added to the natural law, useful for what human life, right? Huh? Both through the what divine law, right, as well as through what human laws, right? Well, now you're supposed to what worship God on Sunday, aren't you?

[9:26] I'm going to Catholic churches there and head out there. Sunday for God and family. Big letters there in front of the church. But is that part of the natural law that you should worship God on Sunday? No, Sunday. Part of the natural law you should worship God, right? Huh? Praise Him, thank Him, you know. But you know what Jews use on Saturday, right? Huh? Amadins is what Fri Friday. They just be indifferent that's all That's all Nothing new And Maybe it's useful, you know, to have one day of the week that is, you know, yeah.

[10:11] And not only that, but I mean that it's recurring once every seven days, right? That's not such a problem though, right Okay. In. Another way is understood the changing the natural law by way of subtraction, huh? So Thomas is doing a little mathematics here, right? Okay. Okay.

[10:39] That something ceases to be of the what natural law that before was what according to the natural law. Now Thomas is going to make a distinction. See a distinction, I should say. Yes. Don't make a distinction. You never made.

[10:58] And this, as regards the first beginnings of the natural law, the law of nature is altogether what unchangeable. But as regards the second precepts, right, which we say to be as it were certain what particular conclusions near to the first what beginnings. Thus the natural law is not changed, but in ut in pluribus, for the most part, it is right always what the natural law has, huh?

[11:36] It, however, is able to be changed in some particular, and in what? Yeah. It's kind of. We realize how always tied further to looking philosophy, the practical philosophy, because you run into these things that are hard to decide, right? And some of these things, you know, and somebody's dying, what treatment is, you know, requiring, what is not, and so on, what is suitable. It's very difficult some of these these things.

[12:10] I remember one of my brother Richard's in his department of philosophy there, College of St Thomas. One of his colleagues there said, "A priest under thirty years old is not worth going to confession." It's a never experience. Yeah, yeah. It is hard to see where exactly some of these lines are drawn, right? Okay. It is all, however, able to be changed in some particular case, at and in some few cases, right, huh?

[12:49] On account of some special cause impeding the observation of such what precepts, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the written law is said to be given to the correction of the natural law, either because it supplies, right, to the written law, what is lacking in the natural law. I suppose it's something more particular. like you go to mass every Sunday or something, right?

[13:29] Or because the law of nature in the hearts of some, as regards some things, is corrupt to such an extent that they estimate those things to be good which are naturally what bad, and such a corruption needs what correction. Yeah, people want to have homosexual marriage or something like that, right? Now, say, well, I'm born that way, you know, so that's where nature comes from birth, right?

[13:57] Now, and so they they regard some things as being good which are naturally evil, right? So you have to have, yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, the second objection. This is a little more exciting or disturbing, or to the second, should be said that by natural death, all in general die, right? Now, both the what? How would you say that? The innocent and the not innocent. How would you say the guilty?

[14:40] Yeah, I guess nocere means to harm, right? The sin that's done bad, you know. Yeah, and Augustine defines bad one place with nochery, but what harm or something? And the innocent, I mean, does not. Yeah, it's negative. Innocent, right? Yeah, there's no evil.

[15:04] Which natural law is induced by divine power on account of what original sin? According to that of the first book of Kings, chapter two, verse six, that God what deadens and gives life, huh?

[15:24] And therefore, without any injustice, according to the command of God, death can be inflicted upon any man, either innocent or not innocent. Huh? It's strange.

[15:43] Likewise, also adultery is concubitus, right, With an alien wife One who's not one's own, Yeah Which is what. Divinely given, right? Divinely given? Whence to whatever woman someone approaches from the divine commandment is not what. Yeah, that's kind of strike people, you know, as strange, yeah. So Osius is being what commanding to?

[16:27] In the same reason, it's about theft, which is the taking of an alien thing. Now, whatever is taken by the command of God, who is the Lord of the universe, is not taken without the will of the Lord of that thing, which is what stealing is, right? So it all belongs to God, right?

