Prima Pars
Lecture 91: Divine Justice and Distributive Order in God

Transcript
================================================================================

And more naming just the act, huh? And love, which is more explicitly bringing in the, what, object, right, huh? Okay? Now the fourth article kind of connected with the third here, with that God always loves more the better. Okay? To the fourth one proceeds thus, it seems that God does not always love more the better. For it is manifest that Christ is better than the whole human race, since he's both God and man. But God more loves the human race than Christ, because it is said in Romans chapter 8, he did not take, what, pity, you might say, in his own son, but he handed him over for all of us, right? Therefore God did not always love more the, what, better. Of course, Thomas is not going to admit that. God, but, yeah. Moreover, an angel is better than man. When it's in Psalm 8, it's said about man, you have made him little less than the angels, huh? It's one of my favorite psalms, huh? Thomas has a beautiful explanation of it there. He talks about both man and the son of man, and then he speaks about how he's made him little less than the angels, and it can be said one way of all, of us, and it took away about Christ because of his passion, especially, and things of that sort. And then later on, it says he's made us about the birds and the fish and the beasts. Well, for us, you're taking those things properly, and then the son of man, it's over, what, metaphorically, where the beasts are those who are taken up with the lust of the eyes, and the birds with the lust of the eyes, I mean, with the pride of life, and then the fish who are tied up with the commerce and the sea, the lust of the eyes, that threefold distinction. You've got a beautiful text, huh? So, but he's taking that, he's quoting that beautiful psalm there because of, he's saying, well, man is not quite as good an angel. He's a little bit less than an angel. Quite a little less. Especially this whole statement. But God loves more man than the angel, for he said in Hebrews 2, never did he take hold of the angels, but he took hold of the seed of Abraham. Therefore, God does not always love more the better. That's a good objection. Moreover, Peter was better than what? John. Because he loved Christ more. I was reading that in the golden chain there, you know. When Christ first says, do you love me, what? More than these. And when Peter replies, he doesn't say, yes, I do love you more than these. He just says, you know, I love you. He doesn't assert that primacy, huh? Christ seems to be beginning at it, right? But nevertheless, Christ loves John more than Peter. By this sign, John is discerned or distinguished from the others, that not only him, but that he loved him more than what? The others, right? Okay. So he's spoken of sometimes as a disciple whom God loved, right? Or Jesus loved. Therefore, he does not always love more than what? Better. Moreover, better is the innocent than the one penitent. For penance is the second what? Plank after shipwreck. As says Jerome. But God more loves the penitent one than the innocent one, because he rejoices more about him. As it says in Luke 15, For I say to you that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner doing penance, than over ninety-nine just ones who do not need penance. Therefore, God does not always love the better. Poor. Say, objections, huh? Yeah. In my footnotes, you know, in the Marietta edition, if you have this, but they give, you know, parallel readings, you know, to other parts of Thomas. But the only parallel reading they give, of course, by article four, is in the third sentences. The third book of sentences, distinction 31. And distinction 32 there. Moreover, better is a what? Just one pre-known than a sinner predestined. But God more loves the sinner predestined, because he wishes to him a greater good, to wit eternal life. Therefore, God does not always love the more the better. What am I? That was, yeah. But against this, each thing loves more what is like itself, right? So I was talking about the English word like. You know, it's kind of, you can name love, kind of a broad word for love, because it's intense as love. It can also mean likeness, huh? It's no way to. So Thomas, in the question on the cause of love, the first cause it gives of love is the good, and then the second cause it gives is knowledge, but it's kind of to help with the first one. The good is known. And then, really kind of indifference is like this, right? It's kind of interesting to contrast those two, right? And I think I mentioned one time, I was at the Passion Monaster one day, on a Sunday in L.O. Pooch thing, and I picked up a copy of Wuthering Heights, right? And it's kind of interesting for Teaching the Love and Friendship course, because in Wuthering Heights, this woman is drawn to two men. One man because he's good, the other man because he's like her. Yeah, it's kind of interesting, because you have personified, or concretized, you might say, these two causes of love, and which is stronger, right? And of course, the way the novel goes, she's attracted more to the person who is, what, like her, than to the person who's good, right? But it kind of brings out that they're distinct causes of love. I'm seeing Diane was talking about that one time, in terms of a teacher, right? Sometimes you're drawn to a teacher as a person, one teacher more than another teacher, right? The other teacher might be, what, better, right? Okay. And I always remember my mother talking about doctors, you know, sometimes you're like a doctor's man, or you're like the person of the doctor, but maybe he's not the best doctor, right? He's not the guy who's got to really cure you, or find out what's wrong with you, or whatever