Prima Secundae
Lecture 189: The Gravity of Sins and Their Differentiation

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

It seems that the gravity of sins is not varied according to their objects. The gravity of the sin pertains to its mode or the quality of the sin. The object is the matter of the sin. Therefore, according to diverse objects, the gravity of sins is not varied. Moreover, the gravity of the sin is an intention, or the intensity of the malice of it. But sin does not have the notion of malice on the part of conversion to its own object, which is some desirable good, right, like the pleasure of the senses, but more on the part of what? Aversion. Aversion, right. And therefore, the gravity of sins is not varied according to diverse objects. Moreover, sins which have diverse objects are of diverse genera. But those which are of diverse genera are not comparable. As is proved in the seventh book of the physics. And therefore, one that sinned is not more varied than another according to the diversity of what? Objects. So you can say that one triangle is bigger than another lion. Did you say that? One lion, is it? Did you say that this triangle is bigger than that lion? It's a different genre, right? You can say one lion is longer than another, right? One triangle is bigger than another triangle, right? But is one triangle bigger than another lion? No. It's a different genre you can't compare. Did a piece of candy be sweeter than a girl? Metaphorically. Against this, huh? Sins receive their species from their objects. But in some sins, one is more brave than another according to its species, right? As murder than what? Theft. Theft, huh? Therefore, the gravity of sins differs according to their objects, right? So what negative things do you have, what? Thou shalt not commit murder. And then, what? Thou shalt not commit adultery. And then, what? Thou shalt not steal. Steal, yeah. And then bear false witness. Pretty strange, huh? Maybe false witness could be worse than... My answer should be said that from the fore said, it is clear. Gravity of sins differ in that way in which one's sickness is more grave than another. For just as the good of health consists in a certain, what? Commensuration of the bodily humors, right? Very simple medical science these days. In a way that is, what? Suitable to the nature of the animal. It wouldn't be the same, what? Commensuration of different animals, right? So, likewise, the good of virtue consists in a certain commensuration of the human act according to agreement to the rule of, what? Reason. But it manifests that the more, what? As more grave for... The sickness. When the, what? It's taken away a suitable commensuration of humors through a commensuration of a prior principle. Just as the sickness that comes in the human body from the heart, which is the principle of life, or from something that is close to the heart, is more, what? Dangerous. Yeah. It has to think of, well, boy, huh? Everybody seems to die. They die. They die because of heart. Heart failure, yeah. Now everybody seems, I know, dyingers of, you know, cancer. Everybody seems to die of cancer, yes. I think we get medicine for heart. If you live longer, you don't die. You should die in the old days. Heart problem. Then you don't get cancer, right? You don't get something. When it's necessary also, right, that sin is more grave, the more it disorders, right, there's a disorder about something that is, what? A beginning, which is before the order of reason. What's this guy doing here, Thomas? Is he using his reason? He's looking before and after. Yeah, let me see what he's doing here. He's using his reason. Now, reason orders all things to be done from the, what? End. End. And therefore, the more a sin happens in human acts from a higher end, right, the more, what? Grave is the sin. But the objects of acts are their ends. And therefore, according to the diversity of objects, is to be noted diversity of gravity in sins. I started to explain this a little bit. There's some examples here. Just as it's clear that exterior things are ordered to man as to a, what? End. But man is ordered further to God as to a, what? End. Whence a sin that is about the very substance of man as, what, homicide? Killing a man, I guess. Is a more grave sin than that which is about exterior things as theft. So I'd be more mad if you took my arm than if you took my car, right? And that is an even more grave sin that is committed immediately against God, right? As infidelity, lack of belief, blasphemy, and others of this sort, right? They're still trying to have the black mass there down in, have you read about that? I've heard about it, yeah. Yeah, well, they stopped against the consecrated homes, but they're kind of still put on some kind of a... When they say that you're