Prima Secundae
Lecture 185: The Distinction of Sins by Species and Causes

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

Then we ought to consider about the distinction of sins or vices, right? And about this, nine things are asked. First, whether sins are distinguished in species and of kind, according to their, what, objects, right? Secondly, about the distinction of spiritual sins and carnal sins, right? So prostitutes are coming in before the Pharisees, right? Spiritual sins, huh? Someone said, if you're still on carnal sins, you don't wait to get rid of your spiritual sins, huh? And whether they're distinguished according to their, what, causes, right? Fourth, whether they're distinguished according to those things in which one, what, sins, huh? Fifth, whether they're according to the diversity of, what, guilt, huh? Secondly, whether they're according to omission and commission, huh? Not to that stuff yet, huh? And seven, whether they're according to a diverse proceeding of the sin, my goodness. And eight, according to, what, abundance and defect, huh? Nine, whether they're according to diverse circumstances. To the first end, one goes forward thus. It seems that sins do not differ in species according to their, what, objects, right, man? For human acts are especially said to be good or bad by comparison to the end, as has been shown above. Since, therefore, sin is nothing other than a bad act of man, as has been said, It seems that according to their ends, sins ought to be distinguished in species, more than according to their, what, objects, right? Well, that simply touches the pencil and you need to be clarified, right? Moreover, evil, since it is a privation, which is said in English to be a lack, huh? You're sadly lacking in students, huh? Tell my students. Moreover, evil, since it is a privation or lack, is distinguished in species according to the diverse species of, what, opposites, huh? But sin is a certain evil in the genus of human acts. Therefore, sins ought to be more distinguished in species according to the opposites than according to their, what, objects, huh? Moreover, if sins differ in species according to their objects, it is impossible for the same sin in species to be about, to be found about different, what, objects, right, huh? But there are found some sins of this sort. For pride is both in, what, spiritual things and in bodily things, huh? So I can be proud about my knowledge or proud about my good looks, huh? As Greby says in the book 34 of Moralia, right? Avarice, however, is about diverse, what, genera of things, huh? Therefore, sins are not distinguished in species according to their, what, objects, huh? Okay, so some distinction about objects is in need there, right? But against this is that sin is something said or done or desired against the law of God. But things said or done or desired are distinguished in species according to their objects, right? Because acts are distinguished by their objects, right? Therefore, also sins are distinguished according to their objects, are distinguished in species according to their objects, right? Like I was saying, you know, talking about my thinking, you know, I like to think about God, you know? And can't do anything better to think about, can you? But if I'm not thinking about God, I think about the, what, the angels, right, huh? I'm not thinking about the angels, I'm thinking about the soul, right, huh? And most people I know, what they think about is the game or something, right? There's nothing wrong with the game, but I mean, it's not the greatest thing you can think about, right? What did one priest say, you know? They're watching other people play, right? So one thinking can be distinguished from other thinking, but what you're thinking about, right? Thomas says, I think about the body so I can think about the soul. I think about the soul so I can think about the angels. I think about the angels so I can think about God. And that's the end. That's it. It's all over. You stay there and you don't go out again, it says in Scripture. Development doesn't work. You wonder how we're going to carry on the conversation, right? Don't distract me. I actually should be said that as has been said, two things run together, right? For the definition of sin, right? Do it a voluntary act, right? And then it's what? Disorder, right? So sometimes we say that a bad act is an unreasonable act and a disordered act or a, what, unmeasured act, right? Use those terms in order and measure, right? But the lack of that. And it's disorder which is by, what, it's drawn away from the law of God. Now, of these two, one is per se compared to the one sinning, who intends such a voluntary act to exercise in such a matter, right? Another, to wit the disorder of the act, paracidens has itself to the intention of the one, what, sinning, right? For no one intending acts towards, what? Intending evil acts, right? You're always aiming at, what, a good or an apparent good, right? As Dionysius says in the fourth chapter about the divine names, huh? It's manifest, however, that each thing achieves its, what, species according to that which is, what, per se, not, however, according to that which is, what, paracidens. Because those things which are paracidens