The Son of the Holy Spirit, come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of those who believe in you, and kindle within them the fire of your love. Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created. Let us pray. May the outpouring of your Holy Spirit, O Lord, cleanse our hearts, and make them fruitful, thy infinite sprinkling of virtue, through Christ our Lord. I'm afraid some of the matter today is a bit difficult, but it's a good thing we're given a good lunch before we do it. I've called this the task of becoming fully human in the Christian way. I hope that our two exploratory lectures and discussions on the question of the nature and condition of man will have at least not only given us glimpses of human possibility and divine vocation,

[01:06]

but also made us aware of the need to assess the limitation within which the task of becoming fully human has to be achieved. Properly to assemble the theological factors which have a bearing on such an organised overall view of man, or to lay down the outlines of Christian anthropology, is something that's not so far been adequately attempted. What is said under anthropology, in the theological dictionary compiled by Carl Gnerner and Hugo Herbert von Gember in 1961, and translated by my friend Father Cornelius in 1965, younger than me but already dead, still remains true. No unified theological anthropology exists at present. What divine revelation has to say of man is divided among the individual theological tractates, especially those assigned to dogmatic theology, and the systematic basis of all anthropology still remains to be worked out.

[02:12]

And so, in a way, as I'm going to say at the end of this, I'm going to renounce the hope of trying to do anything to finish this particular moment. If I come back to you, I hope we'll take this up again together, and I'm very grateful for the ways in which you've helped me to see where we have to go in our last three days, I think. Obviously we can't remedy this situation in a matter of a few days, even if we were a team of specialists, which none of us are, including your teacher. But at the same time, I think before we begin to look at the kind of spiritual structures which have been or might be built upon certain basic convictions about man, we can at least note some of the dogmatic factors which ought to influence the views we form, whether these are to be found in defined dogma or in the common teaching of the Church insofar as we can assess this.

[03:17]

This is really primarily what I'm trying to do today. It finishes with a kind of sketch of what might be done from St Thomas, and then I'm hoping tomorrow to give you something which is much more monastic and is really primarily Cistercian. Now, as far as I can see, although it is the clear teaching of Scripture and the common belief of Christians from apostolic times, as we've seen both in our assembly of texts of Scripture and the theology of at least three major theologians of early times, the conviction that man is made in the image of God has never been the direct object of a dogmatic definition of any counsel, and is therefore capable of a certain latitude in interpretation, such as both the Fathers and later theologians have in practice shown, save perhaps for one point which is not surprisingly connected rather with the doctrine of the Incarnation than directly with all human beings in general. This point is also a conviction normally shared by philosophy and many of the human sciences,

[04:22]

namely that however it is stated, the distinctive mark of the human being is a capacity for thought and understanding. It's Canon 2 of Letter and Council of 649, Anderson Martin I, which says, I summarised the opening but I don't think we need to have the full text, if anyone doesn't profess in accord with the Fathers the Incarnation of the Word and the entire economy right through to the Ascension, and then this phrase, and that he will return again with paternal glory in the flesh assumed by him and intellectually animated to judge the living and the dead, he is to be condemned. In other words, what the Council is requiring is that we have to believe that our Lord has a human soul, and the mark of that is that it is intellectually animated, that is to say in other words we are capable of rational activities. Could you give the phrase again please?

[05:23]

Yes, I could. He will return again with paternal glory in the flesh assumed by him and intellectually animated to judge the living and the dead. If one denies this, one is condemned by the Council. That's to say that the Council is declaring that in his Incarnation the Word had the distinctive kind of soul which is proper to man, which is intellectual or I think if you prefer this we could say rational. The sort of soul that distinguishes man from animals and makes us able to reason, reflect and judge, which includes of course the special kinds of judgments which are the deliverances of our consciences. Now the Second Vatican Council has a unique kind of document on the wide variety of these mental, rational or intellectual activities in the pastoral constitution of the Church in the modern world, Gaudium spes, of December 7th 1965.

[06:31]

So I hope you will look this one up in your document. But do remember it is not a dogmatic constitution but a pastoral one. Gaudium spes. Church in the modern world. That's not it. As I say note that this document is not said to be dogmatic, but I think we shall see it does at least refer to the human and pastoral application of at least one other dogmatic matter affecting man, which will I think send us back to the Council of Trent.

[07:35]

Now it's not my intention to summarise this document as a whole, as you'll be relieved to know. But I would draw your attention to the concluding sentences of paragraph 10, which are undoubtedly saying something which the Church dogmatically teaches, and which leads her to suppose that she has something to say to the present situation. The final paragraph begins with the following sentences. The Church believes, this is paragraph 10 of Gaudium spes, the Church believes that Christ, who died and was raised for the sake of all, can show man the way and strengthen him through the Spirit in order to be worthy of his destiny. Nor is there any other name under heaven given among men by which they can be saved. The Church likewise believes that the key, the centre and the purpose of the whole of man's history is to be found in its Lord and Master. She also maintains that beneath all that changes there is much that is unchanging,

[08:40]

much that has its ultimate foundation in Christ, the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. In other words, here we have a statement close to the language of the New Testament of Christ as the image and model for human life. I'm going to say a little tiny bit more about that tomorrow, because I think, in fact, it's largely really St Bernard working this out that makes, at least for me, much clearer to talk about the way in which we can think of our Lord as a model. Because of course it could be a very dangerous kind of concept indeed and make us think that we could and should try to do things that we can't in fact do. For the moment I shall not pause to discuss implications of this kind, some of which are undoubtedly dependent upon individual and personal judgements of conscience. In what way, for instance, do I have to imitate Christ as my model?

