The Catholic Book Club discussion

As usual, use this question to share your thoughts on topics that don't fit into other questions.

p. 55 - Indeed, the HS was present in the early Church "in a fullness unequaled before or since." As a beneficiary of the charismatic renewal in the 20th century, I beg to differ! The HS is always fully present and active, though our awareness of His work may wax and wane.
p. 83 - interesting Clement's calling the churches "strangers" (at Rome and Corinth); presumably because our true citizenship is in heaven.

From the chapter on Clement of Rome:

A new synthesis of all cults began to emerge—a first-century New Age movement, so to speak. In this stream the old-fashioned harvest gods once worshipped with sheaves of wheat and jugs of wine degenerated steadily into fashionable sex gods to be worshipped with acts of perversion and infant sacrifice. Late Roman paganism became a sad, sordid blend of riotous demonism, on the one hand, and cold, cynical sophistry, on the other.

I disagree with this. The Romans never performed infant sacrifice. Adult sacrifies were also forbidden except in extremely rare cases (as after the defeat at Cannae against Hannibal). Livy wrote that "[human sacrifices were] wholly alien to the Roman spirit."

As we read in November (Chesterton, "The everlasting man") the triumph of Rome against Carthage can be considered as the triumph of the gods against the demons. I think Bennett has mistaken Rome with Carthage here.

As to acts of perversion to worship gods, I think this is another mistake. There were acts of perversion in Rome (it's enough to read Petronius to see it), but they were rare and spurned. The Romans were very different from the Greeks, where homosexuality was socially acceptable. In Rome there were homosexuals, but they were never socially accepted.

Bennett presents paganism as a degenerate religion. However, a little later it revived in neoplatonism, which quickly became the highest competitor of Christianity in the last three centuries of the Empire.

From the chapter on Clement of Rome, citing Justin Martyr:

He [Simon Magus] was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome: “Simoni Deo Sancto—To Simon the holy God.”

Bennett does not mention that this attribution by Justin is not considered reliable by modern scholars, as Justin probably made a mistake with a statue, discovered in the 16th century, with the inscription "Semo Sancus" (a god in Roman mythology).

Manuel wrote: "From the chapter on Clement of Rome:

A new synthesis of all cults began to emerge—a first-century New Age movement, so to speak. In this stream the old-fashioned harvest gods once worshipped with ..."

Manuel wrote: "From the chapter on Clement of Rome

A new synthesis of all cults began to emerge—a first-century New Age movement, so to speak. In this stream the old-fashioned harvest gods once worshipped with ..."

This quote shows that infant sacrifice was not carried out in Rome’ and the Romans found human sacrifice abhorrent. Yet they were not repulsed by the spectacle of death in the Coliseum.

“By the Late Republic the Romans came to be as horrified by the practice of human sacrifice as any modern might be. The practice of human sacrifice was prohibited by senatorial decree in 97 BCE under the consulship of P. Licinius Crassus.”

My novel El Sello De Eolo deals with the adventures of a Christian boy in the Roman army in the time of Marcus Aurelius, and has a lot to do with what we are reading, specially the chapter about Justin.

I have just translated the novel into English, and although it is not yet published, if anyone is interested to read it, just send me a PM and I'll send an early copy in epub format.

From the chapter on Justin Martyr:

Hadrian, we are told, took a personal interest in the boy and also in his more vigorous half-brother Lucius... This fabulous run of good fortune culminated spectacularly in an unexpected Imperial command—that Marcus and his brother were to be adopted in turn by Hadrian’s chosen successor, Antoninus Pius...

This paragraph gives the impression that Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were brothers, or at the least half-brothers; that they shared at least one of their biological parents. This is not so. The parents of Marcus Aurelius were Marcus Annius Verus and Domitia Lucila; the parents of Lucius Verus were Lucius Aelius and Avidia Plautia. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were called "brothers" because both were adopted as sons and successors by Antoninus Pius, their predecessor as Emperor.

In fact, several pages later in the same chapter, Bennett says this:

Marcus, however, acting entirely on his own initiative, chose to promote his adopted brother Lucius Verus to the position of colleague, with co-equal rights as Imperator Rex.

He was, therefore, aware that they were not biological, but adopted brothers.

I strongly disagree with Bennett's dealing with Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the chapter about Justin Martyr. He presents Marcus as inept in war, and contrasts him with his co-Emperor and adoptive brother Lucius Verus. He assigns to Verus all the merit of the war against the Parthians, and discounts Marcus's activity in the war against the Germans, after the death of Verus.

