Prima Secundae
Lecture 206: Divine Providence, Blinding, Hardening, and the Devil's Role in Sin

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

Whether blinding and hardening are always ordered to the salvation of the one who is blinded and hardened, right? To the fourth one precedes us. It seems that blinding and hardening are always ordered to the salvation of the one who is what? Hardened, right? For Augustine says in the Enchiridion. It's in the Enchiridion of faithful maturity, right? Yeah, yeah, have it in hand, yeah. Manual, yeah. That's kind of the Latin word. That God who is, what? Summe bonus, huh? In no way would permit some evil to come about unless he could from any evil. He doesn't something, what? Good, huh? But much more, huh? Does he order to good that evil which he himself is a cause? But God is the cause of blinding and what? Hardening, as has been said, right? But it's the attraction of grace, right? Therefore, these are ordered to the salvation of one who is blinded or hardened. That's a nice argument. Moreover, Wisdom 1, it is said, God does not delight in the loss of the impious, right? But he would seem, however, to delight in their loss, their perdition, if their, what? He did not convert into their, what? Good, right? Just as the doctor would seem to delight in the affliction of the infirm, if a bit of medicine, which, what? He, yeah, to the infirm, it would not be ordered to his, what? Help. Yeah. He might do some operation that is not agreeable, right? Therefore, God does not convert, what? God does convert, yeah. Blindness to the good of those blind. Moreover, God is not an acceptor of persons, as is said in Acts 10, verse 34. But the blindness of some, he orders to their, what? Salvation. Just as some of the Jews who were blinded that they did not, what? Believe Christ. And not believing, they, what? Killed, right? And afterwards, what? Yeah, they're converted. As about some, it is said in Acts 2, 37. This is clear through Augustine in the book on the questions of the Gospels. Therefore, what? Yeah. Therefore, God converts the blindness of all to their salvation, right? Against this, evil things should not be made, that good things might arrive. To evil. Yeah. But blindness, blinding, is bad, yeah? Therefore, God does not, what? Blind some on account of their good, huh? Here's a nice example of the word, preambulum, huh? The answer should be said that blinding is a certain, what? Preambulum, huh? Yeah, walking before, right? Going before to sin, right, huh? Now, sin is ordered to, what? Two things. To one, per se. To wit, to damnation. But to another, from the, what? Merciful. Providence. Providence of God. To wit, to what? Healing. Insofar as God permits some to fall into sin, huh? That knowing their, or recognizing their sin, they would be humbled and converted. As Augustine says in the book, Nature and Grace, huh? Augustine says that, didn't it, about the, some of the virgins there in the early church, you know, became proud, right? They said it would be better if they fell into sins of the flesh, right? So they would be cured of their, what? Pride, right? Because spiritual sin is even worse than what? Fleshly sin, right? There's a wonderful, I see these books called Christian Spirituality by Reverend P. Kura. The pronunciation may be a bit off. They're considered the spiritual treasures. University of Toronto, which has electronic versions of great books. And so there are copies there. We have some in our library. But it gives a wonderful history about how the virgins essentially came to be. How they came about and formed a foundation for the development of monasticism as well. Very interesting. Well, it seemed to be, you know, a very common example there about pride as being, you know, I made such a mistake. Me, the all-white teacher. When I was little, I was pretty good at checkers, you know, I'd be in the family, you know. Finally, my father's cousin came over and she beat me in checkers, you know. My mother said, she said, she's a little bit sorry for me, you know, but she feels good for me, you know. I thought it was getting, getting a little bit too. My brother marked me, my older brother, didn't knock it off. I beat him in checkers, you know. He'd get a little bit aggravated by that. They used to arrange these things. I remember they, I was always beating, you know, before I was married there. I'd play Rosie's sisters and brothers, you know, brother and sister and so on and beat them out, you know. Finally, they got their uncle, you know, come in and he's going to read it, you know. They thought he had a good chance of beating me, you know, he used to teach and so on. So we started playing. I was kind of, you know, confident, kind of careless. And he got one ahead of me, you know. Boy, I concentrated there, you know. How did he beat the guy, you know. But, I mean, if he had played right, you know, I'd admit a stupid thing and lost one piece and that could be, you know, I think I know what he's doing, you know. That's a fatal mistake, you know. But they would have been good for me. Him beating me out. He was a nice guy, though. They're all cheering for him, you know, as you said. Let's go back to the Bible again here. Excecatio, blinding is a certain preambula to sin. But sin is ordered to two things. To one per se, to what? Damnation. That's a, that's a, oh, I'm quoting that to people, right? What is, what is abortion per se ordered to? Damnation, yeah. But to something else. from the, what, merciful providence of God, right, to wit, to, what, healing, right, insofar as God permits