Originally posted by lucifershammer See my thread on the Inquisition(s).
And, if you don't think the Inquisition (even the Spanish) protected heretics, compare the conviction and death rates between countries that still had the Inquisition and countries that didn't when the witch hunts occurred.
I saw your thread on the Inquistion, but I think Doctorow's style of historical fiction is far better than the RCC's.
Originally posted by Wulebgr But, doesn't revisionist history correct mistakes in the narrative, particularly mistakes that result from ideological commitments?
Well if you are talking about actual historical research that is used to correct errors that are present in historical texts, then revision is justified and necessary. If you are talking about the RCC or others essentially doing Winston Smith's job because the historical truth is a bit inconvenient, then revisionist history is an obstacle to the truth.
Originally posted by Wulebgr But, doesn't revisionist history correct mistakes in the narrative, particularly mistakes that result from ideological commitments?
That's not what the term denotes to me.
Mistakes in historical narratives that derive from ideological commitments constitute revisionist history - the actual history is revised as the authors write it into the record. I don't refer to correcting these inaccuracies as revisionism.
When an author from a CRISIS Magazine article says, as a matter of factual history, that "The Spanish loved their Inquisition!," he is also engaging in revisionist history, since the claim is both non-factual and not consistent with the written histories, and since he is attempting to make that claim be accepted as part of the history that his readers will choose to adhere to.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles That's not what the term denotes to me.
Mistakes in historical narratives that derive from ideological commitments constitute revisionist history - the actual history is revised as the authors write it into the record. I don't refer to correcting these inaccuracies as revisionism.
When an author from a CRISIS Magazine article says, as ...[text shortened]... to make that claim be accepted as part of the history that his readers will choose to adhere to.
What about when the author says that there were even cases of people deliberately blaspheming to be brought before the Inquisition?
Originally posted by lucifershammer What about when the author says that there were even cases of people deliberately blaspheming to be brought before the Inquisition?
I wouldn't know. All I have to go on for that particular claim is the author's credibility and the coherence of the claim. The author's credibility is nil.
The coherence of the claim isn't there either. If it was a matter of fact that known non-heretics faked blasphemy to reap the rewards of Inquisitorial treatment, then wouldn't have those rewards ended abruptly once the fakery was discovered, if the Inquisition had any actual merit as a detector of blasphemy? That is, if the claim is true, then either the Inquisition didn't in fact do its assigned task of detecting heretics, or those who unjustly sought the rewards that the Inquisition had to offer did not in fact receive them. But we now have a dillemma: on either horn, why would the people have loved their Inquisition?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles That's not what the term denotes to me.
Mistakes in historical narratives that derive from ideological commitments constitute revisionist history - the actual history is revised as the authors write it into the record. I don't refer to correcting these inaccuracies as revisionism.
When an author from a CRISIS Magazine article says, as ...[text shortened]... to make that claim be accepted as part of the history that his readers will choose to adhere to.
Well it depends on how you define history. If you define history as merely the sum total of things that happened in the past then, of course, that can never be revised. If you use the technical meaning of the term - a branch of knowledge that records and EXPLAINS past events - then obviously if information becomes subsequently known that helps to explain any event, you are revising history. There is a difference between what holocaust deniers and professional, historical researchers do.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles I wouldn't know. All I have to go on for that particular claim is the author's credibility and the coherence of the claim. The author's credibility is nil.
The coherence of the claim isn't there either. If it was a matter of fact that known non-heretics faked blasphemy to reap the rewards of Inquisitorial treatment, then wouldn't have th ...[text shortened]... But we now have a dillemma: on either horn, why would the people have loved their Inquisition?
Because no matter how naughty it might be, people always love THEIR Inquistion; it's other people's Inquistions that are the BAD ones.
Originally posted by lucifershammer What about when the author says that there were even cases of people deliberately blaspheming to be brought before the Inquisition?
Who knows? There's people today who like being degraded and tortured, maybe the whole Inquistion was just a big S&M party.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles I wouldn't know. All I have to go on for that particular claim is the author's credibility and the coherence of the claim. The author's credibility is nil.
The coherence of the claim isn't there either. If it was a matter of fact that known non-heretics faked blasphemy to reap the rewards of Inquisitorial treatment, then wouldn't have th ...[text shortened]... But we now have a dillemma: on either horn, why would the people have loved their Inquisition?
All I have to go on for that particular claim is the author's credibility and the coherence of the claim.
The Audiencia was particularly angry because the tribunal would frequently remove prisoners from the royal prison where they were awaiting trial, try them for some minor offense, and then let them go free without returning them. Since this practice was becoming well known among the criminal element, it was increasingly common for some dangerous criminal awaiting trial for murder to utter a blasphemy in his cell, where he would be overheard by other prisoners and then denounced to the Inquisition. Since the penalty for blasphemy was usually rather mild and the offender could count on being set free afterward, serious crimes were left "without punishment" to the "great detriment of the administration of justice." (Haliczer. Inquisition and Society in the Kingdom of Valencia, 1478-1834. p.27)*
That is, if the claim is true, then either the Inquisition didn't in fact do its assigned task of detecting heretics, or those who unjustly sought the rewards that the Inquisition had to offer did not in fact receive them.
I don't see the logic of this argument - how does the fact that the Inquisition was lenient with heretics and blasphemers who repented in any way affect its ability to detect heresy?
---
* The entire book is available online at
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft958009jk&brand=eschol
Originally posted by lucifershammer [b]That is, if the claim is true, then either the Inquisition didn't in fact do its assigned task of detecting heretics, or those who unjustly sought the rewards that the Inquisition had to offer did not in fact receive them.
I don't see the logic of this argument - how does the fact that the Inquisition was lenient with heretics and blasphemers who repented in any way affect its ability to detect heresy?
[/b]
Because according to the claim, they got duped. People faked heresy and got away with it.
Either those fakers did or did not receive the wondrous benefits of the Inquisition. If they did, then their fakery obviously went undetected, for the Inquisition would only punish (i.e., bathe in luxury) actual heretics. If they did not, then why were they faking heresy in the first place, if doing so yielded no reward?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Because according to the claim, they got duped. People faked heresy.
Either those fakers did or did not receive the wondrous benefits of the Inquisition. If they did, then their fakery obviously went undetected, for the Inquisition would only punish (i.e., bathe in luxury) actual heretics. If they did not, then why were they faking heresy in the first place, if doing so yielded no reward?
Because according to the claim, they got duped. People faked heresy.
Who says they got duped? From the Inquisition's perspective, blasphemy is still blasphemy even if the person committing it is not a heretic.
Either those fakers did or did not receive the wondrous benefits of the Inquisition. If they did, then their fakery obviously went undetected, for the Inquisition would only punish (i.e., bathe in luxury) actual heretics. If they did not, then why were they faking heresy in the first place, if doing so yielded no reward?
Could you cut out the sarcasm and simply state your argument?
Originally posted by lucifershammer Could you cut out the sarcasm and simply state your argument?
No. That's not my style. Just like it's not your style to toss your Church loyalty aside for the purpose of a debate about the shameful parts of its history. I now remember why I stopped debating with you.
26 Oct '05 19:401 edit
A Question for Catholics
Back to Top