dealing with Satanists, how can you believe them? Yeah. I didn't know they're not going to use the government. Just because they say so? Yeah. Right. You can see the seriousness of that, right? Yeah. That's more serious than fornication or, you know? Even more serious than murder, huh? It sheds light also in the fall of the angels. Thinking about the incredible gravity of that sin compared to, say, blasphemy on a human level. And in the order of these sins, right? One sin is more great than another. According to it, it's about something that's more principal or chief or something that is less principal. Because sins have a species from their objects, the difference of gravity, which is to be noted among objects, is first and chief, right? This is what we're following upon the species. It must be hard to be a confessor, huh? It's almost impossible. Yeah, it's very, right. Ambitious in Quebec. In fact, we're confessing in French. That was a mistake for me. I think the priest thought I had something to conceal, or I was embarrassed. I was, or something like that. So he really grilled you. I was, and I realized he was doing his study. enumerate the sins, like, was it this, was it this, was it this? Like, I was afraid to, or couldn't quite put into words what I had done or something. So, no, no, no, I always confessed in English. You learned your lesson. I remember what Mark used to say, you know, you're saying in French, you're not quite sure what you can understand anyway, you know. So if you got, you got, you got released, you know. My friend Warren Murray had a woman there, she was German or something, and she couldn't speak English, right? So, Father Steinberg in our parish, she was in German, you know. When he came out of the confession afterwards, he wasn't too sure whether, he could be absolutely where she wasn't too sure whether he was absolved again. So, a lot of difficulties in being a confessor about, even apart from you, it's the, your native language, there's a native language, and you're still there. There's one little trick you can do that I learned is, I did this once with a lady who spoke Polish. She didn't speak English. Yeah, yeah. But her daughter was there, and before we went in, I said, she knows the Ten Commandments? Yes. She knows the first, the second, the third, yeah. So we went on the confessional, I said, first commandment, yes or no. Second commandment, yes or no. Third commandment, yes, that's all I can do. That's all you can do. So at least you got some matter there, you know. The first effort should be said, that the object, although it is called the matter about which the act terminates, right? It has nevertheless the ratio of a, what? End. According as the intention of the one acting is born towards it, right? Mm-hmm. But the form of a moral act depends upon its, what? End. That's the cause of all the other causes, right? Especially the 14th Amendment. All right. The second, it should be said, that from an unsuitable turning towards some changeable good, huh? There follows a turning away from the unchangeable good. And in this is perfected the rod so evil. And therefore it happens, it's necessary, that according to the diversity of those things which pertain to conversion, there follows a diverse gravity of malice and sin. Mm-hmm. Who was it when he wrote the famous book? Who was it on Mary Magdalene, you know? Right? She becomes such a great lover of Christ, right? Mm-hmm. Where someone would be involved with being in, what, not carnal sin, but in sins of pride and so on. It would be harder to come to love Christ, right? That you do, huh? Mm-hmm. Which is forgiving, right? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Who forgot the greater debt, huh? Mm-hmm. To the third should be said, huh, that all the objects of human acts have an order to each other. And therefore all human acts in some way come together in one, what? Genus. Genus, right? According as they are ordered to the last end. And therefore nothing prevents all sins from the, what? Conquerable. Conquerable. Conquerable. Mm-hmm. In fourth one goes forward thus, it seems that the gravity of sins does not differ according to the worth of the virtues to which the sins are opposed. That to a greater virtue a greater sin is opposed. Because as it's said in Proverbs 15, in abundant justice there is great virtue. But as the Lord says in Matthew 5, an abundant justice restrains anger, which is a less sin than homicide, which a lesser justice prevents. Therefore to the greater virtue is opposed to a lesser sin. Moreover, it's said in the second book of the Ethics that virtue is about the difficult and the good. From which it seems that a greater virtue is about something more difficult. But it is less a sin if man fails in something more difficult. And if he fails in something