Prima Secundae
Lecture 198: Ignorance as a Cause of Sin: Three Questions

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

Let's look at the premium here. Remember, we're in the part one of the five of the six, right? The cause of what? Sin. And that was divided into two, right? The cause in general, and now we come to the cause in what? Particularly, speciality. Then we're not to consider about the causes of sin and speciality. And first, about the inward causes of sin. Secondly, about the exterior causes, right? Third, about the sins which are a cause of other sins. What's the distinction of what? Three, huh? Okay. Now, the first consideration, according to what has been said before, will be tripartita. For first, one will treat of ignorance, which is the cause of sin on the part of what? Reason. Secondly, about infirmity or passion, which is a cause of sin on the part of the sense appetite. Sins of weakness, huh? Third, about malice, huh? Malizia. You might guess it's going to be the worst of all, huh? Which is the cause of sin on the part of the, what? Well, I was driving up there, I was talking about this horrible hate, you know, of bush that was produced by the Democratic Party during the thing. And what a horrible thing it was, you know? And, uh, and it was at Durban, I guess, was on the floor of the Senate, comparing, you know, um, that, one time over that place, we had the base, you know, we had the prisoners, you know, the thing, comparing it to the gulag, and the, and the stalag, and so on. Yeah, so you got to watch out for that malice, huh? Okay. What would you compare the abortion party to? You heard my coupling, you know, I said, terrorists and abortionists, you know, have no respect for life. The terrorists cut off the heads, and the abortionists pull babies apart, and the mother's womb. It's difficult to see who's worse. Okay, so that last tripartita dealt with the three things intrinsic, right? There were a cause of sin, right? About the first, our fourth things are asked. First, whether ignorance is a cause of sin. Well, no, it's an excuse for sin, right? Second, whether ignorance is a sin. Whether it entirely excuses from sin. Whether it diminishes sin, right? It'll be interesting to get people to answer those things, what they think at first, you know, huh? I was teaching the Psalms, I mean, the parables one time in the parish, right? And my wife goes, she says, now, ask them what they think is the meaning of this thing, and then before you explain what it is, don't explain first what it is. And the answers you get, you know. I don't know why you should have been thrown out, because you didn't have a wedding dress. That doesn't seem right. The first one goes forward thus. It seems that ignorance cannot be a cause of sin. For what is not is a cause of nothing, right? But ignorance is the non-being of knowledge, right? Since it is a certain lack of knowledge. Therefore, ignorance is not a cause of sin. Makes sense to me. What is not cannot be a cause of... Isn't it marvelous? I haven't had a marvelous mind this guy yet. Moreover, the causes of sin should be taken on the side of what? Conversion, right? Which you turn yourself towards, yeah. But ignorance would seem to regard, what? Turning away. Therefore, it cannot be laid down as a cause of, what? Sin, huh? Moreover, every sin is, what? Consists in the will, as has been said above. But the will doesn't carry itself, it's not carried towards something except towards something known. Because the good apprehended is the object of the will. Therefore, ignorance cannot be the cause of, what? Sin. But against this is what Augustine says in the book on nature and grace, huh? That some sin through ignorance. Augustine, he's quite a guy. How does Thomas go about this, huh? He's got strange, huh? He begins, he says, why'd he begin there, huh? The answer should be said, according to the philosopher, huh? Doesn't even call him by his name, does he? Yeah, yeah. What's the name of that figure of speech he's using here? Yeah, yeah. Where you give the common name, right, to one in particular that it is said of, right? Because it stands out, huh? So Aristotle refers to Homer sometimes as Homer and sometimes as the poet. And this figure of speech is very, what, common in scripture. So the Bible is named by Antonia Messiah. I think I'll ask that question next time I talk in the parish. How is the Bible named? Then how are the Gospels, how are the Gospels named? That's by Antonia Messiah, right? How is Christ named, right? They're all named by Antonia Messiah. What the hell is Antonia Messiah? You've got to come up with a better name for it, don't I? Hans, it should be said that according to the philosopher in the 8th book of the physics, huh? Books of Natural Hearing. The moving cause is twofold. One per se and the other perachidens. Per se, the thing that moves by its own what? Power. Just as the one generating is the cause moving heavy and light things, because it gives them the power to move them up or down. Perachidens, however, as the removins, prohibins, huh? We met that before, right? Or just as the removal of what prohibits or prevents, huh? And in this way, ignorance is able to be a cause of the act of sin. Oh, very good, Thomas, huh? So Thomas, I was going to say how he used the word. I said, this is the way I probably should say it. Thomas points out a distinction. Isn't that a good way of expressing it? I don't want to