[09:44]

I should like to pause at once to the question of man as the image of God. Paragraph 12 begins by saying, Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordained to man as to their centre and summit. But what is man? To summarise what the Council says, many people have got puzzles about this. But the document continues, Sacred Scripture teaches that man was created to the image of God, as able to know and love his Creator, and as set by Him over all earthly creatures that He might rule them while glorifying God. And it goes on, But God did not create man a solitary being, for by his innermost nature man is a social being, and if he does not enter into relation with others,

[10:46]

he can neither live nor develop his gifts. I do not know whether this final statement is meant to be a directly dogmatic statement about the nature of the image of God in man, but if it is not, it is very nearly so, especially when we come to consider how the redemptive work of Christ leads us to have a share in God's own inner life, which would, so far as it is Trinitarian, clearly be analogous to a social life, and would imply a social life for us, even if, by the impossible, it led to a relationship with only one of the persons. Do you see what I am saying there? If you like, I am saying that I think this is very nearly dogmatic, because in saying that man's life is a social life, that we really need somebody beside ourselves, it really is saying something that is clearly involved in revelation,

[11:51]

namely that we cannot really become fully human without entering into a relationship with other people. I suppose to go back further, we can and must say that the very fact of revelation, if you like, the idea of which is, of course, the idea of God's making himself known in order to be known, is indirectly evidence that we are not complete of ourselves, and this is also why, as we have seen earlier, the dogmatic constitution of this same Council on Revelation speaks of that revelation as an invitation to friendship, an unusual phrase for a council, but it is very clearly there, and that was a dogmatic constitution. At least this kind of friendship is not a luxury, but a crying necessity for our human fulfilment, and of course it is not impossible, if you follow the implications of the remarks about man as a social being I have just been quoting,

[12:58]

but at least some other friendships are likely to be at least subordinately necessary to aid us on our way to this fulfilment. I am going to treasure over it tomorrow, I think that St Bernard is very strong, very clear on this point, as all the earlier suggestions were, that in fact one oughtn't to try to lead a spiritual life which is where it goes straight up to heaven, that the normal way is through relationships with our neighbour, that we begin to develop the virtue of charity, which is to receive its consummation in a loving relationship with God. There are all kinds of reasons for this, and I think, as I say, we can only really look at these tomorrow, we are all feeling more awake than we are now. But I hope you can see the point I am making,

[14:02]

this is obviously very close to being dogmatic, even if it isn't exactly a dogmatic situation, it is really saying there is something about the nature of man which requires us to enter into a relationship in order to be complete. Primarily the relationship with God, but also evidently, and perhaps normally, other human relationships too. Yes, John Baptist? I am just not clear, is the invitation to friendship is in the dogmatic constitution? It is. It is, exactly. So as I say, in fact, some of the things in the Guardian of Spirits are very close to being dogmatic. Do they parallel their development, the two, so that one can find what is in the dogmatic constitution on this subject? Well, I have given you at least the references, so you can go back to it. In fact, I have been using the same translation which you have here in the library, Austin Penry, who did his studies with me in Oxford, in fact.

[15:03]

So I think you should be all right. You will remember you have got the one about friendship from an earlier one, and what I have been talking about here is, of course, the... Where are we now? I think it is primarily paragraph 12. Thank you. I think paragraph 12 you will find the whole statement about man, which begins by saying that believers and unbelievers have something in common in this matter, and it states something which, as I say, at least draws attention to something which is dogmatic, namely that if we are to believe our Lord is truly human, we have to believe that he has a rational soul. This is because, of course,

[16:12]

clearly other kinds of creatures have souls, insofar as they are flexible to certain kinds of information and so on, and depend on this for their functioning. Even if you did not have an Aristotelian view of the soul, you would still, I think, have to have some kind of explanation of the fact that at least the higher animals are obviously capable of some things which are at least a bit like the sort of things we ourselves can do, and that we are, in fact, very probably to be considered a very highly developed form of animal on one side. But the next paragraph, 13, is concerned with something which is unquestionably dogmatic and speaks about it in a somewhat new and unusual way for a conciliar document. I shall say in what way I think it's new in a moment.

[17:15]

It says this, although set by God in a state of rectitude, remember I quoted Ecclesiastes, he's sort of saying, God made man upright. Although set by God in a state of rectitude, man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of his history. He lifted himself up against God and sought to attain his goal apart from him. And he quotes Romans 1, 21-25. And continues, this is the thing which is unusual for a conciliar document, I think it does something which is rather peculiar to secession writers. What revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. I couldn't help remembering, when writing that down, the word experience is used, how my own master's students, when I was studying, being very much annoyed by the fact

[18:18]

that I had my reserves, not about St. Thomas so much as about the kind of termism I was taught, and also because I was interested in very early monastic writers, once said to me, of course, as soon as you begin to talk about experience, you're very nearly in heresy. So it's rather nice to find the council prepared to use the word experience. And it says this, that this break, or this closing off of ourselves towards God, is confirmed by our experience. For when man looks into his own heart, he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong, and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which would link him to his last end. And at the same time, he's broken the right order that should reign within himself,

[19:19]

as well as between himself and other men and all creatures. Man therefore is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle and a dramatic one between good and evil, light and darkness. Both the high calling and the deep misery which men experience find their final explanation in the light of this revelation. The revelation referred to being that of John 12, verse 31, where our Lord says, Now is the judgment of the ruler of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out. By, of course, by the paschal mystery which is to follow. So as I say, here you can think, I think you can see we've got an oblique but clear reference to something that is undoubtedly dogmatic in Guardian of the Spirits, paragraph 13. Here, I think,

[20:23]

in order to complete our picture of the major dogmatic factor which affects our picture and task of becoming a man, we need to go back to what the Council of Trent had to say on the question of original sin, to which Vatican II is clearly referring here, though it doesn't name it as such. I think, in looking at the documents of Trent, which I may say, for your comfort, you happen to have here in the library something I'd never seen before reading this translation of the whole document, which is in my room at the moment. I'll put it back, of course, when you can go on with it to a leisure later. I think we should just notice that in its third session of the 4th of February, 1546, Trent made a point of textually reaffirming the Apostles' Creed, which does, of course, conclude with the phrases I confess one baptism for the remission of sins and I look for the resurrection of the dead

[21:23]

and the life of the world to come. In other words, this creature made in the image of God is destined for eternal life, not just in his soul, but, as Brother Mark has been so wisely insisting, in his human wholeness as a person. This is our faith. This is what we're required to believe as Catholics. If we read on further in paragraphs 14 and 15 in the document from Vatican II, going back to Gaudium et Spes, of course, at which we may glance a little bit later on, we shall see that this aspect of the Creed is being reasserted there. Going back to Trent, in the 5th session of Trent, on the 17th of June, 1546, came a tree on original sin. It comes very, very early in the Council's declarations, obviously because this was very much a subject of debate

