Vatican Conference on Non-Violence Rejects “Just War” Theory |Blogs | NCRegister.com

Vatican Conference on Non-Violence Rejects “Just War” Theory |Blogs | NCRegister.com

Vatican Conference on Non-Violence Rejects “Just War” Theory |Blogs | NCRegister.com

Vatican Conference on Non-Violence Rejects “Just War” Theory

by Kathy Schiffer 04/15/2016 Comments (32)

James William Glass, "Richard, Coeur De Lion, On His Way To Jerusalem" (c. 1850)

Pax Christi, the international Catholic organization that promotes peace, has called for the Vatican to end its support for "Just Wars" and to instead take up the mantra of "Just Peace." The group believes that "dropping bombs" doesn't do any good, and inflicts harm on innocent civilians. But in calling for an end to all wars, Pax Christi rejects Catholic social teaching dating back 1,700 years, to the time of St. Augustine.

Vatican Conference on Non-Violence

Pax Christi International, with the backing of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, has just concluded their three-day conference on non-violence, which brought together 80 theologians and peace activists from around the world. The conference drafted a statement which will be presented to Pope Francis by Cardinal Peter Turkson, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. The statement says, in part,

“Any war is a destruction and there is no justice in destruction of life, of property…so no spending of resources for the destruction of life.”

The statement calls on the Church to no longer use or teach "just war theory," which recognizes war as morally justifiable in certain circumstances. Conference participants believe that modern methods of warfare make "just war" an impossibility. Too often, they allege, the "just war theory" has been used to endorse, rather than to prevent or limit military action.

The "Just War" of St. Augustine

St. Augustine of Hippo lived in Africa from 354 to 430 A.D., and served as bishop of Hippo Regius, in what is now Algeria. Augustine was one of the first Christian theologians to defend the idea of "just war."

According to Augustine, individuals should not immediately resort to violence; but God has given the sword to government for good reason. The Bible, in Romans 13:4, says that government

"...is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer."

One could, according to Augustine, be a soldier and serve God honorably. In his Contra Faustum Manichaeum (book 22, sections 69-76), Augustine argues that Christians as part of government should not be ashamed to protect peace and punish wickedness.

Carrying that to its logical conclusion, Augustine taught that failure to act in the face of a grave wrong that could only be stopped by violence would be a grave sin. Defending oneself or one's family, or defending others who are under assault by an unjust attacker, can sometimes be a necessity, especially when authorized by a legitimate authority:

"They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill.'"

In his book City of God, Augustine contrasted the earthly and heavenly cities: one pagan, self-centered and contemptuous of God; and the other, devout, God-centered, and in search of grace. In The City of God, Augustine first used the phrase "just war":

"But, say they, the wise man will wage just wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars."

Thomas Aquinas Lays Out the Conditions for Just War

Nine hundred years after Augustine first wrote of the possibility of "just war," St. Thomas Aquinas built on the work of the earlier theologian to lay out the conditions under which a war could be just. He identified three guiding principles:

• Proper Authority.  A "just war" must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the State.
• Just Cause.  War must occur for a good and just purpose, rather than for self-gain. ("In the nation's interest" would not be a sufficient reason. Oil interests in the Middle East, for example, would not be a reason to employ the weapons of war.)
• Right Intention.  "The purpose of all wars," said St. Augustine, "is peace." And Aquinas understood that even in the midst of violence, the central motive must be peace. (Stopping attacks by ISIS would be an appropriate use of lethal force.)

Different Views Today

The statement released by the non-violence conference calls upon Pope Francis to write an encyclical on peace and non-violence, and calls on Catholic institutions to no longer use or teach Just War theory. It states:

“Clearly, the Word of God, the witness of Jesus, should never be used to justify violence, injustice or war. We confess the people of God have betrayed this central message of the Gospel many times, participating in wars, persecution, oppression, exploitation, and discrimination.”

But still today, the Catholic Church teaches that there are times when violence is appropriate. For example, police officers have the right to shoot and kill a criminal engaged in a crime, in order to protect the community. A father has the right to kill a home invader, in order to protect his family. And a nation has a right to defend its borders against incursion, or to defend another nation which is under assault--such as in World War II, when America joined the Allied Forces in war against Nazi Germany.

Pope Francis has called for the “abolition of war”; but he has also said that war is permissible to stop the "unjust aggressor" in the case of violence perpetrated by ISIS against peoples in Muslim nations and around the world. In 2015, the Vatican supported a United Nations resolution which called for international force to stop the Islamic State.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/kschiffer/vatican-conference-on-non-violence-rejects-just-war-theory/#ixzz47yzrUtKw
----
Comments

Posted by Sam Dean on Friday, Apr 29, 2016 12:09 PM (EDT):

Mrs. Schiffer’s article very early reveals her opinion on nonviolence. It’s sad to read these kinds of articles because they do little to advance understanding. The article also contains factual errors that lead to misunderstanding.

St. Augustine only supported violence at the behest of the state in certain limited instances. Personal self-defense was to be governed by the Sermon on the Mount. Personal self-defense would not become licit in the Church for another century and a half. The just war arguments offered by Augustine and his mentor Ambrose were from Cicero a first century BC pagan Roman political philosopher. 

She states that the conference “rejects Catholic social teaching dating back 1,700 years…”, but fails to admit to the record of that doctrine during those 1,700 years. Can anyone find an example of when the men of our Church refused to support their political leader’s war because it wasn’t just? Did the German Catholics refuse to fight for Hitler? Or Mussolini? Or Horthy? These were leaders of Axis powers who demanded and prosecuted an unjust war, yet we Catholics said yes. Without the Catholics the Axis powers cannot fight that war. We were 40% of Germany, 90% of Italy and high percentages of many of the other Axis powers. If we had been a “just war” Church, how many others would have said “no” too?

If you want to understand your Church’s Just War doctrine and what was discussed at the conference you will have to go elsewhere because Mrs. Schiffer diligently avoids both.

Posted by Manny on Tuesday, Apr 19, 2016 11:29 AM (EDT):

Let me add another comment.  In line with Professor who commented below and alluded to St. Francis of Assisi supporting the crusades, also St. Catherine of Siena supported the crusades.

The quote that comes to mind when I think on this is that attributed to Edmund Burke:

“The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing.”

Ultimately you have to trust in yourself with careful exploration of one’s conscience - a developed conscience, isn’t that what Pope Francis has alluded to in other endeavors? - that you are operating on the side of good.  Otherwise evil will certainly triumph and send civilization back to the dark ages, as they did once before.

