Prima Secundae
Lecture 208: Original Sin: Transmission and Nature Through Generation

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

So if you were born of Hitler, you would suffer from some kind of guilt there. Now, what about the rest of the sins, huh? Let's see how bad this is now. The second one precedes us, it seems also that the, what, other sins, either of the, what, first parent himself or of one's, what, proximate parents, right, are passed over to, what, posterity, right, huh? So if you're a product of rape, you know, then would you have guilt from that rapist, huh? For punishment is not, what, owed except to guilt, right? But some are punished by divine judgment for the sin of their, what, proximate parents, according to that of Exodus chapter 20, huh? I am the zealous God, right, visiting the iniquity of fathers on their sons to the third and the fourth generation. That's one of those texts of Scripture that gets people worried about their understanding of Scripture, yeah. For by human judgment, right, huh, in the crime of, what, yeah, sons are, what, disinherited, right, for the sins of their, what, parents. Therefore also the guilt of their proximate parents pass over to their posterity. These tough things here, huh? Moreover, what, one is more able to transfer to another that which one has from oneself than what one has from another. Just as fire can more heat things than water, what? But man carries over to his son, through origin, the sin that he has from Adam. Therefore, much more than sin that he himself commits. That's a good argument, huh? Moreover, for that reason we contract from our first parent original sin, because we were in him, huh, as in the beginning of what? Our nature, which he himself had corrupted, right? But likewise, we are in our proximate parents, huh, as in certain beginnings of our nature, huh? Which, although it be corrupt, huh, is able even more to be corrupted, huh, to sin, huh? According to that apocalypse, the ultimate there, chapter, I guess. Who is, what, in, yeah. Therefore, sins contract the sins of their proximate parents, the origin, just as of the first parent, huh? Thomas must have got a headache doing this sort of stuff, huh? He got depressed, huh? One of the times when he fell down there in prayer, you know, and he stumped himself, huh? But against this, that the good is more diffusive of itself than evil is, huh? But the merits of one's proximate parents are not carried over to posterity, therefore much less their sin, huh? That's using a dialectical place, too, right? I answer, it should be said that Augustine, huh, moves this question in the Inchiridion and leaves it unsolved, huh? Well, my goodness, you didn't expect this, did you? But Thomas is not going to be stopped by that. It's been interesting that Augustine needs it unsolved, huh? It's a bishop, yeah, Thomas was taught a bishop, he just... But if one diligently pays attention, right? It is impossible that some sins of one's proximate parents, or even of the first parent, apart from that, what, first sin, can be passed over by origin, huh? And the reason for this is that a man generates, right, to himself the same in, what, species, but not according to the, what, individual. And therefore those things which directly pertain to the individual as personal acts, right? And those which, what, to them, are not passed over by the parents to the son. For the grammarian, right, does not pass over into the son the science of, what, grammar, right? So I don't know if I passed on the science of logic to my sons, I don't know. Let alone my daughter. Well, one summer there I said I was going to teach, you know, logic, I mean grammar, or I mean geometry to the little neighbor kids there, right? They're little girls, little boys, right? And the boys persisted, but the little girls finally were drawn off to make cookies in the kitchen. They gave up the Japanese clients, but the boys, the boys... They can make circles, okay, so they can make squares. Triangle, right? Yeah, triangle. So the grammaticus, right, does not pass over into his son the science of grammar, right? Which the, what, grammarian himself acquired by his own, what, study, yeah. A. Fort Zero, the teacher doesn't always pass over to the lazy student, huh? But those things which pertain to the nature of the species, huh, are passed over by the parents to their, what, sons. Unless there be some defect of nature, huh? Just as the one who has, what, I guess, an eye there, huh? Generates someone with an eye, right? Unless nature is, what, deficient, huh? And if the nature is strong, also some individual accidents are propagated in the, what, sons pertaining to the disposition of nature as the velocity of the body, right, huh? The good and genius and other things of this sort, huh? But in no way those things which are purely, what, personal, right, huh? My father had some, he used to hang around his uncle's shop there, the machine shop, you know, so he got to understand machines, you know, and so on. And so when he got into the U.S. Army there in the First World War, he had some big piece of machinery there that they couldn't fix, you know, and the officer was frustrated. He got up and he said, Can anybody fix this machine? My father volunteered. So they put him in ordinance, you know, because he fixed the thing, you know. But he was going out with my mother, you know, they would go out to the farms, you know, the farmer had a machinery and having trouble with a piece of machinery, you know, and my father