[16:56] Now, not only in human things, whatever is commanded by God is this is owed to it, but also in natural things, whatever comes about from God is in some way natural, as was said in the first. We'll look at again when we go back to the first, but that's not for today.

[17:18] Now, what about the last thing there about possessions and so on? To third, it should be said that something is said to be of the natural law in two ways. In one way, because nature inclines us to this, just as one ought not to injure somebody else.

[17:42] In another way, because nature does not induce the what concurrence, just as we can say that a man is what naked. By the natural law, because nature does not give to him what clothing, right? But art is foundness, right? Huh. And in this way, the common possession of all, the monabbity of all, is said to be of the natural law. That the natural law doesn't specify this shall, you know, by nature you shall have this piece of land, and I shall have this piece of land, and so.

[18:22] Because the distinction of possessions and what service right are not what induced by what nature, but through the reason of man as being useful for what.

[18:37] And thus, in this, the law of nature is not changed, except through some what tradition, huh? That would make you afraid to study moral theology, right? Yeah.

[18:54] I was thinking this sort of thing, you know. That you should reproduce with your sister would seem to be something very bad to do, right?

[19:05] But now say if you had Adam and Eve, right, starting the human race, and you're supposed to multiply and fill the earth, right, huh? So how are they going to do that unless their brother and sister reproduce? So in that particular circumstance, right, what would you say? That's what God said man That's what you want to do Yeah, that would be natural Yeah, yeah. But we would think of it today as being something unnatural to to have this sort of thing to start.

[19:40] You know, in these crazy Hollywood movies, you know, where the guy goes down to the ground to fix something, you know, and then the atomic or some kind of a thing comes up and everybody's been killed above or burned everybody, and then he comes up above and nobody's there, right? Nobody else has been vaporized and so on, and he walks around. he Goes by the car dealer there, you know the Calax or the BMW, whatever.

[20:07] And you know nobody's there, so he just gets in the room, tries off, knocks the glass, window, he's trying to get off the car. Of course, eventually he finds a woman, you know, somewhere, right? But suppose the only woman he found was what? Your sister, right? Then you're back in the situation now. You and your sister are the only people on the earth, and you got to repopulate the earth, right?

[20:32] So then it would be lawful, it seems, right? You know. And that's kind of extreme example. I mean, you know, given the circumstances of Adam and Eve, right? That they're the only. Yeah.

[20:48] After all, where did Eve come from? Yeah, I mean that's even closer in some sense than than your sister, right? You know. But in order to this matter, it is strange, you later. I'll give you a little bit what the. So I'll take that quote back here in the in the notes. Thomas.

[21:39] Yeah, one quote here from the sentences, huh? Okay. In other things natural which are before us, the same determination is suitable as naturally just things. Huh. Those things which are natural before us are in the same way ut in pluribus, huh? But in what pochioribus, huh? In a few cases, deficiunt huh, they fall short, huh? Just as it is natural that the right part, the right hand, I guess, is more vigorous than the what?

[22:20] Left, huh? And this is true ut in pluribus, right? But nevertheless, it happens in some cases that some come to be what ambidextrous, huh?

[22:37] So that the left hand is as what strong and active as the right one, huh? Thus, also those things which are naturally just, this is the obvious thing that you can see, has the depositum, right, to be returned what has been left with you. Ut in pluribus, huh, should be observed, huh? But in a few cases it is what change. Let me talk about those exceptions, huh?

[23:09] It should be noted, however, that because what the reasons of changeable things are unchangeable, thus whatever is natural for us, as as were pertaining to the very ratio of man, in no way is changed. As example, man to be a what animal, right? Or a man to be a man, a woman to be. These crazy things go on

[23:36] nowadays. But the things that follow upon nature, as dispositions, actions, and motion, are changed in a few cases, right? Okay, that's we add much to it, right?

[24:01] Now, in the text, that's actually in the previous article, but then the one that we have here. This is from the De Malo, right now, which is. All you want to know about. Yeah, yeah. When we're all afraid to ask.