are outside the definition of species. And therefore, sins and species are distinguished from the side of the voluntary acts more than from the side of the, what, disorder existing in the sin. But voluntary acts are distinguished in species according to their, what, objects, as has been shown in the things above, right? Whence it follows that the sins are properly distinguished in species according to their objects. So, interesting, Tom, to answer that question. He's not saying that the disorder is, what, accidental to its being a sin. It's accidental to the man doing it, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the end chiefly has a notion of the good, huh? It's Aristotle taught us. And therefore, it is compared to the act of the will, which is first in order, right? In every sin, as a, what, object, right? Whence it comes back to the... same, that sins differ according to their objects or according to their life. So we're saying that the end is an object, right? That makes sense, huh? Kant doesn't want to admit that the good will is the will that wills the good. It seems simple enough, right? The good is primarily the end, right? Now, let's think about opposites. Second, it should be said that sin is not a pure, what? Privation. But it's an act, right? Deprived of the suitable order, right? So it's not simply disordered, it's a disordered act, huh? Or it's an unmeasured act, right? That's the reason it does disordered things and measures them, right? Talking about what I said was last night, right? These are the vicious things, right? And therefore sins are more distinguished in species according to the objects of the act, right? Than according to the what? Opposites, right? However, if they are distinguished according to the opposite virtues, right? This comes back to the same thing, right? For the virtues are distinguished in species also according to their objects, as has been at above, huh? Learning is what? Recalling is Shakespeare. You said, I mean, you know, Socrates. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, repetitio mani assuriois. Yeah. Recalling is learning, huh? Mm-hmm. So I was saying that it's by what? Discourse, right? Because discourse has come from what you don't know to what you already know. So you have to recall what you already know, right? So you don't recall what you learned, but you recall that through what you learned. So in that sense, learning is recalling, right? We can defend our master Socrates, right? Mm-hmm. To the third it should be said, that nothing prevents in diverse things in species or genus, differing in species or genus, to be found, what? One formal ratio, the object, huh? Mm-hmm. From which, what? The cotton receives its species, right? And in this way, pride seeks excellence about what? Diverse things, right, huh? Averse seeks an abundance of those things which are accommodated for human use, huh? Mm-hmm. Okay? Obama, proud, seeking excellence of power and authority, right, huh? When I was at my son's house there, he had an interesting biography of Mao, you know? What a monster Chairman Mao was, huh? Yeah. And he was, he'd bury people alive, you know? It was a common thing he did, you know? Mm-hmm. And in order to consolidate his power, right, you know, even within the communist movement there, right, huh? He would let an army be destroyed, you know? Wow. And this other guy would fall out of power, so, so, so, you know, a monster, I mean, he's incredible, I mean, he just makes Stalin look innocent all those terms. Yeah. Yeah. Father Hardin was asked, was asked to write, Father Fessio asked Father Hardin to write a paper of a little blurb for Bob Balthazar's book about whether we, dare we hope that all men be saved. Yeah. And Father Hardin refutes his, no! He says, he expects me to believe that in 2,000 years of Christianity, nobody's in hell? No! Shall we go on to the next article? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. The second one goes forward thus. It seems that unsuitably I distinguish spiritual sins from carnal sins, right? For the Apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 5, Manifest are the works of the flesh, which are what? Fornication, uncleanness. It's lack of red sense there. I mean, luxury, huh? Lust, I guess, huh? The service of idols and so on, right? Cursing or something. Yeah. From which it seems that all genre of sins are works of the flesh, right? But carnal sins are said to be works of the flesh. Therefore, they are not ones that are not to be what? Extinguishing carnal sins from what? Spiritual sins. Moreover, whoever sins walks according to the flesh, according to that of Romans 8. If you live according to the flesh, right, you will die, right, huh? If, however, by what? Spirit, you put to death the acts of the flesh, you will live, right? But then I touched upon that thing I was saying in the compendium there about the second reason we wanted to die, right, huh? To lead us out from what? Death of the flesh, right? To the spiritual things, right, huh? That's why the cross goes up in the sky, too, you see? You're being raised up from the death of the flesh, huh? To the life of the spirit. But to live or to walk according to the flesh seems to pertain to the notion of carnal