[22:25]

at the time of Trent. I'm not going to quote it as a whole, because I think that's too much for us to do, even if I had known we were going to have a very good lunch today. But simply to stress the aspects of what is defined, which I think we need to bear in mind. The document says first, following the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures and of the Holy Fathers, of the most approved Councils, as well as the judgment and unanimity of the Church herself, the Council ordains, confesses or declares these things concerning original sin. I'm slightly abbreviating, but you'll get the points here. If anyone doesn't confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost

[23:25]

the holiness and justice in which he'd been constituted, and the entire Adam, through the offence of prevarication, was changed in body and soul for the worse, letting be anathema. And so, naturally, it follows in number two. First of all, it's said that Adam is in fact changed for the worse. He's wounded in the body and soul as a result of the fall. Secondly, if anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity, the same anathema falls. In other words, we have to believe that somehow or other this is transmitted. I'm not sure that the Council really binds us to thinking in a specific way, but it is so. And it does exclude just mere imitation. By no specific way are you meaning not necessarily physical transmission

[24:26]

but a sort of spiritual transmission? Well, yes, I suppose so. I think, personally, the way I've always thought of it, which I think is compatible with what the Council says, is that in one way, if you like, Adam, by his creation, was destined to use people like himself in his original condition. And what he passes on is really a lack of something. But this is not divine. There's simply one way which I think is compatible with what the document says. And then number five is a very important one, I think, and this may need a little tiny bit of explanation. So please stop me if it does. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is not remitted, or says that the whole

[25:26]

of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, the anathema falls. It adds further, and this is the point, I think, that perhaps many people don't understand, but it's very important to get it right. But this Holy Council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce in it. This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it's truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin. And the contrary opinion is anathematized. In other words, you see now

[26:26]

why I said to you yesterday that my old master, I thought very wisely, said that what original sin means for us is that we are, we find ourselves in a sin situation, but of course we find ourselves there. In other words, we don't put ourselves there. So the Council is saying this is not sin in the proper sense of the word, but only analogously. That's to say, something is missing which ought to be there, which is always there in the idea of sin. Something has been done or something is missing which ought to be there. But we haven't, in fact, done this. So this is not, properly speaking, our sin. It's rather a sin situation into which we fall. Quite clear about that? I think it's very important to see that. The Council specifically says it doesn't mean to say

[27:26]

that this is sin in the normal sense in which we use this word, but only by analogy. And so, in summary, this doctrine speaks of us all as wounded in every aspect of our being as persons. In the ordinary Catechetical Key Teaching, I suppose it's normally said that we get a darkness in the intellect. That's to say, some of our judgements are somehow not so clear or so sure, and a certain weakness in the will, which is no longer so prompt to follow the judgements of conscience. I suppose we can also say that as far as our bodily aspect is concerned, our desires of perfectly sound natural appetites tend to be immoderate or inappropriate. Now, when I say this, these are, of course, common interpretations

[28:27]

of what the Council has said. And I think we must be aware that, at least in my view, the strength and difficulty of all these wounds will tend to vary from person to person. We cannot exclude that this is partly determined by physical factors, which may even be straightforward chemistry. I'm going to come back to this on Saturday. In other words, I think the thing we didn't succeed in talking about totally satisfactorily yesterday, because, again, just like conscience, which I hope I'm going to clear up today, we missed out something that I think would have made it clearer when talking about fate. But I think we can say that what the Council is saying, and do remember, it's also saying, of course, that these things are not going to be sins. These are going to be situations in which we find ourselves. As the development

[29:28]

of psychosomatic medicine has shown, human beings are infinitely complex. And so, as I say, I think that we haven't got to think that we all of us experience, that word experience, which Gay, don't we hardly ever experience, used about this situation. I don't think that we all of us experience this in the same way. I'm quite sure, for instance, that some people are more easily made angry than others are, and some people are perhaps more bi-temperament loving than others are. All those kinds of things are different, and I think it's chemistry, some of it. And we will try to come back to it a bit on Saturday, but at any rate, what it's really saying is that these things don't function quite as God intended them to function, and as they will presumably function when we are completely fulfilled in God. We must please,

[30:32]

I think, above all, remember that in all the aspects of the wounds which remain, and remain mysterious, whereas the council says we cannot actually command our situation, cannot in fact decide to feel what we on an impasse initially feel, there's no question of sin. People, I think, sometimes get in a terrible muddle and worry about this, and the mere fact that one is aware of this situation, which of course one can only be aware of by experience, isn't in itself something to worry about. It's absolutely normal to our condition now. Why? To anticipate something we must say later, because sin is only possible in the proper sense of the word where we have choice, and make the wrong one, and know that it is when we are doing it. This is what sin is. In other words,

[31:34]

I think that a sound theologian, once having explained this to himself or anyone else, can safely say that really grave and deliberate sin is relatively rare in those who, to use the council's words, are resting to live the Christian life. And for those with past experience following the teaching and practice of the saints, most will say that one of the surest signs that such sin is not committed is the anguish and anxiety of the penitent believing that it has been. I think that's quite important. And I say this for your comfort because almost certainly all of us at some time do go through a good deal of anguish about this, which we shouldn't. I have, for instance, during the course of my past experience, been in contact

[32:35]

by his own request with one murderer. And I'm morally sure that, in fact, what happened in this particular case was not, if you like, the sin of murder. I think there was a psychological tie-up there which, in fact, John, as far as I know, is still now alive and, in fact, now happily married. Now, of course, I think we must say that our awareness that this is the common human situation means that it's one of the indirect ways in which original sin can affect us from outside. Now, very few wicked and unscrupulous men and women can cause incalculable harm to their fellow human beings. It's particularly vivid for me because I've lived,

[33:35]

as you know, at some one period on the border of Belgium and West Germany. And my friend who lived a little bit near the Frankish town of Luxembourg, he and I were often puzzled by the fact that there were cars going through our villages late at night, about three in the morning, that sort of time, when only monks get up. And we were convinced that whatever it was they were carrying, it was something very small. And I don't want to delay on this story, but I did actually have a friendship with a very remarkable customs officer of very great integrity who, one night, caught somebody with a large packet of what would be really very valuable dope. And this man sent a report of it into the central authorities and received a reply

