Pints With Aquinas - 81: Can philosophy prove the beginning of the universe?

Episode Date: November 21, 2017

In today's episode we talk with Thomas about whether or not the universe could be eternal and created. Thomas thinks it can, even though he thinks the universe has a beginning because of revelation. Enjoy! SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

G'day, g'day, g'day, g'day, g'day, g'day, g'day, g'day, g'day, g'day, how's it going? Yes, we really do say g'day in Australia, okay? And it's kind of insulting to me when people come up and ask me to say it randomly. I'm just saying, it kind of is. I go and give talks different places, like, hey, can you say g'day? Hey, do kangaroos deliver the mail? Yes! Okay, no.

Hey, before we get into today's episode, two things I want to say. Number one, somebody just won the Summa Theologiae. What? And they also won, and two other people won different copies of Ed Faze's new book. I'm not saying who they are because I'm recording this like two days in advance and I won't be around Tuesday when this bad boy releases to be able to say the exact names. So you can go to pints with Aquinas.com and see if you won. And I will be emailing you soon to get your address to post it to you. Boom. Second thing I want to say before today's episode starts is I've got some big news, like really big news, not like, Hey, big news. And then it's not really big news. I have some

big news and I'm going to tell you about it tomorrow. There's going to be a little podcast coming out tomorrow and it's going to announce the big news and I'm pretty excited about it and I think you will be too. So be sure to download tomorrow's podcast and listen to it. But you know, should be good. Let's get into today's one. Chick, chick, chick, chick, chick, boom. I meant to say cheers but I ended up saying chick so I went with it. Here's the show. Welcome to Pints with Aquinas. I am Matt Fradd. If you could sit down over a pint of beer with St. Thomas Aquinas and ask him any one question, what would it be? Today we're going to be asking St. Thomas about the eternity of the world. More specifically, is it possible to create something that's existed forever. Welcome back to Pints with Aquinas.

This is the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor to discuss theology and philosophy. This is not going to be an episode for the faint of heart. So if somebody told you about Pints with Aquinas and this is the very first episode you've ever listened to, maybe don't. Maybe go back and listen to something else because we're going to read quite a portion from St. Thomas Aquinas and it's going to have to do with some, you know,

difficult issues that I certainly don't pretend to understand fully, but which I think if you're a bit of an Aquinas geek, you're certainly going to find fascinating. So yeah, just a warning. I also wanted to say a big thank you to everybody who supports Pines with Aquinas on Patreon. I really don't know how to express this enough. I'm so humbled. Whenever somebody makes a donation, you know, five bucks a month, 10 bucks a month, I email them right away and just thank them. And I just, yeah, I'm super thankful. I've been out speaking. Oh, look, there's my, there's my phone. I've been out speaking recently. And the last few times I've been out, I've

actually encountered people who have either converted to Catholicism because of Pines of Aquinas, or just this last week, I was in Boise, Idaho, and someone came up to me and said their friend, so shout out to you, friend of the guy in Boise, just converted to Catholicism because of this show. That's ridiculous. And quite honestly, I couldn't do this without you. And it really means so much to me, to all you guys who support Pints with Aquinas. So, you know, if you just want to look into it, I'd be super humbled. Go to pintswithaquinas.com and click support. You know, there's people who are dropping out all the time. You know, every month when the credit card gets charged, people cease supporting for

financial reasons, which I totally get, and that's fine. So, you know, if you've never supported and you want to support, it would mean a lot. Okay. So, here we go. On the eternity of the world. All right. Now, look, one of the reasons that Aristotle was so controversial in the 13th century among Catholics is because there were certain errors that he had made that were at odds with the Catholic faith, all right? Up until the rediscovery of Aristotle, the Christian theologians tended to be more platonic in their outlook, like St. Augustine and St. Anselm. You had some copies of Aristotle, like his work on logic and other things that were in circulation, but some of his other works, like on metaphysics and such, didn't kind of find their way to Europe until about the 12th

and 13th century. So, again, one of his key errors is the idea that the universe is eternal. Okay? And not just that it's eternal, but that it must be eternal. Do you understand? He's not saying there's no compelling philosophical argument to think that the world is finite. No. Aristotle said that there's compelling philosophical arguments to think that the world is finite. No. Aristotle said that there's compelling philosophical arguments to think that the universe must be eternal. We won't get into those arguments. But suffice it to say, when Aristotle reached Europe around that time in the 13th century, there was a lot of debate. And you've got different Christians coming up with different answers. So, there's a bloke by the name of Averroes, and he was an Islamic philosopher. And he had this idea

