Prima Secundae
Lecture 259: The Mode of Virtue and Charity in Divine Law

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

I said, yes, you came from Mama. And he said, how about Maria? Did Maria come from Mama? And I said, yeah, Maria came from Mama, too. And then he said about his younger brother there, Marcus, did you come from Mama? And I said, yes. And he said, did you come from Mama? I said, no. He said, well, then you don't really belong. But you can stay, he said. Well, I don't think the occasion, you know, of explaining the whole truth about this matter was appropriate, you know. But those things we find very funny, right? But I mean, would there be these, you know, these kind of things in heaven, you know. What would be the source of our laughter in heaven? I don't know, it's hard to see. We're not going to be painting jokes on each other, are we, up there? I don't think. The girls, you know, made a coffee cake, you know, but still put the coffee in, she put the coffee greens in, you know. Everybody's right. I need this thing, you know. But you would make these little, you know, funny, you know, innocent mistakes, you know. Now, interesting the way Thomas arranges these objections, you know, sometimes one kind of clears away some more obvious difficulties and then more deeper ones, huh? To the third, it should be said that the killing of a man is prohibited in the Decalogue according as it has the notion of something, what? Not owed, right, huh? For thus the precept contains the very notion of, what? Justice, huh? For human law cannot, what? Concede this, right? That be illicit for a man to be killed without being owed to him, right, huh? But malefactors, evildoers to be killed, right? Or the enemies of the, what? Country. This is not, what? Yeah. So if I'm attacking a country, I'm owed to death, right? Whence this is not, in fact, contrary to the precept of the, what? Decalogue, huh? Nor is such a killing homicide, right? Which is prohibited by the, what? Precepts of the Decalogue. As the great Augustine says there in the book on free judgment there. And likewise, if someone is taken away what was his own, if it be, what? Ode to him that he, what? Give it up, right? This is not theft or what? Which is prohibited by the precepts of the Decalogue, right? Okay. You have to understand, huh? To do a reason to understand the Decalogue, right? So Thomas is helping you to understand the command more here, right? This is harder to see, right? Than the ones in the first couple ones, some more general. And therefore, when the sons, notice the examples he gives here. And now when the sons of Israel, by the precept or command of God, took the, what? Spoils of the Egyptians, right? This was not what? Theft. Because this was owed them from the judgment of what? God, huh? Now that's the commandment of what? No, it's not committed theft. Yeah. Similarly also, Abraham, when he consented, right? To kill what? His son. He did not consent in what? Homicide. Homicide, huh? Because it was owed for him to kill him, right? By the command of God, who is the Lord of life and what? Death, huh? As women, it's not their beauty. Their body is not theirs. It's God, right, huh? There are more gods than our woman. He who, what? Inflicted the punishment of death upon all men, right? Both just and unjust men, right? For the sin of the first parent, huh? Who's what? If man is the carrier out by the divine authority, he will not be homicide, huh? He will need any more than God is, huh? And likewise also, this is one that interests me now. Likewise, I get a great admiration for Osi. I see a lot of nice, nice quotes from him, you know. And likewise also, Osi, what? Approaching the, what? Boy. Yeah. Or to adulterous woman, right, huh? Fornicatus, right? Fornicatus. Yeah. Because he approached the one that was his own, according to the divine, what? Command. Who was the author of the institution of what? Action. Yeah. I don't know if what's his name, American, from Germany can make use of this. I just sent him the whole question. Yeah. Yeah. So none of the distinction Thomas is talking about here then. Thus, therefore, the precepts themselves, the Decalogue, as regards the ratio, the reason of justice which they contain, are what? Immutable. Unchangeable, yeah. But as regards some, what? Determination through application to singular acts. That this or that be, in fact, homicide or theft or adultery. And those are the examples he took from Scripture itself, right, huh? Or not. This is, what? Changeable, right, huh? Because some man is, what? Is owed his life, right, huh? It's important to point it out even, you know, the Pope seemed to be kind of against the death penalty now, right? Yeah. John Paul II and then President Pope too, I think. Yeah. President Pope, I read something recently that he teachers carefully. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Because he often uses rhetoric in a way that sounds contrary to other things. And so, he gave a talk, I think. Some society has to do with penal law, international penal law. And he said, in his talk, at least it's translated, I looked at the Italian scene. He says, well, we know that, you know, John Paul II or Kennington, the death penalty is condemned. And I said, oh, I don't know. So, and he gives two references to Abraham Gillian, Peter Hayden and Kennington. So I looked it up. And the person that Kennington says is it gives the reason why it's perfectly legitimate. And I said, well, this is more a rhetorical way of speaking to say, we want to exclude it rather than that it's actually a condemnation. You can't even watch out if I can condemn it. It's just that it's a very restrictive use of what they recommend it because in their