say, you know, that Thomas distinguishes, because that makes it kind of sound kind of subjective, as they say, you know? Yeah. You know, you didn't fit these distinctions, you know, to get out of trouble. But he sees a distinction, right? And then he points it out to us numskulls, us dimwits, okay? He's a wit, but we're dimwits, right? And then there are nitwits, who don't even see them as pointed out. Well, I like that. Points it out, huh? It's kind of, I'm taking up with the word point, you know. It's, Thomas has made me think about it more. And in this way, ignorance can be a cause of the act of sin. It removes something that might prevent you from, okay? For it is a privation, a lack. I don't know if you speak English. It's a lack of the knowledge perfecting, what? Reason. Which prohibits the act of sin, insofar as it directs, what? Human acts, huh? Now, it should be considered, now, you can skip a little time, and you see another thing coming up now. It should be considered that reason is directive, right, huh? According to a two-fold knowledge of human acts. to wit, according to a universal knowledge and according to a particular knowledge. Because the man conferring about things to be done uses a certain kind of, what, syllogism, whose conclusion is a judgment or a, what, even a choice you could call, or in fact a, what, action. For actions are in the singular. So you have a universal, maybe, premise in there, and then you have minor, right? Fornication is wrong. This is fornication, right? Stealing is wrong. This is stealing, right? Whence the conclusion of an operative syllogism is something singular. But a singular proposition is not concluded from a universal one except by means of some singular proposition. Just as a man is prevented from the act of killing his father, parasite, I guess, to this that he knows a father should not be, what, killed, and to this that he knows that this man here, this one here, is his father. Father should not be killed. This is my father. Therefore, I should not kill him. Now, ignorance, therefore, of both could cause the act of parasite, right? To some people who kill their father, they get to be a certain age, right? Some of these primitive tribes, isn't that the thing? I remember reading about this somewhere. So, ignorance of both is able to cause, what, the act of parasite, huh? To wit of the universal principle, which is a certain rule of reason, and the singular, what, circumstance, huh? So, what's his name, what? He knew he shouldn't kill his father, right? And marry his mother. Yeah. And he was ignorant of the fact that this man, stopping his way, was his father, and that the woman was his mother, right? So, whence it is clear that not just any ignorance, right, of the one sinning is a cause of sin, but that only which takes away the knowledge, what, prohibiting the act of the sin, right? Basically, I don't know the Pythagorean theorem, right? That's not a cause of sin, probably, huh? Okay. Whence if the will of someone was thus disposed, that he would not, what, be prevented from the act of parasite, even if he knew his, what, father, huh? The ignorance of the father is not to this one a cause of sin, but it has itself as a complement to the sin, right? And therefore, such a one does not sin in account of ignorance, but he sins, what, big ignorant, according to the philosopher in the third book of the Ethics, right, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that non-being is not able to be the cause of something per se, but it can be a cause per accident as the removal of the one, what, of what is prohibiting it, huh? Notice that little distinction he makes here. He uses the word remotio prohibentes and removins, prohibins, right? Removins, prohibins is more like the efficient cause, but the removal of the thing is a little different, right? A effect of that, though. To the second, it should be said that just as the knowledge which ignorance takes away regards the sin on the side of the conversion, so the ignorance on the side of, what, is a cause of the sin as removins, prohibins, huh? Now, what about this here, huh? The will doesn't go to something unknown, huh? To the third, it should be said that in that which is, as regards all things unknown, the will cannot be carried, right? But if something is in some way known and in some way, what, unknown, the will is able to, what, will it, right? And in this way, ignorance is a cause of sin. Just as when someone knows this one whom he kills to be a man and does not know him to be a, what, father. Or when someone knows some act to be delightful but does not know nevertheless it to be a sin. Okay? Can I stop now or what? In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds. Orlumine our images and arouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Pray for us. Help us to understand how it's written. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. And I was thinking about myself in comparison to, you know, Thomas or Aristotle or something like that. You know what the Fourth Lateran Council says, right? You can never see a likeness between creatures and God without a greater unlikeness. So, to the extent that we're like God, we're good, right? And the more we are like God, the better we are, right? But always, the unlikeness is greater than that, right? I say, am I like Aristotle? Am I like Thomas? Well, a little bit perkyless, you know? There's always a greater unlikeness, huh? And, you know, my teacher Kisarek, you know, said, compared to Aristotle, he says, I have the brain of an angleworm, he said. It was just like, well, I'd like that, you know. I'd like, yeah. So, it's in the last time, I guess, the first article just, right, in question 76. But ignorance can be a cause of sin, right? So, ignorance is a cause of many things. Albert the Great says that the ignorance of logic, right, was a cause of error in the, what, early Greeks, right? So, when Thomas, when Aristotle takes up Elisa's sin, the first book of physics, right, you can say that he does no logic, right, huh? I mean, take an argument like this, huh? Every mother is a woman. It's true, right? No man is a mother, right? Therefore, no man is a, what? Yeah. Is that a good argument? The premises are both true, right? Every mother is a woman, that's true. And no man is a mother, therefore, no man is a, what? Is that good? Is that good? Same way. Yeah. No, as I say, every dog is an animal. No cat is a dog. Same form, right? Therefore, no cat is a, what? Animal would follow if the other one followed, right, huh? See? But, because, you know, you realize that there's some connection between the fact that a man is not a mother. A man is not a mother, right? I mean, not a woman, right? But the argument is not, yeah. So, ignorance of logic is a cause of error, right? Aristotle is usually given the title of the father of logic, right? I'm always surprised when I read the modern philosophers, you know, they don't talk about the various kinds of mistakes that you have in the book on Sophistic Refutations. Like Thomas, when he's pointing out, you know, mistakes, he often identifies the kind of mistake it is, right? And, you know, even if you know the kinds of mistakes, you can still make this kind of mistake, huh? But, a fortior, if you don't know it, right? So, the ignorance is a cause of error. In what sense of a cause is ignorance a cause of error? Remember the distinction Thomas made, huh? Remember? I think it was in the first objection, right? Non-ins is not able to be a cause per se, right? But it can be a cause per agitans, as the remotio prohibentes, and what prevents, removes what prevents it. So, ignorance of logic, right? Or ignorance of the kinds of errors and so on, is a cause per agitans of your mistakes, right? It removes an impediment to making your mistakes, right? So, you can go around and use the distinctions that Thomas points out here and understand what our friend Albert the Great is saying, right? Now, whether ignorance can be a sin, huh? The second one goes forward thus, it seems that ignorance is not a sin. And he quotes this famous definition, huh? Which goes back, I guess, to Augustine, right? That sin is something said or done or desired against the law of God. But ignorance does not imply some act, neither interior nor exterior. It's really a negation, right? Therefore, ignorance is not a sin. Either the argument is good, or you've got to tell out what Augustine said, one of the two, right, it seems. Moreover, sin is what? But the lack of grace is not a sin, but more a certain punishment fouling upon what? Sin, right? Therefore, ignorance is not a privation of knowledge. Therefore, ignorance, which is a privation of knowledge, is not a sin, right? It's an interesting argument. Moreover, if ignorance is a sin, this is not except insofar as it is something voluntary. But if ignorance is a sin insofar as it is voluntary, it seems that the sin and the act of the will consist more than in the, what? Ignorance. Therefore, ignorance will not be a sin, but more something fouling upon what? You may also argue, I suppose, is ignorance voluntary? I choose to be ignorant. Don't confuse me with the facts, as they say. Moreover, every sin is taken away through penance. Nor does some sin, going away, right? Remain in guilt in act, except only what? Original sin. But ignorance is not taken away through what? But it still remains in act. All guilt being removed through what? Penance, huh? Therefore, ignorance is not a sin, except perhaps what? Original sin. Sin of different sins. Moreover, if ignorance is a sin, so long as sin remains in a man, so much in act he sins. But he continually remains what ignorance remains in the one who is ignorant. Therefore, the one ignorant continually sins, which is clearly false. Because thus, ignorance would be most grave, right? It's not the most grave. In the line of sins. Therefore, ignorance is not a sin, huh? Can he really confuse the issue, right? That's the old teacher, Kassarik said, huh? Isn't the teacher confuse the issue? Can't take out the grain of salt, obviously, but there's a certain way in which he does. Yeah, yeah. I fear the issue. Against this is that nothing merits pain, or punishment, except what? Sin. But ignorance does merit punishment, huh? According to that of the first epistle to the Corinthians. If someone, what? Is ignorant? He will be, what? Ignored. Therefore, ignorance is a, what? Sin. Okay, Thomas begins by seeing a certain distinction here, right? I answer it should be said that ignorance in this differs from, what? Ignorance is a, what? Ignorance is a, what? Ignorance is a, what? Ignorance is a, what? Ignorance is a, what? Ignorance is a, what? Ignorance is a, what? Ignorance is a, what? Ignorance is a, what? Ignorance is a, what? simple negation of what? Knowledge, right? Whence to whoever is lacking some knowledge of things can be said