[24:26] Just and good things are able to be considered in two ways. In one way, formally, he says, and thus always and everywhere they are the what same, because the beginnings or principles of the law which are in the natural reason are not changed. Another way, materially, and thus there are not the same just and good things everywhere and before all, but it is necessary for them to be determined by law.

[25:05] And this happens on account of the mutability of what human nature, he says, and the diverse conditions of men and of things, according to the diversity of places and times.

[25:22] I think is an example here. Just as this is always just that in buying and selling, there come about a exchange, huh? Commutatio. According to equivalence, huh? Equivalent, right? But for the measure of grain that is just in such a place or time, so much be given, and in another place or time, not so much, but more or what Less. less, huh? Okay.

[25:58] So would the equivalent be the same everywhere? You know, in the. White man, I mean the Europeans came to the Indians here, right? Huh? And sometimes these Indians, you know, were quite familiar with gold, right? Huh? And so they would exchange gold for these little trinkets, like a mirror, something like that. So, are you giving the equivalent there or not? See, because they were very willing to give you the gold nugget for for a mirror, you know.

[26:32] Please, my wife, I don't think, and give her a mirror. See, I mean, is it the same thing in different places, right? Something is rare in one country, you know. You would give what less of it, you know, for the same thing, right? So, there was a science fiction story about this alien race that was creating a gateway to the Earth, and they wanted to start trading.

[27:05] And they were completely intrigued by the concept of paint. Never ever considered paint. They never thought of it. They had these anti-gravity saddles that they used to ride around in. And there's this Midwestern tinker who ends up. It's his house that they're setting up their gateway, and he's the best sort of dicker or negotiator like on the face of the planet. And so he's going to sell them the concept of paint for the anti-gravity unit.

[27:35] Yeah. And so there's a beautiful example of that. Different. Yeah. Or take something like like the age of marriage, right? Huh? Don't we have laws and even the church, right?

[27:52] But they say you know these in the southern climates, you know, the people get married at twelve or fourteen, maybe, right? And make make sense, you know. Mm hmm But for us, you know, I mean girls are gonna get married at twelve or fourteen, you know. So I mean, it makes a difference in the climate and difference in the. maturity of people. yeah That kind of thing too.

[28:12] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was reading a little biography there of John Quincy Adams, right? He was the sixth president, right? Huh? Very, very interesting, you know. But for exercise, he'd go for a walk, right? Huh? And he'd get to the river, took off his clothes, and go for a swim. Nobody paying attention to him, you know. Get back in, and now I'd say it'd be scandalous if a bomb should go down today.

[28:40] Yeah, yeah, yeah. But nobody even look twice, you know. I mean, you know, apparently it's no problem. And and I suppose you know you might say in some of the South Seas, right? Huh? People would go around, you know. You know, when I was a little boy, we wanted to get National Geographic so they could see the woman's breasts. That sort of stuff. But I mean, people were used to these things, right?

[29:04] And they would. There's some story about something where the man's wife didn't have any clothes, and after a while just get kind of bored with it, you know. And he wanted to put something on, just for a change, right? But you know, it wasn't you know when when Columbus and people went to these places, it wasn't that they were being you know immoral, right? But you see, well, we might say this is this is really you know this is you know you should be locked up, you know, running around without any clothes on.

[29:32] That's what the whole issue about breastfeeding in public was an issue a couple years ago. Kind of became a big topic, and and some women who wanted to do that they used to go to the state legislatures and they'd be like fifty women breastfeeding on the front steps of the state house, just a protest. Yeah. And somebody told a story. It's one thing to do it sort of in defiance of public customs, but it's another thing to do it because the child needs to be. fed And here I am, and I have no choice.

[30:02] And they told a story about Padre Pio. He was always very strict about women's modesty. And they said that one day he came out of the confessional, and a woman was right there in church breastfeeding her child. And he came over, he patted the child on the head, and he said, "Buon appetito." He was as careful. Some of the missionaries, the early Catholic missionaries like Father Junípero Serra, found that Indian women loved clothes.