[34:36]

after a very long interval saying the document had been lost. And so he wrote back and said, fortunately I kept a copy, here's another copy. And there was another long interval and then one afternoon a car drew up, a very large, expensive car, and someone got out and said, if I were you I should forget this. So he said, well I made up my mind on that day, I shall never stop in there with a bottle of whiskey again. In other words, showing that right up to the very top there were people making money out of this. And as we all know, in fact, the drug traffic which ruins the lives of so many young people, some of whom I've seen in the end result, is mostly the work of absolutely unscrupulous middle-aged people, older people. They have their margaritas on it every day. And that really is fairly whiny indeed. And I think,

[35:41]

if you like, to put it on the positive side, it's a wise and happy thing to remember that no one is good or evil to himself or herself alone. What we're like does really make the world different. Of course, the more influence you have, the more obvious influence we have, but I don't think we should minimize the little ones. I suppose one of the reasons why I feel hopeful about the human situation at the moment is that during the course of my lifetime as a priest I've slowly got contacts nearly all around the world with people who are thinking about these things and trying to live in the way they should. And I don't believe this is unimportant, whatever the politics may say. This thought is indeed one of the spurts to take up not only our courage, but also our compassion in setting ourselves to become what we were meant to be. To say this is to say that once we begin to consider

[36:42]

it to be made in what it is to be made in the image of God, even in our wounded state, it's a call to a task and an art. And this is why the Church believes, we've already been saying, that our Lord, as truly human, has a rational soul and a human will. For these are necessary for the dynamism of what it is to be human to come into action. Incidentally, if you want to consider a reference for the doctrine of the human will in Christ, which might interest you at some point, you will find one under the same Lateran Council of 649, Canon 10, which I mentioned in connection with the rational soul. Canon 2 for the rational soul, Canon 10 for the will. This is a very moving council for me personally, because I happen to be interested, perhaps some of you are, in St. Maximus the Great. And St. Maximus had had such a difficult time over this question that he'd come round and appealed to Pope Martin, Martin I, and eventually

[37:43]

they were both of them exiled. And St. Martin I, in fact, the last pope to be venerated, was St. Martin. But he died of ghastly treatment once he got into the hands of the imperial authorities from Constantinople. And Maximus, who was then a man of 80, was banished to a place, a very remote place, with the command that his tongue should be cut out. Whether it was, one doesn't know. But it was a very brutal sentence for a very old man. Which council? This is the Lateran Council of 649. So there you've got in Canon 2 and in Canon 10 you've got these two aspects of what it is to be human being affirmed about our Lord. So they certainly apply to us. And I suppose this is why St. Maximus had the honorific title of confessor, which originally meant,

[38:43]

of course, the kind of confessor of the faith which a martyr is. Now, I hope you're not leaning too far gone, Peter. Oh, no, I'm not. Good. It's thus that we must see how, whether we choose to make a distinction between the image and likeness, quality in human beings as some fathers and some spiritual writers do or not, it's very evident that just as our Lord, just as God our Maker, is the source and fountain of life, and Christ, after whose image we are made, actually calls himself life, it is in life and in being alive that our image quality is made evident. It's not just by lying on our beds. Notice, in any case, that in speaking of original sin, of course, that's also a human thing to do when you've decided it's the right thing to do, as some of us did after the meal.

[39:44]

Notice, in any case, that in speaking of original sin, Trent does not speak of the destruction of the image of God in our souls. It doesn't say that. And I think that no orthodox theologian or spiritual writer of the East or West, and I'm using orthodox with Bruce Morlow, of course, no sun theologian or spiritual writer of the East or West thinks or teaches that the image was abolished at the fall. Nobody does. Those who wish to distinguish between image and likeness normally wish to do so because they wish to draw attention to the dynamic act of human existence and to the possibility once sin comes into the picture that we may fail to live out the likeness to God, even though we do not basically lose the quality of image. So if you like, let's just say very simply, it means rational soul has a reasonable effect

[40:51]

and means also will of the best of choosers. And it's these, of course, which enable us to act. Of course, we can reflect what the situation is and decide to do it. What's at the top of the triangle? The kind of soul we have. It's a soul which is rational. It's a soul which is able to will. It has the capacity of will, which is not the same as desire. We're going to see that in a moment or two. Although it is a kind of desiring, of course, when it comes into action. But the kind of desire which follows a choice. Now, it's here that I think

[42:00]

it will be useful to draw some aspects of the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas into the picture. Because although not often so interesting or moving as many of the fathers and early writers, as I'm hoping to show a bit tomorrow, he does make, I think, some clarification of the thought which I believe we shall find it useful to bear in mind. Thus, for instance, St. Leo the Great, the 8th to the 5th century Pope, has a very simple and clear dynamic notion of the way we should be like God, which comes straight from the Gospels. Any of you who even tried to read Summer in the Sea, which is meant to be quite a difficult book and meant to leave you with lots of things to think about, will notice that I did, in fact, make a contribution to the international characteristic conference, which was printed in the proceedings of 1975. Unfortunately, I hadn't got enough copies of it to bring it with me,

[43:00]

so I just have to refer you to that, but if you want to see the kind of thing it's talking about, you'll find some examples of it, in fact, one tiny bit that I hadn't got in my paper, added in the first chapter of Summer in the Sea. For Leo, our Lord's command that we should be like our Father in Heaven is to be shown by the universal compassion in which our Lord displayed this likeness so frequently in the Gospel story. In fact, as I pointed out in this document, although, you know, you'll find the old-fashioned books, and certainly the way I was taught, nobody ever told this to me. In fact, I sat down and read the whole of Leo, right through, in order to see it, to find this point. It came so clear. Leo is generally quoted because of people who want to defend the position of hope, about which Leo has certainly very clear and strong views.

