Prima Secundae
Lecture 191: Aggravating Factors in Sin: Harm, Person, and Sinner

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

So to the eighth, one goes forward thus. It seems that the gravity of the sin is not, what, increased according to the greater, what, harm done, right? Doesn't Augustine have the definition of the bad, which is harmful, right? For documentum, how would you translate that, harm? There's a certain event fouling upon the act of the sin, right? But in the event, fouling does not add to the goodness or badness of the act. Therefore, a sin is not aggravated to come to greater, what, harm done, huh? These people haven't heard about the Last Judgment, right? That's one of the reasons the Last Judgment, right? To see all the evil of what you've done, right? With your book, Karl Marx, you know, or that, you know, when the Psalms are in, it says you see your children's children, right? I think that refers even to the preacher, right, huh? Because he preaches and he converts some people and then they convert other people, right, huh? And that's seeing your children's children, right, huh? Not just your grandchildren, like, I have to go see. Whoever harm, most of all, is found in sins which are against one's, what, neighbor. Because no one wants to, what, for himself, huh? And God, no one is able to, what, yeah, how can you harm God, right? For he said, according to that of Job, huh, chapter 35, huh, if your iniquities, right, are multiplied, huh, what do you do against him, right, huh? For to the man who is like yourself, your impiety does, what, harm, right, why? If, therefore, a sin is aggravated in account of a greater harm, it follows the sin by which one sins against one's neighbor is a graver sin than that which one sins in God or in oneself. Which is worse, to kill your neighbor or kill yourself? Yeah. Yeah. Most people don't realize that, you know, well, they think it's a reverse, huh, because the state is going to punish you more for trying to kill somebody than trying to kill yourself, right? Yeah. But, moreover, a greater harm is inferred to someone when he is deprived of the life of grace, right, than when he's deprived of the life of nature, because the life of grace is greater than the life of nature, insofar that a man ought to, what, have contempt for him, I'd say, the life of nature. Lest he lose the life of grace. Yeah. Lest he lose the life of grace. But the man who induces some woman to fornicating, as far as of itself, he deprives her the life of grace, inducing her to a, what, mortal sin. If, therefore, a sin is more grave and account for greater harm, it follows that the simplex, the simple fornicated, more gravely sins than the murderer, right? Which is manifestly false. Therefore, a, what, sin is not more grave and account of a greater harm. I love it. So, you know, you're down in that cell there, and that's the only part of the article you've been given. Yeah. And you've got nothing else to read, and there's no TV there, no radio. You know, so the guy's got to apply the motivation to this, because he'll go out of his mind if he doesn't. Right. I suppose that's the ideal way to teach us, because you'd have to go much slower than we're going, right? Until you're sitting around there, you know, and you can't sleep at night time, you're trying to find out the answer to that objection, you know? But you really appreciate the answer when it comes, huh? If you got yourself, you'd be even more tickled than it. But even if you get yourself, that time is to solve it, right? Against is what Augustine says in the third book on free judgment, huh? Free will. Because vice is, what? Opposed to, huh? Adverse to nature, right? To that extent is added, what? To the malice of vices when the, what? Yeah. But the divination of the integrity of nature is, what? Harm. Therefore, greater is the sin, the greater is the, what? As greater is the harm, yeah. Now he gets here into another three-fold distinction, huh, this guy. Does he know there are other numbers besides two or three? He probably does. He's quite a bit of a different one. I told you I used to introduce the idea of two or three, you know. I'd say Socrates and some of the dialogues is always dividing into two. He's giving us that as kind of a rule. And Hegel's always dividing into three. And to the best of my knowledge, there's no other philosopher, right, that stands out in my mind that always divide according to the same number, right? I put Plato into two, and he's a pretty famous guy. And Hegel into three, and he's pretty famous, right? So I made a rule then, not two or three, but two or three. And maybe there's some exceptions to that, but for the most part, that's not true, right? The rule is good if it's true for the most part, right? I answer it should be said that an documento has itself in three ways to sin, right? Then I'd skip a line, and then I'd start to do the first way, and then I'd skip another line and do the second way. That's why I would write the text. I would edit the text, right? But they don't let me edit the text, so. Here they make it bold. Sometimes, huh, a harm that comes from sin is foreseen, right? And intended, right? As when someone does something, right, with the soul of harming another as homicide or