[30:32] They were stark naked or close to it, but they had a real affinity for clothes. Yeah. Which was an interesting example of the difference between men and women as well. Yeah. That there was that affinity there in the state of nature. so. to speak. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. It's just vanity. It's not modest, it's vanity. You dress in a way that is not appropriate to your country or your age and so on.

[30:57] you know, In the past time, men might have had what, clothing is more like a dress, right? Huh? The man goes around something like a dress. Nowadays, so you lock up and go. You know, I mean, these these things are changeable. That's all right, huh?

[31:22] I guess that one day maybe for a woman to wear pants as a garment is. Yeah. You know, I don't know my brother Mark used to say, you know, when they would say, you know, well, see these portraits of Christ or paintings of Christ, you know, his hair is longer, you know, so on. But he says, but the woman's hair, he goes, it, was even longer, right?

[31:46] So what seems to be natural is that the woman's hair should be longer than a man's hair, right? And the Bible says that the hair is a woman's glory, right? Huh? But you know what the height should be is that depends upon the what, time and so on, right? Huh? You know, I was looking at a portrait there of uh, John Quincy Adams, you know, and you know, Long hair.

[32:11] yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, kind of like, but a woman had much longer hair, right? There's nothing, nothing wrong with that, right? They're just the way, you know. Different than ours, yeah. Yeah, yeah, but still. Not quite as scandalous. of course, something about. I guess the bathing suit has not been invented yet. Yeah. So I mean, how else are you gonna swim? Yeah. You can't put it on your clothes.

[32:33] You ruin your clothes. Yeah. exactly. Now that you ruin your clothes you wreck your life. Go to Article Six here now. To the sixth, one goes for thus. It seems that the law of nature cannot be what abolished from the or wiped out from the heart of what of man, huh?

[33:10] Because it is said in Romans two, when the Gentiles, right, huh, who do not have the law—that is, the written law, I guess, right—that is in the what,

[33:23] the grace, the law of justice inscribed, right, huh, in the heart, And all right Well what? The guilt wipes out I guess Yeah. But the law of justice is the law of nature. Therefore, the law of nature can be what. Wiped out. Yeah.

[33:50] Moreover, the law of grace is more efficacious than the law of nature, but the law of grace is deleted by guilt, huh? Therefore, much more the law of nature can be deleted, huh?

[34:04] There's a question I remember about the talk about the virtues, right? Infused virtues are more easily lost than the what? Acquired by the virtues. Because other ones are acquired by repeated acts; they're not lost by one act against them, right? Why the infused virtues can be lost by one act that's contrary to them, right? Even though they're a higher virtue, right, huh? And there's a certain lack of what stability there, right?

[34:30] I mean, some people were arguing. I remember when I was first hearing these things. You know, they were saying, you know, well, we don't really need those acquired virtues that Aristotle talked about because we got these infused virtues, right? But there'd be so instability in us if we didn't have the acquired virtues, huh? So we do need them, huh? You know, they're not as perfect as the.

[35:02] Moreover, that which is statute by law is induced as it were something just, right, huh? But many things are stated by men laws against the law of nature, right, huh? We got abortion now, and so on. We may have homosexual marriage but see what the Supreme Court decides now. Flip a coin here That's what they do. Therefore, the law of nature can be abolished, wiped out from the hearts of men, right?

[35:29] you notice he's the word from the heart of man right here, rather than the mind of man, huh? It's interesting. Against this is what Augustine says in the second book of Confessions. Your law is written in the hearts of men, right? Which what? Yeah, it's able to what? Delete it.

[36:07] But the law written in the hearts of men is the natural law. Therefore, the natural law cannot be what deleted. Huh. The Supreme Court there. Yeah tell me about think about that one for a while I answer. It should be said that as has been said above, there pertains to the natural law first certain precepts that are most what common, huh? Which are what known to all.

[36:39] Some secondary precepts are more what particular. I think is yeah. I wouldn't say proper, but more particular, huh? Appropriate. Which are, as the word conclusions, near the what beginnings. As regards those beginnings, those common beginnings, the natural law in no way can be what deleted from the hearts of men in general. It can be deleted in a particular applicable things, according as reason is impeded to applying the common beginning to a particular thing to be done, on account of what concupiscence, huh?