less difficult. Therefore to a greater virtue a lesser sin is opposed. These guys are making these objections. They should be incarcerated or something, right? They're exercising your mind. They should be rewarded. Moreover, more of a charity is a greater virtue than faith and hope. But hate, which is opposed to charity, is a lesser sin than infidelity or desperation, which are opposed to faith and hope. Therefore to a greater virtue is opposed to a lesser sin. Sin. But against this is what the philosopher says in the Eighth Book of the Ethics, that to the pessimist, the worst, the best is what? Contrary. Contrary. So that's a famous principle, right? So what's the opposite of knowledge? Ignatance. Yeah. What's the opposite of wisdom? Foolishness. Yeah, which is worse. The foolishness of the worst, right? Opposed to the greatest. Good, it's a wisdom, right? But the best in morals is the greatest virtue. The pessimism, the worst, is the most great sin. Therefore to the greater virtue is opposed to the greater sin. Sin, I used to say to students, you know, which is worse, to be deaf or to be blind? It's worse than to be blind, Paul. I don't think so. Well, students will say that to be blind is worse than to be deaf, right? I don't think so. Well, then to see must be better than to hear, right? Which most people agree with, but the one young lady who very much, like the organ saw it, she'd rather be blind than deaf. I think it should be said, that to a virtue is opposed to some sin in one way, chiefly and what? Directly. Because it is about the same object. For contraries are about the same thing. And in this way it's necessary that to a greater virtue is opposed to a more grave sin. For just as on the part of the object is observed, the greater gravity of the sin, so also the greater dignity of the virtue. For both get their species from the object, as has been said about it. When it's necessary that to the greatest virtue directly is contrary, the greatest sin, as it were, most of all being distant from it in the same genus. That's the definition of contraries, right? Things that are furthest apart of the same genus, right? So the contrary of white is not yellow or blue, but black, yeah, furthest apart, right? In another way, one can consider the opposition of virtue to sin, according to a certain extension of virtue, prohibiting or restraining one from sin, huh? And the more, what, a virtue is greater, the more it, what, removes the man or distance the man, yeah, from the sin contrary to it, huh? Thus then, not only that sin, but also the things that lead to that sin, it, what, and thus it manifests that the more a virtue is, what, greater, so the smaller the sins, it is, what, just as health, which is greater, in minor distemperies, excludes, right? And in this way, a, what, to a greater virtue, a lesser sin is opposed than part of the effects. You see, the saints say they want to avoid even venial sin, right? I must, I must be just given a pass about it, too much, too much concern, right? But the saints even, you know, you know. So the first, it should be said, that that argument proceeds about the opposition, which is to be noted according to the, what, for straining sin, for thus the abundant justice also, what? Right, that's lesser sin. Yeah, that's not directly opposed to that. In the first one, in the first one. So again, the distinction of Thomas sees there. To second, it should be said that to a greater virtue, which is about a good, more difficult, is contrary, directly to sin, which is about an evil, which is more difficult. Difficult. When both, there is found as certain evidence, from this, that the will is to the good and to the bad, right? From this, that it is not conquered by, what? Difficulty. Difficulty, huh? To the third, it should be said that charity is not just any love, right? But the love of God, when sin is not opposed to, just, not just any hate, is opposed to it directly, huh? But the hate of what? God. God, huh? Which is gravissimum peccatorum. It's interesting, huh? Hate God is the gravissimum peccatorum. Most people, they don't see that. Hurting someone is worse than missing ass or something like that. Blaspheming God. That's a big deal. It's a nice thing of the devil or something, you know, the hate of God is the devil, it seems to me. They're guilty of the most grieved sins, you might say, right? I wanted to ask you is, from the angelic realm, whether it be other sins beyond which humans might commit, and that the incredible gravity of the sin that the demons committed that caused their fall, which was unforgivable, and would there be a whole other realm of sort of sin above mere human sin? There's always going to distinguish between carnal sins and spiritual sins, right? And the angels don't have, you know, carnal sins, you