sin, right, huh? Therefore, all sins are carnal, right, huh? There you go. To live according to the flesh. Therefore, not to distinguish carnal sins from spiritual sins. Moreover, the higher part of the soul, which is the mind or reason, is called the, what? Spirit, huh? According to that of Ephesians. He renovated in the spirit of your mind, huh? Where spirit is laid down for reason as the glass says there, right? But every sin that is committed according to the flesh is derived by reason, from reason by consent, right? Because there's a superior reason to consent in the act of the sin, as he said, what? He said below. And therefore, the same sins are carnal and spiritual. Therefore, they ought not to be distinguished, what? From each other, right, huh? Moreover, if some sins in a special way ought to be called carnal, this could be understood most of all about those sins in which someone sins in his, what? Body. But as the Apostle said in 1 Corinthians 6, every sin, whatever that a man makes, is outside the body, huh? But who, but who fornicates sins in his own body. Therefore, only fornication is a mortal sin, I mean, a carnal sin. Since over the Apostle in chapter 5 of Ephesians, also in Numbers, what? Avarice among the carnal sins. But again, this is what Gregory says, huh? I guess this is another thought right to Gregory the Great, huh? The 31st Book of Moralia, he says that the, of the seven capital sins, right? Five are spiritual and two are carnal. There you go. I'm going to defend Gregory now, huh? The answer should be said, but it has been said above, sins receive their species from their, what? Object. Object sin. Now, every sin consists in the desire for some changeable, right, good, that is desired in a disordered way, right? And consequently, in something had, what? Orton, which is already possessed, you have the likes in it. Yeah. Now, as is clear from things above, twofold is pleasure, right, huh? One is of an animal, which is consummated in the grasping alone of something, what? Oh, no, which is consummated in the apprehension alone, right, of something had in, what? Right. Diary gifts. And this can be called a, what? Spiritual, what? Pleasure. Just as when someone delights in human praise on something of this sort. Another pleasure is bodily or natural, because in bodily touch, right, it's perfected, right? Which can also be called, what? Fleshly pleasure, right? Carnal pleasure. Thus, therefore, those sins which are perfected in spiritual pleasure are called, what? Spiritual sins. Spiritual sins, huh? Those which are perfected in fleshly pleasure, bodily pleasure, are called, what? Yeah. Just as gula, gluttony, I guess, huh? Which is perfected in the pleasure of food, right? And luxury, which is perfected in the, what? Pleasure of an aerial thing, right? Whence the apostle says, 2 Corinthians, let's be cleansed from all, what? Stain. Stain both of the flesh and of the spirit, right? They seem to be giving the distinction that Gregory gives, right? Between the fleshly sins and spiritual sins, right? So we've got St. Paul on the side of Gregory, right? Maybe it's Gregory on the side of St. Paul. That's a good point there. The first effort should be said that as the gloss says there, those vices are said to be works of the flesh, not because they are, what? Perfected in the pleasure of the flesh. But flesh is taken there for, what? Man. Who, according as he lives by himself, right? He's said to live according to the flexion. As also Augustine says in the 14th book of the city of God. And the reason for this is that every defect of human reason has its beginning in some way from something, what? Some carnal or fleshly sense, right? And this also, and that is clearly response to the, what? Second, right, huh? After all, the word is said to be made flesh, right, huh? He took what was most weak in us, right? And he went all the way down to that. And that corresponds, that's what, the prophets all lay out, that's what corresponds to the sin. Because a sin is something spiritual, but it was occasioned by a fruit, sensible. To the third, it should be said, in carnal sins, also there is some spiritual act, right? To wit, the act of reason. But the end of these sins, which they are, what? Named, is the pleasure of the, what? Pleasure. To the fourth objection, it should be said, as the gloss says there, especially in the sin of fornication, the soul, what? Serves the body, right, huh? Insofar as nothing other than that woman is being able to, what? Think about, huh? But the pleasure of gluttony, although it is carnal, does not as much, huh? Reason, right, huh? Or it can be said that in that sin also, a certain injury is done to the body when it is disorderly, what, stained, I guess? And therefore, through this sin alone, is a man specially said to sin in his body. Thank you. right? Avarice, which is numbered among the carnal sins, is laid down for what? Adultery, huh? It's kind of interesting. Which is the unjust usurpation of another's wife, huh? Or it can be said that the thing in which the avarice man delights is something what? Yeah. And in this respect, it is numbered among the what? Carnal sins. It seems to be almost like in between the two, right? The man who goes on accumulating money that