to not know them, right? According to which way Dionysius says that in the angels, that's meaning of the good ones, right? He lays down the somniscience, right? That the higher angels eliminate, right? They'd like to know. But ignorance implies a lack of knowledge, right? When there's lacking to someone the knowledge of those things which he is naturally apt to what? To know, huh? Now, those things someone is held to what? To know, he should have known. Those without the knowledge of which he cannot, what? Exercise a, what? Suitable act, right? Whence all are held to know commonly those things which are of what? Faith, the creed, and the universal precepts of the what? Law. So the catechical instructions you have. The catechism, I mean, the commandments, right, huh? The commandments of love and so on. But individuals, you might say, are what? To know those things which pertain to their what? Status or their office, right, huh? So when you get married, you've got to know what you're supposed to be a thing. I don't know if they keep very good instruction in these things. Some things there are which that although one is naturally able to know, right, nevertheless he's not held to know, right, as the theorems of geometry, right, and particular contingent things, except in what? It's in case, yeah. It is manifest over that whoever neglects to have or to do that which he is, what, obligated to have or to, what, do, sins by the sin of what? Omission, right? Whence an account of negligence, right, the ignorance of those things which someone is held to know, is a, what, sin, huh? Now it's not imputed to a man to negligence if he doesn't know those things which he is not able to, what, know. Whence of these, ignorance is called, what, unconquerable, huh, invincible, because by study they cannot, he's not able to be, what, overcome, right? An account of this, such ignorance, ignorance, since it is not voluntary, right, in that it is not in the power, our power to repel it, right, is not a, what, sin. From which it is clear that no invincible ignorance is a sin, right, huh? But a invincible or comparable ignorance is a sin, huh? If it be of those things which someone is held to, what, no? No, but not if it be of those things which someone is not required to, what, to know. So he sees two cases, right? Invincible ignorance is not a sin, and your ignorance is something you're not held to know, right? So who won the game yesterday? And what was the score? Shame on you. Confessing sin. Father, Father, I didn't know who won the game. That refers to the anointment hater. Who was the enemy yesterday? I always say. Yeah. Now, in applying to the first objection, he's saying that you understand the, what, negation, right? You're introduced to that, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said, that it has been said above, at least one of the earlier articles we had, that when it's said, dictum vel factum vel concubitum, said or done or what desired, one should also understand the, what, negations, according as omission has the notion of a sin. And thus negligence, according as, what, ignorance is a sin, is contained under the fourth definition of sin, insofar as is omitted, something that one ought to have said or done or what? Desire. To what? So that's what he's explaining, right? Way to understand that definition, huh? So Augustine needs Thomas to explain him, huh? I always tell people, you know, my rule of thumb is, you know, Aristotle means what Thomas says he means. The one man who's fully equipped to understand Aristotle. Remember, we had a text that my brother Mark and I, oh, we couldn't make sense out of it, you know? So he brought it to Kisurik, right? He sat down at his desk there, you know, in his office, and he looked at it for some time, and then he got up, you know, and put in his hat and coat on, and he said, I can see why you had difficulty with that. And he walked out. That's all he said. He's a nice guy in the department, the only guy I really learned anything from, you know? You know, he's telling me, go read this to Thomas, tell me, go read it to the Silla. To the second it should be said, that the lack of grace, huh? Like I was saying, it's not a sin, right? Although in itself is not a sin, huh? Nevertheless, by reason of negligence in preparing oneself for grace, can have the, what, ratio of sin, huh? Just as ignorance, huh? But nevertheless, as he guards this, it is dissimilar, because a man is able to acquire some science, right? Through his own acts. But grace is not acquired from our acts, but from the gift of God. The third he says, huh? That just as in the sin of transgression, sin does not consist in the, what, alone, but also in the act that has been, what, willed, which is commanded by will. So, in the sin of omission, not only is the act of the will a sin, but also the omission, insofar as it is in some way, what, voluntary, huh? And in this way, huh? The negligence of knowing or inconsideration is a, what, sin. It's voluntary. Yeah. As I've been, you know, many times kind of angry about this or that to Obama, you know, and I say, I've been tempted to say to the pastor, you know, is confession available for those who voted for Obama? I mean, it's forgiveness. Because the only reason the negligence is to know what they should have known, you know? It's, it's just. People I talk to, you know, simply, you know, people who voted for Obama, they're a little bit ashamed of