would leave my mother with the farmer's wife and he'd go out in the field and fix the machine, you know, get to work again, you know. But they don't have that, that built to the machines, you see. That's personal, right, huh? It wasn't that. Yeah, yeah. Otherwise, you might not hear. Yeah. Yeah. For just as that pertains to a person, something, what, according to himself and something from the gift of grace, so also to nature pertains something that pertains to it according to itself, right? What is caused from its principles and something from the gift of what? Grace. And in this way, original justice, huh? As has been said in the first part when he talked about this, was a what? A certain gift of grace. grace given divinely, right, to the whole of human nature, right, in the first parent and to be passed on by him, right, which the first man lost of his first sin. Whence, just as that original justice, what, would have been passed on to his posterity together with the nature, so the opposite, what, disorder, right, huh? But other actual sins, either of the first parent or others, do not corrupt nature as regards that which is of nature, but only that which pertains to the, what, person, right, huh, that is according to his proneness to action. Whence the other sins are not, what, passed on, huh? Now, what about that first thing there, huh? The first effort should be said that spiritual pain, right, huh? As Augustine says in the epistle to Abitum, huh, never are sons punished for their parents, huh, unless they, what, share in the guilt, huh, either through origin or through, what, yeah, because all souls are immediately, what, from God, as it's said in Ezekiel chapter 18, verse 4. But sometimes one receives a bodily punishment, right, either by divine judgment or by human judgment. And the sins are punished for the parents insofar as the son is something of the father according to his, what, body. So you can punish, there's a bodily punishment, huh? Show you how close you are to your parents, right? The second should be said that that which someone has from himself, he's more able to, what, pass on so long as it is passable on. But the actual sins of one's proximate parents are not passable on because they are purely, what, personal, as has been said, huh? To the first, it should, to the third, it should be said that the first sin corrupts human nature by a corruption pertaining to nature. Other sins corrupt it by a corruption pertaining to the person alone. to the third one proceeds us it seems that the sin of the first parent is not what not Passover by origin to what all men for death is a punishment following upon what original sin but not all who proceed by way of seed from Adam die for those who are alive were found alive in the coming of our Lord right huh they never die as it seems through this that is said in 1 Thessalonians that we who live well what in the advent of our Lord those who sleep were dead therefore they do not contract what yeah you see what Thomas says about that maybe a quick death there you know moreover no one gives to another what he himself does not have but the baptized man does not have original sin therefore he doesn't carry it over or pass it on to his son there you go that's there's a problem here yeah yeah you guys should be thankful and in confession enough to to you know cure people from ritual sin right explain explain that to you to the sinner how they contracted this baby doesn't ask any questions if he gets baptized what's the interesting right for an adult now maybe you know who's comes a Christian is baptized huh explain to them with the necessity of baptism and so on moreover the gift of Christ is greater than the sin of Adam as the apostle himself says Romans 5 but the gift of Christ does not pass over to all men and and neither the sin of Adam against this is what the apostle says Romans 5 death passes over into all in whom all have sinned right on there we've seen before hence it should be said huh now there's times getting trouble with the blessed virgin right more it should be said that according to the what Catholic faith firmly it should be hauled that all men apart from Christ alone right it's going to be in trouble here Thomas now the guardian angel didn't didn't uh all men apart from Christ alone right derive madam right and contract original sin from him right huh otherwise not all would need redemption which is through Christ huh which is their own is right now if you look at the definition of of uh of Mary there that you can see what without original sin right huh and it's by special privilege right but through the merits of Christ that she's what reason yeah yeah and it reminds me a little bit you know of something in regard to actual sin there you know our um St. Trinidad's Sioux you know says you know that if you run down the path and you trip over the rock and he picks you up that's nice of him to do that right but if he foresees that you might trip over the rock and runs down and takes the rock away before right that's even better right so I mean in a sense it's through him that you what yeah yeah but I mean that's what it says huh that's what Thomas you know didn't see you know and I remember reading who's it who's it was the famous uh Jamaican there that was uh advisor of uh Teresa of Avila you know huh yeah yeah they did that they really thought you know at this time that there was no that you know this is kind of heretical right to say that the Blessed Virgin was what conceived of the original sin right huh