1. First, St. Thomas’ overarching conclusion is that “it is not licit to resist what God has appointed. Therefore, neither is it licit to resist secular power.” He qualifies this in the Respondeo dicendum, but the basic message here is that secular authority is “legitimate until proven illegitimate” (so to speak), and legitimate authority must be respected.
2. Thomas gives two ways by which authority might be considered illegitimate (or “not from God”): the ruler has acquired the position of authority illicitly, or he abuses his authority. But who decides such things? To whatever extent medieval society at large agreed with St. Thomas here in theory, the practical reality is that major political insubordination—massive protests, overthrowing a feudal lord, deposing a king, etc.—was extremely rare in the Middle Ages. For medieval peoples, secular and religious authority were sacred and essential for survival; whereas modern man has been taught to fear political oppression, medieval man was taught to fear social disorder. This mentality was integral to medieval life. Everyone, including those who were at the bottom of the social pyramid and thus suffered the most from abusive governance, instinctively assumed that rulers, even bad ones, were legitimate.
3. Nonetheless, you’re right that Thomas implies some ambiguity here regarding a historical figure like Caesar, but that ambiguity was already present elsewhere. You see it in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s book and in the Faits des Romains (both of which I discuss in today’s post, though not with this aspect in mind). However, Caesar’s status as an imperfect, or perhaps potentially illegitimate, ruler was far less prominent in the medieval mind than the regicidal actions of the assassins—at best they killed a great and noble warrior who was verging on tyranny, and at worst they betrayed and murdered a great and noble warrior who was also their rightful sovereign.
4. Finally, it’s unlikely that medieval people would associate lawful resistance to tyranny with Julius Caesar, because they didn’t study his life as carefully and critically as modern historians do. (This is also discussed in today’s post.) Medieval discourse surrounding Caesar emphasized his virtues.
We can thank Woodrow Wilson’s demand in 1917 that a populace determine its own leadership for the modern view on colonialism and its antipathy towards monarchy. Of course, who really believes the people choose their leaders today?
Robert this glimpse into the Ides seems to come full circle with the current pontificate which was birthed 12 years ago on the 1st day of the window. One must wonder what it all means...only time will tell.
Don't St. Thomas's remarks in II Sent., d. 44, q. 2, a. 2 (beloved by liberals) imply some room for ambiguity in the medieval understanding of Caesar?
A few thoughts come to my mind here:
1. First, St. Thomas’ overarching conclusion is that “it is not licit to resist what God has appointed. Therefore, neither is it licit to resist secular power.” He qualifies this in the Respondeo dicendum, but the basic message here is that secular authority is “legitimate until proven illegitimate” (so to speak), and legitimate authority must be respected.
2. Thomas gives two ways by which authority might be considered illegitimate (or “not from God”): the ruler has acquired the position of authority illicitly, or he abuses his authority. But who decides such things? To whatever extent medieval society at large agreed with St. Thomas here in theory, the practical reality is that major political insubordination—massive protests, overthrowing a feudal lord, deposing a king, etc.—was extremely rare in the Middle Ages. For medieval peoples, secular and religious authority were sacred and essential for survival; whereas modern man has been taught to fear political oppression, medieval man was taught to fear social disorder. This mentality was integral to medieval life. Everyone, including those who were at the bottom of the social pyramid and thus suffered the most from abusive governance, instinctively assumed that rulers, even bad ones, were legitimate.
3. Nonetheless, you’re right that Thomas implies some ambiguity here regarding a historical figure like Caesar, but that ambiguity was already present elsewhere. You see it in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s book and in the Faits des Romains (both of which I discuss in today’s post, though not with this aspect in mind). However, Caesar’s status as an imperfect, or perhaps potentially illegitimate, ruler was far less prominent in the medieval mind than the regicidal actions of the assassins—at best they killed a great and noble warrior who was verging on tyranny, and at worst they betrayed and murdered a great and noble warrior who was also their rightful sovereign.
4. Finally, it’s unlikely that medieval people would associate lawful resistance to tyranny with Julius Caesar, because they didn’t study his life as carefully and critically as modern historians do. (This is also discussed in today’s post.) Medieval discourse surrounding Caesar emphasized his virtues.
We can thank Woodrow Wilson’s demand in 1917 that a populace determine its own leadership for the modern view on colonialism and its antipathy towards monarchy. Of course, who really believes the people choose their leaders today?
Robert this glimpse into the Ides seems to come full circle with the current pontificate which was birthed 12 years ago on the 1st day of the window. One must wonder what it all means...only time will tell.