it, you know, to say the least. Look at the story talking about, he's talking to this guy, and the guy says, I don't think God's going to punish me for not going to church on Sunday. The story says, I think he's got it wrong, you know? I'm just kind of voluntary ignorant. The priest comes in, somebody's been shot, he's dead on the floor, or he's almost dead or whatever. So the priest comes in and starts to say prayers and anoint the guy. Some bystander, oh Father, he didn't believe in God. And the priest said, he does now. I was talking to a woman there at the pro-life dinner there, you know, I was talking about how I like to couple, you know, terrorists with abortionists, you know. And she says, you're going to make people very angry at you. There were a few political discussions that I've had in the past in New York, where people would actually, during a civil conversation, when I started talking about things they didn't want to hear, which were factual, they actually literally put their hands to their ears and go, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Only in that time does a man sin in act in which he is, what, obligated by a, what, affirmative precept, huh, thus also about the sin of ignorance, huh, for he is not continually the one who is ignorant, what, sins in act, right, huh, but only when the time for acquiring signs which he should have, which he is held, right, but it's in that time, right, huh? let's see if we can get some excuses here third article the third one proceeds thus it seems that ignorance ex total entirely excuses from sin because as augustine says every sin is voluntary but ignorance causes the involuntary right therefore ignorance holy excuses for sin that's comforting i don't entirely excuse people for voting for obama so i want to hold them responsible for it moreover that which someone does outside of or apart from his intention right he does what parachi does but intention cannot be about that which is unknown therefore what man does the ignorance huh he has himself parachidens huh in human acts but what is parachidens does not give the what species the kind of thing it is nothing therefore that is done through ignorance ought to be judged a what sin or virtuous in human acts i'll send these to casper more man is a subject of virtue and sin insofar as he what partakes of reason but ignorance excludes knowledge through which reason is perfected therefore ignorance wholly excuses from sin let's stop there against this is what the great augustine says i'm one of the four great doctors of the western church i guess augustine and no gregory who else ambrose and then somebody's ideal too you know but they make five you know there's four around the church right yeah yeah yeah four of them the um john paul ii saint john paul ii it's got a nice encyclical on augustine you know how important he is for the church right but if you look at just a number of entrances from augustine and the catechism the catholic church right number of times he's quoted here in thomas um you can see how sent to be is i tend to think that augustine and augustine and thomas are the two greatest minds in the church that we've had we should put it equal to those two you know i don't know who but against this is what augustine says in the book on free judgment huh that some things done through ignorance are rightly right reproved yeah but only those things are right the uh improbable to let me translate that yeah which are sins right therefore some things done through ignorance are in fact sins therefore ignorance is not entirely excused from sin right now thomas begins by saying that ignorance ignorance from itself right has that makes the act which it causes to be what yeah for it's already been said that ignorance is said to cause an act which the opposed knowledge would what prevent and such an act if the knowledge were present would be contrary to the will which implies the name of what yeah if however the knowledge which is deprived of ignorance does not prevent would not prevent the act on account of the what inclination the will in it the ignorance of this knowledge would not make the man involuntary but not willing right as is said in the third book of the ethics and such ignorance which is not the cause of the act of the act of the sin because it does not what cause the involuntary does not excuse from what sin and the same argument is about any ignorance not causing but following upon or coming along with the act of sin but ignorance which is the cause of the act because it causes the involuntary of itself has that excuses from what sin in that the voluntaries of the notion of sin but sometimes it does not wholly excuse from sin but that sometimes it is not totally excuse from sin can happen from two things what are those things in one way on the side of the what yeah insofar as ignorance excuse from sin insofar as it ignores that something is what is a sin it can happen however that someone ignores some circumstances sin which if he knew would what draw him back from sinning whether that circumstance makes for the notion of sin or not and nevertheless it remains in his knowledge something to which he knows that to be a what act of sin that's example of someone striking someone knows him to be a man which suffices for the ratio of what sin he does not however know him to be his father which is a circumstance constituting a new species of sin huh or perhaps he does not know