Prima Secundae
Lecture 190: The Gravity of Sins: Causes and Circumstances

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

2.12 here. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angel, strengthen the lights of our minds, order to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. I was reading Thomas this morning there on the punishment of the demons, right? And of course, some of the objections are saying, you know, they're completely ignorant now. Thomas says, that's not true. But it's interesting kind of distinctions that he brings out there to discuss the knowledge of the demons, right? And the first distinction is, of course, between the natural knowledge and then the supernatural knowledge, right? And the natural knowledge is not really, what, interfering with it's still there, right? He says the angel's altogether simple, so you can't punish him by taking part of him away. Like he's a man who can cut off an arm or a leg like the labadins do and so on. But then he distinguished, you know, the spiritual knowledge, right? And it's kind of interesting distinction he gives between a knowledge that is purely speculative, right? And the angels, the fallen angels had some of that knowledge. They had some revelation made to them, and sometimes things were revealed to them by the higher angels. And then they saw, you know, what Christ's miracles, and they saw the spread of the church so they could gather certain things, you know? And, but then he said the other kind of spiritual one is, is not pure spectativa, not pure spectative, but affectiva, right, huh? And this is the one that they had none of, because that's the one that gives you the love of God, right? But then Thomas makes an interesting thing there, that, and this is what's found in the, the gift of the Holy Spirit that is called, what, wisdom, right? That's kind of interesting, huh? Because the, the word in Latin for wisdom is, what, sapientia, which comes from sapor, which Thomas says, sapientia means sapida, savory, sciencia, savory knowledge, huh? So it arouses a love of God in you, right? And this is the way that the gift of the Holy Spirit called wisdom is attached to, what, charity, right? You know, if you see that in the secundae secundae, right? And I think Thomas there in the, do you know Thomas's prayer, any of you? The rhythmus, they call it in Latin. It's got, they call it the rhythmus because it's in meter. I think it's in trocaic, I don't know what. But, and it's rhyme, right? The first, it's in seven, what, quatrains, I guess. And the first and the second will rhyme, and the third and the fourth will rhyme, right? But in the fifth quatrain, right? Where he says, memorial, mortis domine, panis vivus, vitum, priestum, homini, vite. And then he speaks of, you know, give me life from you, right? And then dulce sapere, right? That I might sweetly save you, right? Well, sapientia there means what? This cognitio affectiva, as he calls it in the text there, in the Summa Theologiae, this effective knowledge that is tied up especially with the knowledge that is the gift of the Holy Spirit called wisdom, right? It's a little different than the wisdom of even theology and the wisdom of, obviously, Aristotle, right? But it's kind of interesting, interesting text there. But it's kind of hard for us to understand the obstinance of the, what, the fallen angels, right? One of the objections, you know, saying, well, the malice of the, what, demons is something finite, but the mercy of God is infinite. Therefore, there must be, what, there must be change, there must be possibility for them to be converted, right? That's kind of like a reasonable argument, isn't it, to you, right? The mercy of God is much greater than the malice of the devils, right? And for the greater. And Thomas replies, well, God has mercy only on those who are penitent. And it's impossible for the, what, fallen demons, right, to be penitent. And that's because when they go for something, in a choice, the whole of the angel goes for it, right? It's not this kind of a lukewarm choice that we make, you know, where we can, you know, have an opportunity to go back against it, right? Or even repenting of our choice, huh? And it's hard to understand, you know? But I guess when we die, you know, then we're like the, what, angels, right? And, you know, like it says in Scripture, where the tree falls, there it's a lie. And so Thomas likes to quote that thing from St. John Damascene, you know, that this choice was for the angel of death is for us, right? You know, the whole soul goes that way, right? You know, Thomas often quote Sarastatus, such as a man is in his habits, right? So does the end and purpose of life seem to him, right? And if you can't change your habits, then you can't, what? Yeah, yeah. So could Hitler have changed in the last moment? Well, it'd be extremely difficult for him, right? Because his habit is so much, you know? Going back to Mozart there, Don Giovanni, right? He can't repent at the end when he's in the hand of the commandant, right? No, no, he goes down to hell, right? So why is it that the, why is it that we cannot change, why is it that we cannot change our habits when we die? Because you're not in time anymore. We don't have, oh God, in time. I was going to say we don't have bodies. Yeah, we're so used to time and this wishy-washy life we have, we're half, you know, what we should be in half, what we shouldn't be, you know? We think it's always possible to be in this state of being able to change, huh? It's not possible. So there will be like the angels too