but you know Thomas you know submitted all his works to the to the uh the church right for judgment right so this is uh this is uh for Thomas what uh uh uh Peter's uh denial is right Peter right I guess the dunce right don't school this right he's supposed to have been very influential in in developing this wasn't it the uh the doctrine yeah yeah so it's interesting there's some truth there to say that all needed redemption which is through Christ right we could say Mary didn't need redemption because she didn't contract it right but through the merits of Christ that she was preserved from contracting it huh yeah yeah but I mean redeem in some you know you have to yeah yeah yeah I mean it's not strictly speaking redeeming then right but she was preserved from this by the merits of Christ huh that's explicitly in the in the thing to look at the at the official text you know the so when is the macroconception defined yeah Pius IX yeah yeah or else it's a testament anymore yeah so that's after the time of Deconic you know huh I guess Deconic you know when there's going to define when Pius XII is going to define the sumption right Deconic had an audience with the Pope you know of course he argued for the fact you know that Thomas always says you know um you know Peter's not in heaven now right his soul is right but Peter's not there well then Deconic was arguing you know Mary would not be in heaven if her soul was not I mean if her body was not there right you don't say press the Pope I don't know that's just that's the that's the story I'm told anyway was that was that a problem though for the Protestants though with you know when Pius IX defined that we think it would be yeah yeah yeah yeah there's still a story about the guy saying you know I don't know he says you know if they define that I think I have to leave you know and the guy says don't worry he says he says you already left you're already on the outside yeah yeah yeah It's like the papal infillibility, right? I think even Cardinal Newman didn't have some trouble with infillibility, you know, but then he didn't have any time accepting it once it was done. But there's a lot of people who were upset by that, you know. The accounting says something interesting. I think I mentioned it before, you know, but you know what they call the Marian century, right? Starting with Pius IX and going through the Assumption, you know. Why were these things being defined quite late? You might say in the history of the church, right? Well, if they had been defined earlier, there would be confusion about Christ and Mary, you know. She'd be always, you know, kind of a mother God, so to speak, right? The accounting had the position, you know, that the mysteries of Joseph, right, were now redefined, right, more fully, right? Now that the ones about Mary were brought up fully, right? And again, it would be for the same reason, you know, that you don't want to put Joseph on the same level as Mary, right, huh? But you don't want to put Mary on the same level as Christ, right, you know? But, you know, that's kind of interesting, you know, huh? So I kind of scrounge around there, the whole things of, what's his name, John Paul II, he's got something of Joseph, you know, in there. There's things in the books, you know, but maybe there will be, you know? There's a good word. Brother Huffman, now, I've found a Jesuit, and he was well-known at the time, because he was defending the church's position. But before it came up, he was saying, oh, it's going to change, it's going to change. And he kept saying, you know. But he wrote a book, a big, large book. Actually, I think he wrote one book on St. Joseph. And Brother Huffman has a big anthology of a lot of different things, a lot of different fathers and all kinds of things. Very, very good. That's very good. It's a little bit like with the Jews, you know, in the Old Testament, you know, that the mystery of the Trinity is not as fully revealed there as it is in the New Testament, right? And that if it was as fully revealed at that time, maybe it would give rise to what? Yeah, you know the problem that the Mohammedans have with us. They think we're polyists, right? You know, they can't understand that. I mean, you have to reveal the mystery of the unity of God, right, first, right? Before you do the mystery of the Trinity, right? I was struck enough by Thomas, though, he takes up the subtleness of God. First thing he takes up in the Summa Theologiae, right? It's the simplicity of God, right? And the perfection and goodness of God. And then the infinity of God and his being present everywhere. Then he's being unchangeable, infinite. And then he's being one. That's the last thing, right? Before you go into the, you know, the operations of God in the Trinity, you know. It's like when I hit the idea, you know, for me, it's one God, right? And you can see how people, you know, they're not ready for that, right, maybe, huh? And you know how the Jews there when, was it, Mosul went up in the hill there, you know, and they got the golden thing out there, and even Aaron kind of went along with that, you know? And I think they had problems if they go through the history of the Jews. There's times when they get involved in worship of other, the God of Isaac and Abraham and so on. You can kind of see the kind of the way God reveals these things gradually, so to speak, or brings them to the forefront, huh? Because that's kind of late in the history of the church, I mean, you know, for the declaration of the... To