[44:01]

But, in fact, in terms of sheer quantity, in the sermons he preached, in the thing that he wrote, this business of universal compassion is referred to much, much more than any other subject. In fact, Leo, as I said in the paper, explicitly says that this compassion must include atheists, because God includes them, even those who don't believe in him. You remember, he was quoting St. Matthew's, one of the chapters which come, one of the verses which come in the chapter which begins with Beatitudes, God makes his sun shine and his rain fall on the just and the unjust alike. So, our call to be like God is, in Leo's view, this kind of thing. In this matter, of course, something implicit in John Baptist's question the other day,

[45:02]

on Tuesday, I think it was, is verified. For this teaching of Leo at least implies the distinction between likeness and image in us and in our Lord's human nature as showing itself a model in action. Now, we've seen that the conciliar and magisterial teaching requires to note at least two aspects of our Lord's humanity which he shares in common with us all, namely that he has a rational soul and a human will. Now, in the first part of the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas begins when looking at man as one of God's creatures to discuss the intellectual soul in question 79. I'm not going to go through the whole of this. We'll be able to have a break in a moment or two in the air. I think we should note what he says in the first article

[46:04]

of this question. For in this article he says that our quality of being rational, that's to say, able to reflect and judge, is very evidently a quality which is not always operative but is a capacity called into action by life and event. This is, of course, part of the information we need to understand better in order to understand some of the aspects of conscience which we had the other day, which I hope we shall clear up today. Now, one of the differences between us and God is that for God to be, he is to know and to understand. It just is what he is. He, just by being who he is, he knows and he understands. We don't do this. That's why, presumably, some of us know a little bit more than we did half an hour ago. That's the normal way in which human beings have to act.

[47:04]

We have to, even if we perhaps have the seeds of understanding that's already in us, they have to be drawn out either by our own reflection or somebody else helping us to do so. For us, knowing and understanding are things we come to by the use of capacity to do these things as they are called out for us. In other words, if you are like a human, human intellect and will are capacities to begin with. They have to be called into activity. Sometimes, of course, they are drawn out. If I hit you on the head, you might get a reflective reaction of some kind. And if you yourself decide now is the day

[48:05]

when you've got to think about this, well, then you start. But in either case, they are, first and foremost, capacities. They're not just something we have of itself. God and the abbot together. But it's enough to say, enough to be aware, if you like, the difference between saying that we are intellectual and saying that God is knowing is the difference is that we have to bring our knowing into act. It's only a capacity to know which we are, of course, always developing. And let's hope we'll all go on developing it together. Right the rest of our lives. Because one ought not to stop. One ought never to be a finished man. I'm not going to pause here

[49:06]

because, of course, to go any further than this would not be talking about something dogmatic. And I wanted to get clear about to make dogmatic things today. The difference between us and God is that these things are capacities in us. But it's evident for us to use our minds is not only a normal function of being human, but even at times a moral duty. In other words, you see, I think we can say in general terms, do you know you'd want to say something? Or want to say something? No. I think in general terms we can say that, for instance, if I'm a doctor, or if I'm a police officer or something like that, I have a special duty to know certain things about my job. And I need to have this kind of knowledge such that it can be applied when a specific occasion occurs, when it needs to be used. I, for instance, remember

[50:06]

my own very charming Norwegian doctor telling me once how he'd arrived at a hospital where a patient had just been brought in and there was no doctor present to deal with an emergency case. So he simply said to the nurse, give me the gloves. He was a rather able, though not normally practicing surgeon, he was very skilled and did in fact save the person's life because he had the knowledge at his disposal. I think we can say that as a human being he had a duty to have that because he was a doctor. That's what one has a right to expect of a doctor, that he has such knowledge. The only other article in this questionnaire which I think we need to pause is question 79. In question 79 is article 13. I gave you the first article which does distinguish between our intellect and God's. Then article 13 which asks whether conscience is a potentiality. Now here I'm going to give some Thomas's own words with some comments. He says that

[51:09]

conscience speaking quite properly is not a capacity but an act. And this appears, he says, from the very nature of the word itself. Which you'll remember I tried to discuss with you on the blackboard the other day. In other words he gives exactly this analysis which I have forgotten I've got it straight from him. In other words what he is saying is this that conscience my conscience about something specifically is in the first sense of the word consisting of these two things what I do with what I know. Curious enough it's the same pretty well the same thing it's the same thing in Norwegian it's not samvittihet it's doing it with what you know.

[52:09]

In French of course it's the same as in Latin conscience. Now this comes into act it's primarily speaking an act in itself let's say it's always performed in other words it's always performed about something specific. Let's go back to St Thomas's words. He says that conscience speaking quite properly he says proprie speaking properly is not a capacity but an act and this appears from the very nature of the word itself which is the analysis I gave you. He says that the fact that it is an act also appears from the circumstances in which it's attributed. In other words for the word itself means the application in other words what he what again something I was trying to get at perhaps didn't do very well the other day you could

[53:13]

conscience comes into operation when it's applied. This piece is an act and it's applied to a specific situation. I'd like to add here I think for the sake of our own clarification I'm sorry I didn't think of this the other day when we were saying this I think we should say that it is if you like let's say in modern terms

[54:14]

it's an act of judgment about a moral situation. In other words it's something that says I should do so and so about this or that. It's a moral judgment. An act of judgment. Ken is that all right for you now? I think it's quite useful to use the word judgment in other words it is precisely that kind of act which judging is. It says to me this is what I ought to do or ought to have done of course because Thomas is going to go then expanding upon the notion

[55:15]

that conscience is an act because the word is used in other ways he says conscience is said to be binding urging accusing or regretting and these are all connected with the application of some act of knowledge to what we should do or have done. And so as I say I think it's a moral judgment made by us in the light of what we know both theoretically and practically. Please do remember that a really conscientious action often requires practical as well as merely theoretical information before a decision can be reached or rejected with the consequent remorse when we recognize that we've done the wrong thing. Thank God we can't always know and please note too that being human

[56:15]

we are not required to have angelic insight into every situation and to expect this of ourselves is actually wrong and leads to vices of timidity and pusillanimity or littleness of soul which is not of course at all the same thing as humility as I hope we shall see next time. So in other words we only have to do our best about a thing of God where on the practical side we can only do our best. If somebody hasn't told us something or if we don't we can't possibly know something which would be relevant and this is relevant I think why I said to you yesterday while we were talking rather loosely about a whole lot of things I've often said to doctors which I know very well of course what you're doing is very exalted guesswork isn't it? And they would usually agree because of course in other words even the most skilled doctor may not have taken

[57:15]

into consideration everything which is relevant to know about this particular person as they didn't do in my case on one occasion and so they were very annoyed first of all at me and primarily at themselves because they hadn't foreseen this combination would produce this result and it wasn't really their fault I mean I wasn't in fact angry with them I was feeling much too unwilled to be able to be that anyway and it would have been unjust if I were because they were doing something which was reasonable a situation hadn't arisen before they hadn't had me as a patient before and there were evidently some special things there were some I was extremely fatigued amongst other things at the time and that's never irrelevant to anybody and never irrelevant to what one can expect to do of oneself or anybody else I mean one has to make all those kinds of alliances especially when looking