when they die, huh? In this way, huh? That I will and I'll be determined, huh? You know, it's kind of interesting, you know, the way the tradition of the church and the traditional prayers of the church show the wisdom of the church, right? And I think the second part of the Hail Mary is, is, but not from scripture, like the first part is from scripture, right? From the angel and from, you know, Elizabeth, yeah. The second part, you know, was a holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Why do you say in particular and at the hour of our death, you know? It's because that determines everything, the way your will, what, falls there, right? Yeah. It's kind of frightening, you know? See, but I'm always a little bit nervous when I read about the angels and how evil they are, right? But how, you know, quick they can fall, right? The second instant of their existence, huh? We're not finished off the second instance of our life. Okay, so we're up to Article 6 here in Question 73. Whether the gravity of the sins should be observed according to the cause of the sin, right, huh? To the sixth, therefore, one goes forward thus. It seems that the gravity of sins is not to be observed according to the cause of sin. For the greater is the cause of sin, the more vehemently, right, the more strongly is one moved to sinning. And the more difficult is it, huh? To resist it, right? But sin is diminished from this that, what? It's more difficult to resist it. For this pertains to the weakness, huh? Infirmity, huh? Of the one sinning. That he does not easily, what? Resist sin, huh? But a sin that is from, what? Weakness, huh? Livius, huh? More likely, is judged, right? Therefore, sin does not have gravity on the side of its, what? Cause, huh? Moreover, concupiscence is a general cause of sin. Whence the gloss says upon that of Romans 7, 7. Unless I, what? Was ignorant, huh? Did not know concupiscence. Good is a law which, when it, what? Prohibited concupiscence, prohibited every evil, huh? But when a man is conquered by greater concupiscence, there is a less sin, right? False test says, right, huh? You know, you know, they have more flesh to the men's. So, more to overcome. Therefore, the gravity of a sin is diminished from the magnitude of the cause. Moreover, the third objection, just as the rectitude or rightness of reason is the cause of a virtuous act, so the defect of reason seems to be a cause of sin. But the defect of reason, the more it is greater, the less is the sin. So Thomas says to educate people to sin is more serious than for the peasant to sin who doesn't have the same knowledge. So much so that those who lack the use of reason, like the little boy or the baby, are altogether excused from sin. And the one who sins from ignorance more likely sins. Therefore, the gravity of sin is not expanded or blown up from the magnitude of the cause. But against this is that the cause of being multiplied, the effect is multiplied. Therefore, if the cause of sin is greater, the sin is graver. That last objection sounds like what our Lord said about if you knew the Master's law, you didn't do it, you're going to get severe beating. But if you didn't know the Master's law, you get a light beating. It's like that. Yeah. Whereas Thomas says that appropriation to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, when he's got his prayers for confession, right? So he sinned against the Father by what? Weakness, huh? And he sinned against the Son by ignorance, right? And then he sinned against the Holy Spirit by malice, huh? That's the worst thing, huh? I answer, it should be said, that in the genus of sin, in the kind of thing sin is, right? Use English, huh? Just as in any other genus, huh? There can be taken a two-fold, what? Cause, huh? One is the proper and per se cause of sin, which is the will itself of sinning. And this is compared to the act of the sin as a tree to its fruit, huh? As is said in the gloss upon that of Matthew 7. That the good tree, right, huh? Is not able to what? Fruit. Fruit, yeah. Interesting, the Latin word for happiness is what? Flicitas, huh? Which comes from fruit, huh? Okay. Well, here you speak of bad fruit, right? But it's kind of the natural result, huh? Any cause of this sort, the greater it is, the more grave is the, what? Sin, huh? For the more the will was inclined to sinning, right, huh? The more you had a will for sinning, right? The more gravely does a man, what? Sin, huh? But other causes of sin are taken, as it were, something extrinsic and, what? Remote, huh? From which to it, the will is inclined to sin. And in these causes, one ought to, what? Distinguish, huh? For some things of this sort, lead one, lead the will to sinning, according to the very nature of the will itself, just as the end, which is the proper object of the, what? Will. So Aristotle always talks about the end and the good being, what? The same thing, right, huh? And from such a cause, sin is, what? Magnified, huh? Increased. For that man sins more gravely, whose will, from the intention of a worse end, is inclined to, what? Sin, huh? Other causes there are, which incline the will to sinning, apart from the nature and order of the will itself, which is to naturally be moved freely from itself according to the judgment of reason. Whence the causes which diminish the judgment of reason, as ignorance, or which diminish the free motion of the will, as infirmity or violence, huh? Or, what? Threats, I guess. Or fears, yeah. Or something of this sort, diminish the, what? Sin. Sin, huh? Just as they diminish the, what? Voluntary. Voluntary, right? So