support that would be the impact of the surrounding culture upon the faith of the people within it. And you can see it in different parts of the world where certain things like corruption and infidelity or adultery are much more commonly accepted, even though they're Catholic nations. That comes from the culture, and it has an impact on people's living on their faith. So, this would be a support for what you're saying about the necessity of God revealing certain things at certain times so as to establish certain understandings early on before moving upon them as further revelations. You said that would be accurate. Of course, some things are simply so hard to understand, you have to kind of... You have to do something gradually, you know, huh? Yeah. Okay. So, the reason for this can be taken from what has been said above, that just as from the sin of the first man is what transferred original, what, guilt to his posterity, right? Just as from the will of the soul through the motion of the, what, members is passed on actual sin to the, what? Yeah. Something to say for them chopping off the heads of the hands of the thief, right? Is manifest over that actual sin is able to be passed on to all members which are, what, naturally apt to be moved by the, what, will. When's original guilt, huh, is passed on to all who are moved by Adam through the motion of, what, generation, right? It will be something, what, gratuitous, right, that it was not passed on, right? Because it would be natural to do that, right? And what about this, those who are alive rather than dead when Christ comes and the cross appears in heaven? The first, therefore, it should be said that probability was right, with more probability, and more commonly is held that all who are found in the advent of God die, right, huh? And after just a little bit, right, pus modicum, right? And they rise up, as will be said more fully in the third book, when he talks about the last things, huh? If, however, that is true, which some say that they never, what, die, as Jerome narrates, right, the opinions of diverse people in a certain, what, epistle to, what, Minerius, whoever he is, about the resurrection of the flesh, huh? Nevertheless, it should be said to the argument that these, although they do not die, nevertheless in them there is the, what? Yeah, yeah, yeah, we have to, so. But the punishment is taken away by God, right, huh? Who also is able to, what? Yeah, yeah. So, in Thomas' probabilities, he doesn't necessarily reject what Jerome is saying, right? I usually hear it said, you know, quick death, you know? Death, where is thy victory? Well, yeah, wouldn't Paul say something about, we'll all be changed in the night? Mm-hmm. There you go, man. There's what happens. Now, to the second it should be said, that original sin is taken away by baptism, the, what? That you're subject to it, right, huh? Insofar as the soul recovers grace as regards, what, the spiritual part, the reason, the momentum doesn't mean just the reason, but the will. There remains, nevertheless, original sin in act as regards the, what, the foams and the sexual, which is a disorder of the lower parts of the soul and of the body, what, itself, huh? By which a man, what, generates and not according to his, what, his mind. And therefore, those who are baptized, right, even though their soul is purified, they pass on original sin, because there's still a corruption in the flesh. For they do not generate insofar as they are, what, renewed by baptism, but insofar as they retain still something of the oldness of the first sin, huh? I was talking to this young man on the phone today, you know, and I said, he's kind of excited about his, his little boy, you know, I said, well, we're going to have to bring him down for us to see him, you know, and so, but, uh, Rosie was making a, of a little blanket for the next newborn, you know, so, didn't quite finish it yet, but, right, to the third should be said, that just as the sin of Adam, right, is passed on to all who are generated bodily from Adam, right, so the grace of Christ is passed on to all. All who are spiritually generated, right, by faith and baptism, huh? Not only to removing the guilt of the first parent, but also to removing all, what, sins. So you delay your baptism until you're ready to go, right? I guess that's what I say, I don't know. Yeah, yeah. If clothing ever becomes possible, you've formed miraculously from human flesh. Yeah. That's an extarticle. That's an extarticle. I mean, also removing all actual sins and introducing one to, what, glory, right, huh? I'm going to take a little break here now, and we're going to four. I'm going to take a little break here now, and we're going to four. I'm going to take a little break here now, and we're going to four. I'm going to four. I'm going to four. I'm going to four. To the fourth one goes forward this. It seems that if someone were formed miraculously from human flesh, he would, what, contract original sin, huh? Tell anybody who's going to take the opposite side, right, huh? For it is said, the gloss said, right, huh? Stained from Augusta, huh? Genesis 4, that in the, what, loins of Adam, right, the whole posterity was corrupted, right, huh? Because it was not separated before in the place of life and afterwards in the place of, what? But if some man were thus formed, as has been said, huh, his flesh would be separated in the place of, what? Yeah. Therefore he would contract, what, original sin, huh? Yeah, or like even, like, I mean, it was, you know, from