it is, you know? And so you can't exactly choose a doctor by personality, you know? But some people do that, right? In a sense, huh? And maybe you shouldn't choose a teacher by personality or something, right? But who you think is more knowing or something, you know? So, but against this, each one loves what is like itself, as is clear, and this is a famous text, always quoted in Ecclesiastes, Because every animal loves what is like itself, but insofar as something is better, it is more like God. Therefore, they are more loved by God. Thomas replies very briefly, I answer is necessary, it should be said, that it is necessary to say, according to the things said before, that God more loves the better things. For it has been said that for God to love more something is nothing other than to will a greater good to it. For the will of God is the cause of goodness in things. And thus, from the fact that some things are better, God wills to them a greater good. Whence it follows, necessarily, you might say, that he loves more than better things. It's pretty simple, right? To the point, right? See, if you realize that God's, it's not like us, you know, to say, I might not love more what is better. And that might be because what is better is not so well known to me, right? Or it could be because it's not like me, or something like that. But these are causes of my love, right? But in the case of God, God's love is the cause of whatever goodness there is in the creature. So if one creature or thing is better than another, God must love it more in the sense that he, what? Wills a greater good for it, right? That's what it means to say God loves this more than that. It doesn't mean he more intensely loves this than that, but he wills a greater good to this than to that. That was a distinction he made in the previous article. So how are we going to put all the similar people in hell, since he loves everyone equal? He still loves them as far as they are in hell. That's why it's sad. Yeah. That's why he hated death. God, that's why he hated death. I was meeting somebody the other day, so I'm a light reading there. I forget where he was, it was someplace in Italy, and there was a last judgment scene, right? And there's many more people on the left going down, and on the right, you know. The guy just kind of surmises what the painter must have thought, right? So it's a little frightening, huh? So everybody's in that way. Okay, now the first one is about, which does he love more, Christ or the human race, huh? To the first it should be said that God loves Christ, not only more than the whole human race, but even more than the whole universe of what? Creatures, huh? Why does he say that? Because he willed to him a greater good, huh? For he gave to him the name which is above every name. Philippians 2.9. That he would be what? The true God. Nor to this excellence does it what? Diminish from the fact that God gave him in death for the salvation of the human race. Because from this he was made a glorious what? Victor, yeah. For he was made what? A prince over his what? Yeah. Okay. Now sometimes the question is raised there about loving yourself and so on. And, you know, it's a greater love than this has no man than he laid down his life for his friends, huh? So if I laid down my life for you, do I love you more than myself? See? Yeah, yeah. But if the good of the body was the greatest good, then I'd love you more than myself, right? But if the good of the soul is the greater good, then I'm willing for me, this noble act, right? Of sacrificing myself for you, and willing to you bodily life. So I'm willing to get a greater good for myself than for you, right? Even though to the multitude it doesn't appear that way, right? But, you know, we're used to the paradoxes in Socrates' positions, right? Socrates says, is it worse to rob or to be robbed? And even if I was up in classes in teaching college, I'd say, would you rather steal $20 from some other student or have $20 stolen from you? Well, if the students are in an honest mood, they probably say they'd rather, you know, steal $20 from another person. That's what you would say, right? But in the one case, you're suffering the loss of an exterior good. You're suffering the loss of $20. In the other case, you're suffering injustice, right? Right. Okay? Then that's one of Socrates' positions, right? It's better to have injustice done to you than to do injustice, right? And then Socrates says, and if you've done something wrong, is it better to get caught or not to get caught? You robbed the bank, right? Better get caught or not to get caught. Socrates says, better get caught. Because you're going to be punishing your body or freedom and so on, but your soul might get straightened out, right? If you don't get caught, your soul will just corrupt and you'll have this money, but your soul will be corrupt. So Socrates' positions, paradoxical as they are, follow reasonably from his saying that the goods of the soul are much better than the goods of the body, and even those are better than the exterior goods, right? So it's better for me to suffer something in my body than the exterior goods, a loss in them, diminution of those, if it's going to help my soul, right? The last words of Socrates in the court, you know, kind of strange to say, but, you know, if my sons do wrong, punish them. He's asking that, right? You crazy? No, that's what you'd want, if you realize that the good of the soul is so much better, right? That's saying, the best sort of precept, I guess, is that your father can leave to his children, his own self-control. Yeah, yeah, good example. So, so there's a lot of objection that people seem to be loving something more than another, right? Second objection here, the angel is better than man, right? But he became a man. The second