some to fall into sin, that recognizing their sin, they are humbled, right, yeah, that's the great importance of humility, right, in the spiritual life kind of the foundation in some ways, as Augustine says in the book on nature and grace, right, whence blindness from its very nature is ordered the damnation of the one who is, what, blinded, an account of which also is laid down the, what, approbation, right, but from divine mercy, not from divine justice, apparently, but from divine mercy, blindness is ordered, what, yeah, in a medicinal way, right, to the salvation of those who are, what, blinded, but this mercy is not, what, bespoke, it's not given to all, I guess, who are blinded, right, but only to those who are, what, yeah, for whom all things cooperate in the good, right, as it's said in Romans 8, right, whence as regards some blinding is ordered to healing, as regards, what, others to, what, damnation, as Augustine says in the third book of the questions of the evangelia, right, I don't know, about the Hitler there and Stalin, you know, Stalin started there, you know, describing Stalin in his last moments there, you know, kind of like cursing his attendants, you know, about a, you know, Hitler committing suicide, of course, you know, so this is a difficult teaching, right? Paul said, you know, certain mysteries of the faith that are hard to understand, he said, some of them are hard to believe, and he said, eternal damnation is one of them, it's hard to believe, you know, you don't believe. Well, see, some of these things are to his justice and some to his mercy, right, to manifesting his justice, right, others to manifesting his, what, mercy, right, huh? Maybe the same thing can't manifest equally mercy and justice, right? You know, a teacher at the circuit would say, you just can't beat God, you know, you just can't win it. To the first, therefore, it should be said that all evils that God makes or permits to come about, right, are ordered to some good, right, huh? But not always to the good of the one in whom, what, there is evil, but sometimes to the good of another, right, or even for the good of the whole, what, universe, huh? Just as the guilt of the tyrants he orders in the good of the martyrs, right, huh? And the punishment of the damned he orders in the glory of his, what, justice, huh? You know, Thomas says there in the Psalms there, huh, that you need to, what, open the divine mercy and fear the divine justice, right? It's very clear, you know, when you see, read this text here, right, then you go back to the Psalms, you know? You know, how does St. Mary say in the Magnificat, right? What does she say? Yeah, yeah. It seems like a contradiction, right? Instead of saying, you know, in his mercy is on those who hope in him, right, huh? But, you know, that kind of goes without saying, right? And, but he says instead of fear, right? She says instead of fear, huh? Good, all right. I think I have both, right? We were talking before about this balance of fear and hope, even in, you know, in a human sense here, in philosophy, right, huh? Once you have a Socrates and so on, huh? The hope of finding the truth and the fear of being, what? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or like Socrates there, you know, where he has this great fear of thinking he knows he doesn't know. You know, it's just kind of like it's the common human thing, right, huh? The low-informed voters they talk about. Low-information voters, that's kind of a phrase that's common, you know. Well, I hear it all the time now on Fox News, you know, the low-information voters. I think it may have been coined by him. I'm not sure. Could be, yeah, yeah, could be. It's a good phrase, good phrase, yeah. The second should be said that God does not delight in the, what, destruction of or loss of men as regards the loss itself, right? Right, but by reason of his justice, right? Or on account of the good that, what, yeah. The third should be said that God orders the blinding of some to their salvation is a matter of, what, mercy, right? But that the blindness of some he orders to their damnation is a justice, right? That the mercy of, what? On some, not all, does not make an exception of what? Persons in God, as has been said in the first. We've got to go back there. Chapter 23, Article 5, Article 3. To the fourth, it should be said that the evils of guilt should not be done, that evil, that good things might come about, but the evils of punishment should be in the account of the good, right? So spank those kids right now. Take a break here now. here then we ought to consider about the cause of sin on the side of the what devil about this four things are asked first with the devil is directly a cause of sin second with the devil leads one into sinning by persuading one inwardly right third whether he is what possible to what induced the necessity of sitting right it's the fourth whether all sins arrive from the suggestion of the devil right so i guess not true the first one precedes us it seems that the devil is to man directly the cause of sinning for sin consists directly in what the affections but augustine says in the fourth book about the trinity that the devil uh through his what yeah association inspires evil lignant affections right and bead uh upon that of acts chapter 5 says that the devil draws the soul into the affection of malice sounds pretty bad and isador says in the book on the highest good that the devil fills the hearts of men with hidden desires but the therefore the devil directly is the cause of sin moreover jerome says that