judgment it's not necessarily that you exercise it and death fills in Abraham Gillian. I think, Rick, we've got text two of Benedict, you know, he's talking about, you know, that if you disagree with the Pope about the death penalty, you're not a bad Catholic for disagreeing with him, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That this is somewhat a prudential matter, not a matter of… So this is, this Pope in particular uses more rhetoric sometimes than Greek reasoning. That's the way I, that's why I refer to Pius and… So you've been in the 16th century? Yeah. The Catholic can kind of disagree with… Yeah, I've thought about that, yeah, yeah. He had respect for the Popes and his thing and… Yeah, I think… And the circumstances, you know, in some way justify, you know, this or not, but… Yeah, this… It's not like it's a matter of… Justice, yeah, that's what… That's what… The Popes and the Bishops really very strongly because of the circumstances in which we live, and you can interpret those in different ways, that's where it's… But I often point out with everybody that the Pope has never actually condemned capital punishment, as such. In this or that case, they got the wrong guy, he's not just in that case, but as such, because Scripture doesn't and the teaching of the Church never has. And as far as I can never look at this, this is the good explanation of the reason why. And you may think, you know, that if you don't have the death penalty, then you're respecting in some way the life of this man who's done horrible things nevertheless, right? Maybe committed murder and so on even, you know? And then 840, you should, you know, spare the innocent babies, you know? You've got some respect for life, maybe that's part of the thinking of… That's my interpretation. from the first thing that some months ago was saying that our current Pope's education, his formation didn't have the, didn't lead itself to, I guess, word precision in his oratory, rhetorical precision, like we saw with Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II and Benedict's school. That's problematic. We ate every word. Yeah, Pope Francis, he's admitted that too, that he often speaks spontaneously, not really thinking about it. It's just. Yeah, yeah. It's all dangerous. He's exuberant. Probably disagree with him about the environment. That's it, yeah. There's many instances in his encyclical where it's rhetoric and it's not reasonable. When he talks about how there's all kinds of species that are being destroyed, that we'll never know what they are. And I said, well, if they don't know what they are, how do you know who you destroyed them? Yeah. He says it. Yeah. We'll never know what they are. Okay. Okay. Let's read the whole last paragraph. Thus, therefore, the precepts, the decalogue itself, as regards the ratio, the reason of justice which they contain, are immutable, right? As regards some determination through application to singular acts, as to wit, this or that be homicide, theft, or adultery, right? Or is not such, right? This is what? Changeable. Sometimes by the authority of God alone, right? In those things which by God alone are instituted as in matrimony. Now, that's something you give to our friend there in Germany. And in others of this sort. Sometimes also by human authority in those things which are committed to human jurisdiction, right? As regards this, men carry the, what? Place of God, not over regarding all things. I can remember after they went into the vernacular for the Mass, right? And my aunt had, I don't know, Bissinger, one of those little popular Catholic magazines anyway. And somebody's writing in, you know, that she was defending the use of Latin all the time with her Protestant neighbors. Now the whole thing was cut out, you know? But like, and it's not like, you know, that was kind of defeated almost. You had to say the Mass in Latin. You know, you couldn't say it in the vernacular. Because we didn't kind of, probably it was said in Greek before we even said in Latin. I don't know. Or Aramaic or something else. Christ instituted it. And then we have to say it in Aramaic because Christ said it in, but people can get mixed up in those things, you know? There was a strong reaction against the Protestants and others around the time in the local formal ones. You know, hard against it. Yeah, yeah. And then when they allowed us to do our Sunday thing on Saturday evening, right? That probably kind of scandalized some people, right? You know, that you can fulfill your Sunday obligation on Saturday. It sounds like a, you know. And reducing the fast. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You used to have to fast before midnight, before you went to communion, you know? And some people really need a drink of water, I guess, you know, they, they, they, before Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius. Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius and Pius. Ninth article. Whether the mode of virtue falls under the precept of the law. To the ninth one goes forward thus. It seems that the mode of virtue falls under the precept of the law. For it is the mode of virtue that someone, what, justly do just things and fortitude are strong things. And some worry about other virtues. Now that means what? You know, that you do with perseverance and stability and so on, right? That's right. But in Deuteronomy 16, it's commanded, just amassed, carry out what is justly. So if I have a struggle there to avoid fornication or something, or adultery or something like that, that's not, you know, if I avoid it, that's not an act of chastity done chastely. I've got to have my passions, you know, more under control than that, right? I've got to rejoice in doing what is chaste, right? And so when I pay my debts, my debts I should come in and with joy I give you what I owe you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If I pay, you know, to pay what I really do owe you, well that's, you know. I remember going out to dinner there with the grandchildren of Christ, my son's going to give me some money. And I said, no, no, no. And I've got too many 20s in here, I can't even sit down, you know. So I'll pay for the whole thing here. And so. So that's a quote from Deuteronomy 16, 20, right? Juste quadustumest, exequeris, carry out, I guess, huh? The just thing, justly, right, huh? That's the mode, right, huh? Not just do justice, but do it justly. Therefore the mode of virtue falls on the precept. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the argument is stronger than the one from Scripture, right? I mean, the Lord is my rock, rock is a body, therefore God is a body, right? Well, yeah. You can see how you're being led by the imagination there, right? Because you imagine the word, huh? Both premises. But don't know what's under it. You don't understand. More of that, most of all, falls under the precept, which is of the intention of the lawgiver. But the intention of the lawgiver is principally carried towards this, that it makes men, what, virtuous, right? As is said in the second book of the Ethics. Now they laugh at you for saying that today in American politics, right? The purpose of the law is to make people virtuous. But it belongs to the virtuous man that he do something virtuously, right? That he enjoys doing it, and, you know? The man in liberality is one of the virtues, right, huh? You know? You should be glad to bestow freely your money upon those who are in need, right? Therefore, the mode of virtue falls under the precept, huh? That's a beautiful argument, right? Moreover, the mode of virtue, now this is a little more concrete here, property seems to be that someone voluntarily and with pleasure, delightfully, right, does it, huh? But this falls under the precept of the divine law. For it says in Psalm 91, serve the Lord in joy, huh? And 2 Corinthians chapter 9. Not from sadness or from necessity, huh? For God loves a, what, cheerful, hilarious, huh? Yeah, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right. Right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right Right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right Right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right Right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right Right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right Because what someone does, what? Ignorance. He does paratchitans, right? So in the plays there, Shakespeare's dealing with the, what? Civil War, right? Do you have the father killing the son, or the son killing the father? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. And they discover that they've killed their father and their son. And the king weeps, and he sees this. Whence, according to ignorance, some things are judged to punishment or to what? Weirdness, huh? Both according to human law and according to the divine law, right? The second thing, Arbor, is that someone do something, what? Willing or choosing, and an account of this choosing, right? In which is implied a two-fold inward motion, right? To wit of the will and, what? Intentions. About which before he is spoken, right? When Thomas talks about intention there, I've been reading there in one of the articles, in the sentences, right? Intention is an act of the will, but influenced by the, what? Reason. Which is directing this other than itself, right? So reason can direct itself and direct the will, and the intention is with regard to the end. And then choice also involves the reason, right? But in reference to what is for the end. And these two, human law does not judge, but only the, what? Divine law. For human law does not punish the one who wishes to kill, and does not kill. But the divine law punishes him, right? According to that of Matthew 5, who is mad at his brother, is subject to, what? Judgment, huh? It's a curious thing now. It's more than just thinking about it. There's some judges. Yeah. Executives who will not facilitate abortion are conspiring to live. These guys who are planning to blow up something, you know, and they buy their equipment to make the bomb from the FBI, you know, in the skies. How do they get arrested after that? And these two, the human law does not judge, but only the divine law. For the human law does not punish the one who wishes to kill, and does not kill. But the divine law punishes, okay? We saw that. And third, it be that he, what? Firmly and immobilitaire, huh? Firmly and without changing. Has it? Yeah. And this firmness to properly belongs to habit, right? That someone operates from a habit that is what, yeah. I find it hard to steal from people, you know? I remember we were boys there. We'd go over and play in the park there in Minneapolis there. And one time we went over there, and we found this billfold, right? It's money in it, right? So we brought it down to the desk there, you know, where there's a thing. Anybody recorded a lost thing? No. Oh, no. Well, we went home, and we looked in the newspaper, right? Sure enough, okay. So he lost his thing, right? So he was offering reward, too, I guess, right? Right? So he comes over to the house there, and he's a guy who's not too off, you know, with an old chunky car, you know? And my mother and father would not take any reward for it at all. You don't take any reward for returning this thing, right? And then he wanted to take me down to the drinkster and buy me an ice cream soda or something, you know? Nothing, nothing, nothing. You