of a sort of double truth, right? Like, some things can be true in theology, but not true philosophically. Like, they can actually contradict and both be true. And certain Latin Averroists, as they were called, those who followed Averroists who were Christian, held the same thing. What's his name? C.J. of Brabant. I remember him. I read him a little while ago, but if I'm not mistaken, he basically said that, yeah, okay, I'm a Christian. And so as a Christian, I submit to the word of God, which teaches that the world is finite. Nevertheless, philosophy shows that the world is eternal and both are true. That's ridiculous. Yeah, it's ridiculous. Both are true. Okay. Then you've got other Christians who do not

go along with this nonsense that two things can be contradictory and both be true. You've got people like Bonaventure who actually came up with arguments for the finitude of the world. Okay. Bonaventure was a contemporary Franciscan, another doctor of the church who came up with arguments. It was in his commentary on the sentences, I believe, that he develops a number of arguments to show that it doesn't make any sense to say that the world had always existed. I tend to lean with Bonaventure on this, and maybe we'll get a chance to explain why towards the end. and maybe we'll get a chance to explain why towards the end. So, I really do feel myself compelled. When I hear arguments from philosophy for the finitude of the universe, I find them compelling. So, Aquinas would disagree with that, and he disagreed with Bonaventure, and he certainly disagreed with like CJ of Bra brabant um but um basically what aquinas wants to say is like is it possible for something that was uh that has always existed to be created

okay now that's that's a different question to is it philosophically possible that a universe that proceeds you know throughout time can have could have always existed. So we can just ask the question, is it possible that the world could exist forever and was created? And that's sort of what Aquinas wants to address here in what I'm about to read. So this is really exciting. Like I read this and I found myself like just as captivated as if I was reading somebody writing today. And I really think if you're a fan of Aquinas, you're going to find this fascinating as well. So heads up, it's a little long, okay? But I want to read it all to you, the entire work. So I'm holding a book, okay? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. It's about seven

pages. So buckle up. This is going to be a longer episode of Pints with Aquinas. But here's what I'll do is I'll pause every now and again and throw in some commentary of my own and hopefully it will, you know, make things a little more easy to listen to. Oh, and also at the end of the show, we'll be doing some Q&A. So if you're a supporter of Pines with Aquinas on Patreon and you've sent me a question, I'll be making my way through them over the coming weeks. So look forward to that. All right. Are we ready? Okay. So here's what it's called. Are you ready? On the Eternity of the World Against Murmurers. Yep, you heard that right. Against murmurers. So those who would disagree. Now, Aquinas attacks these folks pretty strongly. And I think there's good reason to think he's not including Bonaventure in this. That, you know, as a contemporary and a friend, I think that

would seem to be a little inappropriate. But who knows? maybe you was. But here we go. You ready? Are you ready? Come on, shake it down. Take a breath. Pick up your beer. Let's do it. If we suppose, in agreement with the Catholic faith, and contrary to what some philosophers mistakenly have thought, that the world has not existed eternally, and that its duration has a beginning

as Holy Scripture, which cannot deceive, attests, a doubt arises as to whether it could always have been. All right, so you see what he does there. Right away, he distances himself from Aristotle, okay, disagrees with him, right? Why? Because of Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is very clear that the universe began to exist. You know, as a side note, some people, I think, are trying to say, well, maybe Genesis doesn't say that, you know?

No, it's pretty clear that it does, and Aquinas certainly thought that. And remember, will you, that Aquinas had absolutely no idea about Big Bang cosmology. Okay. All right. So, Holy Scripture says it does. So, a doubt arises, all right, as to whether it could always have been. Is that possible that the universe could always exist and be created? All right. I want to stress this because it's clear that you get it. He's asking, is it possible that the universe has always existed and also was created? All right. This is what he's addressing in this work here. In order to get to the truth of the matter, we should first set down wherein we agree and wherein we disagree with our opponents. Were it to be supposed that the world could always have been independent of God, as if something