just as god is the perfecter of the good so the devil is perfecter of evil but god is directly the cause of our goods therefore the devil is directly the cause of the cause of our sins moreover the philosopher approves in a certain chapter of the demon ethics it is necessary that there be a certain extrinsic beginning of human what council right it's a text that thomas often talks about but human council is not only about good things but also about bad things therefore as god moves to good council and to this directly as a cause of good so the devil moves man to taking bad counsel and to this it follows that direct the devil is directly a cause of sin but against this is what augustine proves in the first and the third book on free will that what by no other thing does the mind of man become what a slave of lust except by its own what will but man does not become the servant of lust except through what sin therefore the cause of sin cannot be the devil but only one's own what will i answer it should be said that sin is a certain act whence in this way someone is able to be directly the cause of sin the way in which one is directly the cause of some what act but this does not happen except through this that the what it moves the proper principle of that act to what acting but the proper principle of the act of sin is the will because every sin is what voluntary right once nothing is able to be directly a cause of sin except that which is able to move the will to acting but the will as has been said above is able to be moved by two things in one way by the object as it is said that the desirable being grasped or known moves what desire another way from that which inwardly inclines the will to what willing but this is not except the will itself or god this has been shown above but god cannot be the cause of sin as has been said once it remains that from this side inwardly only the will of man is directly a cause of his what sin now from the side of the object it can be understood that something moves the will in three ways i didn't know about that three in one way as the object itself what proposed just as we say that food excites the desire arouses the desire of man to eating in another way the one who proposes or offers an object of what this sort huh and in a third way the one who persuades the proposed object to have the ratio or something what good huh that's the first thing though in the premium too you know to show the desirability of the knowledge right but you want to know these things so the third way the one who persuades the object proposed to have an aspect of being good because he in some way proposes the what proper object to the will which is the good of reason true or what apparent so in the first way therefore sensible things exteriorly appearing move the will of man to sinning but in the second and in the third way either the devil or also a man can incite to sinning either by offering something desirable to the sense or by persuading what reason but in none of these three ways can something be direct the direct cause of sin because the will is not moved a necessity by some object except by the last end as has been said above once it is not a sufficient cause of sin neither the thing outwardly offered nor the one who proposes it nor the one who what persuades once it follows the devil is not a cause of sin directly and sufficiently but only by way of what persuading or of proposing the what yeah so i suggest something to you or he persuade you that something is didn't he persuade uh eve did god tell you this and then he lied you won't die and then he showed her the fruit so first he he distracted her then he attracted her he persuaded her didn't he he'd be like she'd like a god doing good and evil the first it should be say that all those authorities and some similar ones are found should be referred to this that the devil by suggesting either or proposing some desirable leads one into the affection of what sin now the second the similitude there right you gotta be careful of likeness like this is a cause of what deception to second should be said that that likeness should be noted as he as far as this goes that the devil is in some way a cause of our sins just as god is in some way a cause of our what good but not over as regards the mode or way of causing right for god causes the good by inwardly removing the what will which did not the devil which cannot belong to the devil right The third, it should be said, that God is the universal beginning of every, what, inward motion, human motion. But that it be determined to, what, the human will to a bad counsel. This is directly from, what, the human will. And from the devil, right, by way of, what, persuasion or proposing the desirable thing. So, Frederick is the art of persuasion, right? And Aristotle says, you know, do we guard a man as a good rhetorician if he doesn't persuade? Well, he says, if he admits none of the means of persuasion, right? That could be used in the case, right? Then he's a good rhetorician, right? Doesn't necessarily persuade, right? To second, one proceeds thus. It seems that the devil is not able to lead us into sinning by instigating inwardly, right? For the inward motions of the soul are certain works of life. But no work of life can be except by an intrinsic, what, principle? That's a living thing, it's something that moves itself, right? Not even the work of the, what, vegetable soul, right? Which is the lowest among the works of life. Therefore the devil, according to inward motions, cannot instigate man to, what, evil. Moreover, all