Posted by John Fisher on Tuesday, Apr 19, 2016 12:16 AM (EDT):

“Traditional teaching that he has a right of self-defense, which might eventuate in the death of the invader?” Violence can only be proportionate to the threat. You can’t shoot a Japanese student who happens to walk up the driveway of the wrong house. It happens in the USA. The problem with the USA is you are violence and gun drenched… this is used to be violent and gun drenched polluting the world through TV drama and computer games. The USA has to fix up its own society and not hide behind a silly misinterpreted part of the Constitution. The Constitution did not fall from heaven. 

We all have a duty to defend ourselves and others from unjust aggressors. This is Western… but as you know in Islam women and children sit and play with men holding guns and hand grenades.  Or in Gaza they fire rockets from tents next to international hotels. People fight dirty and they should be called to justice.

Christian societies are not pacifist and God commands us to fight with justice and in an ethical way. There is a war coming.

All that was once true is now considered wrong to be superseded by that which was wrong. Not because it’s true but because that is how the thinking goes. All that is new is better… but in reality that which is new are old vices writ larger.

Posted by Eli McCarthy on Monday, Apr 18, 2016 11:20 PM (EDT):

Pope Francis actually said regarding ISIS, “I did not say bomb or make war,” and further “the door is always open” even to ISIS. The conference was primarily about deepening the understanding and commitment to Gospel nonviolence. Maintaining the “just war theory” has obstructed our imagination and will to commit to nonviolent practices. We wonder if the Church were to no longer use/teach it, whether that might help draw society closer to less violence sooner. Ultimately, the God that Jesus revealed to us and calls us to model is not consistent with “just war.”

Posted by John Fisher on Monday, Apr 18, 2016 9:53 PM (EDT):

The Crusades were a response to an invitation from the Byzantine Emperor to the Papacy and West asking for help in recovering and defending lands invaded by the Arabs. Do you recall Egypt was invaded by 10,000 Arabs soldiers and since them Christians have been persecuted and killed. The same in Syria, Persia, etc Christians were being attacked and killed on their way to Jerusalem and the Arab Moslem ruler had started to pull down the Church of the Holy Sepulchre from the dome inwards. The rules of war are not followed by Islam. I suggest you read abut this in a magazine called History Today that shows Moslems found more justice and stability under the Franks than their own rulers. Modern weapons are far more accurate than weapons 50 years ago. Unintentional killing of civilians is not a crime.

The Inquisition has been turned into the stuff of legend. The Secular rulers executes religious dissenters as matter of policy. The Church allowed Catholics who fell into heresy to repent. To compare this with what governments do lets look at the guillotine of atheist France after the Revolution. Lets compare Auschwitz or the Soviet Gulag. Lets think of Saudia Arabia where cranes are used to hang people. beheading occur and woman are stoned. Lets look at ISIS. Western society has always needed Christianising and perhaps more so now. How many millions have been butchered and are right now in the abortion factories of the “compassionate caring West”. Wake up!!!!!

Posted by Wally N on Monday, Apr 18, 2016 8:26 PM (EDT):

If the Catholic Church actually starts a war then I think it should be OK. If a nation goes to war against a non Christian entity, likewise, it should be supported. If both sides in a War are Catholics in good standing then the War is not about Christian moral issues and none of the Church’s concern. If the pope supports one side over the other, then the War is obviously warranted.

Posted by Dominic Dinovo on Monday, Apr 18, 2016 2:43 PM (EDT):

I appreciate the need to promote peace.  War is destructive and should be the last resort. I understand the value of non-violence in open societies such as the US during the Civil Rights Era. However, I don’t think that non-violence would work in closed albeit controlled societies such as North Korea, where a non-violent protester would simply disappear.  What I don’t understand, and perhaps someone can enlighten me on this, - If the Church adopts this proposal, how would the world ever be able to resist another threat such as Nazi Germany?  How about the more recent situation with ISIS?  I could be mistaken, but didn’t The Holy Father call on the West to use military force in this situation to protect Christians. The Church has long recognized the States solemn responsibility to defend its citizens and those of the innocent who cannot protect themselves.  This goes against that fundamental principle and could lead to more death and destruction by nations and organizations that do not abide by this pacifist proposal. Please tell me where my thought process is wrong. I am a seeker of truth.  Thank you.

Posted by Professor on Monday, Apr 18, 2016 12:09 PM (EDT):

Loving, sweet and kindly St. Francis of Assisi justified the Crusades in his discourses. I have to abide by the words of multiple saints over the conference delegates. I truly think the conference delegates are saying this through the perspective of the modern aggressive state and not actually contemplating the ‘just war’.  Viewed through the military buildups of the USA, USSR and China (among others) the meddling in soveriegn affairs, etc. So I see they are reacting to our contemporary war-like nature and not trying to understand that there are times when , to quote Christ, ‘I do not come to bring peace, but the sword.’ The issue isnt whether or not war is ever right. But rather under what conditions can a ‘just war’ exist. I assume if we abided by the words of the saints, war would be truly rare. But never forget that secular nation states have gotten us into a world of perpetual war at all level and across all intensity levels.

Posted by Andy on Monday, Apr 18, 2016 9:13 AM (EDT):

Pax Christi is just another left wing, socialist organization emboldened by Pope Francis.

Posted by Fr. Basil Cole, OP on Monday, Apr 18, 2016 8:21 AM (EDT):

The teaching on the “just war” is also applicable to an “unjust war” when the conditions are not in place. The Catechism has gone beyond St. Augustine and St. Thomas. yet not denying their thought but finding other conditions necessary for this “last of all options to defend a nation.” It might have been easier to justify a war in the middle ages not today but the skeleton of the “theory” remains as part of a justification or a non-justification.

Posted by Manny on Monday, Apr 18, 2016 7:13 AM (EDT):

No just war?  Sounds like we’re going back to an age where Vikings had free rein to sack, murder, and destroy monasteries and the accompanying countryside.  If a people and a nation cannot defend itself and stop aggression, then you will have the demise of Christianity.  Or more likely, governments who instinctively ignore the Vatican.  This is idiocy.

Posted by Maggie McT on Sunday, Apr 17, 2016 6:24 PM (EDT):

I heard about this, and as soon as I read that it was Pax Christi, I understood the message. The problem is that war will happen; we are fallen people. I get that war is a much more difficult to justify because of the weapons. That means we need to think and pray HARDER about how we are to conduct ourselves when facing unjust aggression.