know, carnal sins, right? Yeah. Pleasantity and that sort of thing, right? Yeah. Fornication, so on. But, so, he's going to argue that the spiritual sins are what? Or worse, right? So the devil is, you know, with their pride, you know, most of all. So it wouldn't necessarily be a set of angelic sins that are specifically for purely spiritual creatures. Well, they would have that genus of sin, right? The spiritual sins rather than the carnal sins. You know, a lazy angel, right? Well, was it somewhere, I don't remember, I think I've heard this said, but maybe you mentioned it, that even though the, St. Thomas says somewhere that even though the demons incite men to carnal sins, but the angels are nonetheless disgusted with us when we commit them. They're so far above that kind of thing. They're just, even though they incite us, because they know it's easy bait for us, whereas we're inclined to that kind of thing, but they're disgusted with it, too. And even Abinib, you know, he's got kind of spirituals in there to keep him going, you know? Well, the fruit was attractive. Yeah. So here we are, what you're talking about. It's very nice. Thomas always anticipates you. Now is he thinking what you're thinking about? It's overlooked. To the fifth, one goes forward this. It seems that harmless sins are not of less, what? Guilt. Guilt and spiritual sins. For adultery is a more grave sin than theft. What is said in Proverbs 6, not what? A greater guilt when someone steals, but the one who's an adulterer on account of his, what? Poverty of heart. Poverty of heart. He loses his soul. But theft pertains to avarice, which is a spiritual sin. Adultery of her to luxury. So watch out for it. You know, luxurious life, you don't know what that would mean to me. Which is a carnal sin. Therefore, carnal sins are more of what? Greater guilt. Yeah. Morbic Custon says, upon the book of Levi, I guess, that the devil maximates out it. Most of all rejoices about the sin of what? Lust and idolatry. Idolatry, yeah. But about greater guilt and more rejoices. Therefore, since luxury is a carnal sin, it seems that carnal sins are of greater, what? Greater guilt. Yeah. Morbic Custon proves in the seventh book of the Ethics that the man who's incontinent and concupiscence is more, what, ugly, right? More shameful, you might say. Mm-hmm. Than the man who's incontinent and anger, right? Thomas always says that the irascible appetite is closer to reason than the concupiscence. Right, yeah. That's what did Mozart do there with his last symphony? What are you doing in the 36th symphony and the 41st symphony? Both in C major, huh? Magnanimity. Magnanimity, yeah. Which is the great virtue and what, the irascible, and then, of course, the 40th symphony and the 38th symphony were, what, dealing with fortitude, which is in the irascible, right? And he was doing that Mozart, right? Mm-hmm. I was saying to Martin, he was smart on the phone there, I was saying, I was listening to Handel's in Opus 3 and Opus 6, and he said, he's a tremendous composer, Handel. I was talking earlier about Sandy Johnson, you know, this guy praising him, you know. The only time I know that his barbers were there, Boswell, passed up a time to be with him, was when he could go and hear a concert of Handel. He was a pretty good judge, but I thought it was really good in the way you seek it. I don't know what he is, it's all. But anger is a spiritual sin, according to Gregory Wright. Mm-hmm. Great work, the Moralia, the new first book, Moralia. But consumer sins pertains to the carnal sins. Therefore, carnal sin is more brave than spiritual sin. Mm-hmm. But again, it says that St. Gregory says, right? Mm-hmm. It's from the Moralia, right? Book 33, it says in my footnote here, as opposed to 31, right? Mm-hmm. Didn't read far enough. Mm-hmm. The way to become wise is to be a man in one book. He says that carnal sins are of less guilt and of greater intrigue, right? He's probably more on some sense of reason, right? Mm-hmm. The answer should be said, huh, that spiritual sinnings are greater guilt than carnal sins, huh? Which should not be understood as if every spiritual sin, right, is a greater guilt than any what is a carnal sin, right? Mm-hmm. But because, considering this difference alone is spirituality and carnality, huh? I've seen this wine that's come into the grocery store as their carnivore. So there's a wine, you know, and it's a, you know, it's a... Fruity something. It's a dry red wine, you know, which we eat with flesh, you know. Oh, that's a thing. Yeah, yeah, carnivore, yeah. I don't know why else they would call a wine carnivore. Yeah, I see it, you know, and those are stories and stuff. I haven't tried it yet, you know. It's carbonated soap and young actually. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it was very good listening to the snake. Yeah, yeah. So I can think of it as a carnivore. Yeah, that's what I was thinking, yeah. He says, considering just this difference between spirituality and carnivore, more grave than other sins, right, other things being equal, right, of which a three-fold reason can be assigned, huh? Mm-hmm. First, on the side of the what? Subject, right? For spiritual sins pertain to the spirit of man, right? That's why they're called spiritual sins, right? There you go. To which it belongs to what? To be either converted towards God or to be turned away from God. Mm-hmm. But carnal sins are consummated in the pleasure of what? The bodily appetite. The bodily appetite. The bodily appetite. The bodily appetite. To which principally it pertains to be turned towards the bodily. And therefore, carnal sin, right, as such, has more what? Of conversion. Conversion. On one which is of greater what? Cleaving. Cleaving, yeah. But the spiritual sin has more of a version from which proceeds the racial guilt. And therefore, spiritual sin, as such, is a greater what? Guilt. Or fault. Hmm. There's one psalm there, you know, where he asked God to be suffering from the pride of others, right? And I said, when I think of that psalm, I say, I don't think it's so much thinking about people having content for you or having scorn for you. Oh, yeah, yeah. Although it's painful. But more that they're, what, having this towards God, right? Mm-hmm. You have to put up with these terrible blasphemies and so on, right? Mm-hmm. Do you realize what you're doing there? Mm-hmm. But doesn't pride more, you know, directly you're, what, turning away from God with pride, huh? Mm-hmm. And you are turning towards something. Yeah, yeah. Why, in gluttony or something, or, you know. Yeah. As soon as the flesh started turning towards, but it's pleasing to the senses, right? Yeah. And it's kind of prejudice, you're turning away from God, right? Mm-hmm. So the second reason can be taken as part of that in whom, or to whom, or against whom one sins, right? Right. For the carnal sin, as such, is in one's own, what? Right. Body, right, huh? It's one kind of sinning against one's own body, right? Which is less to be loved, right? According to the order of charity, then God and even one's neighbor, right? You're supposed to love your neighbor more than your own body, right? Mm-hmm. So you can, you know, die for the neighbor, right? Mm-hmm. Then God and one's neighbor in whom one sins, what? Spiritual sins. And therefore, spiritual sins, as such, right, are greater, what? The third reason can be taken from the part of the, what, that moves one, huh? Because the more grave is the, what, pushing one towards the thing, you might say, right? Mm-hmm. The more the man sins less, as has been said, huh? But the crown sins have a more vehement, what, impulse, right? Yes. That is the concubiscence of the flesh. And therefore, the spiritual sins as such are greater guilt, except those three reasons as such. He says, Ipsum concupiscentiam carnis nobis inatum, right, inborn, right? Which I say, you know, the flesh gets the spirit, right? I was looking at the treatise there in the paris there, you know, we've talked about the bad, you know, and it's a bad frequent or rare, right? Well, it's rare except in the human race. The human race is for the most part. That's what Thomas says, right? And it's because we're following our senses rather than our reason, right? But the sense of what kind of dominates you, especially as a child, right? So there's more, you know, temptation, so to speak, right? So men are, you know, sins of the flesh for the most part. Condominates, human race, right? Weighs you down. Yeah. That's... There's rash in Worcester there, you know, people dying from overdoses of drugs, you know? And they're holding conferences and all that. That's what we can do about this. Yeah, yeah. But people just... Yeah. They're weighed down. Yeah, that kind of clarifies, I know, we've discussed it before, and I remember reading it in moral theology about the voluntary. The more something is pleasing, the more voluntary it is. But then this sort of puts a little balance to that to say, but we're more inclined this way. So that's, you might say, less great in terms of guilt. Well, it's false to have said that. I have more flesh in there. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. For excuse. arithmetic, right? And geometry is about the continuous, right? And arithmetic, science of numbers, is about the discrete. And he's saying that arithmetic is more certain than geometry, huh? And that's because there's this to be considered, right? And he compares the very first thing in geometry to the very first thing in arithmetic. What's the first thing in geometry? It's the definition of the point. The very first thing in arithmetic is the one. Now, both the one and the point are indivisible. But the point, besides being indivisible, has a position. It's either here or there, right? And so if you have, let's say, three points, they can be in a straight line or they can be, you know, in a triangular arrangement or some other arrangement, right? But the three ones in the letter, in the number three, you know, in a straight line, they're not here or there, right? So there's some things, so some people would say, you know, the point is the one with position, right? Okay? So he starts with the divisible in both, right? But it's an interesting difference, though, between those two indivisibles. And indivisible in the continuous is a, what, limit. It's not a part. But the indivisible in number is a part. So one is a part of two, part of three and four and so on. Is a point a part of a line put together from points? But it's a limit. It's a limit, yeah. Yeah. That goes through even for other kinds of the continuous. I mean, a line, right, is the limit of a surface. But is the surface composed of lines? You know, the famous thing in Democritus there, you know, where, and they, you know, you have a line composed of infinity of points, right? And so then a line, a plane would be composed of infinity of what? Lines. And then a body of infinity of what? Planes. Yeah. Yeah. So if you take a cylinder, right, you can say it's a stack of hosts and a stack of circles, right? Nothing like that, right? Well, then you get to what they call the cone, right? You take a triangle and you rotate around one of those things and you get a cone, right? Well, now, is that a stack of circles too? Well, if you take one of those stack of circles, right, is the one immediately above it or below it as big? Well, if it's exactly the same size as the one you have, then your stack would be a, what, cylinder and not a cone, right? But if they're unequal, then it's, see? Well, by a cone, it's completely straight. It's a line, yeah. So you've got a problem if you're trying to imagine it to be, what, a stack of holes, right? And you're thinking of the indivisible, in this case, the indivisible, because it's not having any depth, right, as being a part of the continuous, right? And it's not a part, but it's a, what, a limit, right? So when Thomas is comparing the angels there and the way they move from one place to another, right, because they apply their power here and then there, but they don't have to go through it in a continuous way, right? And so the indivisible is a part of their, what, time, or their motion, you could call that, right? But in the case of continuous motion, the indivisible is not a part of their role, but it's the end of it, the limit of it, right? But you can see that difference already in arithmetic and geometry, right? I thought it gets a job done tonight because he teaches you, right? Don't give me a hint, you know? I mean, you've got two sciences here, right? And they both begin with something indivisible. One is the point and the other is the one, right? But is the point to that, you know, the continuous in the same way that the one is to number, right? Well, in one sense they're similar because of the simplest thing, right? And geometry goes from the simple to the, what, composed, right? Composed, right? But the continuous is not composed of the, what, the indivisible, right? The hairstyle shows that they could make a point out of lines because the points, the formal line would have to, what, touch, right? If they touch, either, what, if things touch, either part of one touches part of the other, or part of one touches the whole of the other, or the whole of one touches the whole of the other. But since the point has no parts, that's your definition, right? Part of one point can't touch part of the other point, and part of one can't touch the whole of the other. The whole has to coincide with the other. In which case, two points put together, you know, how much length? None. As much as one point, which is no length at all. And ten or hundred or infinity points touching, only they can touch is to coincide. If they coincide, they have no more length than one point. There's no way to make, what? A line. Living? Part of points, you know? I know. You know what they write with that. The mathematician, you know, tells me to teach an assumption there, you know, about this, you know? Because they want to say that the line is composed of an infinity of points, right? And they get into all kinds of problems. I think that's an interesting difference, though, between the two individuals, right? That the one is a limit of the line, and so on, and the other is a heart, right? And it starts to use that to illustrate the difference between the angelic time, which is discrete, if composed of