that the one what yeah would strike back him which if he knew he would not strike which does not pertain to the ratio of sin when so though such a one on account of ignorant sins it does not offer total excuse in sin because there remains what the knowledge of sin huh another way this can happen on the part of the ignorance itself because the ignorance itself is voluntary either directly as in someone studiously wishes to what not do something that he might more what freely sin or indirectly just as when someone an account of what labor or an account of other occupations neglects neglects to learn that which would withdraw or retract himself from sin such negligence makes what the ignorance to be voluntary to sin so long as it is of those things which someone is held to know and is able to know and such ignorance does not hold the excuse of sin if however it be such ignorance that is altogether involuntary either because it is invincible right or because it is of that which someone is not bound to know huh such ignorance altogether excuses from what sin so the first it should be said that not every ignorance causes the involuntary once not every ignorance totally excuses from what sin the second should be said that insofar as there remains in the one ignorant right something of the voluntary so much remains the intention of what sin and according to this it would not be what sin and according to this it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said that it would be said it So these voters intended to be ignorant. It's kind of interesting how, you know, they talk about the way the press, you know, built them up, and they didn't really tell you much about the man at all, so that they could not make a, what, considered judgment, right? That was voluntarily keeping them, yeah, keeping... Other people were ignorant, right? As a few Democratic presidential candidates, their academic records were sealed before their, you know, the campaign season. So whereas they were portrayed by the media as being ultra-brain-yax, the reality was that the party was embarrassed about their academic performance, and so it sealed all their academic records. And one thing they just said, they sealed records, they said, well, you know, he passed, but no, they had to do, they had to go to the opposite chamber. No, he's one of the most great men ever in the history of the world. A lot of the bills in the state house, you know, they keep public ignorance as to who voted for what. Yeah. They don't say you can't. See, if they knew, then they'd get straight back. They wouldn't do it. To the third, it should be said, such ignorance, if there's be such ignorance that it totally excuses, or excludes, I should say, the use of reason, it altogether excuses from what? Sin, huh? As is clear in the mad and the without mind, right? But not however always is it is ignorance causing sin such, and therefore it is not always what? I'm seeing you. I was thinking of the phrase there the other day. He said somebody's out of his mind. What does that mean? He said, you're out of your mind. You're mad, you're crazy, right? But the meanings of the word out, right, correspond to the meanings of the word what? In. So what sense of in is this sense of out opposed to, right? You're out of your mind. Huh? What sense of in? Yeah, seventh sense, yeah. Yeah. Seventh sense is, you know, I've got you in my power, right? And when somebody says, out of my hands, you know, that's kind of a negation of that, right? When you say you're out of your mind, you're no longer in the power of your mind, right? You're no longer being ruled by your mind. The mind has ceased to function, so to speak, right? It's kind of interesting, the expression, you're out of your mind. People don't stop and think that they're easily... I don't know if you're in the power of your mind, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was applying to these judges, you know, who have same-sex marriage, you know, and think that you're violating somebody's civil rights or something because they can't get married. Because a number of the states passed something against, you know, marriage between a man and a woman, and then they suspended all that from the judges, you know? And it's a court that's confirmed all those suspensions, which is really outrageous, considering that one of the justices, it seems that the chief justice went along with it. Secondly, it's a big disappointment. Out of your mind. A little corporal punny. Yeah, he's all in jail with him, right? Did I talk about last time there how in the apocalypse there you've got the words, I am the elf and the omega. Did I talk about that last time? If I read carefully enough, it seems to me, I think it's in the very first chapter almost, apocalypse, that God says, I am the elf and the omega, right? Period, right? And then in the next to the last chapter, as 22 or what it is, he says, I am the elf and the omega, the first and the last. And then in the last chapter, he says all three. I am the elf and the omega, the first and the last, and the beginning and the end, right? Well, I think that's interesting, huh? When you say, I am the elf and the omega, it's almost speaking figuratively, huh? But then he gives us kind of the more open meaning, right? I am the first and the last, and then I am the beginning and the end, right? Well, going back to what we saw in Shakespeare's definition of reason in Aristotle, Shakespeare, the