This builds on “Augustine’s Contradictory Just War” of 2011.
Augustine uses the familial imagery of a father disciplining a child in
support for his Christiansation of just war in Contra Faustum, where he
also says that obedience to princely authority in warfare is also
natural. These became problematical. According to Robert Markus
(Saeculum), Augustine later divided providence into natural providence,
including the natural subjection of inferiors to superiors, and
voluntary providence, which deals with the wills of humans. This latter
includes the de facto subjection not according to merit of some humans
to others, such as ruler and ruled, or master and slave. Governments
distort natural relations by their sin of libido dominandi. Augustine
did not apply natural subordination to political authority, even when he
could.
My argument is that for Augustine political authority in secular wars came to be grounded in power, not justice, and obedience was only circumstantial. The structure of ordered relations he earlier envisaged tumbled down on the natural level. But the Contra Faustum is an early work, before his disillusionment with earthly peace, and so he there asserted the applicability of familial imagery in support of just war, and the naturalness of princely authority. Later, in the City of God and elsewhere, he would weaken his justification for wars and punishments without divine sanction.
My argument is that for Augustine political authority in secular wars came to be grounded in power, not justice, and obedience was only circumstantial. The structure of ordered relations he earlier envisaged tumbled down on the natural level. But the Contra Faustum is an early work, before his disillusionment with earthly peace, and so he there asserted the applicability of familial imagery in support of just war, and the naturalness of princely authority. Later, in the City of God and elsewhere, he would weaken his justification for wars and punishments without divine sanction.
No comments:
Post a Comment