Summary of text [comment] page 19

Freedom, the order of the heart, has a peculiar moral and religious character.

The Church defended the concept of “free will” against various movements that have denied or redefined it.

Responsibility is intimately tied to free will.

[Here is one association:

Free will : conscience₁ (note that this is purely theoretical because, in order to underlie the actual, it must be specified within the parallel (exclusive yet interpellating) forms of the moral religious axis.  So far, the two most frequently used specifiers have been “free” and “lacking”.  Here, “free” means “not coerced” and “lacking” means “constrained by the symbolic order of think^group”.

Ironically, to many, conscience^lacking₁ appears to have greater “freedom” in the sense of “greater latitude”.

Why?

Think^group₃ denies the consequences of their actions (that is, the law^essential) and projects fault for unintended consequences on a mythic other, who (unknowingly and inadvertently) thwarts them.  In doing so, conscience^lacking avoids responsibility.

This raises the question: What is “responsibility”?]