apart from Him could be eternal and unmade by Him, this would be an abominable error. Not only in the eyes of faith, but also among the philosophers who maintain and prove that whatever in any way exists must be caused by him who fully and most truly has existence. All right. So he's saying we can both agree on that. All right. Aquinas would never say that it's possible that the world had always existed and yet God not create and sustain it. Aquinas continues, however, we must ask if it could be maintained that something always existed and yet is wholly caused by God. There's that point I keep driving home. This is what Aquinas is trying to address in this document. Were this to be judged impossible, this would either be because God could not make something that always was, or that it could not come to be

even if God could make it. All right, so he's narrowing it down. If it's impossible, right, that the universe could have always been and yet be created, it's for two reasons. Either because God could not make something that always was, or that it could not come to be even if God could make it. All right, he continues. All would agree on the first point, namely that given his infinite power, God can make something that always was. But it remains to be seen whether it is possible for something to come to be that always was. The claim that it is not possible can be understood in two ways. That is, as being true for one of two reasons, either on account of the removal of passive potency or because it is conceptually incoherent. In the first way, it could be said that before

an angel was made, the angel was not able to come to be because no passive potency preceded its existence, right? It didn't exist in potency, except in the mind of God, but on its own, it doesn't exist. Since it was not made from any underlying matter. Nevertheless, God was able to make the angel and was able to bring it about that the angel came to be because he did it and it is. Isn't that a great argument? The angel, you know, you can imagine somebody saying, well, give me an argument, you know, for how an angel could come to be and that be possible, you know, well, because he did it and it is. That's fair enough. He continues. So, understood, it must simply be granted that according to the faith, something caused by God

could not always be, if this is tantamount to holding that a passive potency always existed, for that is heretical. But it does not follow from this that God cannot bring it about, that some being should always be. In the second understanding, something is said not to have happened because it involves conceptual incoherence on the order of an affirmation and its denial not being able to be simultaneously true, although there are some who claimed God could bring this about. Others say that he cannot because it is a nullity, right? That it's nothing. It is, of course, clear that he could not effect this because if he could, he could not. In other words, God can't do the logically impossible because the logically impossible is nothing.

Okay. Aquinas continues. Should someone say that God can do this, the view may not be heretical, but it is, in my opinion, false, in the way that the claim that the past was not involves a contradiction. That makes sense? If I say the past didn't exist, I'm affirming the past in talking about the past. Thus, Augustine, in Against Faustus, writes, Whoever says, if God is omnipotent, he can make the things that were such that they were not, does not see that he is in effect saying,

if he is omnipotent, he can make what is true as true be false. Nonetheless, there have been those, continues Aquinas, who with great piety said that God can make the past not to have been those, continues Aquinas, who with great piety said that God can make the past not to have been past and it was not judged heretical. You know, just as a side note, shortly after the time of Aquinas, we're going to have Occam, William of Occam, known for his famous razor, the idea that we shouldn't multiply sort of explanations beyond necessity. That is, we should choose the simplest hypothesis if the simplest hypothesis would do. But he also denied universals. He also placed a great deal of emphasis on God's power and said things like God could theoretically produce

nonsense. You know, like God could cause us to hate our parents. He could demand that and that be logically consistent. So, that's why I'm thinking of making a bumper sticker that just says blame Occam and then like 0.1% of even the Catholic population would understand what I mean by that. But I think we understand, you know, when Aquinas quotes Augustine here, eh? You know, if you say, let's see what Augustine says here, if God is omnipotent, then he can make the things that were such that they were not. That's a contradiction because if they were, then he can't make them that they were not

or else there would be nothing to make not. Does that make sense? It reminds me of similar objections we've raised in the past. You know, if God is so powerful, can he create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? You know, that sounds like a great question, but you know, when you investigate it, it amounts to a little more than nonsense, right? Think about that. Can God create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it? Well, let's think of that. God, presumably, has infinite lifting power. If he were to create something that he could not lift, it would have to be more than infinite in weight. But more than infinite in weight is one of those nonsense combinations of words.