much so, that if the act is entirely involuntary, it does not have the character of a, what? Sin, huh? So, again, Thomas does not simply affirm or deny, but he gives these, what? Distinctions. Distinctions, huh? And he has, what? Two distinctions of two, right? And then, what? One of the two, it is. But in the second, it's one of the two, too. So it's two out of three, right? Okay. So the first one, it should be said that that objection proceeds from a extrinsic moving cause, right? Which diminishes the voluntary, right? And the growth or the magnitude or the, yeah, growth of such a cause diminishes the, what? Sin, huh? Okay. To second, it should be said that if under concupiscence is included also the motion itself of the will. Because notice, these words, you know, concupiscence can maybe name first the emotion, but sometimes they name, what? The act of the will that is like the passion, not in being bodily or involving a bodily change, but in its formal aspect, right? If under concupiscence is included also the motion itself of the will, thus where there is more concupiscence, there is more, what? Sin. But if concupiscence is called a certain passion, huh? What we call emotion, which is a movement of the concupiscible power, huh? Thus a greater concupiscence preceding the judgment of reason, and the motion of the, what? Will, diminishes the sin, right? Because from a greater concupiscence, the one that stimulated sins, huh? He falls from a graver, what? Temptation, right? Whence it is imputed to him less, huh? And not more, right? That's how I say to the students, you know. Plenty of people apologize for getting upset, you know. What do they say? When I said that to you yesterday, I wasn't myself. That's true, right, huh? You know? You say what? I wasn't myself. Oh, yeah. Don't you see that sometimes? You hear that? Maybe you say it's yourself sometimes, right? Huh? That wasn't me. See? And that's not just a, you know, an excuse. I mean, it wasn't so much you. Yeah. There was something in there, but it was... The real you. Yeah. That was my anger. That was in me. See? But you realize that anger, the emotion, is not what makes you to be a man, right? Might make a dog to be a dog, but... But if the concubiscence thus taken follows the judgment of reason, right? And the motion of the will, right? Then where there is a greater concubiscence, there is a greater what? Sin. Sin, huh? For sometimes there arises a great motion of concubiscence, from this that the will, without restraint or without any... Unbridled. Yeah. Unbridled, yeah. Tends in its what? Object, huh? That's the way to pre-meditate that, whatever it is. Mm-hmm. You get to think about politics and you get, you know, certain judgments, and suddenly you're angry about what's going on. I try to adapt their way of speaking and I see. Terrorists and abortionists lack respect for human life, and that should be said, you know. And if you think of saying that, you know, people might say dawn upon them, you know. Yeah, especially, we're getting all upset about a few people getting beheaded. Yeah, yeah. Abortionists do it every day for money. Yeah, yeah. We should couple those things, you know, because they're similar, right? It was an abortionist who was almost assassinated by a pro-life insane lab, and he wrote an article that the New York Times published, and he started it off with, I was just finishing up my sixth abortion morning when a bullet shattered the glass and just missed me, something like that. And he goes on about just how he suffered and what a victim he was. And the juxtaposition of his callous comment, I just finished my sixth abortion, and his own self-misery, it was, I wonder if it had an effect he didn't intend when people started waking up a little bit to see that. And both of these things were evil that attempted murder, but the actual murders, too. Yeah, yeah. You see, when they show a film, you know, with the head being chopped off or whatever it is, it's all in the open, you know, huh? You know? But when they make a film, like, who's the guy who's converted in it? The sound screen? Yeah, who's the guy who's converted in it? Oh, Nathan's. Yeah, Nathan's, yeah, you know. And I think what Regan did was to use that film, right? You know, the one that it had done in real abortion, right? You realize that you're tearing somebody apart or whatever you're doing, you know. But it's, things are a little more hidden to the senses. It's a little astonishing that it first dawned on him when he looked at that film, unless there's something missing, but, I mean, in a little bit of abortion, the abortionist has to tear the parts out. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it sounds like he saw that for the first time, maybe he saw the pain, the pain in the victim. Yeah. You never know when something will strike people, you know. There's always a famous one in Witness there by Whitaker Chambers, you know, where he's still communist, and he's in the kitchen there, and his little daughter's there, and he happened to look at her ear, you know, how interesting her ear was. And then he said, you know, that could have happened by chance, this little ear. I mean, there's really one thing where you could have said that this could not be by chance, right? I mean, the eye is more, more, more, you know, of an amazing thing than even the ear, right? You seem to look at the little ear with his little daughter, and, you know, and all of a sudden it dawns upon you, you know. But these things that ISIS is doing that kind of to frighten us or to shock us or something, you know, I mean, they're so obvious, you know, that everybody's getting, you know, even Obama has to, you know, try to come out and oppose them now, you know. Yeah. You had a third objection there? Okay. That argument proceeds from a cause which causes the, what, involuntary, and therefore it diminishes the, what, sin, huh? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Now, Article 7, whether circumstance aggravates sin, right, huh? Makes it more grievous. To the sixth, one proceeds thus. It seems that circumstances do not, what? Yeah, increase the gravity of the sin. For sin has its gravity from its, what? From species, huh? Essential nature. But a circumstance does not give a species to sin. It doesn't mean a different kind of sin, right? For it is a certain, what? Accident, huh? So the white man, a different kind of man than the black man? No. Therefore, the gravity of the sin is not to be considered from its circumstance, huh? Moreover, either circumstance is bad or it is not. If the circumstance is bad, then it, what? By itself or through itself causes a certain, what? Species of badness. If, however, it is not bad, it has nothing whereby it would increase the, what? Evil. Therefore, circumstance in no way increases sin. It's like saying it causes either, what? Another sin, in which case it's not increasing the sin of the first one, right? Or else it doesn't have anything whereby it's going to increase the evil, because it's not bad itself. So if I kill a white man or a black man, it doesn't make a difference, really. It wouldn't be white or black, I don't think. Moreover, the malice of the sin is on the part of, what? Aversion, I suppose, from God. But the circumstances follow sin on the part of, what? Conversion. Therefore, they do not augment the malice of the, what? Sin, huh? But against this is that ignorance of a circumstance diminishes a sin. For the one who sins from ignorance of the circumstance merits, what? Forgiveness, as is said in the third book of the Ethics. Like Shakespeare's history plays there, you know, where the father is on one thing and the son is on the other. The father kills the son, and then he discovers he killed his own son. And then another battle scene, the son kills the father, and then he discovers afterwards that the man is killed, is his own father, right? Like the other person. Yeah, yeah. But this would not be unless circumstances make the sin more grievous. And therefore, circumstances, what? Yeah. I answer, that is, Thomas answers. As I get that straight. I answer, it should be said that each thing from the same thing is naturally apt to be increased from which it is caused, right? Just as a philosopher says about the habit of what? Virtue in the second book of the Ethics. For it is manifest that sin is caused from the defect of some, what? Circumstance, huh? For from this, it recedes, huh? Or departs from the order of reason. Because someone, that someone enacting does not observe the, what? Yeah, suitable circumstances. Whence it is manifest that sin is apt to be, what? Yeah, we're down by circumstances, huh? But this happens in three ways. Now, close the book and tell me the three ways. My brother Mark and I used to joke about trying to straighten out some of these professors on campus, you know, and lock them in a cell, right? And give them only a little bit of a Zoom and a Tiger, a little bit of an article, you know, make them try to, you know, you know, discover those three ways, right? On your own, you say, my goodness. Now, you remember what Brother Mark would say about Euclid's Theorem, which you're very clear in one way, you know, but see, you know, how long would it have taken me on my own to arrive at that theorem? It's just to make the steeple out of a triangle. I think I've spent most of my life. But this happens in three ways. In one way, insofar as a circumstance, right, carries over, huh? They use English for transfers, right? In another genus of sin, right? Just as the sin of fornication consists in this, that a man approaches one that is not his own, huh? But if one adds to this the circumstances that the one to whom one exceeds is the wife of another, right, it is carried over into another genus of sin. To wit, to injustice, right? Insofar as a man usurps the thing that belongs to, what, another, right? And according to this, adultery is a graver sin than, what, fornication, huh? Incidentally, you say that adultery is a form of fornication or not? Because it says it's an act of adultery, and we say that fornication is wrong. I'm not sure, you know, whether the word fornication is kept by one, you know, and then the new one gets a new name, or whether, you know, fornication right away means the lesser thing, right? We seem to use it in that sense, you know? That's not really important, huh? It's a question of the word, but... So it's interesting, right? In some cases, circumstance, right? So I suppose killing my mother or my father, rather than a stranger, might take it a different sin, right? And suicide is a different sin than... Yeah, yeah. So sometimes a circumstance carries it over, right? You've got to be careful when you say circumstance is a, what? Accident, right? What? Yeah, yeah. Sometimes, however, a circumstance does not weigh down a sin, as it were, drawing it into another genus of sin, right? It's interesting, you know, kind of like the word predicament, right? Taken from the word for the categories of Aristotle, right? And that you can't go from one genus to another, right? And that's where you get the expression of