[58:17]

back on an act you know I think some people go through agonies of conscience about things that they really couldn't have done anything very different about under the circumstances one shouldn't be too easy on oneself and one shouldn't be too hard because we can only do our best in the light of what we know in some cases as I say a special job means we ought to know certain things and if we don't know those then we're at fault even before we put in the situation but at the same time there's always a limitation to the number we can take into account especially in a human situation I think I almost certainly told you the story of the occasion when I suddenly discovered that somebody could be transformed by anger in a way that made them look ill and I just couldn't have known this and so I wasn't doing the wrong thing and offering to help him in fact perhaps

[59:18]

I was only annoying him more it wasn't really my fault because I couldn't know, I'd never seen this before I've tried to bear it in mind ever since that it might be anger rather than the feeling of being faint and finally St. Thomas concedes to St. Donald of Damascus and others that conscience can be habitual as being the law of our minds on some matters we can in other words have a formed conscience and I suppose we can say that most of us who are practising Christians especially those of us who are monks and training to be theologians should have formed consciences on certain matters but incidentally I don't think we should form the habit of not re-examining or widening our knowledge on these matters as experience indicates that we should I think this is something I've always tried to do and that's why when people draw attention to things

[60:18]

not all of which I can take advantage of this time I shall try at some time to use these things because I think it's our job as human beings making any contribution to the failure of our fellow human beings' life to reconsider even things which we think we've reached a fairly definitive view about we should never be so close that we are not prepared to reconsider the issue if there are factors which make us have to do it we've nearly finished and then we can take a break then St. Thomas goes on in question 80 to speak of things to do with appetite our capacity in other words to desire now these capacities must be distinguished in kind for the simple reason that the mind and rational part of our soul apprehends things in different ways

[61:19]

the senses of course are invaded by the smell of roast pork or duckling that's not St. Thomas or they may also be invaded by anger or desire now notice over these last two I think we may note we may perhaps experience the wounds of original sin most frequently according to our temperament and over these first movements we haven't always control we can't command notice also we can't command even when we want to I mean for instance sometimes it may be extremely appropriate to do something in a particularly loving way but we can't always actually display that or even feel the love we feel would be appropriate to the occasion because we can't always command it it's true that I think we can develop a capacity to be more loving in the way we generally behave but

[62:21]

I think it is true also to remember that it's not just the things that cause us difficulty but even the things that we think are necessary to divert to we can't always just absolutely call up just like that because this is one of the ways in which the wounds of original sin affect us all that we haven't got these first wounds at least in the feeling of us leveled our senses under our control now of course when we find ourselves in a situation where our sensitive appetites have been activated for whatever reason whether it's something we can approve of or not

[63:22]

we have to decide by a judgement of conscience when that has occurred whether something or other should be done about it or not controlling them as best we can and obviously if a situation requires you to be very kind to somebody you obviously ought to try not just to go through the motions of being kind but also to help them to feel that you feel what you should feel because this may be very necessary for them especially if they are in great stress and this is where another distinctive rational capacity comes in which is that which St. Thomas deals with in questionator 2 of the first part of the summa namely the will

[64:23]

now St. Thomas begins by saying you can see for instance that for instance the reaction which we have to the smell of roast pork if we are able to smell we cannot do it but we can smell of course now whatever the thing is those things which happen according to our senses or which either irritate or amuse or please or delight us whatever it is those things happen simply through our sensation by the sensation impact sometimes even the weather of course will produce these things we feel happier on days when the sun shines than we do on dull days and so on and those things we just simply undergo but where the will is concerned necessity is absolutely contrary to it in other words you can't necessitate the will it's absolutely opposed to necessity the will

[65:36]

must always act voluntarily well this is going to come isn't it just a moment I think in other words if you try to make me do something you may be able to produce physical movements in me which are contrary to my will these will be involuntary and therefore they will not have a moral quality which is attributable to me precisely you see what I mean yes come on give me an example if you want to carry on straight away in other words what was I going to put up here

[66:36]

I think we can say if you like this move by inconnection as your ordinary catechism teaching would have told you in connection with sin sin must be are you alright with your machine good as you remember just from ordinary catechism teaching sin must be freely willed to be fully sinful just as an act must be freely willed to be fully virtuous of course not everybody who behaves kindly as being virtuous sometimes they just like it naturally

[67:37]

we ought what ought to move our will is our reason and here in the case of a moral question the judgement of our conscience and where necessary and to the extent to which it is possible an informed conscience in question 8 the reason Thomas asked whether the will is free and answers that since it's a rational capacity it is and in article 4 this freedom is in fact identical with our will now in other words I suppose I can remember discussing it with rather extreme I don't know whether this is the sort of thing which is going through your own mind John but at least I've had to deal with one case of somebody who was raped and of course one of the things the person wanted to know was did I commit any sin in this situation because

[68:38]

you see whenever anything is very close to the body it's very often to know what happened it's very hard to know what had happened when the thing is actually occurring but I think the fact that it was a very carefully staged and organised affair which took the person entirely by surprise the presumption is that the wife could say as far as I can see no is the answer don't worry about it I mean you're about to feel something the feeling has got nothing whatever to do with the moral part of it if you see what I mean let's say in other words if we worked our feelings up deliberately in order to be able to do something if we've taken five whiskies like men who came to confession to me once you know so I think I probably mentioned that a man coming and saying you know something's coming which hasn't been in 40 years who will be calm what do you think I'm sitting here for then the next man

[69:38]

came in I could smell the double whisky through the grill because he thought he was going to have a strip torn off which I didn't do in fact what I said I began by saying God loves you and he burst into tears he thought that was the most inappropriate thing to say so I think I hope does that clear up the conscience and the conscience difficulty sufficiently again it is quite important to get clear about it I think as far as I can I'm not saying all the time obviously I think we are going to if we are maturing spiritually we are going all the time to get a more refined sense of I would say personally that some people perhaps imagine that hearing conditions for many many years makes one think worse of the human race I would say absolutely the opposite I think

[70:39]

better of the human race as a result of hearing conditions because many people are very much too hard on themselves they often think that they have done things they couldn't possibly have done really I'm just going to go on for a few minutes more and then we shan't really be much later than we have been most other days I notice we've had lots of things into the bargain Yes? We're about to move our will as you said It ought to be our reason let's say if you like let's say when it goes the inclination comes from within you say the inclination comes from within yes where is within what's the reason I don't know quite what other word to use let's say it's an interior act and this is