Posted by Dominick on Sunday, Apr 17, 2016 1:15 PM (EDT):

@RS:

I submit that sword-and-spear armies easily became weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations when they got hungry.  The same industrialism that makes possible large scale munitions also makes possible freeze-dried and canned foodstuffs—- eliminating the in modern armies the ages-old need to go a-foraging.  Perhaps the evils of modern warfare you describe simply represent a transfer, from logistics to weaponry, of the vehicle for civilian terror.  Such terror would have been well known in the days of Sts Augustine and Thomas.

Posted by Michael on Sunday, Apr 17, 2016 12:19 PM (EDT):

In Pax Christi’s heretical moral universe, a soldier and an armed police officer is in the same category as an abortionist, and the Church has no more business to assign chaplains to the armed forces than to Planned Parenthood. What would they do to stop the horrendous atrocities committed by ISIS? Absolutely nothing. Non-Muslims have to accept death as the lesser evil than the establishment of the blasphemy of Islam, because the use of lethal force to resist the jihadists is murder.

Posted by Matthew G. Hysell on Sunday, Apr 17, 2016 11:24 AM (EDT):

How disingenuous of Pax Christi, whose theological acumen is on par with Dom Delouise’s on exercise and weight loss.

Of course, this is to be expected from the likes of Gumbleton, et al.

Posted by BHG on Sunday, Apr 17, 2016 8:22 AM (EDT):

The Church permits self defense. It does not demand it.

Posted by Mary from Maryland on Sunday, Apr 17, 2016 7:40 AM (EDT):

  One cannot sit by idly while innocent people are being slaughtered.  If not for the original Crusades, Europe would be under Sharia law and Christianity would be obliterated in most of the world. One cannot reason or compromise with evil—evil must be destroyed.  Should we have also stayed on the side lines and watched as Hitler marched through Europe and Africa and as huge numbers of Jews and others were marched to the gas chambers?  I agree that war should be a last resort, but we will never be able to eliminate the need for wars as long as evil exists in the world and in men’s hearts.

Posted by John Fisher on Sunday, Apr 17, 2016 7:06 AM (EDT):

This is false idea. We all have a duty to defend the innocent, to protect ourselves our family and our neighbor. St Augustine was correct and there is a war coming in Europe and anywhere Islam is. The war is not of our making but Islam’s for it is in its very constitution as a sect to attack and subdue non Moslems.

Posted by James on Saturday, Apr 16, 2016 5:54 PM (EDT):

This crew gets the credence of the Vatican?

Employing the counter-intuitive model I can only hope this initiative is successful in order that it might definitively expose the insanity at the highest levels of the episcopate.

We are drowning in madness.

Posted by Toni Vercillo on Saturday, Apr 16, 2016 5:17 PM (EDT):

The last two paragraphs are the only ones worth taking the time to read.

Posted by Craig on Saturday, Apr 16, 2016 4:23 PM (EDT):

Surrendering others to genocide and tyranny so one can maintain their “non-violence” purity is not compassionate, loving or Christian.  Indeed, it is absurd and shameful.

Posted by Dominick on Saturday, Apr 16, 2016 4:02 PM (EDT):

I have trouble seeing pacifism in the Man who taught that some people ought to be drowned in the sea, knocked over tables and whipped people, and approved of two of his disciples packing heat while admonishing the others to do the same. And while it may not be theologically precise to say that Christ struck down Ananias and Sapphira, He presumably had something to do with it.

Posted by RS on Saturday, Apr 16, 2016 2:33 PM (EDT):

To be entirely fair, it was Cardinal Ratzinger (shortly before he was Pope Benedict) who said in 2003, “[G]iven the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’ ”

One thinks of the drone strikes, off-shore bombardment and bombing runs used in modern war. Or the landmines, tank rounds and helicopter miniguns. Napalm strikes. Nuclear weapons. The list goes on. Just war’s theoretical legitimacy isn’t the real question here. The real question is, as Ratzinger put it: is it possible for a just war to be conducted TODAY, with weapons built to inflict collateral damage?

Augustine and Aquinas were judging the legitimacy of hand-to-hand sword combat, bows and arrows, cavalry charges and the rest. In this kind of combat, just war principles can be observed much more easily. Whether they can be observed now is an open question.

Posted by Donald Link on Saturday, Apr 16, 2016 1:54 PM (EDT):

Just another group of self absorbed heretics, not dissimilar to those that have cropped up over the last two millennia and deserving of no more consideration.

Posted by SouthCoast on Saturday, Apr 16, 2016 1:23 PM (EDT):

Lucia, if you can read this response, thank a Crusader.

Posted by Adam on Saturday, Apr 16, 2016 1:03 PM (EDT):

You MAY want to change the title, because it makes it seem like the Vatican is no longer teaching the Just war theory (which is false). In fact, Pope Francis used this very doctrine as a reason we can morally take up arms against Islamic extremists.

Posted by Jordan Miller on Saturday, Apr 16, 2016 12:03 PM (EDT):

No just war?  So God was unjust, then, in not only allowing the Israelites to wage war in Canaan, but also actively helping them to win?  God is equally unjust, then, in helping David to be victorious in his various wars? 

And it is also unjust to take up arms in defense of one’s own family if viciously attacked?  If a village or city is raided by men who intend to rape and kill the inhabitants (which is reality in many places on Earth right now, not just a theoretical example; just ask those in the path of Boko Haram), it is unjust for the people of the village/city to try to defend themselves, even by violence if there is no diplomatic option?

If there is no just war, God himself is guilty of waging unjust war.  That alone is enough to reject this.  Certainly the application of just war doctrine should be extremely strict; war is always a tragedy, there is no beauty in it, only death.  But sometimes, in defense only, it has to be waged.  Freely giving one’s own life as a martyr is not the same thing as standing by while those who cannot defend themselves are killed.

There is a general climate right now, encouraged from the top down, of calling into question everything, of re-evaluating everything.  Doctrine does develop over time; Newman lays out the classic argument for what constitutes true development, and what constitutes false development.

Posted by Matthew on Saturday, Apr 16, 2016 10:18 AM (EDT):

Does a father have a “right to kill” a home invader? Isn’t the traditional teaching that he has a right of self-defense, which might eventuate in the death of the invader?  This might seem like quibbling, but moral theologians have spent a great deal of time talking about the “principle of double effect.”

Posted by Froilan on Friday, Apr 15, 2016 4:17 PM (EDT):

Here’s an idea… let’s keep the timeless teaching of the Catholic Church intact and stop trying to tear the walls down.  Just a thought.