And a sentence doesn't retain or suddenly develop meaning just because you put at the front of that sentence, you know, is it possible for God too? All right. Okay. Let's continue here with Aquinas. He says, is there then some conceptual incoherence and incompatibility between something's being caused by God and always having been? However, this comes out, it is not heretical to say that something caused by God has always been. I nonetheless believe that if there is incoherence, self-contradiction, in the claim, then it's going to be false. If there is no incoherence, not only is it not false, it could not be otherwise, and to say so is erroneous, since it pertains to God's omnipotence to exceed all understanding and power. One who said that something could

come about in creatures cannot be brought about by God or derogate from God's omnipotence. In other words, if you can show that something can be eternal and yet created, then you cannot say that God couldn't do it. Since it's not a contradiction, Aquinas is saying, then even if you don't understand how God could have done it, recognizing that because God is omnipotent, that he could do it, even if you don't understand it. Okay. Sorry, finding where I am here. Okay, so then here he uses an example where he's like, sin is not a counterexample, since as such, they are nullities. So he's like anticipating your objection, you know, well, if God can't do nothing, you know, if he's all powerful, you know, like you say he is, and he can do things, even if I can't

understand them, then I guess he can sin, right? Because sin's something. And Aquinas doesn't flesh out his thought here, but of course to sin is to be less than perfect, and God is perfect. And so to sin would contradict his nature and therefore would be impossible. All right. The whole question then comes down to this. Here it is. It comes down to this, you listen. whether or not to be created by God in its complete substance is incompatible with not having a beginning of its duration. That they are not can be shown in this way. All right, so here it is. Here's his argument. And I agree with it, even though I tend to lean towards thinking that the universe couldn't be eternal, but I agree with this, but he says, there could be only two reasons for their

incompatibility, okay? Whether the one or the other or the two together, either because the efficient cause, you'll remember what does efficient cause mean? There are four types of causes, huh? Efficient, material, formal, and final. These come from Aristotle. And the efficient cause means, you know, A, which brings B about. Okay, so I'm holding a coffee here. There was an efficient cause of this mug. It wasn't me. But in a sense, I am the efficient cause of the coffee that I am about to drink. Yeah, baby. Okay. So, either, says Aquinas, because the efficient cause must precede its effect in duration or because non-existence must precede existence in duration. Those are the two ways, okay?

So, if you want to say that the universe could not be eternal and created, here are your two options, he says, all right? One, because you have to say the efficient cause must precede its effect in duration, all right? God exists, then he creates the world. That would be your argument. You know, you can't say from all eternity, the world has existed alongside of God. So that might be your one escape. The second thing would be, you would say something like, well, non-existence has to precede existence in duration, right? It has to come before. You know, if we're going to say God created the world ex nihilo, out of nothing, then doesn't that mean that nothing preceded the world in time, in temporal duration? Those are your two options. All right, now Aquinas is going to have a look at them.

The first thing to show is that it is not necessary that the efficient cause, namely God, preceded his effect in duration, should he so will. The first then, no cause which produces its effect immediately need precede its effect in existence. Here's his, I love, he writes in syllogisms. I love this, isn't this? But God produces his effect immediately, not through motion. Therefore, it is not necessary that he proceed his effect in duration. The first premise is inductively evident from all immediate changes, such as illumination and the like. All right. So, for example, for as long as the sun has existed, so has the light. It's not like the sun existed and then the light existed. Another example, if you take a bowling ball and you put it into the pillow, the depression in the pillow didn't exist, you know, temporally, you know, after you put the bowling ball down, right? It

existed at the exact same time. So, I agree with Aquinas on this. And elsewhere, he says something like, you know, if there was, if somebody had their foot on a patch of dirt from all eternity, you know what else would exist from all eternity? The effect of that foot, namely the footprint. All right. Aquinas continues. Listen to this. I love this syllogism. He says, the first premise is inductively evident from all immediate changes such as illumination and the like. Nonetheless, it can be proved as follows. So here's his proof. In any instant in which a thing exists, the principle of its action can be posited, as is clear in all generable things, since, and here's the syllogism, in that instance in which fire begins to be, heating begins. That's similar to my son analogy, yeah?

lots of my son analogy, yeah? But in immediate activity, its beginning and end are the same, as is the case with all indivisibles. All right, sorry, here is the syllogism. I thought it was a little earlier than this. Here it is. In any instance in which an agent producing its effect immediately is given, the term of its action can also be posited. Second premise. But the term of its action is simultaneous with the things having been made. Think of the bowling ball in the pillow. Therefore, it is not incoherent to posit a cause producing its effect immediately and not preceding it in duration. It would be incoherent to say this of causes which produce their effects through motion because the beginning of motion must precede its end. Because we are accustomed to makings that involve motion, the claim that an