what? Theft, right? And then directly, the quantity of the harm increases the gravity of the what? Sin. Because then the harm is through the what? Yeah. Because then the harm is per se, right? The object of the what? Sin, right? You can't hear confessions without knowing this distinction, can you? You hear confessions, you're not responsible, right? Yeah, yeah. It's hard to hear confessions, I would think. Sometimes the harm is what? Foreseen but not intended. My goodness. Just as when someone going through the field, that he might, what? More compendiosis in a shorter way. Come to forekings. He, what? He stows harm upon those, what? Things which are... Well, he are stowed with some of them. Yeah. Knowingly, he does this, right? Although he does not do so with the, what? Soul of harming, right? He's always talking about these, you know, things that are not in the Israel thing, you know, right? And you intend to kill the innocent that are around the terrorist, right? But you might foresee that this is going to... be, right? But is that what you're intending, right? So it's different, right? You're telling you to kill innocent with the, want to get, get those bad guys, get innocent around them too. That's, that's a different thing, right? And thus the quantity of the harm, Agravaki says the sin, right? But indirectly he says, right? Insofar as from a will very much inclined to sinning, right? It proceeds that someone does not, what? Omit, huh? To do harm to himself or others, which simply he does not, what? Will, right, huh? Okay. I want to get you and someone else is standing in the way, so I'll shoot anyway, right? Sometimes the harm is neither foreseen nor intended, right, huh? Now he makes the distinction, right? But this distinction under this third one. And then if it is parochidens to the sin, it does not aggravate the sin directly, but on account of negligence, right? In some cases it would be of considering the harms which could follow, right, huh? They are imputed to man for punishment, the evils which happen, even a cart from his, what? Intention, right, huh? If he gives labor to an illicit thing, right, huh? If however the harm per se follows from the act of sin, even though it is, what? Not intended nor foreseen, directly at, what? Yeah. Because whatever things per se follow to the sin, they pertain in some way to the, what? Yeah. As if someone, for example, publicly, what? Fornicates, they would follow the scandal of, what? Of many. Because although he himself does not intend this, nor even perhaps does not foresee it, right, directly this, what? Aggravates sin, huh? Altogether differently, huh? Seems to have itself about the, what? Penal, the punishment that one incurs the one who sins, right, huh? For if this harm, prejudice has itself to the act of sin, and is not foreseen nor intended, it does not, what? Aggravates sin. Nor does there, does it follow a greater gravity of sin, just as if someone running to, what, kill, pinch his foot, pinch his foot. If however such a harm per se follows to the act of sin, even though perhaps neither is it foreseen nor intended, then the greater harm does not make a griever sin. But equinverso, the griever sin induces a griever, what? Harm. Just as someone who's not of the faith, right, who has heard nothing about the punishments of, what? Hell. Hell. For the sin of, what? Homicide. Then for the sin of, what? That. Because he neither intends nor foresees this, right, huh? There is not aggregated from this sin, from this, the sin. Just as it happens to the faithful person, who from this, the believer, sees that the sin is, what? Because the greater punishment see, what? That he might fulfill the will of sin. Yeah. He might fulfill the will of sin. But the gravity of this harm is only caused from the gravity of the sin. Well, that's a different part to this, that second, that last paragraph. I wonder what's responsible for the first three here in your exam. To the first, therefore, it should be said, that as has been said above, when one treated of the goodness and badness of the exterior acts, the event following, if it is foreseen intended, adds to the goodness or badness of the, what? Act, huh? To the second, it should be said, huh? That although the harm makes the sin more grievous, it does not ever follow from this harm alone, that the sin is made more grievous. Nay, rather, the sin per se is more grave in account of the, what? Disorder. Whence the harm aggregates the sin insofar as it makes the act itself to be more, what? Disorder. Whence it does not follow that if the harm most of all has place in the sins which are against one's neighbors, that those sins are, what? Yeah. Because much more is followed disorder in those sins which are against, what? God. God. And also those which are against oneself, huh? So what did Shakespeare say? Reasons ability for a large discourse, what? Yeah. And before and after is the definition of, what? So disorder is the main thing, right? You're not following the rule of reason, huh? The order that reason should, what? Know and, uh, direct this in, right? So it's more disorder for me to blaspheme God, right? Or this sort, and to kill my neighbor, huh? Yeah. Yeah. Because God is the end of the whole universe, right? And so everything is ordered