Posted by SouthCoast on Friday, Apr 15, 2016 3:42 PM (EDT):

“But in calling for an end to all wars, Pax Christi rejects Catholic social teaching dating back 1,700 years, to the time of St. Augustine.” End of argument. (Further, it should be noted that, in Luke 3:14, when the two soldiers ask the Lord “what shall we do?” He did not tell them to cease being soldiers, merely not to oppress the people and be content with their pay.)

Posted by Seeker of God's Truth on Friday, Apr 15, 2016 3:32 PM (EDT):

The partial statement from the Pontifical Council did not provide their solution to deal with an unjust aggressor or attacker.  Do they even have one?  What would they do to stop the horrendous atrocities committed by ISIS?  Do they want to stand in the front lines of those innocents being hunted down, persecuted and ruthlessly slaughtered to convince ISIS to do otherwise?  If so, let us all know how that works out for you.

Posted by Lucia on Friday, Apr 15, 2016 3:12 PM (EDT):

How do you account for the Crusades and the Inquisition?

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/kschiffer/vatican-conference-on-non-violence-rejects-just-war-theory/#ixzz47z0KZiQG

Augustine: Political and Social Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Augustine: Political and Social Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Augustine: Political and Social Philosophy

St. Augustine (354-430 C.E.), originally named Aurelius Augustinus, was the Catholic bishop of Hippo in northern Africa.  He was a skilled Roman-trained rhetorician, a prolific writer (who produced more than 110 works over a 30-year period), and by wide acclamation, the first Christian philosopher.  Writing from a unique background and vantage point as a keen observer of society before the fall of the Roman Empire, Augustine’s views on political and social philosophy constitute an important intellectual bridge between late antiquity and the emerging medieval world.  Because of the scope and quantity of his work, many scholars consider him to have been the most influential Western philosopher.

Although Augustine certainly would not have thought of himself as a political or social philosopher per se, the record of his thoughts on such themes as the nature of human society, justice, the nature and role of the state, the relationship between church and state, just and unjust war, and peace all have played their part in the shaping of Western civilization. There is much in his work that anticipates major themes in the writings of moderns like Machiavelli, Luther, Calvin and, in particular, Hobbes.
----

Table of Contents

Background
Historical Context
Augustinian Political “Theory”
The Augustinian World View
Foundational Political and Social Concepts
Two Cities
Justice and the State
Church and State
War and Peace
War Among Nations
War and Human Nature
The Just War
Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello
Augustine’s Conception of Peace
Conclusion
References and Further Reading
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
----
1. Background

a. Historical Context


Augustine’s political and social views flow directly from his theology.  The historical context is essential to understanding his purposes.  Augustine, more than any other figure of late antiquity, stands at the intellectual intersection of Christianity, philosophy, and politics.  As a Christian cleric, he takes it as his task to defend his flock against the unremitting assault by heresies spawned in an era uninformed by the immediate, divine revelations which had characterized the apostolic age. As a philosopher, he situates his arguments against the backdrop of Greek philosophy in the Platonic tradition, particularly as formulated by the Neo-Platonists of Alexandria.  As a prominent Roman citizen, he understands the Roman Empire to be the divinely-ordained medium through which the truths of Christianity are to be both spread and safeguarded.

Augustine died reciting the Penitential Psalms as the Vandals besieged the city of Hippo on the coast of northern Africa (now the city of Annaba, in Algeria). This occurred two decades after the sacking of Rome by Alaric.

b. Augustinian Political “Theory”

Augustine’s willingness to grapple with substantive political and social issues does not mean, however, that the presentation of his ideas comes pre-packaged as a simple system—or even as a system at all.  Quite the contrary, his political arguments are scattered throughout his voluminous writings, which include autobiography, sermons, expositions, commentaries, letters, and Christian apologetics.  Moreover, the contexts in which the political and social issues are addressed are equally varied.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to suggest that his arguments are not informed by a cogent theory.  Taken together, his political and social musings constitute a remarkable tapestry.  Indeed, the consistency evident in the expression of his varied but related ideas leads both fairly and directly to the assumption that Augustine’s political-philosophical statements arise from a consistent set of premises which guide him to his conclusions; in other words, they reveal the presence of an underlying, if unstated, theory.

c. The Augustinian World View


Because Augustine considers the Christian scriptures to constitute the touchstone against which philosophy—including political philosophy—must be assayed, his world view necessarily includes the Christian tenets of the Creation, the Fall of man, and the Redemption.  In stark contrast to the pagan philosophers who preceded him—who viewed the unfolding of history as a cyclical phenomenon, Augustine conceives history in strictly linear terms, with a beginning and an end.  According to Augustine, the earth was brought into existence ex nihilo by a perfectly good and just God, who created man. The earth is not eternal; the earth, as well as time, has both a beginning and an end.

Man, on the other hand, was brought into existence to endure eternally. Damnation is the just desert of all men because of the Fall of Adam, who, having been created with free will, chose to disrupt the perfectly good order established by God. As the result of Adam’s Fall, all human beings are heirs to the effects of Adam’s original sin, and all are vessels of pride, avarice, greed and self-interest.  For reasons known only to God, He has predestined some fixed number of men for salvation (as a display of His unmerited mercy—a purely gratuitous act altogether independent even of God’s foreknowledge of any good deeds those men might do while on earth), while most He has predestined for damnation as a just consequence of the Fall. The onward march of human history, then, constitutes the unfolding of the divine plan which will culminate in one or the other outcome for every member of the human family.

Within this framework of political and legal systems, the state is a divinely ordained punishment for fallen man, with its armies, its power to command, coerce, punish, and even put to death, as well as its institutions such as slavery and private property. God shapes the ultimate ends of man’s existence through it.  The state simultaneously serves the divine purposes of chastening the wicked and refining the righteous.  Also simultaneously, the state constitutes a sort of remedy for the effects of the Fall, in that it serves to maintain such modicum of peace and order as it is possible for fallen man to enjoy in the present world.

While it is not clear that God predestines every event during man’s sojourn on earth, nothing happens in contravention of His designs. In any case, predestination fixes the ultimate destination of every human being—as well as the political states to which they belong.  Hence, predestination for Augustine is the proverbial elephant in the room. Whether predestination was divinely contemplated prior or incidental to the Fall (a point which Augustine never clearly articulates), the following problem arises:  If one is to be saved or damned by divine fiat, what difference does it make whether the world possesses the social order of a state?  For those who are predestined for damnation, what is the point of their being “chastened” (or a means to encourage their reformation) by the state?  For those predestined for salvation, what is the point of their being refined by the vicissitudes of life in a political state?  In order to prevent the collapse of such a systematic account of the human condition as Augustine provides, the question simply must be set aside as a matter unknowable to finite man.  However, this means that the best Augustine can hope to accomplish is to provide a description of political life on earth, but not a prescription for how to obtain membership in the perfect society of heaven; for, even strict obedience to Christian precepts will not compensate for one’s not being gratuitously elected for salvation.