efficient cause need not precede its effect in duration is not easily grasped, all right? So, Aquinas gets that. Like, if I say to you, you know, again, think about this, right? God has existed from all eternity. And Aquinas is arguing that it's possible that for as far back, and that's the wrong way to put it, of course, because God doesn't exist in time, but as long as God has existed, which is infinite from all eternity, the world has also existed. That's really bloody difficult to understand, right? And it's difficult because usually when we think of cause and effect, we think of a cause taking place and then the effect, you know? Like Jimmy threw the rock, then the window broke. But when you think about it,

broke. But when you think about it, the cause that produced the effect of the broken window was not just, okay, Jimmy throwing the rock, right? He is the efficient cause of that. But at the moment the rock hits the window, at that exact moment, the window breaks, right? So there again, I think is another example that we can see that the cause doesn't have to precede the effect in time. Aquinas says, so it is that many unlearned men, listen to how strong he speaks here. So it is that many unlearned men taking into account only a few things arrive at easy answers. So yeah, I like that. He's not easing up on those who want to argue that the world existing for all eternity and God creating it, they say it's impossible. It's like, yeah, if you take a few things into account, it's easy to come up with an easy answer,

but you have to take all of this into account. Guys, there is more to read and I've been talking for longer than I wanted to. So right now, we we are way over time and I know many of you who write to me say you'd like to listen to the podcast more than once. So, everything will sink in. So, I'm going to pause right there and next week, we're going to pick up what Aquinas says. We're going to read the rest of this work, right, on the eternity of the world against murmurers. And I'll share some thoughts next week as to why you might think that Bonaventure is correct. Okay, so you can agree with Aquinas and say, all right, it's possible that God could create something that's infinitely old, right? Okay, that that's possible you could agree with that i think and still agree with um with with bonaventure and other christians who say that given the nature

of the universe right which exists in time that it's impossible for something to be infinitely old and we'll talk about that next week but now it's time for some q and a okay okay okay let's see we'll get to as many questions as we can today um first one comes from matthew hunt matthew hunt you rock my world, brother. I appreciate your support on Patreon. Matthew asks, let me try a non-political, non-hot topic question this time. What is your favorite TV show, favorite episode, favorite character? Why to all of the above? All right, let me do my best here. So whatever my answer is going to be, it's not like a full endorsement of this TV show. Obviously, television shows, movies, literature, much of it has questionable material in it.

I mean, that includes the Bible when you think about it. I mean, there's scenes of rape. There's scenes in which, you know, the second person of the Blessed Trinity is executed. That's pretty scandalous. And so I guess I just say that maybe a little defensively because sometimes people say to you, you shouldn't be watching that. And you think to yourself, goodness, if I wasn't able to expose myself to material that had morally problematic content, I couldn't even read the Bible. That said, so here's a few shows. I don't know what it would

be like if I went back and watched it, But I remember being so impressed with Breaking Bad. Breaking Bad, for those of you who aren't aware, is about a man called Walter White, who was a chemistry high school teacher. And, you know, quite a shy guy and not very assertive. And he gets cancer. And he's aware that his family are going to be left with nothing. And he's like, what can I do to provide for them? And he ends up, you know, because he's a chemistry teacher, and he's not just a chemistry teacher, he's really brilliant. He starts creating crystal meth and selling it. And it's, I forget how many seasons it is, it's about eight seasons. But basically, you see this soft spoken, non-assertive man turn into a moral monster, essentially, as he becomes harder

and harder, you know, and lies after lies to his wife and to his son and to those that he loves. Yeah, it was really fascinating. I remember there was one or two times that I was watching it and I had to stop because I'm like, this is awful. Like, well, I'm not going to give it away, but there's one moment where he did something exceptionally terrible and tried to justify doing it. And I'm like, okay, I'm done. But it was just a very entertaining show and it was very realistic. And one of the things I liked about it was that it didn't glorify the sin. And it was the greatest finale in the history of television that I remember watching. And it was the greatest finale in the history of television that I remember watching.

