The Long View: Nobody Expects an Accountable Inquisition(theoxfordculturereview.com)
theoxfordculturereview.com
The Long View: Nobody Expects an Accountable Inquisition
https://theoxfordculturereview.com/2018/06/03/the-long-view-nobody-expects-an-accountable-inquisition/
13 comments
It should also be noted that the Catholic teaching is that the physical body will eventually be resurrected to its perfect form on the last day, not just in a spiritual sense, but physically too. To desecrate it further would seem to risk the possibility of that happening, effectively ending eternal life.
I don't understand the message of this article.
> "This was a unique event, a moment that unveils a completely unexpected image of the power balance between inquisitors and the communities over which they held jurisdiction. The resulting picture is significantly less one-sided than has traditionally been imagined."
But then...
> "Unfortunately the success of this unique uprising was short-lived. By 1301, Guido of Vicenza was back to his old tricks, desecrating the shrine of a popular local holy man."
So the inquisition ultimately was not held accountable and the popular uprising was ineffective.
> "This was a unique event, a moment that unveils a completely unexpected image of the power balance between inquisitors and the communities over which they held jurisdiction. The resulting picture is significantly less one-sided than has traditionally been imagined."
But then...
> "Unfortunately the success of this unique uprising was short-lived. By 1301, Guido of Vicenza was back to his old tricks, desecrating the shrine of a popular local holy man."
So the inquisition ultimately was not held accountable and the popular uprising was ineffective.
Reading up on the histories of Avignonet and Toulouse, the violent uprisings fared little better than civil disobedience.
If there’s any message here, it’s that localised resistance just results in severe retribution - over 200 cathars were burned two years later in retribution for Avignonet.
Frankly, if this gives credence to anything, it’s Law 15: http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-15-crush-you...
If there’s any message here, it’s that localised resistance just results in severe retribution - over 200 cathars were burned two years later in retribution for Avignonet.
Frankly, if this gives credence to anything, it’s Law 15: http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-15-crush-you...
Wow!
So THAT is where all of the worst managers I've ever had the misfortune of working with seem to have had their mindset built from.
There seems to be some value in there by putting a name to some patterns, but it reads like a psychopath's social manipulation how-to guide.
So THAT is where all of the worst managers I've ever had the misfortune of working with seem to have had their mindset built from.
There seems to be some value in there by putting a name to some patterns, but it reads like a psychopath's social manipulation how-to guide.
Summary: In 1299, the locals of Bologna protested against their inquisitor by confessing their disdain for his office (a punishable offense).
Good share this an interesting read.
Fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to codified formal procedure.
I find it weird that the reason Bompietro was considered a good man by the people was because he had asked for the body of Christ. Almost like a simple appeal to religion, without actual adherence to it's moral teachings, is enough to appease the masses. ಠ_ಠ
Denying a simple dying request for an important sacrament seems like a terribly cruel thing to do given the religious context. I suspect the locals thought so too. I don't know if anyone expected him to be freed, but denying the request seems to undermine the religious nature of the event.
That act may have been the straw that broke it. The religious justification for the whole thing may have fallen apart right there if they're not going to grant someone a sacrament just before their death.
That act may have been the straw that broke it. The religious justification for the whole thing may have fallen apart right there if they're not going to grant someone a sacrament just before their death.
This is hardly surprising in a context where the whole crime being discussed is failure to pay lip service to religious norms.
Keep in mind the context — a testimony being given to the inquisitor for someone accused of heresy, in a situation where the inquisitor may have designs to woo the accused sister!
Since when were the masses ever concerned with the moral principles of their religion or ideology? They only care about whatever the contemporary popular interpretation is because they want to fit in with their peers and avoid the burden of having to make moral decisions themselves and avoid the guilt of feeling like they did something wrong.
To this modern reader, it seems perfectly understandable. After all a man may wish another man dead for rational self interest. As evil as he may be, it’s at least comprehensible. On the other hand, someone who avenges himself on the bones of the dead is clearly unhinged. How could you expect to reason with such a person?