should be said that the human nature, assumed by the, what, word of God in the person of Christ, God loves more than, what, all the angels, right? And it is better, most of all, by reason of the union. That's kind of a special thing, right? But in speaking of human nature in general, even comparing it to the angel, right, according to the order to, what, grace and glory, there is found, what, equality. For since there is the same measure of man and the angel as said in Apocalypse 21, 17. That's a very interesting text. Thus, that some angels than some men, and also some men than some angels, as regards this, are found, what, more potent, huh? But according as the condition of their nature is concerned, the angel is better than a man. But not for that reason, huh, did God assume human nature because he, what, loved absolutely more man, but because he was more, what, more in need, huh? Just as the good head of the family gives something more precious to the sick servant than he gives to the healthy son. Okay? That's kind of interesting. Yeah. Very interesting. Now, there are other reasons, too, why he couldn't assume an angel, right? Because each angel is of its own kind, you know? So you'd be eliminating, you know, that angel from the universe. But man, you could have many men of the same nature. There's reasons why man is more redeemable than the angels. When they go, the whole angel goes, that's it. But we're kind of, you know, back and forth. Yeah, we are. Now the next one is the famous thing about Peter and John. I'm always finding very interesting, you know, the friendship with Peter and John. Which you have in the scene of the Gospel of John. The golden chain there is going to be some discussion. Like Peter says, what about the other guy though? You know, whether John is too shy to ask. Or Peter is so concerned about his friend, you know, and so on. Now Thomas here is not going to be too definitive about finding a senior. To the third it should be said. That this doubt about Peter and John is solved in many ways. For Augustine refers this to a mystery. Saying that the act of life, which is signified by Peter, more loves God than the contemplative love, life, which is signified by John. Because it more, what, feels the pressures of the present life. And it desires more heatedly to be liberated from them and to go to God. But God loves more the contemplative life because he more concerns it. For it does not come to an end with the life of the body as the act of life does. So you know the famous words there, Mary has chosen the better part, meaning contemplative life. It shall not be taken away from her because it will continue and be perfected in its life by the act of life that Martha has is going to be gone. I used to tell the students sometimes and they'd say, well, you better get the act of life in while you're in this world. You get the contemplative life in the next world. But he also says it's the better life. Some say that Peter loved Christ more in the members, right? Being in the church as a whole. And thus also he was more loved by what? Christ. Whence he commended to him, or put him in charge, you might say, of the church, right? But John loved Christ more in himself. And thus he was more loved by Christ. Whence he commended to him, his mother. Again, it's more personal, right? Others say it is uncertain. Which of these loved Christ more by the love of charity? And similarly, which one God loved more in order to the greater glory of eternal life? But Peter said to have loved more as he guards his promptitude and fervor. John more loved as he guards certain, what, signs of familiarity, which Christ more showed to him on account of his youth and, what, purity. I'm trying to figure out that text. Thomas says at the beginning of the Gospel of John, he has this text of Jerome, right? Which he comments on, the Pope of John. And Jerome seems to be saying, you know, at the wedding feast at Cana, that's when John adhered to Christ, right? But it's not clear whether Jerome is saying that he's the young man whose wedding day was supposed to be. And that's what Jerome seems to be saying, doesn't he? Which I find a little bit strange, because if that was the day of the wedding, or the day of the week of the wedding, or whatever it was, the man would have been already married, right? And therefore he could be a little bit of Christ, right? Unless he could give up to read to him. But it's just upon the purity of him, right? I mean, like we do hear about Peter's mother-in-law, right? He was cured by Christ, so he must have been married at one time, Peter, right? But there's no evidence that John was ever, what, married, no. Others say that Christ more loved Peter as regards the excellence of the gift of, what, charity, right? But John more as regards the gift of, what, understanding, you know? Whence, simply, Peter was better and more loved, but John, secundum quit. But Thomas sends out the whole discussion by saying, presumptuosum tamen bidetur. It seems our presumptuous to judge this, right? Because, as is said in the book of Proverbs, chapter 16, verse 2, the way of the Spirit is the Lord and no one else. What's Thomas' answer? It's presumptuous. It's interesting, though, how Peter and St. Paul are called by Antony Messiah the apostles, right? And, you know, how the Church of Rome, of course, is founded upon Peter and Paul, and they're associated in the Feast of Peter and Paul, right? But also, you know, John Paul II would call Peter and Paul the princes of the apostles, right? So, you've got to bring Paul into this discussion, too. It's more complicated, right? But, I mean, if Peter and Paul are put at the top of the apostles, then Peter's put ahead of John, yeah, yeah. So, what does it say? It's all said and done. I guess it says I don't want to judge if I do what