[37:23] Aristotle even talks about that, right? Or some other passion, huh? Anger and so on. Went to see the new version there of the of Hardy's novel there. You know, far from the madding crowd, right? I know. Do you know that story or what? You know. But this one man is you know noble man. He wants this woman for his wife, right? But she's kind of foolish. She she runs off with a soldier, right, and gets married to him, right.

[38:01] And then finally gets tired of her because he had a lover before and so on. So he fakes his death. You know, he goes out swimming and he leaves his clothes on the shore there. And they think you know they come and tell him there her husband is drowned. You know. So she's almost going to marry this this noble neighbor, right? And then the the day when he's going to clinch it, he rascal shows up, yeah.

[38:27] Of course he he shoots the soldier, right, huh? So of course the last we see him is behind the bars, right? What is depressing, you know? Hardy novels. My brother Mark tells me you know one of his friends there, he's a Christian brother, but he was in some English course, you know, and and he. Had to write a paper at Hardy and, do some, you know, something like that.

[38:51] So he read, I don't know how many Hardy novels and such. To get very depressed, everything goes wrong, man. I mean, the guy is obviously doing a foolish thing, right? Obviously, but he's angry, right? You know, he just, you know, this, yeah, yeah. The only difference is two movie versions I've seen of it. The first one, of course, is personal. This one, he's got a rifle. He goes down like that.

[39:20] We need more violence today Yeah Get people's attention So you can know something and not apply it, right? Huh? The man is trying to overcome his drinking problem. There, right? He knows he shouldn't drink, right? Huh? But the time comes, right? Huh? He's thinking of how good it would taste, you know.

[39:54] Not thinking about the fact that he's subject to this vice. Okay, Aristotle talks about that in Nicomachean Ethics, you know, to be a Christian about those sort of things.

[40:11] As regards the what other secondary precepts, the natural law can be deleted from the hearts of men, huh? Even account of bad what persuasions, huh? In that way, that happens even in speculative matters, errors happen about what necessary conclusions, right? Now, what about me deceiving the students about the whole is more than the part? Well, you don't really deceive them into thinking that, but they think they don't know what they do know, which is an odd thing, right?

[40:49] But because they don't see any way out of the argument, right? Then they begin to think maybe I don't know what I thought I knew. I thought I knew that. No, I think I don't know. It's one thing to not know it. It's another thing to think you don't know it. Just like it's not the same thing Aristotle says to know something and to think you know it.

[41:14] So if you can think you know something you don't know, right? You can think you don't know what you do know, right? If I can think an orange is a lemon, someone else could think the lemon is an orange, right? Because you could only make the mistake of thinking an orange is a lemon because it's sometimes hard to separate the two, right? Well, if it's hard to separate them, you can make the opposite mistake of thinking a lemon is an orange, right?

[41:42] So if you can think the unknown is known to you, you can make the mistake of thinking the known to you is unknown, stranger than it may seem, right? But because it could go either way, if you can't distinguish them, right? Distinction is very fundamental, as you know.

[42:10] So you don't get caught a homophobe or something, you know. So you get on. It's terrible, you know. I mean, when they first had the thing about you know the Defense of Marriage Act, you know, and it passed the Congress, you know, and the president was in favor of it, you know, and and and even the the you know the polls says that people you know thought marriage between a man and a woman and so on.

[42:32] And now it's the reverse about the polls say that most people think that this is should be allowed, and who knows what the Supreme Court will come up with? I mean, they can come up with anything, you know. So, as regards the other secondary precepts, the natural law can be deleted from the hearts of men, either on account of what bad persuasions, in the way that even in speculative matters error can happen upon about necessary what conclusions, or on account of bad what customs and corrupt habits.

[43:12] Just as before, some what theft were not considered Yeah, Or even vices against nature. That's very strong, right? As also the what apostle says, Romans chapter one, verse twenty-four. We should check that passage.