Catholic Thought discussion

Subchapters
- Neither Chance Nor Fate Caused Rome’s Greatness
- Against Astrological Fatalism: the Case of Twins
- Against Astrological Fatalism: “Auspicious” Days
- Fate as the Chain of Causes
- Cicero’s Argument on Foreknowledge and Free Will
- Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom
- The Giver of the Empire is the True God
- Roman Love of Glory and Roman Virtue
- The Divine Gift of Empire to Rome: an Earthly Reward for Earthly Virtue
- The Roman Example: an Antidote to Christian Pride
- The Difference between the Desire for Glory and the Desire for Domination
- The Proper End of Virtue: neither Pleasure not Human Glory
- God is the One Who Grants Power both to Kingdoms and to Individuals
- The Good Christian Emperor
- The Emperor Theodosius

I would summarized Book V as the following: Fate is an illusion because individuals have free will, so Rome’s empire was not acquired from worship of the Roman gods but because the one true God was pleased with Roman virtue and therefore blessed the Roman people with an empire.

Sorry I'm a day late on this. I had a busy weekend and I misjudged that Book V was a bit longer than the others.

This was another fascinating book. Here Augustine finally brings together the historical background and integrates it with Christian theology. In chapter 21 he seems to get to the point. First with this:

It was, therefore, the one true God, who never abandons the human race either in judgment or in aid, who gave a kingdom to the Romans when he wished and just so far as he wished. He was the one who gave a kingdom to the Assyrians, and then also to the Persians, who, as their writings indicate, worshiped only two gods, one good and one evil[86] — to say nothing of the Hebrew people (about whom I have already said as much as seemed necessary), who worshiped only the one God even when they had a kingdom.

Then he expands on that pint:

The same is true of individual men. The same God who gave power to Marius also gave it to Gaius Caesar; the same God who gave power to Augustus also gave it to Nero; the same God who gave it to the Vespasians, father and son, the most temperate emperors, also gave it to Domitian, the cruelest; and — there is no need to mention each emperor individually — the same God who gave power to Constantine the Christian also gave it to Julian the Apostate.[88] Julian was a man of outstanding abilities, but a sacrilegious and detestable superstition deceived him through his love for domination.

And concludes:

Clearly the one true God rules and governs all these things as he pleases. And, if his reasons are hidden, does that mean that they are unjust?

So virtue does make a difference to what God allows, but if bad men prosper it is because there is a reason that is obscured to human understanding. And so I think we can see the evolution of thought through the five books. We see the failure of the pagan gods to reward virtue; we see the impotence of the pagan gods to save Rome in her times of crises; the blessings of the one true God to those who act in a virtuous manner.

I have to say, I really wish there was a Cliff Notes or something like it around. It does feel like I’m missing a point. Couldn’t one attribute all the same impotence and criticism that Augustine attributes to the pagan gods to the one true God? Why isn’t the same argument held against the one True God? It does feel like I’m missing that point. Can someone answer that?

Here’s my attempt to answer, but I don’t think I read it in the text. Could it be that the Romans worshiped the pagan gods and there didn’t seem to be a link to a favorable or non-favorable outcome while with the one true God one doesn’t expect a “magical” one to one relationship to prayers and outcomes? That’s just my speculation.

Allow me to backtrack and return to just prior to the Roman Republic again. There are two persons that need some elaboration: Julius Caesar and Marcus Tullius Cicero and Marcus Cato the Younger. None of these men seem to be criticized for lack of virtue by Augustine. To my reading so far, I haven’t seen Augustine criticize them. I don’t know if he holds them in esteem, but I have not seen them as examples of lack of virtue.

When one talks about ancient Roman virtue and the fall of the Republic, one needs to talk about Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis, commonly referred to as Cato the Younger. He was the great-grandson of the Marcus Porcius Cato (Cato the Elder) from a good 150 years before him. Cato the Elder defined ancient Roman republican values of stoicism and citizen farmer. He ended many speeches in the Senate with "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed) until it actually was destroyed in that third Punic War, which was probably partially initiated on Cato's urging. The family line continued with this disciplined, ascetic, and patriotic if not xenophobic view. Cato the Younger carried himself and lived this same sort of ideal, and given his family's history carried an incredible moral authority. He walked the talk and was known as uncompromising.

Cato the Younger was Julius Caesar's arch nemesis. It was Cato the Younger who held Caesar to the letter of the law in his conquest of Gaul. It was on Cato’s initiative that ended Caesar's proconsul and ordered him back to Rome to face charges of treason. When Caesar tried to negotiate terms, given that the charges called for Caesar's execution, Cato refused to compromise. It was Cato who left Caesar no choice but to cross the Rubicon and bring himself into hostility with the Senate and Rome. It could be seen that Cato's uncompromising personality led to the Civil War and the demise of the Republic, but it's possible the demise of the Republic was an event waiting to happen. Was Cato's lack of compromise a last effort to save the Republic or the final blow that caused it to fall? We'll never know.

During that Civil War, Cato joined with Pompey and commanded an army against Caesar. But Caesar won every battle in the Civil War and ultimately Cato was faced with surrender. Caesar in his typical fashion offered Cato clemency but Cato refused. Instead of living in disgrace and lack of full Roman freedom, Cato performed the ancient Roman convention of what the stoics called "patriotic suicide." He fell on his sword. He died walking the talk of his values. For that Cato has been regarded as having the highest rectitude. He was known as having uncompromising virtue. He was so well regarded throughout subsequent Roman history and the Middle Ages that Dante has Cato as only one of two pagan characters who are saved. If you remember from our Pugatorio read, Dante has Cato as the guardian to the shores of purgatory. His reputation for virtue was enormous.