predicament, right? I'm in a situation I can't get out of. But it's taken from logic, right? But you've got to realize that there's not a definite thing here, if you can draw something into another genus, right? But you're in the same broad genus, right? Sometimes a circumstance does not aggravate a sin, as it were, drawing it to another genus of sin, right? But only because it multiplies the, what? Definition of sin. Just as if the prodigal man, right? Gives when he ought not to, right? And to whom he ought not to give, right, huh? He more multiply, in many ways, you might say, sins by the same genus of sin, right? If he only gives to one, to whom what? Yeah. And from this, the sin becomes more grave, right? Just as also sickness is more grave when more parts of the body are infected, huh? Metastasize the cancer, they say, right? Whence also Thule says in the paradoxes, right? That in what? Violating the life of the Father, right? Many things are sin. right because one violates the one who what who yeah who instructed him right who in the house and home and in the country called him forth right into that so i don't think he's talking here about telling the father supposedly a stranger right he's talking about the many the reasons why you're indebted to the father right and there are many kinds of uh gratitude and so on right that you have killing your father right huh he's done all these things for you right okay like your father you know generated you but then abandoned you you know went off and left you with your mother well then you don't owe him as much as a man who you know nourished you educated you and all that sort of stuff right huh okay he doesn't draw it to another genus of sin right adipus right because he didn't he's excused somewhat because he's ignorant right that the man who stopped him was his father so that distinction between the first and the second is not too hard to see right now what the heck is this third way though because third is the thing what we say all right okay in a third way a circumstance makes sin more grievous from this that it increases what a deformity coming from some other circumstance right just as you take what belongs to another right constitutes the sin of theft right huh if however one adds the circumstances that one takes much from another right it's a more what yeah although to take much or less of itself does not say something about the ratio of good or bad right you see the difference between the third one and the second one i see if i killed a man who generated me and fed me right you see that's worse than just to kill a man who generated but then abandoned me right or a man who fed me but did not generate me right but that comes under the what second one right huh it's bad to kill the man who fed you it's bad to kill the man who generated you it's even worse to kill a man who both generated you and fed you right but isn't that the second one that he's talking about there right okay yeah yeah but you take much to take little doesn't seem to be by itself right something bad right but they take what is not yours right to take much right is worse than to take quite as little a little yeah now why can't you think that you know i remember i was talking about saying about the angels and said why can't you figure out why this is so thomas figured it out why can't you i was in my 30s and my i was telling my mom how marvelous st thomas was he wrote this book short little work day in day in sensei he was like 29 years old and he wrote that this is really really profound my mom i was in my 30s so my mom said so what have you been doing to the first therefore thomas says huh that's one that said that it's just an accident right you need to be careful that word accident huh you know i was uh i was talking about the angel because the angel still have his natural knowledge right and one of the objections was saying well uh the natural object of the angel is the separated substances right and you know some of the philosophers say man's beatitude consists in knowing the separated substances some of the air philosophers and so on right and so there'd be some beatitude there for the angel right and thomas in replying to the objection there he says well maybe you could say that a bit about man there'd be some happiness for a man to know to separate substances right but even for a man that's not his ultimate happiness right his ultimate happiness is to know the first substance right so gee that's usually thomas would say that right but he calls god the first what yeah and then of course you know it's an article in the that god is not in the genus of what substance right but here you can call god the first substance but it's a analogous use of the word right you gotta be kind of careful about that he says you know for the angels to know separate substances like for us don't sensible things that's not our happiness at all right and the angels not knowing the first substance are not happy you've got to do something above yourself to be happy right so he says some circumstance gives the species to the moral act right and that was what he's talking about there in the first method in the body of the article where it draws it to a different genus right or different species huh but nevertheless a circumstance which does not give the species to the act can make it more what greedious for just as the goodness of a thing is not only what weighed from its species but also from some accident right so the goodness of a man consists not only in his being a man but as being say a courageous man right or a prudent