[71:40]

precisely why of course if somebody holds my hand against a pistol and makes me pull it so that somebody is shot this will from my point from a moral point of view be an interior act this is why I suppose if I let's say interior to have an interior inclination prefer that under the judgment of reason have another drink or don't as the case may be I think what he's asking though is where is for example that does from the heart well as I say we've got

[72:40]

this is really why St. Thomas distinguishes two levels if you like will desires the good absolutely speaking the senses of course desire excites the mind if something goes well it will affect me in some way positively or negatively and obviously those initial sense impact are themselves something which may have to be taken into consideration making the judgment we can't affect that we can't choose not to have certain sensations and even certain interior sensations under given circumstances I mean for instance I suppose the most obvious kinds of sensations which are taken by and large involuntary are sensations which may be erotic they may sometimes

[73:40]

depend on weather even they may depend on what one sees they may depend on what one feels they may depend on something for instance I've known chemists who declared certain kinds of perfumes are specially calculated to produce erotic effects and so on now obviously all those kinds of things are not we can't choose about those we decide not to buy them or we decide not to go and test whether they are used and so on we can't stop the initial effect we have no choice about that we can only decide what we have to do here and now at the level which is interior there's nothing else to be said about it I think but would that effect be the necessity so that the world could operate in that context the necessity being the effect that it produces I think there always has to come in a moment

[74:41]

of real choice to be either virtue or sin I mean it's unfortunate we always think about in connection with sin we tend always to think about it in connection with sin but it's also true of virtue you see I mean that the sensation thing may be enormously important in the element of struggle because you know there are two kinds of interior struggles we go through there are those which arise which begin if you like in some kind of sensory upheaval and there are others which begin in some kind of moral upheaval some conflict of view or something like this in either case we've got to try to work our way through to the best thing we can do yes Mark I was reminded of

[75:42]

something Martin talks about I was trying to think he talks about these well feelings and he he will classify two kinds of he'll talk about what he calls non-intentional states and trends which would be like like the state would be anger or something that just happens to you or a trend would be hunger it just happens and it's not intentional it just comes of itself and obviously sexual desire is among those things and then he talks about intentional it sounds

[76:43]

that we've already said something like it that's in other words if I want to work myself up into the state of mind which enables me to seduce somebody I can then work very hard on my feelings level can't I so that is this all he's talking about presumably it is and let's say I can the other one isn't okay there's the non-intentional yes and the one which you stimulate from within there's the intentional response yes which is another feeling he talks about an intentional response being conscious and rational exactly which is getting back to the century exactly conscious and rational relation between the person yes and the object yes and so that's an intentional thing and it's conscious and it's rational and it and it

[77:44]

moves the person to to the object yes I think it's partly a question of the way one trains oneself yes it is it is really that there's no doubt the quantity of one's responses does alter over a period of time but there will always be for everybody some things which they won't be able to do anything about which will be simply deliverances of the senses and which have to be coped with accordingly I don't think you would ever know

[78:44]

I imagine all of us have our blank sensation days when things which normally would arise just simply leave us completely dead we may be too tired to react in that way and this can happen even about things which are quite exciting so it's really rather mistaken I think I always think about think you have a list of books and films and so on which are dangerous unless of course you're speaking about things which are deliberately shall we say pornographic or evil in intent where the thing is calculated to a certain kind of effect even then of course they may sometimes be rather boring depends who is looking very often so I think it is very in other words I think the near if you like I'm glad you brought that up Mark but at the same time I think surely it's right to say

[79:47]

the nearer you get something which involves the senses the harder it is to know what the moral issue is let's say if you if normally I'm afraid if somebody comes and says you know is this a grave sin very often you've got to say if you don't know I don't know either there's no other way of honestly answering them because there's no way of knowing from above because this is a human experience and the complexity of it is such that it depends on the person's capacity to evaluate the situation their real freedom as I say in the case of the one murderer who once asked to keep in touch with me and is now as far as I know from his age I think he must still be alive I haven't been in contact with him now for some years eventually he was having been in prison for some time he was released from prison and met a woman he really liked very much and they were very happily married and I certainly form a very clear impression in that man's case if you like this is rather near the sort of thing that was sounded as though

[80:47]

you were talking about that very probably the killing of the girl that occurred was actually under the movement of some kind of complex psychological passion of a rather junior person from the point of view of their capacity to estimate themselves and that he simply didn't know what had happened at all in fact one of the pathetic things was he threw himself under a train so that when I met him both his legs had been cut off he was walking on crutches so I think it's almost certain from the whole trend of the story that there you had a situation where if you like certain sensations and impressions starting in the body had produced a very dramatic

[81:48]

human situation which I don't think in this world we'd ever be able to know what had happened and I think this is really why civil law in most countries I imagine it's very terrible because states in America have different things about this civil law on the whole does allow for the possibility of such thing as a compassionate crime in other words that is normally not regarded as a capital or grave offence because it is recognised even by people who have not very much concern with the theory of morals that there are circumstances in which the person is simply not free and it's not all together if you like a chosen unfreedom as I see you can choose to work yourself up into a state in which you feel free to do something you know jolly well you ought not to do but then you ought to be able to see that going on

[82:48]

and you normally will be able to know this afterwards and there was one I remember one suddenly it came into my mind the other day things always do when one is shaving or something I remember a rather wonderful film a detective film I saw made in Holland in which the detective was able to discern that he was in fact dealing with a murderer but knew that he had hope of proving this in court and so the last interview between him and the murderer was saying well you and I know what happened you'll have to live with it won't you which of course is in many ways the most terrible punishment anybody could have I suppose and this was really the reason why it was a gripping story was because obviously of course the detective was able to show by demonstration that this was a very carefully calculated thing over a period of time it was all being worked out

[83:48]

in such a way that the death of the woman in question would look as though it was an accident and the evidence came quite clearly before you as you watched the film and you were aware this was a man you know who had charming aesthetic taste and delightful and liked music and all that kind of thing and it was in that setting at the end the detective said well you know I'm not going to take this to court you know I can't but you know what I know and we'll have to leave it like that now I just have time for a post script before we before we break and that's even at the expense of just a few minutes more I'd just like to glance because I want to talk about this tomorrow when I think we shall be in a more receptive kind of mood for this just want to have a glance at question 83 where St Thomas is dealing precisely with the doctrine of the image in man actually