It shouldn’t surprise us with Marcus Tullius Cicero. Everything that we know of Cicero is admirable. He was truly a noble and virtuous man. He did not come from an ancient Roman family. His family came from one of the acquired Italian city-states. He was not born rich, and he did not make his money from being a soldier either. He may have had some disability, so I don’t think he ever went to war. He was a great orator, a fine Senator, learned in both Latin and Greek, a great writer of prose, a devoted father, a philosopher, and he was a skilled lawyer. It was through his defense of wealthy people that he was able to gain wealth and status. He was a Renaissance man before the Renaissance; a humanist before humanism.

Cicero came to fame during the Catiline treachery. I had mentioned that Catiline attempted to overthrow the Roman Republic and it was Cicero who exposed him. He made some great speeches on the Senate floor, galvanized the government against Catline, and as consul that year pulled together an army that would defeat him. Ten years later when Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus were forming that first Triumvirate, Caesar wanted Cicero to join them but Cicero seeing the threat to the Roman constitution (it was unwritten but there was an informal constitution) refused. When Caesar had gained power during his conquest of Gaul, it was Cicero who persuaded Pompey to defend the Republic. When Caesar defeated Pompey, it was Cicero who negotiated with Caesar to save the Republic by having Caesar be a lifelong dictator rather than king. I think of Cicero as the noblest Roman of them all. Unlike Cato the Younger, he compromised to seek the best solution, even though he held noble and strict ideals. He was practical. If you ever have the desire to learn more about this great man, I recommend Anthony Everitt’s biography, Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician.

Cicero had no idea about the conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar. I don’t recall if he was happy about Caesar being killed, but I suspect he knew it would lead to a great Civil War. The Second Triumvirate was formed and they ultimately defeated the assassins and Cato the Younger. But it was Cicero who denounced the Second Triumvirate in the Senate, not so much Octavian but Mark Anthony. For some reason he saw Mark Anthony as the real threat to the Republic. In his speeches he called out Mark Anthony specifically, calling him a brute, a low life, and a drunkard. Those speeches were published and sent out and Mark Anthony read them. When the Second Triumvirate won and marched into Rome and created that proscription list of families to be killed, Mark Anthony had Marcus Tullius Cicero at the top of his list. Actually from what I understand, Octavian tried to persuade Anthony not to include Cicero, since Cicero could be useful in giving credibility to the new leaders, but Anthony would have nothing of it. When the mob came to Cicero’s home, Cicero courageously came out to meet them, and they beheaded him. Mark Anthony would have Cicero’s hands and tongue cut out and pinned to the Forum wall because of the speeches and writings against him. And so, everything known about Cicero was virtuous, and St. Augustine in City of God acknowledges it.

So what about Julius Caesar? Since he brought down the Republic, shouldn’t he be considered a vile villain, following in the footsteps of Marius and Sulla? Actually he’s not. The empire became so successful that in retrospect Caesar comes across as having performed a great service. Caesar became the means of transitioning from a dysfunctional republic to a stable empire. This overthrow of the Republic came to be viewed as Caesar having his hands forced. Did he want to cross the Rubicon or was the Senate charge against him, a charge that might have been unfair and a charge that probably would have meant his life, something that he had no choice but to violate? From this point of view, which became the Roman historical point of view and which became the view throughout the Middle Ages, the Roman Republic collapsed because the Senate unfairly placed a death sentence on Julius Caesar’s head. It came to be seen that republics and democracies could not be governed. It was one thing to rule a city-state; it was another to govern a vast stretched land mass of a variety people. It came to be seen that one needed a strong central authority to govern the empire, and Julius Caesar was the man who had the vision and the persona to rule the vast Roman world.

And it turned out that Julius Caesar was not a tyrannical man. He spared his enemies. He did not have a proscription. It could be argued that his generosity led to his assassination, but he was typically (though not absolutely) generous in victory. He was also a genius. A brilliant politician, a brilliant general—perhaps the second greatest general in history after Alexander the Great – a fine writer and connoisseur of the arts and sciences, and a religious man. Perhaps this was the ideal man that would have made kingship work.

And this ideal would have a lasting legacy on the nature of governing. The Romans never returned back to a Republic. It was really never sincerely considered to my knowledge. The Princeps, meaning “the first man” or “first citizen,” the official title of the Emperor and the root of the word “prince,” had such a lasting legacy that almost all kingdoms were ruled by a king. Some city-states, such as Florence, would organize as a Republic, but those kingdoms were seen as dysfunctional, and perhaps they were. The Princeps or later King was associated with the gods and later in Christianity as having Divine Right. This was all a lasting legacy of Julius Caesar and his successor Octavian, later to rename himself Augustus Caesar, first emperor of Rome.

It was only with the American Revolution that the legacy of the Roman Republic was rehabilitated. It was only with the American and subsequent French Revolutions that aristocracy were seen as unjust. It was only in the aftermath of those revolutions that Julius Caesar has been seen as a tyrant. There are still, to my surprise, some Catholics who advocate a king as central authority, and representative of God on earth. Think of Christ’s title of “King” and how a true king is a civic representative of Christ on earth as a priest is a religious representative of Christ. Joseph Pearce for instance has defended the British monarchy, though he would prefer they be Roman Catholic.

I will probably have to give a short summary of Augustus and the centuries under the emperors to fully provide the context of St. Augustine’s scope of Roman history as it relates to God in City of God. That will be brief I think, but more on that later. I hope this has been helpful.