he doesn't need, right? Seems to be his mind, you know? Chester has a good short story, one of his Father Brown mysteries, and he's trying to figure out who the thief is, whatever it was, and he said he found him because a thief is always a small-minded man, because he's focused on something material. So his mind is narrowed to that kind of thing. You find that the greedy people, actually, he's really got a small-minded people. Yeah. I mean, you can talk about the men who made a lot of money, you know? They keep on wanting to make more money, you know? They don't really need it, you know? So it's kind of a spiritual thing in a way, huh? The idea that they deal with themselves as being more and more self-sufficient and more and more dominant, you know, and so on. You don't need all the money to eat and drink well, right? Okay, it's beautiful, you know? What do you call it? The trophy wife or something? Something especially they have on this, you know? I've heard that. That's part of their wealth, you know? Yeah. The trophy wife. That's an expression, isn't it? I can't wear it that one. Yeah. Trophy wife. It's like a showpiece. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, a showpiece wife. See what I got? Look what I got. Yeah. I got one of those, too. Or it can be said that the thing in which the avarice man delights is something bodily, right? And as it guards this, it is numbered among the carnal sins, right? But the pleasure does not pertain to the, what? Flesh. But to the spirit. Because these guys, they keep on working. They work hard, very hard, these guys, right? And therefore, according to Gregory, is these spirits, you know what? Sin. Sin, yeah. It's kind of interesting that you see it kind of there. It's in between those two, right? Timon of Athens, huh? All those who wrote about Timon of Athens before, there was a comedy, right? But Shakespeare's among his tragedies, huh? You can see how there's kind of a... But since these men make a lot of money, they're very disciplined in some ways, right? They're not kind of, you know, giving up to the places of the senses, you know? They put marriage in all their life. They put, like, more and more money. God knows why. Balak, in the four, he touches on certain of the capital sin. He talks about it in terms of the, what is it, the best thing in the world and the worst thing in the world, and then he talks about it. The best thing in the world is to be chased to death by the money beast, because it's like, you're constantly on the go to get more, more, more, more, more, and then in the end, you just die. You use your exhaust. You just wear yourself out. It's an interesting little, in the four men. It's a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God, and thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas, de lo gracias. God, our enlightenment, Guardian Angels, think from the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. May God help us to understand all that you have written. Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So we're up to Article 3, I guess, in Question 72. That the sins are distinguished in species, according to their causes. To the third one goes forward thus. It seems that the sins are distinguished in species, according to their causes. For from the same, a thing has its species, of which it has its being. But the sins have their being from their causes. Therefore, from the same, they also obtain their species. Therefore, they differ in species, according to the diversity of causes. Moreover, among other causes, there would less seem to pertain to the species, the material cause. But the object in sin is as the material cause. Since, therefore, according to objects, sins are distinguished in species, it seems that sins, much more, would be distinguished according to the other causes in their species. More of Augustine says under that of Psalm 79, the fire is what? Incensed, I guess? Yeah. And stifled, I guess? It says that every sin is either from fear, badly humiliating somebody, or from love, badly inflaming somebody. It said also in the first epistle of John, chapter 2, that everything that is in the world is either concupiscence of the flesh, or the concupiscence of the eyes, or the pride of what? Life. Life, huh? The beasts, the birds, and the fish, right? In Psalm 8, the spiritual senses, those three there. Oh, right. The beast is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the birds, the concupiscence of the eyes. I mean, the pride of life, rather. And the concupiscence of the eyes is the fish, huh? That's where you become, what? That's where England became rich, right? Oh, the fish. Yeah. No, I mean, there's the fish that go off the world, right? So everything that is in the world is either the result of the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, or the pride of life, huh? That's where the three vows are tied up with, too, aren't they? Those three, right? Something is said to be in the world in account of sin, according as lovers of the world are signified by the name of what? The world. So when that girl says she's going to get married, she's going to the world, they say in Shakespeare, right? I'm going to the world. Gregory says, as Augustine says upon John, huh? Gregory