know? He's just returning this. So they brought me unjustly, you know, huh? You know, so I just, I got this habit, you know, and I just, I just, just cannot. You know, somebody drops their bill phone and doesn't notice it. I can't pick it up and take the money. I just can't, I just, I try, but I just can't, can't move myself, you know? Yeah. And as regards this, the mode of virtue does not fall under the precept, right? Neither the divine law nor the human law. For neither by man nor by God is one punished, he transgressed the precept, who gives suitable honor to his parents, although he does not have the habit of, what? Piety, you know? Yeah. Here's the book of Deconics there, the Pietas de Fis, you know? Piety of Christ towards his mother, you know? Beautiful little word. It's in French, you know? Moral theology, she's in the family of relations and something. Now when you fulfill a mass intention, because he's had lots of sprays of praise, he says, you don't have to have, you know, like, good feelings towards the person you are in the next year. You're not failing to fully outwaste, you don't feel sorry. I'm sorry if somebody died. Okay, so the reply to the first objection, it should be said that the way of doing the act of justice, which falls under precept, is that it come about, right? According to the order of justice, right? Not already that it come about from the habit of, what? Justice, huh? To second, it should be said, huh? That it's about the intention of others to make them just. That the intention of the law giver is about two things, huh? One, that he intends through the precepts of the law to induce, right? And this is what? Virtue, huh? So you make them virtuous. Another thing is that about which he intends to, what? Put forth a precept, or bring forth a precept. And this is what leads or disposes to virtue, namely the act of virtue, huh? But it's not the same thing, the end of the precept, and that about which the precept is given. Just as in other things, not the same, the end and what is to the end, huh? Before the end, huh? So he wants to make you eventually, if possible, just, right? I mean, to have the habit, the virtue of justice. But you have to begin by doing it, huh? You know, Aristotle reads that as a kind of paradox, you know. How can you say that, what, by doing just things, you become just, and by doing chaste things, you become chaste, and by doing brave things, you become brave, right? I mean, if you're doing brave things, aren't you already brave? See, well, you're not doing it as a brave man to do it, huh? But you are. Doing something that is good, and something that will dispose you to be truly a brave man, right, huh? Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The one, one, military man told me one time, he said, but every time he says you go into battle, he says, you've got to learn over again, right? Or overcome, yeah. Yeah, so it's difficult. To the third objection, right? He seems to be saying in scripture, serve the Lord in joy. To the third, it should be said that to do without sadness the work of virtue falls under the precept of the divine law. Because whoever acts with sadness does not willingly, right, act. But to act delectabiliter, right, with delight, or with joy and cheerfulness, in quodemoto, in some way falls under the precept, right? According as it follows the, what, pleasure from the love of God and one's neighbor. And that falls under the precept, huh? Since love is the cause of what? Pleasure. And in some way it does not, according as the pleasure follows upon the, what, habit, huh? For pleasure in the work done is a sign of the habit generated. That's a quote from Aristotle in the second book of the Ethics, right? Where he's talking about the more virtue. For something can be delightful, either an account of the end or an account of the end. down to the suitability of the habit, right? So you might do something for your husband or wife with pleasure because you love them, right? Even though you don't have the habit of doing this, right? Okay, we'll get time for another article. We've got to stop here at 420. What? This one's kind of law. Okay, okay, this is very important, the modus karitatis. Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Help us to understand what you have written. Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. We'll take you up to Article 10, I guess. To the 10th, one goes forward thus. It seems that the mode of charity falls under the precept of the divine law. For it is said in Matthew, Chapter 19, if you wish to enter into life, observe the, what, commands? From which it seems that the observation of the commands suffices for the introduction to life. But the good works do not suffice for introducing us to life unless they come about from charity, or by charity. For it is said in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 13, if I distribute food to the poor, right, all my faculties is food for the poor, and if I enter my body, right, that I might be burnt up, I guess. But I do not have charity. It doesn't profit me anything. Therefore, the mode of charity is in the, what, precept. Moreover, to the mode of charity properly pertains that all things come about in account of God. But that comes under the precept. For the Apostle says in the 1st Epistle, the Corinthians, do all things in, what, glory and for the glory of God. Therefore, the mode of charity falls under the, what, precept. Moreover, if the mode of charity does not fall under the precept, therefore someone is able to fulfill the precept of the law not having charity. But what is able to come about without charity is able to come about without grace, which is always what joined to