Monday, September 28, 2026

Tiberius Claudius Nero

 



by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“During the reigns of the Roman emperors Claudius and Nero, an artist named Zenodorus made a copy in Gaul (a statue of Mercury), and he was later invited

to build a similar statue in Rome, which became known as the "colossus Neronis".

It was finished during the reign of Vespasian”.

 

Livius.org

 

 

1.    The Name

 

Tiberius:

 

Tiberius Claudius Nero

Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus

 

            Claudius:

 

Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus

 

Nero:

 

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus

Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus

 

2.     Reluctant to rule

 

Regarding the reluctance of, now Tiberius, now Claudius, now Nero, to assume imperial responsibility, see my article:

 

Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, reluctant about rulership

 

(3) Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, reluctant about rulership

 

For further comparisons between Tiberius and Claudius, see my article:

 

Tiberius – Claudius similarities

 

Tiberius – Claudius similarities | Parallel Lives, Also BC Afterglows In AD

 

For comparisons between Tiberius and Nero, see my articles:

 

Tiberius Claudius Nero knew how to bring the house down

 

(4) Tiberius Claudius Nero knew how to bring the house down

 

One or two villains: Sejanus and Tigellinus?

 

(4) One or two villains: Sejanus and Tigellinus?

 

3.    Following an emperor Gaius Julius Caesar

 

Tiberius:

 

Tiberius succeeded Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus.

 

Claudius

 

Claudius succeeded Gaius Julius Caesar Caligula.

 

            Nero:

 

Supposedly succeeded Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

(Though I expect to have reason to query this one in the future).

 

4.   Dependent upon Praetorian Guard, Princeps

 

Tiberius:

 

As Tiberius became more embittered with the position of Princeps, he began to depend more and more upon the limited secretariat left to him by Augustus, and specifically upon Sejanus and the Praetorians.

 

Claudius:

 

According to tradition, a Praetorian named Gratus found [Claudius] hiding behind a curtain and suddenly declared him princeps. …. Claudius was spirited away to the Praetorian camp and put under their protection.

Claudius declared emperor by the Praetorian Guard.

 

Nero:

 

Nero ascended to the throne with the backing of the Praetorian Guard ….

 

5.    Difficulty with the Senate, Plots

 

Tiberius:

 

From the outset, Tiberius had a difficult, resentful relationship with the Senate and suspected many plots against him. Nevertheless, he proved to be an effective and efficient administrator. …. According to Tacitus, Tiberius derided the Senate as “men fit to be slaves”. …. Antagonism between Tiberius and his senate seems to have been a feature of his rule. ….

 

Claudius:

 

Claudius set about remodeling the Senate into a more efficient, representative body. ….

Nevertheless, many in the Senate remained hostile to Claudius, and many plots were made on his life. This hostility carried over into the historical accounts. As a result, Claudius reduced the Senate’s power for the sake of efficiency.

 

Nero:

 

However, Nero’s obsession with the Hellenistic East and his mingling with the common folk angered the aristocratic elite, including the members of the Senate, who considered Nero’s behavior undignified for an emperor and an insult to traditional Roman values. 

A group of senators and equestrians, led by Gaius Piso, planned to assassinate Nero.

 

6.   Law Court

 

Tiberius:

 

…. thereafter Tiberius began appearing in court as an advocate, and it was presumably at this time that his interest in Greek rhetoric began.

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780203165133-18/tiberius-law-development-maiestas-barbara-levick

Tiberius prided himself on his knowledge of Roman law, both sacral and secular, and on his respect for it. …. The ius auxilii inherent in the tribunician power and his imperium gave him the right to come to the aid of a citizen who appealed to him against magisterial injustice and to take cognizance of cases from all over the Empire, in Italy, and at Rome. …. They were already his before AD 14, although he is not likely to have used them when Augustus was available. His return to Rome and his accession to sole power, together with his election to the supreme pontificate on 10 March AD 15 … gave full scope to his auctoritas (prestige and influence), and at least one senator argued that Senate and equites could not carry on their business without his supervision. …. Tiberius intended to use his influence well, and eight years after his accession could still proclaim the supremacy of law. ….

 

Claudius:

 

Claudius personally judged many of the legal cases tried during his reign.