culminating thing in the definition of reason is it looks before and after, right? What's interesting is that Aristotle twice distinguishes the senses of before and one place is in the categories, chapter 12, right? The second place he does it is in the fifth book of wisdom, right? That's unusual that he should twice distinguish the chief senses of what? Before, right? Now, what is the, I don't know any other way he does this with, right? Now, of course, as you learn the categories, the first meaning of before is in time. Now, in the fourth book of physics when he talks about place, he distinguishes the eight chief senses of in and an appropriate place to do it because the first meaning of in is what? Yeah, he's taking up place in book four. Book four of the physics is about place and about time, right? But why doesn't he give the meanings of before and he takes up time because that's the first meaning of before and after? Just as the first meaning of in is place, right? Why is it more appropriate, so to speak, to distinguish the senses of before and after in logic, right? And in the fifth book of wisdom, why? Rather than in the book of the physics. Yeah, because logic is named from reason, right? Rational science, rational philosophy, they call it, right? It's the part directing reason, and wisdom is the highest perfection of reason, it's a real connection between those two, right? And Thomas himself, when he wants to divide human knowledge of reason by the order it considers, right? He quotes Aristotle's great description of the wise man which ends up with the words belongs to the wise man to order things. and he says the reason for that is because wisdom is the highest perfection of reason and it's proper to reason to no order, right? So that shows the connection between wisdom and reason, right? Between logic and wisdom, right? And so it's appropriate in these two, you should talk about before and what? After is, follows from that, right? Now, what is the difference between these two considerations of it, right? Well, in the 12th chapter of the categories, he considers the senses of before and orders them, right? By themselves, right? But in the fifth book of wisdom, he distinguishes the senses of before by the common meaning of beginning, which begins the fifth book, right? And so the common meaning of beginning that he gives at the end of the first reading there is the beginning is whence first something is or comes to be or is known. And then he repeats that when he takes up before and distinguishes before according to those three. And you say, well, it's appropriate for the wise man to consider everything in terms of the beginning of things, right? Because his first philosophy is about the first things and so on. But you can see the connection Aristotle sees between beginning and what? Before and after, right? And the same beginning connection you could see between end, right? Which is very closely related to beginning. Now, end is not to beginning exactly like out to end and after to before, but there's some similarity, right, in those meanings. And I was talking about the word point last time, I think. If you want an example, the first sense of beginning, the point is the beginning of the line. That's a classical example, right? But you speak of the end points, right? And even the English word point is sometimes used for the latter senses of end, which is purpose, right? So I was saying, you know, life is pointless, you know, has no purpose, right? Or sometimes we say to somebody it's pointless, you know, you're not getting anywhere, you know, reaching any goal, right? And so you see the connection there in Aristotle between beginning and end and what? Before and after, right? When they have the same thing in the Apocalypse, right? It says, I am the Alpha and the Omega, and then later on, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last. But first and last are defined by what? Before and after. What's first is before all the rest, right? What's last is the last one in the class, and you're after all the rest. And then what? The Alpha, I mean, and the Arche, the beginning and the what? End, huh? So they're very much associated together, right? Even though they're different, you know, beginning and end have got separate, you know, distinctions of senses from before, right? But Aristotle has tied them together in the Fifth Book of Wisdom, and you have that in the Apocalypse, right? That's really kind of amazing to see there, the harmony between the Apocalypse and Aristotle, you know. I mean, that's Tom, you know. But it is striking, though. It is very, very striking, huh? I know in the tabernacle in our church here in St. Mary's, you can see the Alpha and the Omega there. You see that in some tabernacles, huh? Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, it's very common, I guess, yeah. Yeah, I don't know when it started, you know, but it's beautiful, you know, beautiful. It started, yeah. Now, in English, that would be, what, I am the A and the Z, right? But in the Greek, huh, I am the Alpha and the Omega, right? And Thomas talks about the crucifix there, you know, and I guess they put the words up, the King of the Jews, in three languages, right? And they're kind of very significant, those three languages. So, Latin, and Greek, and Hebrew, right? So, Latin, and Greek, and Hebrew, right? So, Latin, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek, and Greek.