charity. Therefore, someone is able to fulfill the precepts of the law without grace. This pertains to the era of Pelagius. This is clear by Augustine in the book on heresies. And therefore, the mode of charity is in the, what, precept. But against this is that whoever does not observe the precept sins, what, mortally. If therefore the mode of charity falls under the precept, it follows that whoever does something and not from charity sins mortally. But whoever does not have charity works not from charity. Therefore, it follows that whoever does not have charity sins mortally in every work that he does, no matter how much that thing he does is of the genus of good things, huh? Which is inconvenient. Inconvenient, how can you say anything? Doesn't fit, huh? Now, what does the master say? I answer, it should be said that about this there were, what, contrary opinions. So, now, some say absolutely that the mode of charity comes under, what, a precept. Nor is it impossible, they say, to observe that this precept, this precept, the one not having charity, because he's able to dispose himself, that charity might be poured into him from God. Nor whenever someone not having charity does something of the genus of good things, does he sin mortally. Because this is an affirmative precept, huh? That one act from charity. And that does not obligate one always, but for the time in which one has, what, charity. So that's kind of a common thing, that the negatives cover all cases, right? But the affirmative ones are ones that should be exercised when it's appropriate to do so, right? But not all the time, right? But then there are others of the opinion that said, omnino, huh? Altogether that the mode of charity does not fall under the, what, precept, huh? Now what is Thomas going to say? Is he going to choose one and reject the other? He says, in some respect, all right, as you regard something that they're saying, what? Both of them, right, huh? Say the truth, huh? Now, what's the distinction that Thomas sees, huh? Well, the act of charity can be considered in two ways. In one way, according as it is an act by itself. And in this way, it falls under the piece of the law that it is given about it in a special way, huh? That's one of the commands. For it is said, you shall love the Lord your God, right? And you shall love your, what, neighbor, huh? And to regard this, the first group of opinions, opinionators, say, what? The truth. Nor is it impossible to observe this precept, which is about the act of charity, because a man is able to dispose himself to having charity. And when he has it, is he able to, what? Use it, huh? In another way, one can consider charity according as it is the mode of the acts of other virtues, right? As opposed to being per se, right? The act of charity itself. And this is according as the acts of the other virtues are ordered to charity, which is the end of the command, as St. Paul says in the first epistle of Timothy. That the intention of the end is the formal mode of the act ordered to the end. And in this way, it is true what the seconds say, right? That the mode of charity does not fall under the precept. That is to say that in this precept, honor your father and mother, right? It is not included that you honor your father from charity, but only that you honor your, what? Father, right? When the one who honors his father, although he does not have, what? Charity. He does not become a transgressor of this command, huh? Although he can be, what? A transgressor of the precept, which is about the act of charity. On the kind of which transgression he merits some, what? Punishment. Okay? It's a distinction that he sees, right? See? Am I disobeying the command to honor your father and mother when I honor my father and mother? Am I disobeying the commandment to honor your father and mother when I honor my father and mother without having charity? No. No. See? So that's, it's a mode of charity is not part of the command to honor your father and mother, right? But that act of charity is either a fear or something else. That act is still called under love of neighbor, though, right? Because you're doing something to your neighbor. Yeah. But you're not doing it in a charitable way. Yeah, you're not doing it out of charity. Out of charity. Yeah, yeah. There's been an interesting little thing there in Thomas in the sentences there. A lot of times you've got one thing and then you find something else out that he brings out, you know. And this one comes in in the form of an objection, right? And Thomas is talking about the various divisions of sin, right? Of course, from the point of view of logic, he's got a nice objection, you know. There's only one division of a genus into species, right? You know, because the differences are essential, so there can't be all these different divisions. Well, Thomas goes back all the way back to the treatise on division, right? That you have in logic, where you have the division of a genus into species by differences, but then you have the division of a subject by its accidents, right? And accident by accident and so on. And I used to always say, you know, there's not very important those divisions, you know, so we always say imagine. But here you can do this and divide sin in this way, right? And Thomas says, the per se division of sin is according to the, what, the virtues, right? So what virtues is this against? The sin. And, but then you can divide them in other ways, right? And this, one of the divisions that's in the sentences, right, that comes from the fathers, is you can sin against God, right? Or against yourself or against your neighbor, right? So that's a nice division. It explains how it is to fight against each one of these.