Ancient historians have many complaints about this, stating that his judgments were variable and sometimes did not follow the law. …. He was also easily swayed. Nevertheless, Claudius paid detailed attention to the operation of the judicial system. He extended the summer court session, as well as the winter term, by shortening the traditional breaks. Claudius also made a law requiring plaintiffs to remain in the city while their cases were pending, as defendants had previously been required to do. These measures had the effect of clearing out the docket.

 

Nero:

 

Nero's Prohibition of Paid Advocacy: A Legal Reform of AD 56

“In the early years of Emperor Nero’s reign, a period often remembered for its promise and the guidance of influential figures like Seneca the Younger and Burrus, a notable legal reform took place. In AD 56, Nero issued a decree prohibiting paid advocacy, a practice that had long been a contentious issue within Roman society and its legal system. This bold move by the young emperor, undoubtedly influenced by his advisors, aimed to curb the perceived corruption and abuse of power by wealthy or influential orators who charged exorbitant fees for their services. The concept of Nero paid advocacy was to transform the landscape of Roman justice, theoretically making legal representation accessible and equitable, rather than a privilege exclusively for those who could afford the highest price for legal counsel. This measure reflected a desire to purify the courts and project an image of imperial justice, even as the complexities of Roman litigation continued to present significant challenges for both the accused and the accuser”.

 

7. Missing architecture

 

Tiberius:

 

Arch of Tiberius

  • The Arch of Tiberius is no longer in existence, but appears to have been a single Arch located near the Forum Romanum in Rome.

 

Description

      ….


Location

 

Claudius:

 

Roman Structures | Arch of Claudius

“The Arch of Claudius was a triumphal arch built in honour of the emperor Claudius's successful invasion of Britain. It is now lost …”. 

 

Nero:

 

Colossus of Nero - Wikipedia

“Today, nothing remains of the Colossus of Nero save for the foundations of the pedestal at its second location near the Colosseum. It was possibly destroyed during the Sack of Rome in 410, or toppled in one of a series of fifth-century earthquakes, and its metal scavenged …”.

 

See also my article:

 

Nero’s missing architecture

 

(6) Nero’s missing architecture

 

8. Rhodes

 

            Tiberius:

 

In 6 BC, while on the verge of accepting command in the East and becoming the second-most powerful man in Rome, Tiberius announced his withdrawal from politics and retired to Rhodes. ….

 

Claudius:

 

Claudius also settled disputes in the provinces. He freed the island of Rhodes from Roman rule for their good faith ….

 

            Nero:

 

During the reigns of the Roman emperors Claudius and Nero, an artist named Zenodorus made a copy in Gaul (a statue of Mercury), and he was later invited to build a similar statue in Rome, which became known as the "colossus Neronis". It was finished during the reign of Vespasian.

 

Colossus of Rhodes | Description, Location, & Facts | Britannica

“Colossus of Rhodes, colossal statue of the sun god Helios that stood in the ancient Greek city of Rhodes and was one of the Seven Wonders of the World”. 

 

9. The Jews

 

            Tiberius:

 

In AD 19 Tiberius ordered Jews of military age to join the Roman Army. …. He banished the rest of Rome’s Jewish population, on pain of enslavement for life.

 

            Claudius:

 

(Acts 18:2): “…  Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome”.

 

            Nero:

 

NERO - JewishEncyclopedia.com

“Nero, influenced by his secretary Burrus, who had been bribed by the Greeks, gave a verdict against the Jews and deprived them of their civil rights”.

….

“The emperor, insulted by this refusal, and taking it as a sign of rebellion, deputed Vespasian to wreak vengeance on the Jews”.

 

10. Triumphal procession

 

            Tiberius:

 

“Tiberius returned and celebrated the triumph which he had postponed, accompanied also by his generals, for whom he had obtained the triumphal regalia”.

 

                  Claudius:

 

“[Claudius] left Britain [sic] after 16 days, but remained in the provinces for some time. The Senate granted him a triumph for his efforts”.

 

            Nero:

 

Suetonius : The Life of Nero (English translation)

“[Nero] … with the praetorian cohorts drawn up in full armour about the temples in the Forum, while he himself sat in a curule chair on the rostra in the attire of a triumphing general, surrounded by military ensigns and standards”.

 

11. Sickly, also strong and tall

           

Tiberius:

 

Suetonius describes Tiberius as being pale skinned, broad shouldered, left-handed, and exceptionally strong and tall for a Roman, although he had poor posture. …. Suetonius and Paterculus both write that, as a young man, he was considered attractive by Roman beauty standards. …. Even in adulthood, he was prone to severe acne outbreaks.