As the social fabric of the world around him unravels in the twilight years of the Roman Empire, Augustine attempts to elucidate the relationship between the eternal, invisible verities of his faith and the stark realities of the present, observable political and social conditions of humanity.  At the intersection of these two concerns, Augustine finds what for him is the central question of politics:  How do the faithful operate successfully but justly in an unjust world, , where selfish interests dominate, where the general welfare is rarely sought, and where good and evil men are inextricably (and, to human eyes, often unidentifiably) intermingled, yet search for a heavenly reward in the world hereafter?

2. Foundational Political and Social Concepts

a. Two Cities

Even though those elected for salvation and those elected for damnation are thoroughly intermingled, the distinction arising from their respective destinies gives rise to two classes of persons, to whom Augustine refers collectively and allegorically as cities—the City of God and the earthly city.  Citizens of the earthly city are the unregenerate progeny of Adam and Eve, who are justifiably damned because of Adam’s Fall.  These persons, according to Augustine, are aliens to God’s love (not because God refuses to love them, but because they refuse to love God as evidenced by their rebellious disposition inherited from the Fall).  Indeed, the object of their love—whatever it may be—is something other than God.  In particular, citizens of the “earthly city” are distinguished by their lust for material goods and for domination over others.  On the other hand, citizens of the City of God are “pilgrims and foreigners” who (because God, the object of their love, is not immediately available for their present enjoyment) are very much out of place in a world without an earthly institution sufficiently similar to the City of God.  No political state, nor even the institutional church, can be equated with the City of God.  Moreover, there is no such thing as “dual citizenship” in the two cities; every member of the human family belongs to one—and only one.

b. Justice and the State

The Augustinian notion of justice includes what by his day was a well-established definition of justice of “giving every man his due.”  However, Augustine grounds his application of the definition in distinctively Christian philosophical commitments:  “justice,” says Augustine, “is love serving God only, and therefore ruling well all else.”  Accordingly, justice becomes the crucial distinction between ideal political states (none of which actually exist on earth) and non-ideal political states—the status of every political state on earth.  For example, the Roman Empire could not be synonymous with the City of God precisely because it lacked true justice as defined above; and since, “where there is no justice there is no commonwealth,” Rome could not truly be a commonwealth, that is, an ideal state.  “Remove justice,” Augustine asks rhetorically, “and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale?  What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms?”  No earthly state can claim to possess true justice, but only some relative justice by which one state is more just than another.  Likewise, the legitimacy of any earthly political regime can be understood only in relative terms:  The emperor and the pirate have equally legitimate domains if they are equally just.

Nevertheless, political states, imperfect as they are,  serve a divine purpose.  At the very least, they serve as vehicles for maintaining order and for preventing what Hobbes will later call the “war of all against all.”  In that respect, the state is a divine gift and an expression of divine mercy—especially if the state is righteously ruled.  The state maintains order by keeping wicked men in check through the fear of punishment.  Although God will eventually punish the sins of all those elected for damnation, He uses the state to levy more immediate punishments against both the damned and the saved (or against the wicked and the righteous, the former dichotomy not necessarily synonymous with the latter).  Rulers, as God’s ministers, punish the guilty and always are justified in punishing sins “against nature,” and circumstantially justified in punishing sins “against custom” or “against the laws.” The latter two categories of sins change from time to time.  In this regard, the institution of the state marks a relative return to order from the chaos of the Fall.  Rulers have the right to establish any law that does not conflict with the law of God. Citizens have the duty to obey their political leaders regardless of whether the leader is wicked or righteous.  There is no right of civil disobedience.  Citizens are always duty bound to obey God; and when the imperatives of obedience to God and obedience to civil authority conflict, citizens must choose to obey God and willingly accept the punishment of disobedience. Nevertheless, those empowered to levy punishment should take no delight in the task.  For example, the prayer of the judge who condemns a man to death should be, as Augustine’s urges, “From my necessities [of imposing judgment to a person] deliver thou me.”

c. Church and State

Even though the ostensible reason for the state’s divinely appointed existence is to assist and bless humankind, there is no just state, says Augustine, because men reject the thing that best could bring justice to an imperfect world, namely, the teachings of Christ.  Augustine does not suggest that current rejection of Christ’s teachings means that all hope for future amendment and reformation is lost.  However, Augustine’s whole tenor is that there is no reason to expect that the political jurisdictions of this world ever will be anything different than what they now are, if the past is any predictor of the future.  Hence, Augustine concludes that

Christ’s servants, whether they are kings, or princes, or judges, or soldiers . . . are bidden, if need be, to endure the wickedness of an utterly corrupt state, and by that endurance to win for themselves a place of glory . . . in the Heavenly Commonwealth, whose law is the will of God.

Augustine clearly holds that the establishment and success of the Roman Empire, along with its embracing of Christianity as its official religion, was part of the divine plan of the true God.  Indeed, he holds that the influence of Christianity upon the empire could be only salutary in its effect:

Were our religion listened to as it deserves,” says Augustine, “it would establish, consecrate, strengthen, and enlarge the commonwealth in a way beyond all that Romulus, Numa, Brutus, and all the other men of renown in Roman history achieved.

Still, while Augustine doubtless holds that it is better for Rome to be Christian than not, he clearly recognizes that officially embracing Christianity does not automatically transform an earthly state into the City of God.  Indeed, he regards Rome as “a kind of second Babylon.”  Even if the Roman Emperor and the Roman Pontiff were one and the same—even if the structures of state and church merged so as to become institutionally the same—they would not thereby become the City of God, because citizenship in the City of God is determined at the individual and not the institutional level.

Augustine does not wish ill for Rome.  Quite the contrary, he supplicates God for Rome’s welfare,  since he belongs to it, in temporal terms at least.  He sees Rome as the last bastion against the advances of the pagan barbarians, who surely must not be allowed to overrun the mortal embodiment of Christendom that Rome represents.  Nevertheless, Augustine cannot be overly optimistic about the future of the Roman state as such—not because it is Rome, but because it is a state; for any society of men other than the City of God is part and parcel of the earthly city, which is doomed to inevitable demise.  Even so, states like Rome can perform the useful purpose of championing the cause of the Church, protecting it from assault and compelling those who have fallen away from fellowship with it to return to the fold.  Indeed, it is entirely within the provinces of the state to punish heretics and schismatics.