the rib of him, right? Rather than, rather than, right, generation. Moreover, original sin is caused in us insofar as the soul is infected from the flesh, huh? But the whole flesh of man is infected, right? As, as, uh, Falstead says, I, I, I get more flesh than anybody else, so, right. Yeah. Therefore from whatever part of the flesh man is formed, the soul is infected by the infection, original sin, huh? The flesh, the wars against the spirit. Moreover, original sin from the first parent comes to all, insofar as all, right, in him sinning were, right? But those who are formed from human flesh were in, what? Adam. Therefore, original sin, therefore they contract original sin. But against this is because, what? They were not in Adam according to a seed-like reason, huh? Which only, which alone causes the passing over original sin, as Augustine says in the 10th book, Genesis to the letter, huh? The guy, this guy, Augustine was, huh? I answer, it should be said, that it has been said already, original sin, huh? Is passed over from the first parent to their posterity, huh? Insofar as they are moved by him, by generation, huh? Just as, he's using this proportion all the time, right? Just as the members of the body are moved by the soul to actual sin, right, huh? So he's making a proportion there, right, huh? Fourth tool, dialectic, right? But there is not motion to generation except through the active power in, what? Generation, huh? Whence those alone contract original sin who descend from Adam, right, by the, what? Active power derived from Adam by origin, huh? In generation. Generation, which is according to the seed-like reason to descend from him, huh? For the seed, seedian reason, huh? Is nothing other than the active power in, what? Generation. If over someone were formed by divine power from human flesh, it is manifest that the active power would not have been derived from, what? Adam. Whence he would not contract original sin. So we can figure out a way of getting somebody from... Yeah, yeah. We had to kind of coerce God to do it, but... Yeah. Just as, neither does the act of the hand pertain to, what, human sin, if the hand is not moved by the will of man, but by some, what? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, but he's not talking about that so much as the fact that he would not contract original sin, right? Unless he... That's true. You could have, I guess, like, the state of human nature. Yeah. If God could make a new being that was purely natural, then they wouldn't have original sin. Because, in other words, in a sense, my not having original justice, right, is a privation or lack in the strict sense, right? Because it's something I should have, right? Because it was given to Adam to be passed on with nature, right? So it's a real privation or lack, right? It's not just a, a, a, what, negation, right? I think the frontiers of science are pushed forward in a level of ways. And if human cloning ever comes about, obviously it's not God creating this clone of a human being, but where does that clone the being stand with regard to original sin? Again, you have to make use of some of the generative power of somebody, right? To produce, right? Even a clone, right? I guess it depends on how widely you would define that generative power. Yeah, yeah. But there's the nature. Yeah, but I mean, how are you going to do that? Good question. You know, even when the question arises, you know, about the soul there, you know, like in adultery or something of this sort, right, huh? And it says, God, you know, you know, cooperating with the, with the sin of adultery, well, no. He's cooperating with nature, though, right, huh? And so if the human body is being produced, right, then God will cooperate with that, right? Let's say a disease, the fact of sterilization, can be tolerated so long as that effect is not directly intended for any reason whatsoever, because we don't have a minion, because God is involved in that. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I'm struck by the fact, you know, that the two chief mysteries of our faith are the Trinity and the Incarnation, right? And both of them, you have a birth, right? You have the birth of God the Son from God the Father, and then you have, you know, Christ right now from Mary, right? And so, you know, how terrible really abortion really is, right? I'm going against, you know, not only our nature, but against the two supreme articles of our faith, right? They're involved in the Trinity, understand the Trinity, and the first two persons, right? And then the Incarnation of Christ, right? For Mary, right? This born of Mary. It'd be terrible. These symbols are so incredibly powerful and resonating throughout human culture, throughout the ages, even when those cultures depart from God. You can see this in so many of these powerfully influential science fiction stories, and fiction stories where you have aliens, which are kind of standing for sort of gods. And almost so frequently, especially in the 50s and 60s, somehow these aliens would either try to meld a human being with an alien, and that would be born this monstrosity, or then you have these fantasy stories about somebody who's born sort of Christ-like, but they're not Christ-like, and that everything is kind of up to them, and they do, they wield their special powers as they will. But this motif, this symbol, is so powerful, and yet it's been so corrupted, and it helps take us away from God, I think, and dechristianizes us in certain ways. It's a big