I want to err, you know? But, anyway, you could say, you know, that I think it's interesting to see, to me, the friendship of Peter and John, and it continues into the Acts of the apostles, right, that you have this association of the two of them. Yeah, that sort of thing, yeah. But John was supposed to have gone to, eventually, to what, Ephesus and Mary there, too? That's what they named to show the house of Mary there. So, the objection disappears because you don't know who's loved more and who's better. So, he can't argue from it. Now, what about the more joy over the... To the fourth, it should be said that those penitent and those innocent have themselves as exceeding and exceeded. For, whether they are innocent or penitents, those are better and more loved to have more grace. Now, other things being equal, innocence is more dignity and more love, right? Okay. Interesting. Wasn't there a time when Augustine appeared to Thomas Aquinas and there was some question about their rank, you know? And, in some sense, they were equals, but Augustine was saying, you know, but you've preserved your chastity and so on. And Augustine had this fling when he was young, right? So, chastity is Tom and Pari both, right? It's better to be Thomas than to be Augustine, right? Okay. That would not still say it, simply speaking, that Thomas is higher than Augustine in heaven. We don't know. But God has said to rejoice more about the penitent one than innocent one, because many times the penitent are more cautious and more humble and more fervent when they, what? Rise up again, huh? The famous text of Augustine there was talking about some of the virgins in the early church, you know, who became proud. And he said it would be better for them to fall into the sins of the flesh, right? You know, maybe cure them of their pride, right? Well, this is something like that, right? Once Gregory says that the, what, commander in battle loves that soldier more who, after flight, turns around, right? And strongly resists the enemy, and the one who never flees, but never fought very strongly. Okay? Remember the way Shakespeare plays with Henry V, right? Prince Hell. Wild youth, but then turns out to be something different in battle. Or for another reason, because a, what, equal gift of grace is more compared to the, what, penitent who merited punishment than the innocent who does not merit punishment. Just to give, what? It is a greater gift if given to the pauper than if it is given to the, what, king, yeah. Now, sometimes Thomas takes that text, I think, and explains in terms of completing the number of the blessed, right? And so it's not in terms of, of, by yourself, but insofar as you are completing the hundred, which is the perfect number. So if I need three men for a job, and two guys, what, volunteer, but then the third guy, you know, and the third guy comes along, and he's going to give me more, you know? See, but not insofar as he's, yeah, because he's completing now what I need, the three people, right? It's not that he's, you know, in himself, rejoicing more to have him than to have you guys. Rejoicing more to have three, the whole, all I need, than what's incomplete. That's why it's called fortune. That's why they tell you about fortune, God loves you. Sometimes, Peter was, he stole my stone, oh my God, he cursed me. And John didn't do nothing, he just wrote the gospel, and died in peace. Okay, now the fifth one, I think, is a little different objection. Better is the, what, just man foreknown than the sinner predestined, right? But God loves more the sinner predestined, because he wishes to immigrate of good, in the eternal life, right? Therefore, God does not always love more the better, right? But God's not looking at just the present, is he? To the fifth, therefore, it should be said, that since the will of God is the cause of goodness in things, according to that time should be weighed the goodness of the one who is, what, loved by God, according as there is going to be given to him from the divine goodness some good. According, therefore, to that time in which the predestined sinner is going to be given from the divine will of greater good, he is, what, better. Although, according to that time, he is, what, worse. Because according to some time, he is neither, what, good nor bad, huh? Okay, so we take a little break here now before we go into the justice and mercy of God. Okay, so we take a little break here now before we go into the justice and mercy of God. Okay, so we take a little break here. Okay, so we take a little break here. Okay, so we take a little break here. premium here. After the consideration of the divine love we're not to consider the what? Justice and mercy of him. And about this four things are sought, right? Whether in God there be justice right? Secondly, whether his justice is he able to be called truth, huh? Third, whether in God there be what? And fourth, whether in every work of God there is both justice and mercy. So of those four articles it kind of falls into what? Three parts, right? The first two articles are about justice and the third article about mercy and then the third part in the fourth article is about the two of them being found in every work of God perhaps. We'll find out when you get there. Now, I wonder why he talks about the justice of God before the mercy of God. Interesting, huh? Because justice in us is a virtue in the will, right? By mercy more named from pity which is the name of a passion or emotion, right? So you'd be more apt to speak of there being justice in God than mercy or pity. Because the one is a virtue of the will the other seems to be a passion or emotion. That's going to be understood differently than God. You know? But in some senses the mercy of God may be even more primary than his justice. Maybe it's more clear that