           

Claudius:

 

According to Cassius Dio, Claudius became sickly and thin by the end of Caligula’s reign, most likely due to stress. …. A possible surviving portrait of Claudius from this period may support this. …. However, he showed no physical deformity, as Suetonius notes that when calm and seated he was a tall, well-built figure of dignitas. … When angered or stressed, his symptoms became worse. Historians agree that this condition improved upon his accession to the throne. …. Claudius himself claimed that he had exaggerated his ailments to save his life. ….

 

            Nero:

 

Nero's Good Side: 10 Surprising Facts About the Roman Emperor - RankedFacts.com

“Regardless of how he won, Nero was a capable athlete, a rare claim for a ruler”. 

 

12. Suspicious death

           

Tiberius:

 

Tiberius died in Misenum on 16 March AD 37, months before his 78th birthday …. While ancient sources agree on the date and location of his death, contradictory accounts exist of the precise circumstances.

…. Macro took advantage of the chaos to have Tiberius smothered with his own bedclothes.

 

            Claudius:

 

Ancient historians agree that Claudius was murdered by poison – possibly contained in mushrooms or on a feather (ostensibly put down his throat to induce vomiting) – and died in the early hours of 13 October 54. …. Nearly all implicate his final and powerful wife, Agrippina, as the instigator. Agrippina and Claudius had become more combative in the months leading up to his death. ….

 

Nero:

 

Emperor Nero's Death: The Demise Of The Notorious Roman Ruler

“In 68 C.E., Emperor Nero stabbed himself in the throat with a dagger as he heard the hoofbeats of the approaching centurions who were sent to arrest him for his extravagant spending and tyrannical behavior”.

 

 

 

Wednesday, September 23, 2026

Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s shocking endorsement of Teilhard de Chardin

 



480 × 360by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

“The whole world is ascending towards Christ the King, even the irresistible surge of the ocean tides under the Pull of the moon and sun . . . His [Teilhard de Chardin’s] fundamental orientation was to attain heaven through the fulfillment of earth. Christify matter”.

Fulton J. Sheen

 

For some of my highly unfavourable views concerning père Teilhard de Chardin (d. 1955), see e.g. my articles:

 

Teilhard de Charlatan

 

(5) Teilhard de Charlatan

 

Teilhard de Chardin a “giant gnostic snake”

 

(5) Teilhard de Chardin a "giant gnostic snake"

 

Teilhard de Chardin’s genocidal eugenics ideas

 

(5) Teilhard de Chardin's genocidal eugenics ideas

 

Reading Teilhard de Chardin has led to a great loss of faith amongst teens

 

(5) Reading Teilhard de Chardin has led to a great loss of faith amongst teens

 

Now, I was aware that Archbishop Fulton Sheen, about to be beatified (today, in fact, 24th September, 2026) – and whom I have greatly admired for many years – had flirted with Teilhardianism.

 

Here the Kolbe Center recalls just how serious that regrettable situation was (September 19, 2026): Archbishop Sheen and the Teilhardian Deception – Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

 

Dear Friends of the Kolbe Center,

 

Pax Christi!

 

Our Lord Jesus Christ warned that toward the end of the world, many false prophets would arise and seduce many:

 

And then shall many be scandalized: and shall betray one another: and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come (Matthew 24:10-14).

 

This Thursday, September 24, Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen will be beatified at The Dome at America’s Center in St. Louis, Missouri. Archbishop Sheen is rightly revered for the many contributions he made to the life of the Church, most especially through his promotion of daily Eucharistic Holy Hours for priests through retreats that he gave all over the world. For the honor and glory of God, however, we believe we are obliged to use this newsletter to show how even a man as gifted and devout as Venerable Archbishop Sheen was deceived by the arch-deceiver Satan through his chosen instrument, the anti-theologian Fr. Teilhard de Chardin—may God have mercy on him! We trust that the Venerable Archbishop would be the first to want us to bring his deception to light, as a warning to all of us to be on our guard against the seductive errors of theistic evolution.