man and so on so also the malice of an act not only is weighed from the species of the act but also from the circumstances like in the second and third here we so to the second it should be said that in both ways a circumstance is able to what aggravate a sin if it is bad not an account of this only right it's necessary that it always constitute a species of sin for it can add a ratio of wickedness in the same what species as has been said and that's in the what second way right if our weight is not bad it could aggravate the sin in order to malice of another what circumstances right notice how thoroughly the body of the article uh helps you to answer the objections right really a marvelous thing this poor guy would put in the kind of prison cell right he'd get the objections without the body of the article or the answers right you'd have to you try to answer the objections for a while right and then finally one day it would be dropped through the body of the article right and then he'd be asked again after studying the body of the article now it's going to answer the objections and perhaps he could perhaps he couldn't somebody could somebody could it and then finally after a few more days of this torture we drop in the third part of the thing you know huh so it's not a danger of having the whole text you know here you know of course you like in the very 80 text maybe your text too you know they they print the answer in in bowls they always do this you don't have any understanding right huh just memorizing but not understanding huh yeah what about this version so to the third it should be said huh that reason ought to order an act not only as regards its object right but also as regards what all circumstances huh so it's hard to be good right now you can avoid one of these circumstances you should have ordered it to and therefore aversion from the rule of reason not from god he's talking about from the rule of reason is to reserve according to corruption of any what circumstance right if for example someone acts when he ought not to and worry not to right huh okay So I laughed when I was in church. I should have done that, maybe. Or I laughed more than I should have, right? All these things, right? I've got to observe all these things. It's not the time to be fooling around at church. It's a famous story told about Thomas. One of his colleagues or brothers there was saying he saw an elephant out on the road. Thomas goes over and they're laughing at him. Thomas says, if I'd rather believe that there's an elephant out there, then what if my brothers would lie? So you might sin by alcohol by drinking too much, right? Or drinking when you shouldn't, right? I'm going to operate on somebody a day and I shouldn't be drinking beforehand, right? I worked with a guy there who had been on the bombing planes in the Normandy landing, right? He was only 17 at the time, right? And he said you wouldn't eat anything before you went on that thing because you just throw it up and you're so tense, right? And the first day they went in, of course, they missed their target. They said you flew too high. The Germans were shooting at your ass. So the second day they went in and hit their target, you know. He says when they got off the airplane coming back, you know, they had these little cups of whiskey, right? To take and calm you down. But you don't take a whiskey before you flam over there. You wouldn't have had any of that. You'd be not gut happy but gut unhappy, you know. But you just, you know. So all these circumstances, right? So this drink at the wrong time could be, what? Unreasonable, right, huh? Another time the same amount might be reasonable, right, huh? I used to take this out for, you know, it's on Thanksgiving and your grandmother has, you know, prepared this and that and so on. So eat more than you'd eat on a normal day, right? And that's not really raw, right? And your grandma would be, you know, hurt if you'd not enjoy fully everything she prepared to, you know, these things. But eat that much every day or on a day when, you know, grandma's not going. Yeah, yeah. These meals they eat in Germany, you know, they serve us, and it's too heavy, you know. You can't eat them all, I mean, it's have to be, you know. And I don't know about those Germans, but the guide says, we'd love to eat, you know. See, see, my kind of thing is that the Italians and the French eat better than us, right? But we eat better than the Germans, I think. So exceptionally to this, but... With regard to cuisine, too, and why you see the influence perhaps in certain regions, France and Italy, compared to the more than the times where the quality of the cuisine diminishes rapidly. And the same thing with wine, something like that. A lot of times, I'm sort of told about that. And this aversion suffices for the definition of evil, right? This aversion from the rule of reason follows what? Robinhood. To which a man ought to be joined through right reason. Don't hear that in sermons too much, do you? You don't hear that in sermons too often, do you? Now, I always want to skip the title of the article because I don't think it's in Thomas, is it? Originally, you know, I think it's just the... I know it's like when I read the Summa Contra Gentiles, which, as you know, is my so-called favorite work. But they have a title, you know, for each chapter, you know, and it kind of fits in. But sometimes it's not exactly right, you know. And I suspect it's not by Thomas, right? Not a scholar, you know, but at least by Thomas. I think it's put in by the editor, right? Mm-hmm.