I studied in depth this period while I was writing my historical novel, and the truth was quite different. Verus was not a successful military chief. His campaign against the Parthians was mainly driven by legatus Caius Avidius Casius, although Verus was awarded the triumph at his return in Rome. Marcus's campaign against the Marcomanni and other tribes was successful. Bennett says that he died sadly in Panonia during the war, but in fact he died of smallpox during a visit, after the war was ended.

Bennett also exaggerates the persecution in Marcus's time. In fact, it was milder than those of other Emperors, affected mainly the Middle East, and was due to the fact that the troops of the Parthian war spread all around them an epidemic of plague that they had contracted during the siege of Ctesiphon, the Parthian capital, which they conquered. As usual, the plague was attributed to Christians, who were then persecuted. It was probably at this time when Justin was executed, although the exact date is unknown.

Bennett tries to make a case for Marcus Aurelius having considered converting to Christianity. I doubt this happened. There isn't the slightest historical indication of this possibility, and Bennett only proposes it because of Justin's letter to Antoninus Pius, which Marcus could have read, although I strongly suspect that the Apology was never read by the Emperor and his two heirs, for it was probably filtered by their secretaries.

Finally, Bennett asserts that the fall of the Roman Empire started with Marcus Aurelius. It's always difficult to signal the exact beginning of historical processes, but all historians agree that the time of Marcus Aurelius was not a time of decadence. Its beginning is assigned to Marcus's successor, Commodus, who apparently, rather than ruling, preferred to fight as a gladiator, and was finally murdered in his bath. His death gave rise to the military anarchy, that sank the Empire in a time of unrest until Diocletian restored the power of the Emperors.

Manuel wrote: "From the chapter on Clement of Rome:

A new synthesis of all cults began to emerge—a first-century New Age movement, so to speak. In this stream the old-fashioned harvest gods once worshipped with ..."


I did not have the chance to read the book, but here i participate as a historian. I totally agree with Manuel Alfonseca on this question. It is true that, if Bennet says that the Romans practiced human sacrifices, it is absolutely false. The Romans sacrificed animals, but not humans, indeed human sacrifices were banned in the Roman Empire, and for this reason they made war against Britannia, against the human sacrifices of the druids. Of course this thing does not mean that the Romans did not practise abortions and infanticides. Except strange cases as Sulla, who was bisexual, homosexuality in Rome was badly seen. The campaign of Cato the Old against Scipius the African was due to his contacts with the Greek, which betrayed the Roman origins (really was a case of envy, but it was one of the causes of the casus belli).
About Marcus Aurelius, his reign was very difficult. Rome never recovered of the plague, and poor Marcus Aurelius had to do enormous sacrifices to defeat the invasions of some barbarian tribes. Hispania was invaded by the Mauri. He also had to face the rebellion of Avidius Casius. Last year I read the novel of my friend Manuel Alfonseca, the Seal of Aeolus, which I considered one of the best titles I had read in the previous year (2019).
I also agree with Alfonseca about the possibility that Marcus Aurelius could have been converted to Christianity.
About the persecution of Christians, my friend Alfonseca and I had an interesting discussion. In Spain there is a protestant writer called Cesar Vidal, and I had read his novel "Fuego del cielo" ("Fire of the sky"), and I commented that I didn't find the ending believable, where Marcus Aurelius forgave the life of the Christian centurion. Then Alfonseca said to me that it was actually believable, and that I should read the Reflections of Marcus Aurelius.
About other emperors, although Commodus had a Christian lover, Marcia, just one could have been Christian, Philip the Arabian, but it was false. Philip the Arabian only was a good friend of bishop Babylas. In my case, I'd like to bet for one emperor, Alexander Severus, I think he was a good emperor, even though Marxist historiography was against him. Perhaps Galienus was the only emperor who respected religious freedom, including Christianity. About Galienus, I recommend the sequel of The Seal of Aeolus, "The Emerald table", where Galienus appears. This was the first novel I read written by my friend Manuel Alfonseca.

I just finished the book. I felt that, after reading Eusebius, it does not have a lot new. The historical context written by Bennett feels oversimplified.

On the other hand, it gives us a spotlight and more details about the 4 Fathers. Their letters are very good. It leaves me wanting to read more of the original sources.

I actually liked the Afterword very much, where Bennett explains his own road to the Catholic Church as he read the Fathers. It made me understand the rest of the book better, why he had chosen the excerpts he did. Maybe it would had worked better as an Introduction.

Mariangel wrote: "I just finished the book. I felt that, after reading Eusebius, it does not have a lot new. The historical context written by Bennett feels oversimplified.

On the other hand, it gives us a spotligh..."

I look forward to getting there. I read sections of the book very quickly to try to find the basis for some questions, andhave gone back taking my time to read each of the chapters. I am doing one a week and will start Irenaeus tomorrow.