movie coming out now about Noah, too, I guess. Not Noah, not Noah, I mean Moses, I think. It's going to be kind of a crazy thing, I don't know. I just kind of saw a review of it the other day. You know what they say, Jesus saves, but the most... To the first it should be said that Adam was not in the place of exile except after his sin. Whence is not an account of the place of exile an account of the sin that original guilt is what? Passed over to us. Or to those, rather, that his act of generation arise at, right? So that's kind of funny, that first objection. To the second it should be said that flesh does not infect the soul except insofar as it is the act of principle and generation. It's the idea that it's moving it, right? And the same reply to the third. To the third it should be said that the one who is formed from human flesh was an atom according to what? Vilely substance. But not according to what? Yeah, to a seed-like reason. And therefore he would not contract original sin. He's got to be moved by him, right? In a way like the hand is moved by the will. He's got to be moved by him, right? He's got to be moved by him, right? He's got to be moved by him, right? He's got to be moved by him, right? He's got to be moved by him, right? He's got to be moved by him, right? Now this one that they asked the bishop there, that's what I thought. So the first one precedes us. It's kind of funny how we had the two brothers of the bishop, right? They both taught at my high school, right? So I had one of them for Latin, you know, and the other one taught something else, but eventually ran for office and became mayor of St. Paul. Oh, really? Yeah. The bishop's brother got to vote for him, even though he's never tried. The officer and the thromer together. To the fifth, then, one precedes us. It seems that if Adam had not sinned, but Eve's sinning, right? The sons would contract original sin, right? Well, original sin is we contract from our parents, right? Insofar as we were, what? In them, huh? I didn't know it was in my mom and dad, I guess it was, huh? Somewhere it was in them, right? Yeah. According to that of the apostle, Romans 5, in whom all sinned, right? But just as a man pre-exists in his father, so also in his, what? Mother. Therefore, from the sin of the mother, man would contract original sin, just as from the sin of the, what? Father, right, huh? Yeah. Moreover, if Eve had sinned, Adam not sinning, right, huh? The sons would be born, what? Immortal. For the mother gives matter in generation, right? Now, again, here you know, you know how they call the male's substance their semen, right? Which actually comes from the word for seed, right, huh? Yeah. So, in Aristotle's thinking, the whole seed comes from the, what? Father, right? I don't think the microbiologist thinks that, right? That the whole seed comes partly from the man, partly from the woman, right? Well, I guess the man determines whether it's going to be a boy or a girl, right? So, Henry VIII is kind of punishing the wrong person, right? He's responsible for getting nothing but daughters, right? In the four. I've heard that said, yeah. What? I've heard that said, yeah. Yeah. It'll kill you about a man and a woman. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You see, Aristotle's idea was, you know, of course, that the aging mix was like itself, right? So that the man intends, what, to generate another male, right, huh? And there's kind of the defect, right, huh, that you get the other, right? So I remember when I was, when some student there when I was in college there, he was married and they just had a, you know, baby, right? And he was telling my teacher, Kasurik, about it, you know, that he was a boy. He said, you'd be glad to know Aristotle says that it designates, shows perfection to the male principal, you know. So I don't think I knew what he was talking about, but that's a concern. I, if I thought what I would have said to my student, could I talk to him on the phone, you know, because he didn't come up, show up Tuesday, you know, because, and I thought, I thought we'd, you know, change some weeks we were meeting on Thursday, some Tuesday, depending. And I thought maybe he'd get mixed up or something, you know, and I didn't want him to show up tonight, because we were going out to somebody's house. And so I called him up and then I found out that they'd have the baby on Tuesday, right? So no wonder he got distracted from my class. If I had thought of it, you know, you may have the coin to Aristotle! It shows perfection in the male. You could still, you could ride it in a car. Yeah, yeah. But death in all what? Undergoingness comes from the necessity of what? Matter, huh? But undergoing and the necessity of dying are the punishment of original sin. Therefore, if Eve had sinned, Adam not sinning, the sons would contract original sin. Moreover, Damascene says in the third book that the Holy Spirit, right, came before in the Virgin, of whom Christ was, what? To be born without original sin. Purging him, huh? Hey, what's this, Damascene, is he in trouble too? The idea that she was, you know, just like, I guess John the Baptist was cleansed in the womb, right? And that's the thought that Mary was... So I don't know, Damascene's in trouble here too, huh? Yeah. About these guys. Yeah. But that purgation would not be necessary if the infection of original sin was not, what, drawn from the mother. Because he didn't have a human father, right? Okay. But the infection of original sin is drawn from the