It was so satisfying. I mean, here's this guy. He, you know, at any point, if he had turned himself in, if he had been honest with his wife and said, I'm sorry, his life would have become a thousand times more beautiful. But he refused to. And he just went down and down and down and became a horrible monster. And his whole life was destroyed. You know, in a way, it shows what sin does to us. Like it slowly eats us out, you know, from the inside. And so it didn't glamorize, you know, selling crystal meth. I didn't think. That said, I know there's lots of problematic

content in there and it certainly isn't, you know, me, you know, it's not a wholesale recommendation of that show, but I thought he was a great character. I also, um, I also really like, uh, um, uh, parks and recreation. Again, there's a lot of problematic content in there, but, but I like that. I like, uh, Ron Swanson. Uh, he's really funny. Uh, so yeah, those would be a couple of things that I watch. It's funny, man. I mean, there's so many shows you can get so addicted. Oh, another one was, um, Daredevil. Daredevil was such a great series on Netflix. And that produced a lot of other things that I thought were really bad. Like I think Luke Cage, I watched a couple of episodes of that, didn't like that at all. What was it? Iron Fist. I thought that was pretty lousy.

But for whatever reason, yeah, Daredevil was really good. All right. So, you know, I hope that answers your question. All right. So, let's see. Lucas, I think it's Ison, says, hey, Matt, sorry, this is a bit late. Today, I had encountered someone, let's say, not in good terms with the Catholic Church, asking a professor something along the lines of, do you think the patriarchal oppression of the Catholic Church contributes to problem X? I think it had to do with male-dominated violence against women. But anyway, I was sitting in there and not knowing really what to say or if I should say anything at all. My question is, how do you deal with, or how would you recommend your brothers and sisters in Christ to encounter the church being attacked in such broad, vilifying terms that are ideologically driven? How should we respond to that?

Usually time is short to engage in a discussion. Is it our job to defend the church? After all, it is Christ's bride. Is it our job to defend the church? After all, it is Christ's bride. It is our family, brothers and sisters, that I feel being insulted. How do you deal with such situations? Thank you.

All right, well, thanks for the question, and thanks for your support on Patreon. You know, it's always really important that we clarify our terms. First of all, I'm not sure if there's much you could have said in that situation that would have been that helpful. I don't think we are morally obligated to respond to every accusation leveled at the church or every sort of insinuation, you know, that's said to the church. Because like, I mean, in that situation, you think about like, realistically, what could have you said that would have been beneficial? Maybe it wasn't even your time to speak, right? If this is her question to the professor, you know, it may have sufficed just to not ask anything. But, you know, defining terms is key.

You know, you'd want to say to this girl, maybe after class, you know, what do you mean by patriarchy? You know, patriarchy, it just means a sort of social system where men are the, you know, have the power, you know, have the leadership and that sort of thing. You know, it's not, I mean, sometimes patriarchy is said synonymous with sort of misogyny. You know, the two are sort of said as if they're the same thing. Well, misogyny just means a hatred of women. Patriarchy isn't that by definition, you know. So, we need to distinguish the two. So, what's the problem with men having leadership roles? You know, this is certainly how Jesus set up the church. You know, that's certainly the way in which the Old Testament was organized. So, what's the problem with men

having roles? I mean, I think when people complain about patriarchy, what they're usually complaining about is the abuse that abuses of men, you know, and that's something to complain about, you know, and so you don't want to apologize for the way in which men have been abusive to women or men have abused their, you know, leadership, their authority, right? Their privilege. I mean, for goodness sake, when you think about the sex abuse scandals in the church, this is a clear example, right? Of bad men taking advantage of the fact that they're a moral authority and then preying upon younger boys for the most part. And I don't want to blow that up a portion. It certainly was a small number of priests that did this, but any number of priests is an absolute bloody abomination. So we ought to apologize for that. And so I'd want to know more, right? Like when

she talks about, you know, the church and oppression, what do you mean by that? You know, it's very easy to speak in generalities and it's difficult to disagree with a generality, right? But if you say, give me a specific instance and I'll fight right alongside you. Now, you might say this to your friend. You might say, I agree with you entirely that if there is a man in leadership who's abusing his leadership, you know, by abusing other people, yeah, I'll condemn him with you. Like, you have an ally in me. But suppose you talk to her, you know, after class and she says, well, I'm talking about like an all-male priesthood. You might say, talk to her, you know, after class and she says, well, I'm talking about like an all-male priesthood. You might say, what's the problem with that? You know, why is that a problem? And if she thinks that it somehow means that women are less than men, well, that's not true at all. I mean, women

are able to have children. That doesn't make women better than men, even though, let's face it, their bodies appear way cooler than ours, you know, in that respect. But that doesn't mean they're better than us. It just means they're different to us. And I think it's fair to say that women have, generally speaking, certain gifts that men typically don't have. And the same should be able to said about men in relation to women. What's the problem? I mean, we're not exactly the same. You know, to treat unequal things as if they're equal doesn't do anyone any good. We are equal in dignity, but that doesn't mean we have different gifts that complement one another. So yeah, I don't know if that gets to your question or not.