3. War and Peace

a. War Among Nations

Inasmuch as the history of human society is largely the history of warfare, it seems quite natural for Augustine to explain war as being within God’s unfolding plan for human history.  As Augustine states, “It rests with the decision of God in his just judgment and mercy either to afflict or console mankind, so that some wars come to an end more speedily, others more slowly.”

Wars serve the function of putting mankind on notice, as it were, of the value of consistently righteous living.  Although one might feel to call upon Augustine to defend the notion that God can, with propriety, use so terrible a vehicle as war to chasten the wicked, two points must be kept in mind:  The first point is that, for Augustine, all of God’s acts are just, by definition, even if the application of that definition to specific cases of the human experience eludes human reasoning.             This point invites a somewhat more philosophically intriguing question:  Is it just to compel men to do good who, when left to their own devices, would prefer evil?  If one were forced to act righteously contrary to his or her will, is it not the case that he or she would still lack the change of heart that is necessary to produce a repentant attitude—an attitude that results in genuine reformation?  Perhaps; but Augustine is unwilling to concede that it is better, in the name of recognizing the agency of others, to let them continue to wallow in evil practices.  Augustine argues,

The aim towards which a good will compassionately devotes its efforts is to secure that a bad will be rightly directed.  For who does not know that a man is not condemned on any other ground than because his bad will deserved it, and that no man is saved who has not a good will?

Exactly how God is to bring about his good purposes through the process of war may not be clear to man in any particular case.  Any who acquire a glimpse of understanding as to why the divine economy operates as it does truly possess a good will and shall not hesitate to administer to those erring, according to God’s direction, the punitive discipline that war is intended to bring.  Moreover, those of good will shall administer discipline to those erring by moving them toward repentance and reformation.

All of this leads conveniently to a second point: War can bring the need to discipline by chastening. Those of good will do not manifest cruelty in the proper administration of punishment but, rather, in the withholding of punishment.  “It does not follow,” Augustine states, “that those who are loved should be cruelly left to yield themselves with impunity to their bad will; but in so far as power is given, they ought to be both prevented from evil and compelled to good.”  What if, however, the violence of war serves only to subdue the wrongdoings of the wicked but fails to produce the change of heart that would characterize the transition from a bad to a good will—much like the case of the criminal who is sentenced to prison but who feels no remorse for his or her actions and, given his or her freedom, would all too readily repeat the crime?  For Augustine, it is always better to restrain an evil man from the commission of evil acts than it is to permit his continued perpetration of those acts.  As for the evil but unrepentant man, it would seem that he will have failed to reap the intended benefit of God’s chastening, which, reckoned by any measure, is a great tragedy indeed.

For Augustine, even the death of the mortal body, as ultimate a penalty as it might appear from the mortal perspective, is not nearly so serious a consequence as that which would ensue if one is left to wallow in sin: “But great and holy men, although they at the time knew excellently well that that death which separates the soul from the body is not to be dreaded, yet, in accordance with the sentiment of those who might fear it, punished some sins with death, both because the living were struck with a salutary fear, and because it was not death itself that would injure those who were being punished with death, but sin, which might be increased if they continued to live.”

Writing after the time when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, Augustine holds that there is no prohibition against a Christian serving the state as a soldier in its army.  Neither is there any prohibition against taking the lives of the enemies of the state, so long as he does it in his public capacity as a soldier and not in the private capacity of a murderer.  Nevertheless, Augustine also urges that soldiers should go to war mournfully and never take delight in the shedding of blood.

b. War and Human Nature


If, however, the presence of war serves as a defining characteristic of the earthly city, why does Augustine not pursue the course taken by some of the Latin Patristic writers who precede him by labeling war and military service as merely a “worldly” institution in which true Christians have no place.  The answer seems to lie in Augustine’s world view, which differs from that of many of his predecessors in terms of his optimism for man to comprehend the ultimate verities, live in an orderly manner and find his way back to God.  He becomes quite pessimistic though in his view of human nature and of the ability and desire of humans to maintain themselves orderly, much less rightly.  Pride, vanity and the lust for domination entice men toward waging wars and committing all manner of violence, because of men’s tendency to do evil as the result of Adam’s Fall.  Augustine holds that, given the inextricable mixing of citizens of the two cities, the total avoidance of war or its effects is a practical impossibility for all men, including the righteous.  Happily, he holds that the day will come when, coincident with the end of the earthly city, wars will no longer be fought.  For, says Augustine, citing words from the Psalms to the effect that God will one day bring a cessation of all wars,

This not yet see we fulfilled:  yet are there wars, wars among nations for sovereignty; among sects, among Jews, Pagans, Christians, heretics, are wars, frequent wars, some for the truth, some for falsehood contending.  Not yet then is this fulfilled, ‘He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth;’ but haply it shall be fulfilled.

For the present, however, man—particularly Christian man—is left with the question of how to live in a world full of war.

c. The Just War

As the Roman Empire collapses around him, Augustine confronted the question of what justifies warfare for a Christian.  On the one hand, the wicked are not particularly concerned about just wars.  On the other hand, the righteous vainly hope to avoid being affected by wars in this life,   and at best they can hope for just wars rather than unjust ones.

This is by no means a perfect solution; but then again, this is not a perfect world.  If it were, all talk of just wars would be altogether nonsensical. Perfect solutions characterize only the heavenly City of God. Its pilgrim citizens sojourning on earth can do no better than try to cope with the present difficulties and imperfections of the earthly life.  Thus, for Augustine, the just war is a coping mechanism for use by the righteous who aspire to citizenship in the City of God.  In terms of the traditional notion of jus ad bellum (justice of war, that is, the circumstances in which wars can be justly fought), war is a coping mechanism for righteous sovereigns who would ensure that their violent international encounters are minimal, a reflection of the Divine Will to the greatest extent possible, and always justified.  In terms of the traditional notion of jus in bello (justice in war, or the moral considerations which ought to constrain the use of violence in war), war is a coping mechanism for righteous combatants who, by divine edict, have no choice but to subject themselves to their political masters and seek to ensure that they execute their war-fighting duty as justly as possible. Sometimes that duty might arise in the most trying of circumstances, or under the most wicked of regimes; for

Christ’s servants, whether they are kings, or princes, or judges, or soldiers, or provincials, whether rich or poor, freemen or slaves, men or women, are bidden, if need be, to endure the wickedness of an utterly corrupt state, and by that endurance to win for themselves a place of glory

hereafter in the heavenly City of God.