indivisibles, and the heart time, which is continuous, right? And therefore is not composed of indivisibles, but the indivisible is a limit, an end of that, right? You know, the teacher, he said, in time, do I want to start with angels again? You know? I mean, you know, he'd like to talk with the angels, too. They're really wonderful things, you know? And you have to, you know, come to know the angels through our own mind, to understand our mind first, but then finally have to look into the differences, you know, between our mind and the angelic mind. That's quite a mind that. I always think of my grand angel, and I always, you know, ask him to help me in my studies, you know, but he probably is amused, you know, huh? I can't understand. After all these years, and that's all you can come up with? Yeah. But it's kind of amusing, you know, trying to understand what an angel is, right, huh? Yeah. It would be a beautiful treatise there, isn't it? Mm-hmm. Yeah, sum theologian, you know, from the parish, huh? Mm-hmm. You know, the teacher said, when your body leaves your, when your soul leaves your body, and you probably, you know, start to worship your grand angel, like, this is God. And he said, no, no, no, I'm not God. I mean, he's such a wonderful preacher, you know. He said, oh, this must be God. I mean, how many better than this, you know? And then, no, no, I don't have to pray to God. Yeah, yeah. But it's actually been your first, you know, reaction, huh? St. John did it twice in the Apocalypse. Mm-hmm. He was, he was corrected twice. Mm-hmm. For trying to worship an angel. Mm-hmm. If that was true, St. John... Mm-hmm. Yeah. The rest of us... Blessed was Mary who believed the angel, right? Mm-hmm. So we saw the three reasons here, right? Mm-hmm. Part of the subject, right? Yeah. One in whom one sins, and then part of the motive, right? Mm-hmm. The first, therefore, it should be said. It's very interesting, these objections here. That adultery not only pertains to the sin of what? Luxury, eh, right? But also pertains to the sin of what? Injustice, huh? And as regards this, it pertains, it's able to be, what? Reduced to average, right, huh? It's very interesting. It's very interesting. It's very interesting. It's very interesting. As the glosses, on the passage in Ephesians, every fornicator, or one unclean, or errors. Interesting, yeah. And then is more grave adultery than theft, insofar as to a man is more dear his wife than his possessions. See that in that fellow, right? It's interesting. The second should be said that the devil is said to most of all rejoice about the sin of what? Luxuria, which is a maxima forensic of our animal nature, right? And it's difficult to be what? For a man to be taken out of it, I guess. Yeah. For insatiable is the desire of the pleasant, as the philosopher says in the third book of the ethics. Look at our society, you can see that, right? It's dead in your face, right? It's the worst sin, yeah. So we chose it, not because it's the worst sin, but because it's the one that is most common and most hard to overcome, right? To the third, it should be said that the philosopher, I don't read a text because they capitalize the philosopher, right? That's what you should do with what? In 20 Masih, right? Right. What is someone? Yeah. Just like you said, you said the Bible, which means the book, right? If you say the book, you should capitalize the B, right? I mean, the book, the book, I mean. But they seem to have some of these texts there, they always capitalize angel, now that shouldn't be capitalized. Angel. That's not a, I should say, the messenger. But I don't think that's so much. That might refer to Christ, right? He's the angel of the great counsel. They might capitalize it. Yeah. So the philosopher says that the more, what, shameful, infamous, is the incontinent man of concubiscence than the incontinent of anger because partakes less of, what? Reason. Reason, right? You kind of see that in the great tragedies, right? The great man sometimes has this great anger, like Achilles and Coriolanus and so on, right? And, well, false status. He's laughable. That's true. He's laughable. Yeah. And the countenance also said in the third book of the ethics that the sins of intemperance are maxima ex probabilia, right? Like blameworthy, I guess. Yeah. Because they're about those pleasures which are common to us and to the beasts, right? Whence, in a certain way, with these sins, a man is made brutal, beast-like. Beast, yeah. And hence it is, as Gregory says, they have more what? But that's to mean that they're actually worse than that. But there's interesting objections, right? Because the devil, in a sense, is rejoicing more than these sins because they're more common and men, you know, seem to be stuck in them. They're easier bait. Yeah, yeah.