I mean, look, you're not morally obligated to respond to every objection somebody has to the church because you might end up doing more harm than good. I suppose you're around the Thanksgiving table and maybe your in-laws aren't Catholic and they say something a little distasteful about the Catholic church and you're the son-in-law at their home. It may not just be unproductive. It may be counterproductive, you know, to get into an argument with your mother-in-law. And so, you might bite your tongue and offer up a prayer and, you know, pray that maybe if the opportunity should arise at a different time where it's more appropriate to speak your mind, that you'll take advantage of that, okay? Okay, next person is One Salazar. I think that's how I say your last name, One. Apologies if I butchered that, but thanks very. Philip's Oratory in Toronto, and let me tell

you, you... Oh, this is very nice. Thank you. One, I hadn't read this before the show. I didn't know this was going to be a compliment. You are very clear at explaining St. Thomas. Thank you very much. You say, I have a question. I hope you can answer it. I remember one of my philosophy classes, we were talking about how is impossible, maybe you mean how it is impossible for a human being to love God, philosophically speaking. Because to love is a physical thing that only comes through our senses, or better, we can only love what we can sense. I forgot how to answer this question. I also forgot if St. Thomas answers this. I hope you can help me. Thank you. I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I mean, I don't see why we should

only be able to love what we can sense. Suppose you grow up never knowing your father and you've never really asked about it, but you just know you don't have a dad. And suppose one day your mother sits you down and she says that when you were a baby, your father sacrificed his life for you and your mom. Well, since as a Christian, you believe that your father continues to exist, why can't you love him? I mean, you've never sensed him, but you know he exists. Why can't you feel affection towards him? Want to do what he would have you do? Be the sort of man that he would have you be? I'm not sure why that's not the case. Or let's think of another example where your father is still alive on earth. Suppose he's captured by the enemy and you have very good reason to think he's a prisoner of war. Well, in that sense, you love him in that you want the good for him. All right. And so when we,

you know, but you've never sensed him, right? You have no sensual experience except for the words of your mother, you know, telling you about your dad. And you might say, well, that in a sense is, you know, physical. Yeah. Well, okay you might say, well, that in a sense is, you know, physical. Yeah, well, okay, well, we have the physical world, which we can see. And this physical world, Thomas Aquinas says, would point to the fact that there is an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause. Of course, this invisible God took on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ and died that you might be saved, what do you mean to say that you can't love him? Now, you might say to your professor, okay, so could people around the time of Christ, people who knew Christ personally and believed he

died for them, saw Christ dying for them, could they love him? And suppose they said, well, yes, yes, they could love him because they could see him. I'm not sure why you should only be able to love what you can see. I mean, there are two parts to you, right? There's the physical and there's the spiritual, and this makes up a human being. When I love my wife, I'm talking about the whole package, right? The person, Cameron Fradd. If, you know, you need both body and soul to be a human being, that's why, you know, Thomas Aquinas in another place talks about that those who are awaiting their bodies, you know, in the last judgment, in a sense, we can't even say that they're human beings because they're not both body and soul, all right. If that confuses you, just drop it,

but just take my word on it. Okay. You know, it's both body and soul that make a human being. Okay. And so once you're separated from your body, your body isn't a human being and your soul isn't a human being, even though your soul is alive and your body isn't, it's been separated by death. But you know, when I love my wife, I'm loving her, a human person, and that involves a spiritual component. So yeah, I guess either I've misunderstood your question, and if that's the case, I apologize, or else hopefully that answers it. It's hard to know since you can't speak back. Guys, that is all the time we have here at Pints with Aquinas. Next week, we're going to read the last part of what Aquinas has to say about the eternity of the world.

I hope this has been a help to you. You know what I'd really love, okay, if you're still listening. I'd really love us to discuss this. So I'm going to do my best to remember when this comes out in a couple of weeks. I will post it to the top of our Facebook wall and you can discuss it there. That'll be pretty cool. That'll be nice. All right, guys, God bless you. Chat with you next week. And hey, if you haven't reviewed Pints with Aquinas on iTunes, really appreciate it if you could. Bless you. See ya. Who's gonna survive? Who's gonna survive?

Who's gonna survive?