In sum, why would a man like Augustine, whose eye is fixed upon attainment of citizenship in the heavenly city, find it necessary to delineate what counts as a just war in this lost and fallen world?  In general terms, the demands of moral life are so thoroughly interwoven with social life that the individual cannot be separated from citizenship in one or the other city.  In more specific terms, the just man who walks by faith needs to understand how to cope with the injustices and contradictions of war as much as he needs to understand how to cope with all other aspects of the present world where he is a stranger and pilgrim.  Augustine takes important cues from both Cicero and Ambrose and synthesizes their traditions into a Christianized world view that still retains strong ties to the pre-Christian philosophic past.  

He resolves the dilemma of just war and pacifist considerations by denying the dilemma: war is simply a part of the human experience that God Himself has ordained or permitted.  War arises from, and stands as a clear manifestation of, the nature of fallen man.  For adherents to nominal Christianity, the explanatory power of Augustine’s thoughts on just war is substantial; his approach enables Christians to understand just war as a coping mechanism for just men who are trying to get along as morally (if not as piously) as they can in an imperfect world.

However, since Augustine seeks to resolve the nature of his ethical tensions, the synthetic character of Augustine’s approach to war is important, not merely for adherents to Christianity, but also for others seeking a strictly rational account of the problem.  For example, if one were to take a de-theologized view of Augustine’s approach and focus simply upon the general theoretical problem of the morality of war, Augustine’s attempt fully deserves serious philosophical consideration. His approach explains how a morally upright citizen of a relatively just state could be justified in pursuing warfare, in prosecuting war, and ultimately, although unhappily, in taking human life.  In any case, Augustine’s just war theory arises from his most deeply rooted philosophical assumptions.  Augustine as a Christian philosopher achieves a full synthesis of the Roman and Christian values associated with war in a way that legitimizes war as an instrument of national policy which, although inferior to the perfect ideals of Christianity, is one which Christians cannot altogether avoid and with which they must in some sense make their peace.

d. Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello
Traditionally, the philosophical treatment of the just war is divided into two categories:  jus in bellum and jus in bello.  The former describes the necessary (and, by some accounts, sufficient) conditions for justifying engagement in war.  The latter describes the necessary conditions for conducting war in a just manner.


Augustine’s jus ad bellum prescripts enjoin that wars can be initiated justly only on the basis of:

1.  a just cause, such as to defend the state from external invasion; to defend the safety or honor of the state, with the realization that their simultaneous defense might be impossible; to avenge injuries; to punish a nation for failure to take corrective action for wrongs (legal or moral ) committed by its citizens; to come to the defense of allies; to gain the return of something that was wrongfully taken; or to obey a divine command to go to war (which, in practice, issues from the political head of state acting as God’s lieutenant on earth); and in any case, the just cause must be at least more just than the cause of one’s enemies;

2.  a rightly intended will, which has the restoration of peace as its prime objective, takes no delight in the wickedness of potential adversaries, views waging war as a stern necessity, tolerates no action calculated to provoke a war, and does not seek to conquer others merely for conquest’s sake or for territorial expansion; and

3. a declaration of war by a competent authority, and except in the most unusual of circumstances, in a public manner, and only as a last resort.

Concerning jus in bello, Augustine holds that wars, once begun, must be fought in a manner which:

1. represents a proportional response to the wrong to be avenged, with violence being constrained within the limits of military necessity;

2. discriminates between proper objects of violence (that is, combatants) and noncombatants, such as women, children, the elderly, the clergy, and so forth.; and

3. observes good faith in its interactions with the enemy, by scrupulously observing treaties and not prosecuting the war in a treacherous manner.

e. Augustine’s Conception of Peace


Both Augustine’s political world view and his approach to war incorporate his conception of peace.  According to Augustine, God designed all humans to live together in the “bond of peace.” However, fallen man lives in society  as according to the divine will or as opposing it.  Augustine distinguishes the two cities in several important ways, as well as the kind of peace they seek:

There is, in fact, one city of men who choose to live by the standard of the flesh, another of those who choose to live by the standard of the spirit.  The citizens of each of these desire their own kind of peace, and when they achieve their aim, that is the kind of peace in which they live.

Because the common choice of fallen man is a peace of his own liking—one that selfishly serves his own immediate or foreseeable ends, peace becomes, in practice, merely an interlude between ongoing states of war.  Augustine is quick to point out that this life carries with it no guarantee of peace; that blessed state is reserved for the saved in heaven.

Augustine delineates three kinds of peace:  the ultimate and perfect peace which exists exclusively in the City of God, the interior peace enjoyed by the pilgrim citizens of the City of God as they sojourn on earth, and the peace which is common to the two cities. Sadly, Augustine is abundantly clear that temporal peace is rather an anomalous condition in the totality of human history and that perfect peace is altogether unattainable on earth:

Such is the instability of human affairs that no people has ever been allowed such a degree of tranquility as to remove all dread of hostile attacks on their dwelling in this world.  That place, then, which is promised as a dwelling of such peace and security is eternal, and is reserved for eternal beings.

However, Augustine insists that, by any estimation, it is in the best interest of everyone—saint or sinner—to try to keep the peace here and now; and indeed, establishing and maintaining an earthly peace is as fundamental to the responsibilities of the state as protecting the state in times of war.

As for the church’s quest for peace, he writes, “it seems to me that no limit can be set to the number of persecutions which the Church is bound to suffer for her training;” and he opines that persecutions will continue until the final scenes of the current state of human history incidental to the second coming of Christ. Interestingly, Augustine gives no suggestion whatsoever that the rest of the earth will be at peace while this violence against the church continues.  On the contrary, the entire tenor of his argument suggests that anti-Christian violence is merely typical of the violence and disorder that will accompany the human experience until the second coming of Christ.

While men do not agree on which kind of peace to seek, all agree that peace in some form is the end they desire to achieve.  Even in war, all parties involved desire—and fight to obtain—some kind of peace.  Ironically, although peace is the end toward which wars are fought, war seems to be the more enduring, more characteristic of the two states in the human experience. War is the natural (albeit lamentable) state in which fallen man finds himself.  The flesh and the spirit of man—although both are good—are in perpetual opposition:

But what in fact, do we achieve, when we desire to be made perfect by the Highest Good?  It can, surely, only be a situation where the desires of the flesh do not oppose the spirit, and where there is in us no vice for the spirit to oppose with its desires.  Now we cannot achieve this in our present life, for all our wishing. But we can at least, with God’s help, see to it that we do not give way to the desires of the flesh which oppose the spirit to be overcome, and that we are not dragged to the perpetration of sin with our own consent.