mother. And thus, he sinning, his, her sons, I guess, would contract original sin, even if Adam had not sinned, huh? It's a pretty good argument, huh? Okay. But again, this is what the Apostle says, Romans 5, 12. Well, to one man, sin came into this world, huh? Now, it would be more to be said that to two, it came in, since both sinned. Or more through the woman, right? Who first sinned, right? If the woman transmitted original sin to the offspring. Therefore, original sin is not derived in the sons from the mother, but from the, what? Father, right, huh? The bishop said, huh? Answer, it should be said that the solution of this doubt is apparent from the things that went before. Maybe not to us, but it was to Thomas, right? For it has been said above that original sin is carried over from the first parent, insofar as he himself moves them to, what? Yeah, he moves to the generation of the born. Whence it is said, it has been said, huh? In the previous article, right? That if he was generated materially only from human flesh, he would not contract, what? Original sin. Now, it is manifest according to the teaching of the philosophers, but not according to the teaching of the biologists, that the act of principle and generation is from the father, the matter, the mother, what? Yeah. We mentioned before the word semen meaning seed there in Greek, like the word seminar and so on. Seminal idea, right, huh? And mater, mater is where you get the word materia, right, huh? So kind of, you know, the first thought about matter was, in the poets before the philosophers, was mother earth, right, huh? And even Shakespeare says about the timid of Athens digging the ground, common mother thou, whose womb immeasurable and infinite breast teems and feeds all, right? So, in that word semen and in the word mater, right, you kind of see this way that they thought a little more simply, right, huh? Whence original sin was not contracted from the, would not be contracted from the mother, but from the, what? The father. And according to this, if Adam not sinning, Eve never had sinned, the, what? Okay. Yeah. Going to be to the act of power, right, huh? But a converse though, if Adam had sinned and Eve had not sinned, they would still contract, right? So, their knowledge is mine, right? Well, you might want to, you know, think about it a little bit. Back when I was in law school, there was a woman student who was reading an article in a newspaper section of her library. Yeah. There was an article about the possibility of two women being able to, without male intervention at children through technology. Yeah, yeah. And she was just very enthused about that. And so, again, theologically, we're looking at cutting edge trends in the crazy culture. And if God forbid this were ever to happen, theologically, that would bring up some questions like, well, you know, if these two women get together and somehow hold it. I think even the microbiologist, the sperm is more active in a sense than the egg, right? But with that, you know, quite a little bit of, you know, yeah, a little bit, yeah. Because it is recently based on, I mean, the reasons seem to be based on the active principle of men, right? Yeah. In generations. But some of these still is that, right? Especially if he determines the sex, you know, still is more active, you know, but that the woman is not as passive as her style of thought, right? I think, you know, even the menstrual thing, I think they thought that that was what? You could get pregnant with that, right? Because the blood was there, right? You know? And it was not, you know, that's kind of removing what was going to be disposing. But it's not disposing, it's from it, for it. It's the corruption of it, really. Okay. Okay. So the first effort should be said that in the father, the son pre-exists in an active principle. But in the mother, as in a material principle, in a passive one, right, huh? Okay. Whence there's not a similar reason, right? Okay. The second should be said, it seems to some, that Eve sinning, if Adam had not sinned, the sons would be immune from what? Guilt, huh? But they would nevertheless undergo the necessity of dying, and other undergoings arriving from the necessity of matter, which the mother, what? Administers, huh? But not under the, what? What? Yeah. But as, what? Yeah. But this does not seem suitable, convenient. For immortality and impassibility of the first status was not from the condition of matter, but from original, what? Justice. To which the body was subject to the, what? Soul. Insofar as the soul was subject to, what? God, huh? God. But the defect of original justice is original sin, right? If, therefore, Adam not sinning, original sin would not be transferred to his posterity on account of the sin of Eva. It is manifest that in those sons there would not be the defect of original sin, original justice. Once there would not be in them this suffering and the necessity of dying, right, huh? Okay. You could say, you know, even today, you know, that most of the matter of the baby comes from the mother, right, huh? Because when the man gets to do with his act, it's very small, right, huh? And so all of the matter, so she is more the matter of it than the father, right, huh? And, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And I used to, when I talked a little bit sometimes about the difference between man and woman, and I said that the man sees the child more as a continuation of himself than the woman does, right? And a sign of that is that the man is