 

The Young Fr. Fulton Sheen Rejects Theistic Evolution

 

Archbishop Sheen’s eventual embrace of Teilhardian errors is all the more astonishing in view of his earlier writings in which he thoroughly rejected them. As a young theologian, he wrote an extensive review of modern philosophy which had seen “the birth of a new notion of God”:

 

It is God in evolution . . . God is born by successive creations. As the world progresses, He progresses; as the world acquires perfection, He acquires perfection. [Moreover,] man is a necessary step in the evolution of God. Just as man came from the beast, God will come from man.

 

In one of his early works, Love One Another, Sheen mocked the notion that one could derive the great commandment of Christ to “Love one another as I have loved you” from an evolutionary struggle for existence over millions of years:

 

“Man came from the beast; therefore, he ought to love his fellowman.”

How silly that sounds! Everyone knows that the law of the survival of the fittest can never evolve into love, nor can the struggle for existence develop into human brotherhood. If we come from the beasts, then we may appropriately be expected to act like beasts.

 

After completing a 300-page survey of modern philosophy, the young Fr. Sheen concluded:

 

The wisdom of the ages and the epitome of our experience is given in the simple truth understood by the simple and forgotten by many a philosopher, that we are not “God-makers but God-made.”

 

Archbishop Sheen and “Evolution’s Greatest Triumph”

 

Archbishop Sheen’s “conversion” to theistic evolutionism must be understood as part of what the German anatomist and Darwinian apologist Ernst Haeckel called “evolution’s greatest triumph,” the conversion of the Catholic intellectual elite to the conviction that they had to reconcile the microbe-to-man evolutionary hypothesis with the Catholic Faith—in spite of the clear condemnation of the thesis that “evolution can be reconciled with Christian doctrine” by the Congregation of the Index in 1878, the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission upholding the special creation of Adam and Eve and the literal historical truth of Genesis 1-3, and the condemnation by Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane in 1907 of the proposition that the condemnations of the Congregation of the Index could be taken lightly.

 

Darwin had argued that similarities in structure among diverse life forms proved that they had all evolved from a common ancestor. According to Haeckel, the existence of similarities in embryos of various kinds of organisms proved that the higher life forms “recapitulated” their evolutionary history before birth and that they had all descended from a common ancestor. To make this “proof” more compelling for his contemporaries, Haeckel doctored drawings of the embryos of fish, salamanders, chickens, turtles, rabbits, pigs, and human beings to exaggerate their similarities and minimize their differences. Although Haeckel’s fraud was discovered and exposed during his lifetime, the evolutionary hypothesis demanded common descent, and the concept of embryonic recapitulation continued to exert a profound influence on the study of embryology for many decades. In the United States, the renowned scholar Fr. John Augustine Zahm at Notre Dame University, devoted more pages of his influential book Evolution and Dogma to “embryonic recapitulation” than to any other “proof” for Darwin’s hypothesis.

 

When, on the centenary of the publication of Origin of Species in 1959, the world’s leading evolutionist scientist Sir Julian Huxley pontificated that “embryology” as displayed in Ernst Haeckel’s drawings provided “the most striking proof of evolution,” his evolution-believing colleagues had enjoyed control of almost all of the universities and research centers in the Western world for more than half a century. Yet “embryonic recapitulation” was, by his own admission, the best proof that they could come up with.

 

In 1950, Pope Pius XII in Humani generis had exhorted Catholic experts to “examine” the evidence for and against the evolutionary hypothesis, but it was apparent that hardly any Catholic scholars subjected Huxley’s pontifications to rigorous examination. For example, in Germany pro-abortion activists:

 

skillfully exploited the disunity of the German Catholic intellectuals to bring their demands for the legalization of abortion to the legislature. … Karl Rahner, who was in the forefront of the fight over [the loosening of] paragraph 218, wrote in Naturwissenschaft und Theologie (brochure 11, page 86, 1970):

 

“I think that there are biological developments which are pre-human, but these developments are still aimed in the direction of man. Why cannot these developments be transferred from phylogeny to ontogeny?” (emphasis added)

 

With these words, the most influential Catholic theologian in the German-speaking world formulated an Haeckelian evolutionary rationale for abortifacient contraception and abortion by affirming that human beings passed through all the stages of evolution in their mothers’ wombs. To this day, biology textbooks all over the world argue that similarities between embryos of fish, amphibians, reptiles, humans and lower mammals constitute evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis. Typical of examples too many to cite is the caption that accompanies drawings of embryos of various life-forms from a widely used American biology textbook published in 2002. Entitled “Embryonic development of vertebrates,” it states:

 

Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other, even though the individuals are from different classes (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). All vertebrates start out with an enlarged head region, gill slits, and a tail regardless of whether these characteristics are retained in the adult.