Augustine concludes that war among men and nations cannot be avoided altogether because it is simply characteristic of the present existence.  The contention that typifies war is merely the social counterpart to the spirit-body tension that typifies every individual person.  However, man can, through the general application of divine precepts contained in scripture and through the pursuit of virtue as dictated by reason, manage that tension both on the individual and societal levels in such a way as to obtain a transitory peace.  War and peace are two sides of the same Augustinian coin.  Owing to the injustice that is inherent in the mortal state, the former is presently unavoidable, and the latter, in its perfect manifestation, is presently unattainable.

4. Conclusion

In sum, the state is an institution imposed upon fallen man for his temporal benefit, even if the majority of men will not ultimately benefit from it in light of their predestination to damnation.  However, if one can successfully set aside Augustine’s doctrine of predestination, one finds in his writings an enormously valuable descriptive account of the psychology of fallen man, which can take the reader a very great distance toward understanding social interactions among men and nations.  Although the doctrine of predestination is indispensable for understanding Augustine’s theology, its prominence does not preclude one from reaping value from his appraisal of the state of man and his political and social relationships in the fallen “earthly city,” to which all either belong or with which they have unavoidable contact.

5. References and Further Reading

All the primary sources are readily available in English.

a. Primary Sources

Augustine.  City of God [De civitate Dei]. Translated by Marcus Dods, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Philip Schaff.  First Series.  Vol. II. Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956.
Augustine.  On Christian Doctrine [De doctrina christiana]. Translated by J. F. Shaw, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Philip Schaff.  First Series.  Vol. II. Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956.
Augustine.  On Free Choice of the Will [De libero arbitrio libri III].  Translated by Anna S. Benjamin and L. H. Hackstaff.  New York:  Macmillan Publishing Company, 1964.
Augustine.  Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount [De Sermone Domini in Monte secundum Matthaeum]. Translated by William Findlay, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Philip Schaff.  First Series.  Vol. VI. Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956.

b. Secondary Sources

Bainton, Roland H.  Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace:  A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation. Nashville:  Abington Press, 1960.

On Augustine and War.

Battenhouse, Roy W.  A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine.  New York:  Oxford University Press, 1969.

Deane, Herbert A. The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine. New York:  Columbia University Press, 1963.
--
The indispensable and definitive work on Augustine’s political and social philosophy.

Gilson, Etienne.  The Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine.  New York:  Random House, 1960.
Mattox, John Mark.  St. Augustine and the Theory of Just War.  London:  Thoemmes Continuum, 2006.
---
On Augustine and War.

Swift, Louis J.  The Early Fathers on War and Military Service. Wilmington:  Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983.



Author Information

J. Mark Mattox
Email: mark.Mattox@dtra.mil
U. S. A.

ABOUT

Saint Augustine | Christian bishop and theologian | Britannica.com

Saint Augustine | Christian bishop and theologian | Britannica.com

Saint Augustine | City of God

Saint Augustine | Christian bishop and theologian | Britannica.com

--------------------------
City of God

Fifteen years after Augustine wrote the Confessions, at a time when he was bringing to a close (and invoking government power to do so) his long struggle with the Donatists but before he had worked himself up to action against the Pelagians, the Roman world was shaken by news of a military action in Italy. A ragtag army under the leadership of Alaric, a general of Germanic ancestry and thus credited with leading a “barbarian” band, had been seeking privileges from the empire for many years, making from time to time extortionate raids against populous and prosperous areas. Finally, in 410, his forces attacked and seized the city of Rome itself, holding it for several days before decamping to the south of Italy. The military significance of the event was nil—such was the disorder of Roman government that other war bands would hold provinces hostage more and more frequently, and this particular band would wander for another decade before settling mainly in Spain and the south of France. But the symbolic effect of seeing the city of Rome taken by outsiders for the first time since the Gauls had done so in 390 bc shook the secular confidence of many thoughtful people across the Mediterranean. Coming as it did less than 20 years after the decisive edict against “paganism” by the emperor Theodosius I in 391, it was followed by speculation that perhaps the Roman Empire had mistaken its way with the gods. Perhaps the new Christian god was not as powerful as he seemed. Perhaps the old gods had done a better job of protecting their followers.

It is hard to tell how seriously or widely such arguments were made; paganism by this time was in disarray, and Christianity’s hold on the reins of government was unshakable. But Augustine saw in the murmured doubts a splendid polemical occasion he had long sought, and so he leapt to the defense of God’s ways. That his readers and the doubters whose murmurs he had heard were themselves pagans is unlikely. At the very least, it is clear that his intended audience comprised many people who were at least outwardly affiliated with the Christian church. During the next 15 years, working meticulously through a lofty architecture of argument, he outlined a new way to understand human society, setting up the City of God over and against the City of Man. Rome was dethroned—and the sack of the city shown to be of no spiritual importance—in favour of the heavenly Jerusalem, the true home and source of citizenship for all Christians. The City of Man was doomed to disarray, and wise men would, as it were, keep their passports in order as citizens of the City above, living in this world as pilgrims longing to return home.

De civitate Dei contra paganos (413–426/427; City of God) is divided into 22 books. The first 10 refute the claims to divine power of various pagan communities. The last 12 retell the biblical story of mankind from Genesis to the Last Judgment, offering what Augustine presents as the true history of the City of God against which, and only against which, the history of the City of Man, including the history of Rome, can be properly understood. The work is too long and at times, particularly in the last books, too discursive to make entirely satisfactory reading today, but it remains impressive as a whole and fascinating in its parts. The stinging attack on paganism in the first books is memorable and effective, the encounter with Platonism in books 8–10 is of great philosophical significance, and the last books (especially book 19, with a vision of true peace) offer a view of human destiny that would be widely persuasive for at least a thousand years. In a way, Augustine’s City of God is (even consciously) the Christian rejoinder to Plato’s Republic and Cicero’s imitation of Plato, his own Republic. City of God would be read in various ways throughout the Middle Ages, at some points virtually as a founding document for a political order of kings and popes that Augustine could hardly have imagined. At its heart is a powerful contrarian vision of human life, one which accepts the place of disaster, death, and disappointment while holding out hope of a better life to come, a hope that in turn eases and gives direction to life in this world.
---