inward motions, according to the order of nature, arise from exterior senses. But to act outside the order of nature is only possible for God, right? And therefore the devil cannot do something in the inward motions of man, except those things which appear to the exterior, what, senses. Only Shakespeare say they're phi-fi in sinful fantasy. Imagination, right? Moreover, the inward or interior acts of the soul are to understand and to imagine. But as regards neither of these is the devil able to operate. Because, as is said in the first book, the devil does not impress upon, what, yeah. In the fantasy, he's not seen to, what, he's not able to impress. Because the imagined forms, as it were, being more spiritual, are more, what, dignity, than the forms which are in sensible matter, which nevertheless the devil is not able to, what, impress. It is clear from those things which are added in the first book. Therefore the devil is not able, according to interior motions, to induce man to, what, sin. But against this, because according to this, never would a man, what, never would he tempt man except by, what, yeah, which is clearly, what, false. I answer, it should be said, that the inward part of the soul is the intellective part and the sense power, right? Now, the intellective part contains the understanding and the will. And about the will has already been said in what way the devil has himself towards it. Now, the understanding, per se, is moved by someone enlightening it to the knowledge of truth, which the devil does not intend about man. But more to, what, darken reason, to consent to sin, which darkening comes from the, what, imagination and sense desire, right? Whence the whole inward operation of the devil would seem to be about the fantasium, the imagination, right? Or, and they sense, or in the sense, what, desiring power, of which both, by, what, moving them, commotion, commotion, I guess, I guess it's very right, commovendo, can, what, yeah. He can, what, operate, to, what, to this that he presents to the imagination some imaginary forms, right? And he can bring about that the sense desire is, what, excited, I guess, to some passion, huh? As far as it's been said in the first book, that the bodily, what, nature, actually obeys the spiritual as far as locomotion is concerned, huh? Not as far as growth or other things. Whence the devil can cause all things, can cause all those things, which, from the locomotion, right, of lower bodies, can, are able to come about. Unless it be, what, repressed by the divine power. Swine, run off the cliff. That's a locomotion. Now that some forms are represented to the imagination, can happen, sometimes, as a result of locomotion, right, or consequence of that. For the philosopher says in the book on sleep and being awake, in this little book of Aristotle, that when the, what, animal sleeps, they're descending much blood to the sensitive power, right? At the same time, they descend motions, or impressions left from sensible motions, right? Which are preserved in the, what, species. And they move the knowing, grasping power, right? Thus it appears as if, what, the sensitive power is being changed by the exterior things themselves, right? When such a locomotion of spirits or humors can be procured by the demons, whether men sleep or, yeah. And thus it follows that man, what, imagines something, right? Similarly, the sense-desiring power can be, what, excited, you might say, huh? Stirred up to some passions according to a certain determined motion of the heart and the spirits, huh? Whence for this also the devil can, what, cooperate, huh? And from this, that some passions are aroused in the sense-desire, it follows that emotion or a sensible intention, force said, the way is reduced to a, what, to a grasping principle. The more man, what, perceives. Whence the philosopher says in the same book that those loving, by a little similitude, in the grasping of the thing loved are what moved, huh? It's the hint, right, huh? It happens from this that a passion is what aroused, huh? That that which is proposed to the imagination is judged as something to be, what? Pursued, yeah. Because to the one who is detained by passion, it seems to be good that to which he is inclined by, what, passion, huh? And in this way, the devil inwardly, huh, induces one to sin, right? So he can move the, what, sense-desire, and he can move the imagination, right? It's a communion prayer there where you have the asking Christ to, what, preserve you from the evil one, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the works of life are always from some, what, inward beginning, right? Nevertheless, some exterior agent can, what, work with these, huh? Just as to the works of the living soul, the vegetable soul, operates, what, exterior heat? That might, easy one might digest the food, huh? Like this, uh, yeah. The second should be said that this apparition of imaginable forms is not entirely apart from the order of nature, nor is it the only command either, right? But it is, what, the locomotion, huh? Wentz is clearly the response to the third, because those forms were taken originally from the, what, sense-design? Let me go ahead. I can't remember the dream I had this week. It was kind of an odd dream, you know. I couldn't figure out the source of it. I was dreaming that somebody in the parish, the judge's wife had been in Europe or something, and she had been knocked down by some ruffian. She was suffering from it. It wasn't always kind of being clear to me. I was trying to say, Rosie, was she? She had a bedtime in