to God ultimately, right? It would be more disordered than to, you know, how to do something like that. It's disgusting. Nobody would say that. What? You asked the man on the street, he would say, oh, it's much worse to, you know, hurt your neighbor life in your own life in your own life. Yeah. It's worse to take your own life in your own life. Yeah. Yeah. Because, yeah. Yeah. Well, Thomas, you know, it takes that, we got, I used to collect, I got a whole collection of those texts where Thomas talks about that, right? It doesn't mean that you're supposed to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself, right? It doesn't mean that. But you're supposed to love your neighbor in the way you love yourself, that is, for your own sake, right? It doesn't mean equally, right? And, uh, you're supposed to love your own brother, let's say, right? More than the stranger, right? Okay. You're supposed to will the good of your neighbor just as will the good of your brother, right? So, Thomas is very clear about that, isn't it? It's the order of charity. Yeah. Yeah. God first. Yeah. I don't want people to understand, right? Now, which would be, uh, uh, worse for me to kill the governor of the state or to kill the president? It's a hard thing to say. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Or to betray the governor, to betray the country, right? You know, the common good of the country is a greater good than the common good of the white. So for me to act against the town of Shrewsbury, would that be as bad as for me to act against the state? For me to act against the state, would that be as bad as for me to act against the good of the country? What about then act against the good of the whole universe, which is what? God, right? That's most what? Disoriented. See how good Shakespeare was, right? It's in Hamlet, Act 4, Scene 4, something like that. Working on the old paper there, the wisdom of Shakespeare, right? But after that exhortation, as they call it, to use reason, what comes next in the wisdom of Shakespeare, right? We're going to be taught by Shakespeare, right? It had to be in seeing some before and after, right? We went before and after this Shakespeare see, you know, that is so striking. It's also in Hamlet, too. Thyself? But he says that the exhortation of the beginning was that I don't saw it be true. That's kind of involved in the exhortation, right? What is a man, right? Okay. But he talks to the players, right? He says, Or step not the modesty of nature, he says. For anything that's overdone is from, meaning away from, the purpose of playing. It's the end, he says, right? Both in the beginning and now was and is, as it were, to hold the mirror up to nature, to show virtue in her own face and score in her own image. And the very age and body of the time is form of pressure, right? What's perfectly ordered, nature, he gives before virtue and vice, and virtue and vice before the age, right? Because nature is the measure of what is what? Good or bad, and therefore virtuous or vicious. And an age is known by the virtues or vices that, what, predominate in that age, right? So it's perfectly, what, ordered, right? You know, Shakespeare is a play, you know, where it's very obvious to show this order there. You know, the as you like it, right? And as you like it, you have two pairs of brothers, right? And in one pair of brothers, the older brother is being, what, unjust to his younger brother, right? Denying him his share of the father's inheritance and so on. And then the other pair of brothers, the younger brother is a certain, the throne of the older brother, right? Who's now exiled in the woods, you know, and living like Robin Hood of Old and so on. And then you have the two, what, cousins, who are, you know, as close as sisters, right? Well, you see there's something wrong with the brothers who are one of the brothers being unjust to the other. But it's against nature, right? And then eventually they all end up in the forest, right? And they're reconciled in the forest, right? That's why he had a beautiful speech, you know, the Duke, you know. And this, our, you know, our life exempt from public haunt finds tongues in trees and books in the running brooks, you know? And servants in stones and good in everything, he says, right? That's nature is the measure there, right? And when the older brother and the younger brother end up in the forest, they both are converted, right? And he's so relieved to be freed from this, how naturally it'd been, right? And mistreating his brother, right? So Shakespeare is kind of an image, a poetic image there, right? How returning to what is natural, right? It's represented by the forest, right? Brothers are reconciled to brothers, right? So it's something unnatural for a brother to be, what? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I remember how Shaka was, he was a little boy, you know. You know, getting to know the boy down the block there, and he just couldn't stand his cousins yet. For us, it's a wonderful thing, you know, to go see your cousins, right? At Christmas time, you know, we'd go over and someone would go and step in the cousin's house, right? You know, pillow fights in the morning and so on. Until the feathers start coming out of the pillows. But, I mean, you know, I was kind of surprised, how can we not love your cousin, right? You know, when your brother said, you know, one brother in disagreement with his brother, you know. You see that in the neighborhood sometimes, right? But you realize there's something bad about this, right? Because it's what? Unnatural, right? And, you know, Friar Lawrence here is very good in that, huh? For not so vile that on the earth doth live, but to the earth some special good doth give. Nor art so good, but strained from that fair use, revolts from true birth, from true nature, right? Stumbling on abuse, right? So there you see the wisdom of Shakespeare, right? He sees that nature is more fundamental, right? Than virtue or vice. And virtue is a habit that is in what? In accord with nature, right? Vice is a habit that is opposed to nature, right? And then they are what measures the age itself, right? So there you see the wisdom of Shakespeare, right? He sees the before and after. That's really the key to ethics and so on. Too much into Shakespeare right now. Okay. We're in the second objection, right? Let's go back to the middle of that. Whence it does not follow that if harm most of all has place in the sins which are against one's what? Neighbor, right? That those sins are the most what? Grave, right? Because much more disorder is found in those sins which are against God, right? And in those of those which are, in some of those, right? Which are against what? Oneself, right? Nevertheless, it can be said that although no one is able to what? Harm God as regards his what? Substance. He's the first substance as we said, right? And we take up God in theology. After his existence, the first thing we talk about is the what? Sons of God, right? And the Summa that he's simple, perfect, right? And therefore good. He's what? Infinite and therefore everywhere, right? He's unchanging and therefore eternal. And that he's one. And the same five in the Summa Congenitia has been in a different order. The same five in the Compendium of theology, right? Sons of God, the first substance, huh? So though you cannot hurt God as regards his substance, huh? Nevertheless, there can be what? Harm to be noticed in those things which are of God, right? As it were, what? Of faith. Yeah, neither you conform to Muhammad, right? Or leave the place or die, right? Yeah. Violating sacred things, right? And so on, which are the most gray sins, right? To those when someone, what? Knowingly and willingly infers, what? Harm. As is clear in those things who, what? Kill. Yeah, that's suicide, right? Even though finally this refers to some appearing good, right? Huh? As that they are freed from some, what? Yeah. Roman Juliet, right? Okay. Ahem. Okay, now what about this third objection, which is talking about killing the life of grace, or killing the life of what? The natural life, right? That argument does not follow, and it comes to two things. I'd say, tell me, this is a smart guy. First, because homicide intends directly the harm of one's, what, neighbor, right, huh? The fornicator of her, who provokes the woman, right, seduces her, does not intend harm, but what? Pleasure, good time, right? So the intention is quite different, right? I don't want to hurt anybody. That's what everybody always excuses themselves. I'm a good person, I don't want to hurt anybody. Secondly, because homicide is a per se insufficient cause of the death of the body, right, huh? But no one can be the cause to another, per se insufficient, right, of spiritual death, right, huh? Because no one spiritually dies except sinning by his own, what, will, huh? It's an interesting objection, though, right? It's something to think about, right? It's an awful common distinction, per se, and the forachidans, huh? What's intended, what's not intended, right? So I might do more harm by seducing the woman, right, than by murdering somebody, right? But maybe I don't intend to harm as much as, in one case, as in the other, right? What I intend is more evil in one case, right? In the other, right? I'm going to hike a little brick after that, huh? I'm going to hike a little brick after that, huh? I'm going to hike a little brick after that, huh? I'm going to hike a little brick after that, huh? I'm going to hike a little brick after that, huh? I'm going to hike a little brick after that, huh? I'm going to hike a little brick after that, huh? I'm going to hike a little brick after that, huh? I'm going to hike a little brick after that, huh? God here, you know, made a terrible statement there that there's ten articles here, right? And where's the two and three rule, right? They should know that we talked about the ten categories that Aristotle distinguishes, right? And in the ten, he just kind of, you know, lists them and exemplifies them, right? He doesn't give any division into two or three, right? But when Thomas takes up the ten, right, he does it two places. One is in the third book of the physics and the other is in the fifth book of the metaphysics, huh? He divides the ten into three and then he subdivides what? The second into what? Of these three into three, right? And then he divides the well, into two, really, one of them into two. And then the last what? Six he divides into what? Two, right? He keeps