 

The statement gives the impression that human embryos—as members of the vertebrate phylum—possess gill slits. But this is patently false. The pharyngeal arches in human embryos have no connection with gill slits whatsoever but develop into the outer and middle ear, and into the neck bones, muscles, nerves, and glands. Moreover, after the discovery of DNA, confidence in the truth of the evolutionary hypothesis led many evolutionary biologists to predict that similar body parts in diverse organisms would be controlled by the same genes. This, however, proved to be false, as embryologists have discovered that the realization of the same body plan—such as five digit extremities—in diverse organisms (such as whales and humans) is controlled by different genes and is achieved through totally different embryonic pathways. In spite of the fact that the myth of “embryonic recapitulation” had no scientific basis, however, it would appear that Archbishop Sheen was as badly deceived as Fr. Rahner—because we find him eight years after Humani generis rhapsodizing confidently about Teilhard’s writings on the evolution of life from non-life:

 

For Teilhard there is a continuity between an animal seeking food and a magnet pointing to the north; between a male and a female uniting in the act of generation and two atoms uniting to form a chemical compound. The meaning is not the same in each instance, but there is more than a mere figure of speech in this unification. Atoms are not alive, it is true, but they have what might be called pre-life.

 

The Deadly Deception of Archbishop Sheen

 

Without knowing all the inner workings of Archbishop Sheen’s mind, it is easy to see that his conviction that molecules-to-man evolution was no longer an absurdity but a “fact of science” must have had terrible consequences. His apparent belief that the Church’s traditional doctrine of creation could be replaced by theistic evolution in light of the new “science” of evolution certainly helps to explain his enthusiasm for the ideas of John Courtney Murray at the Second Vatican Council and for the replacement of the traditional vision of a Church-centered Catholic society with the ideal of religious liberty as practiced in the United States.

 

In reality, it is no more possible to “evolve” the ideal of American-style religious liberty with its separation of Church and state from the traditional ideal of the Catholic union of Church and state than it would be to evolve the life of a one-celled organism from the “pre-life” of atomic particles.

 

Writing in 1967, Sheen echoed and embraced the Teilhardian vision of matter evolving to the Omega Point. He wrote:

 

The whole world is ascending towards Christ the King, even the irresistible surge of the ocean tides under the Pull of the moon and sun . . . His [Teilhard de Chardin’s] fundamental orientation was to attain heaven through the fulfillment of earth. Christify matter.

 

An elderly priest friend of mine whose life overlapped with Teilhard’s commented on Fr. Teilhard’s reputation for kindness, and it is true that a belief in the Christification of matter might motivate a person to show kindness to all people and to all things because of the divine element within all of them. But this is a false kindness if it fails to acknowledge the divinely-created hierarchy of goods in the universe—the transcendence of God; the creation of man in God’s image and likeness; man’s dominion over creation; the infinite superiority of supernatural goods to natural ones; and the moral imperative to do good and avoid evil.

 

In Teilhard’s system, as revealed in his pivotal spiritual experience as a young man, when he encountered “a presence” he described as “the combined essence of all good and all evil,” the divine energy drives all of the activity in the universe, thus making it impossible to distinguish between the natural and the supernatural, the good and the evil, insofar as Teilhard’s divinity manifests through them all.

The conflation of the order of grace with the order of nature occupied so central a place in his “new Christianity” that the kindly Teilhard forgot his manners when Dietrich Von Hildebrand cited the writings of the Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine, against his evolutionary doctrine. “Don’t speak to me of that unfortunate man,” he protested violently. He “spoiled everything by introducing the supernatural.” True to their master, the Teilhardians of today find the “divine element” even in pagan religions and in immoral sexual behavior which objectively separates souls from communion with the living God. Yet Archbishop Sheen was so convinced of the fact of molecules-to-man evolution and of the credibility of Teilhard’s doctrine that he predicted the eventual elevation of Fr. Teilhard to the honors of a Doctor of the Church by 2017:

 

It is very likely that within 50 years when all the trivial, verbose disputes about the meaning of Teilhard’s ‘unfortunate’ vocabulary will have died away or have taken a secondary place, Teilhard will appear like John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, as the spiritual genius of the twentieth century.

….