also in the 31st of Moralia, distinguishes all the sins according to the seven capital vices. But all of these divisions regard the causes of what? Sin. All the divisions are touched upon in this subjection. Therefore, it seems that sin is different species according to the diversity of causes, huh? But against this it is that, according to this, all sins would be of the same, what? Species. Since they are caused by one cause. For it is said in Ecclesiasticus that the beginning of every sin is what? Pride. Pride, huh? That's the first thing he said about Eve there, with Thomas there in the Copenium. In the first epistle to Timothy, that the root of all evils is Copenity, right? It is manifest, however, that there are diverse species of sin. Therefore, sins are not distinguished in species according to the diversity of causes, huh? Well, now, it's only wish to tell you that it's going to begin by recalling the distinction of the four kinds of causes, huh? The answer should be said that since there are four, what? Genera of causes. Matter, form, over, and end. In diverse ways, they are attributed to what? Diverse things. For the formal cause and the material cause, regard properly the substance of the thing, huh? Like my body and soul make up my substance, huh? And therefore, substances, according to their form and matter, are distinguished both in their species and in their, what? Genus, right? But the agent and the other two kinds of causes, regard directly motion and operation. Motion being an imperfect act and operation a perfect act, right? And therefore, motion and operations are distinguished in species according to causes of this sort. According as, but diversity, nevertheless, huh? For natural active beginnings, huh? Natural active causes are determined always to the same acts, huh? Shakespeare says nature not being able to be more than one thing. And therefore, diverse species in natural acts are to be noted not only according to their objects, which are the ends or the limits, but also according to their active principles. Just as to eat and to cool are distinguished in species according to hot and cold, huh? But the active principles and voluntary acts, of which sort are the acts of sins, huh? Do not have themselves a necessity to just one. And therefore, from one active or moving principle, there can be, what? Diverse species of sins preceding. Just as from fear, badly lowering somebody can perceive that a man steals and that he what? Kills. Yeah. And that he deserts the flock committed to himself, huh? And these same things, right, could proceed from love. Once it is manifest that sins do not differed species according to diverse active causes or motives, huh? They proceed from the acts of the will, which is the truth that he said. But only according to the diversity of the, what? Final. Final cause. Final cause. For the end is the object of the, what? Will. Primary object. It has been shown that human acts have species above from their end, huh? So he distinguishes, right? Never affirm, the Dominican said, right? Seldom deny. Always distinguish. Just annoying me, that thing, but anyway. There's no truth to it. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the active principles and the acts of the will, since they are not determined to one, do not suffice for producing human acts, unless the will be determined to one through the intention of the yin, as is clear through the philosopher in the ninth book of metaphysics. And therefore, from the yin is perfected, both the being and the species of the, what? Sin, huh? Now, to the second objection. It should be said that the objects, according as they are compared to exterior acts, have the notion of matter about which, huh? But according as they are compared to the interior act of the will, they have the notion of yin, right? From which they have that they give species to the act. Although also, according as they are the matter about which, they have the notion of what? They have the notion of yin, right? They have the notion of yin. ends or limits, from which motions are specified, as is said in the fifth book of the physics, that's the book devoted to defining motion into its species, right? So Aristotle talks about how they distinguish the species, and in the tenth book of the ethics. But nevertheless, also, the limits of motion give species two motions insofar as they have the ratio, or notion, of an end. And then about those three divisions, if so, in Book Rejection 3, he had a colleague in every time he talked at Shakespeare, he said, now in this book, you know, he wanted to emphasize the fact that there's much more in this than you know at first sight, you know, so he called it a book, you know. Once he had to give me a lecture, you know, a little paragraph, you know, Thomas said, you know, the whole lecture's under a little, little, tiny paragraph. He says, those divisions of sin are not given to distinguishing the species of sin, right, but to manifesting the diverse, what, causes of them, right? You want to root out those causes of sin, right? You guys taking these three vows, right, you're rooting out three of those causes there, right? Which people like me, when it's still world, are, you know, suffering from, right?