them dividing into two or three until he gets them all, right? So we'll go back to the frame in just for a moment here to answer who's like that. Beginning of question 73 here, where he enumerates ten, right? Well, just like Aristotle doesn't always, what, do this, right? Thomas is very clear in the body article to usually divide into two or three. But if you want to divide these ten, would you divide them into three as Thomas divides the ten categories of Aristotle into three or would you divide them into two, huh? Because it's got to be one or the other, right? Yeah. The first two are both. Okay. And I divide them to two, but I divide the first article against the last nine, right? Because the first is asking whether all sins and vices are connected, right? And the second one is setting the stage for the other eight, right? Because if they're all parya or equal, then you want to have this comparison of some being more gray than others, right? And the various ways they can be unequal or some can be more gray than others presupposes that they're not all equal, right? So then I divide two through ten, I divide the second one against the last, what, eight, right? So that's the second division, right? The first division would be the first article against the last nine. Then the second against the, what? Yeah. Now how do you divide the last eight? I think if you look at three, four, and five, they are dealing with the gravity of the sin more and what is specific to that sin, right? Because the object is what is fundamental in distinguishing the acts, right? And then the dignity of the virtues, that's what the acts do, isn't it? And then the very common distinction between the carnal and the, what, spiritual by their objects, right? So three, four, and five are more, what, the essential, right? Then the last, what, five are dealing with something somewhat extrinsic, right? Okay? Because the cause is something outside the sin, right? The circumstances are something outside the sin in a way, right? Okay? And the harm done is something outside the sin itself, right? And then the persons involved, either on the side of the one, the one that sins against or the, you know, is something kind of outside the, the act itself, right? Okay? I committed murder, where murder is an act, then, you know, who am I and who did I kill, right? Yeah. Yeah. Now I divide, in those last five, then, I divide the, what, six, seven, and eight against nine and ten. Nine and ten are dealing with the person, right? And the other dealing with, what, you know. I'm dividing always by two or three, right? Fanatic, as you can see, right? I noticed Thomas, you know, when he, like, in the commentaries on scripture, he's always dividing the text, and it's almost always into two or three, right? So Matthew is divided into three parts, and, what, John into two parts. Then he subdivides, he'd be dividing into three or two. To me, the main apparent exception to the rule of two or three seems to be distinguishing the senses of words, right? Even there, you might try to do something, you know. Like, you take all those eight senses of in, you say, well, it's kind of hard, you know, but the first sense, right? And the second sense and the third sense, something is in something actually, right? So you get three ways in which something's in something actually, those first three senses. And then the fourth sense, the fifth sense, the sixth sense, and so on, you're getting senses of what? In some kind of ability, either passive ability or an active ability, right? And so on. So you end up, you know, probably dividing into two or three, you know, to try to understand the different senses. So I thought I should make some reply to who's like God, you know. The critics. You're up to Article 9 now. In 9 and 10, as we say, are dealing with the person, right? What's the thing about not respecting a person? Well, be careful about that. I understand that particular thing, right? To the ninth, one goes forward thus. It seems that on account of the condition of the person in whom one sins, sin is not, what? More grave, yeah. For if this were so, it would be most of all aggravated from this, that someone sins against a man who is just and, what? Holy. But from this, sin is not made more grave. Because less is injured, right? Or hurt from the injury, you know, given to him, the richest man who, what? With equanimity, yeah? Tolerates it. And others who also are, what? In herity. Scandalize it, yeah. Therefore, the condition of the person whom one sins does not, what? Aggravate the sin, right? Who's that first martyr there, there in the Acts of the Apostles? Stephen, yeah, yeah. He's saying, you know, don't hold this thing. yeah. He's actually, what, converting Paul, I guess, at this time, isn't he, or something, you know? He's praying for Paul, that's what he said. So it's, you know? Well, if you kill somebody, you know, the drunken brawl, you know, the guy's not in the state to go up, you know, the other one was to kill the king, you know, when he's, when he's picking or something, or rather than he's trying to repent. Moreover, if the condition of the person aggravated the sin, most of all would it be aggravated from propinquitate, right? Going back to nature. For, because as Tullius