Europe. I remember being very determined by the family to what the problem was, you know. No reality to it all. No reality to it all, I don't know. I got that. So should we stop or go on? One more? Okay. Whether the devil possesses a necessity to infer us to sin, right? To lead us into sin. Carry us into sin. Infer, right? Carry us into sin. But the third, it should be said, it seems that the devil is able to infer necessity to sinning. For a greater power can, what? Infer necessity to a lesser. But the devil, it is said in Job 41, there is not a power upon the earth, which can be compared to it. Therefore, he is able to, what? Infer necessity to sinning to earthly man, right? O mini terino. Secondly, the reason of man is not, what? Able to be moved except according to those things which are proposed outwardly to the senses and represented to the imagination. Because all our knowledge has its origin from the sense. And there is no understanding without the, what, image. As is said in the third book of the Dianima about the soul. But the devil is able to move the imagination of man, as has been said, and also the outward senses. For Augustine says in the book on 83 questions, that, what, serpent, what? Anyway, he brings in this, huh? He creeps in this mal-evil, that is from the devil, through all the, what, intenses, sensual intenses. Gives figures to it, accommodates it to colors, colors it hears, sounds, tons. Taste. Yeah. Therefore, he is able to, what, incline, you know? Like necessity. Yeah, the reason of man, there's necessity to sinning. Moreover, according to Augustine, there's no sin, or there is some sin. When the flesh, what, desires against the spirit, huh? It's some sin, right? But the concubiscence of the flesh, the devil is able to cause, just as the other passions, in the way that has been said above. Therefore, from necessity, it can induce to sin. Against this is what is said in 1 Peter, 1 Epistle of Peter. The adversary, your adversary, is the devil, whom, like a, what? A Leo. A roaring lion. Like a Leo. Yeah. Running around, sick with. Seeking whom he can devour, to whom resist those fort, strong in, what? Faith, right? So, let's talk about the idea of metaphor, right? A Leo can be, you know, Christ is said to be the, the time of Buddha, yeah. And there was a deal of the great there, and the great, and so on. But, so you can use it for the good and the bad, and the metaphor is, lends itself a different way. But in vain would such an admonition be given if man, of necessity, succumbed, right? Therefore, yeah, those who are strong in faith. I answer that the devil, by his own power, unless he be refrained by God, right, can induce someone of necessity to doing some act, which of its genus is a, what? Sin, huh? But he cannot induce to necessity of sinning. Which is clear from this, that a man, by motive to sinning, does not resist except through, what? Yeah. The use of which is, what? Yeah. Nation. And the sense desire. As in those who are of their mind, I guess. It's clear. But then, reason thus bound, whatever a man does, is not imputed to him as, what? Sin, huh? But if reason is not wholly bound, right, from that part by which it is free, huh, it can resist to, what? Yeah. Once it is manifested, the devil in no way can, what? Induce? Necessity. Yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that not any power greater than man is able to move the will of man, but only God, huh? To the second, it should be said that that which is grasped by sense or imagination does not in necessity move the will, right, if man has the use of reason. Always does the grasping of this sort bind, what? Reason, huh? To the third, it should be said that in the cubiscence of the flesh against the spirit, when reason actually resists it, is not a sin, but the matter of exercising virtue, right? But the reason does not resist it is not in the power of the devil, right? And therefore, it's not able to induce the necessity of sin. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. There's no judgment against that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what everybody's misunderstanding. I know, I know. It's terrible. Well, that's because they want to. That's right. Well, we covered that. There's a little bit of that. Well, why is this? The blindness. What Warren Murray's telling me, he saw this interview with Father, with Cardinal George, you know, he's kind of retired now, you know. Mm-hmm. He's a little concerned about the Pope, you know, that he says things, you know, that he should realize are going to be misinterpreted, right? And if I had times to talk to him, you know, I would ask him, why do you say those things? That's right. That fellow that he interviewed twice last year, and eventually, I was thinking about this today, he's the ex-Catholic, he used to interview him twice, and I thought to myself, after the first interview, and eventually it got canned from the Vatican website, it was so bad, I realized what that was. Why did he go back and give him another interview? That's right. Maybe he figured he's going to be good to him, and they give him a chance to reform. I think, I fooled me once, you know, shame on you. Yeah, yeah. But I was thinking about that today, so whenever he says in there that Pope Francis said, I wouldn't believe him. Why? Not because Pope Francis didn't say it, because I don't believe liars, that's why. Yeah, yeah. I hope you don't believe a liar, even when you tell the truth. The Lord told the demons to shut up, and he told St. Peter, blessed are you. Mm-hmm. That's the difference.