[84:52]

one of my very first published articles was concerned with this question not this particular question but a separate treatment of it in another work of St Thomas in his first article St Thomas reveals his incantation for a distinction between image and likeness for him an image in the truest sense means some kind of equality with the thing imaged and so we are imperfect images which is why we are said in Latin to be made into the image or if you like towards the image ad imaginem means that the the the Latin language means towards the image to the image and so we are imperfect images which is why we are said in Latin to be made into the image or if you like not to our surprise St Thomas is going to see imagehood as I've been just showing it and as I think

[85:53]

you can see much of the thinking about it exposes is going to be something which expresses itself dynamically in which we ought to move this is special to us as human beings for our destiny is to know God Article 2 Is this image in everybody? He distinguishes to the extent to which it is a human possibility the answer is yes and that said to the extent to which it is humanly possible for everybody to know God the answer is it's there yes potentially but evidently only comes alive to the extent to which we do love and move by grace so it's there in creation and comes to life in re-creation and only fully alive and like God in the blessed so when we get to the end that's Article 4 Article 5

[86:57]

Are we like God by our spiritual nature? and because he is in fact a trinity of persons we are like the trinity and incidentally is Gnomestites Hilary on the trinity in his Swazio in this case It won't surprise you that in Article 5 he sees this imagehood in the soul and quotes Ephesians 4 verse 23 as his Swazio be renewed in the spirit of your minds I shan't worry you with this any further except to note that in Article 7 because this is a very dynamic concept of imagehood St Thomas thinks that the image is most alive in us when we are actually contemplating the divine persons now this is of course all theological speculation even though it may be of a very respectable kind and so I shall not hesitate to return to the question of imagehood tomorrow

[87:57]

in another way which is I think closer to life than to speculation and more likely to develop the Christian virtues in us I'm enjoying doing it at the moment and I hope to do it before I go to bed and so I hope we shall be ready for it tomorrow now let's take a break which we really richly deserve I think we've done rather well what's to discuss Peter you said you had something you wanted to discuss yeah I was trying to figure out yesterday towards the end we were talking about fate yes and largely original sin apropos yes so I was trying to figure out how that tied in is it that original sin somehow that it makes us less free well in certain ways it does yes in certain ways but only in certain ways

[88:58]

that's to say if you like it does mean to say that we need I suppose to develop more virtue and in certain cases of course we need the rather special help of grace in order to deal with a difficult situation but I can promise you that I will come back to that on Saturday I'm going to go on with the image doctrine tomorrow a bit I think because it would be nice to finish that but I think I feel from our discussion and especially because I felt I hadn't really very satisfactorily presented the conception of fate there was one important element I think I left out which I shouldn't have left out so I think I'm thinking on Saturday of talking about fate and providence and those aspects of the human situation and then

[90:01]

on Monday I would like I think since we've got at least we seem to have worked together towards a very kind of Christocentric and very Christological theological view of redemption and the human situation to talk about the relationship of redemption to all human beings because I think it's a very important thing for us as monks and it's always been very important for me as a priest that of course a priest is ordained for all men inevitably let's say not just for Catholics because the redemption is for all men this of course doesn't mean to say that I can give everybody the sacraments though in one or two cases I've had in fact to decide this in fact I once had to consult Bishop Grant about this and he said he approved of what I'd done

[91:01]

where I was confronted with somebody who wasn't a Catholic for instance who clearly very badly wanted to go to confession and believed it was a sacrament so I heard the confession and gave condition and absolution he said yes that is exactly what I would have done because of course I think one of the things I want just to sort of show in terms of principle which I think would be a useful way of finishing our particular work we've been concerned with God and man we're nice we're finishing off on Monday just to put some of the general principles down about the redemptive work of our Lord but I suppose in a certain way we can say some of the things that some people experience as fate are aspects of original sin though I would have thought that the greater number

[92:03]

of the things that people think of as being fate tend rather to be the kinds of things which are particular to their personal lives or background experience and so on which they feel have been unfairly determinative of their situation and so on Father? Yes? Also if original sin like the council you put in the council saying warped Adam I forget how you said broke Adam Yes Yes Wounded him Wounded him Yes Yes The council doesn't destroy the image but it does in fact wound the characteristic human capacities Well it seems like then if we say that before sin there was

[93:04]

full freedom man was created with Well I suppose at least let's say if you like there is complete agreement among theologians to what this actually amounts to but what most people would say is that for instance I could before the fall feel loving and this is why I mentioned it when it was appropriate to do so if you like which we can't always do we simply can't always do that by command now even though we may know that it would be appropriate to the situation we can go through the movements of it and so on those kinds of things it does appear that this is the sort of thing the council is saying that we've lost as you know if you like one of the debated difficulties is whether

[94:08]

the supernatural gifts were lost which we can't fully envisage now well wouldn't that in other words it seems like it's deeply tied with all the problems about grace well it just seems like that loss after sin would be a limitation of our freedom I mean we wouldn't well we certainly if we were created yes set free then with that sin I mean the consequences that follow physical limitations physical evils psychological you know imbalances what not all these things would affect our capacity for freedom I think undoubtedly they do surely everybody recognizes this and I suppose in for instance in a psychological imbalance presumably we have perhaps a particular case where there's an element

[95:18]

which is is part of the wounds of original sin is it the capacity for freedom or the capacity for growth towards a transcendent father that we're concerned about I don't understand what you mean well you can see in order to go towards a transcendent father we must have grace that's clear and this is the consequence of our opening ourselves to God in faith isn't it to receive grace this is presupposed to that and this is of course really why although of course baptism as a child does give us undoubtedly grace which is operativeness in ways which are not conscious it is very important for people who are baptized as children to remember that

[96:19]

there comes a point when they really do have somehow to ratify this not necessarily at 4 o'clock on a given afternoon but they really do have the equivalent to ratify it yes I thought I understood you to say that the anguish of feeling that we've sent is indicative that we may not have sent very often it is yes how's that so I would if I felt like I sent I would think that that's guilt and because I didn't how's that so

[96:50]

@Transcribed_v002
@Text_v005
@Score_90.14