says in the paradoxic sin, in killing a, what? Slave, one sins, what? Yeah. But in the life of one's father, I guess, huh? Right. I don't know. Multa, peccantante, huh? Even Tullius, his sister, what he said. But the propinquity of the person whom one sins does not seem to weigh down the sin or make it more grievous because each one is to himself most of all, what? Near. Near, right? And nevertheless, less does he sin who infers some harm to himself than to another as if he, what, kills his horse than if he kills the horse of, what, another. As is clear through the philosophy in the fifth book of the epics. Therefore, the propinquity of the person does not what? That's like, it reminds me of St. Francis' body's brother asked, so your horse, my horse, somebody else's horse, who cares? More of the condition of the person sinning, most of all, what? It makes more grievous the sin by reason of dignity or what? Knowledge, huh? According to that of Wisdom, Chapter 6, that the powerful will be powerfully tormented. And the servant, knowing the will of the Lord and not doing it, he will be put... Morely to greater meaning, is what I referred to before. Therefore, like reason, the part of the person whom one sins, one is more what? It makes more grievous the sin, the dignity or now the person whom one sins. But one does not seem to sin more gravely who does an injury to a, what? A more wealthy person, right? Or a more powerful person than to some, what? Pauper. Because there is no accepting of persons before God, huh? According to whose judgment the gravity is sent out to be wishing. Therefore, the condition of the person whom one sins does not, what? We down the sin, huh? But against this, that is in sacred scripture, especially, what? Held to bad. The sin that is committed against the servants of God, huh? For they destroyed your, what? Altars. And they killed your prophets, right? And the vituperata, what's the first? Mostly, I guess, blame. Yeah. Yeah. Especially the sin committed against one near one's, huh? For the son who does insults to his father, right? And the son who rises against, the daughter who rises against her mother, huh? Um, who says to the king, right? Yeah. Apostate, huh? Who calls the leaders impious, right? Therefore, the condition of the person whom one sins aggravates the sin, huh? Hence, it should be said that the person in whom one sins is in some way, huh? The object of sin, right, huh? Kuda moda, he says so, right, huh? Now, it's said above that the first weight of a sin is to be observed on the side of the, what? Object, right? From which also, so much as it tended the greater gravity of the sin, that the object is a nearer or more principal end, right? But the end, the principal ends of the human acts are, what? God. God, the man himself, and his, what? Neighbor, huh? For whatever we do, on account of one of these, we do it. Although also, one of these three is ordered under another. One can, therefore, consider from the side of these three things, a greater or lesser gravity of sin, according to the condition of the person whom one sins. First, on the part of God, to whom the more some man is, what? Join, the more virtuous is he, or more, what? Sacred to God, right? Remember when they shot Regan, you know? Didn't kill him, but, you know, a couple of days later, John Paul, I couldn't believe it, you know? But the shock of that, huh? And, therefore, the injury bestowed upon such a person, or inferred upon such a person, more redounds to God, huh? According to that is Zachary, too, who touches you, touches the apple of my eye, yeah. Now, once a sin is more grave from this, that one sins in a person, more, what? Join to God, right, huh? Either by, what? Virtue or by reason of their, what? Office, right? And from the part of oneself is manifest, that one sins more gravely, the more one, what? Sins in a person joined to one, either by natural necessity, right, or by benefits, right, or by whatever conjunction there is, right? He sins. Because one seems more to sin in oneself, and what? Yeah. For who is harmful to himself, whom will we be good, right, huh? Okay. There's a scripture here, what St. Paul says, you know, that no one hates their own flesh, right, so it's not supposed to hate your wife, right? That's right. If you don't have your own flesh, yeah? When you see it, like that, you ran off with a woman and became Episcopalian or something, and I thought to myself, that poor woman, if she thinks he's going to be faithful to her, if he wasn't faithful to God, she'd be such a dumb woman. Well, the assumption is saying to me, you know, that when you need a priesthood, there's always someone around there waiting to pick you up. She's probably an ex-nun. Let me figure you'll be a docile husband. I had thought of that. I don't know what else they want to pick you up. On the part of one's neighbor, right, huh? The more one gravely sins, the more his sin touches, what? Many, right? And therefore, the sin which takes place in a public person, right, huh? As a king or prince, right, huh? Who bears the person of a multitude is more grave than a sin that's committed against some private person, right? Whence it says, especially in Exodus 22, huh? You will not, what, curse them. Yeah. And similarly, the injury of which is given to some famous person, right? Seems to be more grave from this that it redounds to the scandal and the disturbance of the, what? Many, right? Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that the one who infers injury to the virtuous man, quantum estensei, as far as it is in itself, disturbs him both inwardly and outwardly, right? But that he is not disturbed inwardly, right, huh? Happens from his, what? Goodness, huh? Which does not diminish the sin of the one, what? Injury, right? To the second, it should be said that the harm that one infers to himself in those things which are under, what? The lordship of his own will, right? As in things possessed, has less of sin than, what? Maybe one other. Yeah. Because by his own will, he, what? Does this. But in those things which are not subject to the lordship of his will, as are the, what? Natural and spiritual goods, right? So this is the thing she's making here. Is a more grave sin, what? More grave is the, sin is the harm that is inferred to himself, right? To himself. Yeah, because that's the thing of every time somebody gets himself sterilized. Yeah, yeah. That's worse than if you just burn your house down. Yeah, yeah. More grave is there for peccat, huh? The one who kills himself, right? Than who, what? Kills another. And because things of, what? Our neighbors. Those who are near to us. Those who are near to us. Are not subject to the lordship of our will. The ratio does not proceed, right? As regards the, what? Injuries done to. things. Because about them, yeah, unless perhaps what? They wish or have what? Yeah, that's kind of an upset text there. To the third it should be said that there is no what? Accepting of persons if God more gravely punishes the man sinning against marks and persons. For this comes about an account of it, redounding to the what? Harm of what? Many, right? So the king that put to death weight is, right? Pretty obvious that sin is weighed down, right? It's made more grievous to the person you're hurting, right? In all these different ways. To the tenth one goes forward, it seems that the magnitude of the person sinning does not what make more grievous the sin for man is most of all rendered magnus right from this that he adheres to god according to that of ecclesiasticus that's ecclesiasticus 25 how great is the one who finds wisdom and science but he is not above the one what fearing god but the more someone what adheres to god the less is what imputed to him something as a sin right for the lord is what the good lord is what propitious to all those who in the whole heart require the lord the god their father the god their father yeah and is not imputed to them that they are what yeah strange text therefore sin is not aggravated from the magnitude of the person sinning moreover there is no accepting of persons before god as it said romans 2 11 therefore he does not more punish for one the same sin one than another they need to be accepting of persons right what does that mean by accepting of persons he's not therefore made more grievous from the magnitude of the person sinning moreover no one ought to be what should receive something in commodious right from something good but he would if that which he does is more imputed to him for what guilt therefore an account of the magnitude of the person sinning the sin yeah just because i'm better i shouldn't be punished more for doing the same thing that you did but against this is what isidora says in the second book on the highest school i don't know that book so much greater is known the sin to be the more greater is the man who is what the greatest man who sins that is had right the greater you have the man who sins right the more his sin is right okay answer it should be said that twofold is sin one coming from what the sudden surreptione on account of infirmity of human nature and such a sin is less imputed to the one who is greater in virtue and that he less neglects to what repress sins of this sort which nevertheless human what infirmity does not allow altogether to be what avoided other sins are those proceeding from to liberation and these sins the more are imputed to someone the more he is what greater and this an account of four now next day we'll drop you the rest of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part Yeah, those are the four things. Sound that interesting up there? Is it a resist? Foolishly, right, huh? Wise men act foolishly, right? Isn't that worse? If a fool acts foolishly? To the first effort should be said that that authority speaks about those things which by the what? Eruption, you might say, of human infirmity are negligently, what? Done, right? In that case, the person, what? Sinning is not sinning more, right? The second should be said that God does not accept persons if what? He punishes the greater more. He punishes the devil more than he's going to punish us. Because their greaterness makes for the gravity of the sin, huh? So the devil will be punished most of all, right? He'll be down there in the ices. Nothing puts him down there in the ice. And a man, a great man does not what? We see something incommodious from the good that he has but from the what? Bad youths, huh? Stopped there, right, huh? Good. Good. Good. Good. Good. Good.