God is just. To the first, therefore one proceeds. It seems that in God there is not justice. For justice is divided against temperance. But temperance is not found in God. Therefore neither justice. But there you can probably kind of anticipate, you know, that temperance is concerned with the what is pleasing to the body and so on, right? And of course God doesn't have a body, right? And he's concerned with the passions that are about these things. But as we say, justice is in the, what? The will, right? So if you look at the order in which the philosopher considers the virtues and the ethics, he begins with the virtues of courage and temperance. Moderation, which are concerned with emotions, passions. And then he goes, that's already in book three. And then the other passions in book four. And then he goes to the will in book five and finding to reason in book six, right? But Thomas reverses the order in the secundus secundum. To take prudence up first, then justice, and then courage, and last of all temperance. But there's a difference between us and God, right? The virtues that are in reason itself or the will are more like what's in God than those that are in emotions. And so the order is one case, the logic, another case is philosophical. Those orders are sometimes just the, what? Reverse, right? As Thomas explains at the beginning of the second book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, God is the first thing you talk about in theology. In philosophy, it's what you talk about in the last part of the last part of philosophy. So the order is just contrary. Bet you're surprised I haven't seen the contrary to the good and love there and God in us. Moreover, whoever does such things at the, what? His own will, right? Does not operate according to justice, right? But God, that is the Apostle says, meaning St. Paul in the epistle of Ephesians, God does all things according to the counsel of his will. Therefore, that not to be attributed to, what? Justice, huh? He's a willful guy, I guess, huh? I don't know if I get the sense of that objection, but... He's always dead living. Yeah, yeah. Moreover, the act of justice is to render what is owed to another, right? But God owes nobody anything. God is a debtor of no one. Therefore, it doesn't belong to God to justice, right? That's good, yeah. Moreover, whatever is in God is his very essence, his very nature, his very substance. But this does not belong to justice, for as Boethius says in the book On the Days de Hidro Maribus, good regards the essence or nature, just regards the act, right? Therefore, justice does not belong to God, right? Of course, we see here in the Summa, right? You take up the existence of God first, right? Then you take up the substance of God, the essence of God, right? Where you consider his goodness, among other things. Now we're in the what God does, right? But that distinction may not be corresponding to a real distinction in God, right? But in us. Against all this is what is said in the 10th Psalm. The just Lord and he loves what? Yeah. The Lord is just and he loves just things. I answer it should be said that there is a two-fold species or kind or forms of justice, right? One which consists in the mutual giving and receiving as that which consists in buying and selling, right? And in other communications of this sort or commutations, right? Yeah, yeah. And this is called by the philosopher meeting Aristotle in the fifth book of Nicomache and Ethics Justitia Commutatita Commutatita Okay. Which is directive of what? Exchanges or communications. And this does not belong to God. That's one of the objections was talking about him. because, as the apostle says in Romans 11, who before gave to him and it's returned to him, right? It's kind of funny how when kids are little, you know, they're going to give up something, you know, demand something returned from God, right? A little bit like the way Euthyro does, you know, where it's kind of a quick pro quo, you know, you give this and I'll give you that as if a medieval doesn't mean being. And another which consists in what? Distributing, right? And is called distributive justice, huh? So you'll find this if you get into the English, commutative justice and what? Distributive justice, huh? According to which some governor, right? Or dispensator gives to each one according to his what? Yeah. Thus, therefore, the what? suitable order of the family or any multitude that is being governed, right? Shows this kind of justice in the one governing, right? Thus, that the order, so that the order of the universe, which appears both in natural things as well as in voluntary things, shows the what? Justice of God, huh? Whence, Darnitius says in the eighth chapter about the divine names, is necessary to see in this the true justice of God, right? That to all he distributes, right? What belongs to him, what's suitable to him, according to the worth of dignity, of each of those things existing, right? And of each, what? Yeah, nature, he saves, right? Reserves in its own order and power, right? Okay. So this is a fundamental distinction that Aristotle makes in the fifth book of Nicomachean Ethics between commutated justice and what? Distributed justice, right? And commutated is kind of exchange between people, right? I'll paint your house for $1,000 and you agree and then I'm going to paint your house and now you owe me $1,000, right? But then it's distributive justice, right? Where I'm the head of the family, right? Or head of some community and I've got to distribute things to my different children, right? I don't give the same thing to the boys and the girls and to the big ones and the little ones, right? You hear this thing there where my daughter's oldest, you know, Kate, was overheard, my father overheard is saying, you know, now in this house,