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,
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.
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.
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,
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?
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.
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.
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,
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?
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,
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,
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,
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,
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.
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,
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.
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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,
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
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,
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
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,
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.
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,
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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