more apt to make the mistake, you might say, right, huh? Of trying to force the son, so to speak, or persuade him to follow his own occupation, right? So if the father's a doctor, you might want the son to be a doctor. If the father was a lawyer, you might want the son to be a lawyer, right? That's the other kind of tendency, right, huh? And while the mother sees the child as more a, what, fulfillment of herself as a woman, right, huh? And that's more like matter, right? Because matter sees, what, form as its perfection or fulfillment, right? But the agent of the mover sees the form as, what, a continuation of himself, right? And it seems to be that, you know. I remember my father, you know, I think my father kind of understood these things pretty well, you know, but he was telling me one time of his business friend, right? I think I told you the story, didn't I, before? But his business friend had sent his son out to Amherst, right, which is kind of a prestigious school out here in the East Coast, you know? And his son wasn't really cut out to, you know, follow his father's footsteps, right? And I guess he came back and the father said, what do you really want? He wanted a filling station, right? A gasoline station, right? And a car. And his father could put him in, you know, and buy him in, you know, a gasoline station and set him up and that thing, you know? And I think my father was saying that, you know, he saw kind of the wisdom of the man, right? That he realized he couldn't really… Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know myself and my father's company there, you know. We work in the summer, you know, in the factory there, you know, and so on. And my father would come through sometimes with a business friend, you know. And the business friend would see me down working, you know, in the shop, you know, in the factory downstairs. He says, ah, learning it from the ground up, he says. And because I thought, I don't mind, I wonder what my father was thinking, you know, because your father doesn't always say, you know, what he thinks, you know? You know, is he disappointed that nobody's been a, you know… And the only thing I remember my father saying, you know, later on, he says, I think you're going to have a better life than I had, you know. Because he had a rough life for my father, you know. There was no high school in town, you know. He had to work his way through high school and all those things. And you could see that, you know, especially the professor is kind of the easier life. And a good life compared to, you know, the hard work he had to do, you know. So… But I think there is a… You know, I think my father was telling this story about his business friend there. They said that he was smarter, you know, that they tried to, you know, push us into something that we were not… None of us really wanted to end up with three philosopher sons, right? It's kind of funny because my father and my uncle… My uncle, his son was a philosopher too, you know. He and my brother Richard were, you know, senior. And they both went into philosophy and so on. And I guess one year my father and my uncle there, they decided to take a course in philosophy. With my professor, right, you know. And it was a course in Marxism, you know, because I sounded kind of interested, you know. And so, yeah. And it's kind of funny, you know, the way these things are because, you know, they had a consortium in all the colleges in the Twin Cities there, you know. And they used to have, you know, maybe this year it would be Russia or maybe this year it would be France, right. And they'd have, you know, professors from four or five different colleges teaching, like. So, this year it was Russia, right. You know, they have some guy who knew, you know, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and so on and teaching, you know, Russian literature. And someone else would be a historian teaching Russian history, you know. And then they had some philosophy teaching, you know, Marxism because that was the official philosophy in Russia at the time. And Sirich was on, is on educational TV, right. They would carry some of these courses, right. So, when you explain Marx, you suddenly explain what Marx thinks, you know. So you talk in the person of Marx, you know, so to speak, how Marx, you know. And somebody calls up the station, what is a Catholic from a Catholic college teaching Marxism for? You know, all kinds of things I understand, you know. So, I don't know how much my uncle and my father got from this right time Marxism, you know. But this is not, he wasn't taking it in that program, I mean, you know. But that's frankly what this philosophy is all about, you know. Yeah. I remember one time I was, when I was first reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, right, you know. A beautiful passage in there, you know. And I memorized it, you know. Must not follow those advisors being men to think of human things, and being more to immortal things, being as much so far as possible, you know, you know, the immortal and so on and so on. And so my father said, what are you doing there? And it's a very exciting thing, you know. You know. What? There's no way. Kind of, you know. Kind of impressed, you know. Yeah. You know. But, I mean, I think there is a tendency for a father to try to get his son to, what, follow his footsteps, you know. You know. It's like all these bushes that became, you know, presidents or governors, you know. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.