I am sure a lot of historians would agree with my statement, but this is not a history point as much as political. The catholic church is interested in advancing its own cause, spiritually and politically. If the product involved in winning in no way benefits the organization, they would not endorse it. This is one reason why the church imposes ethics, morality, and structure, while at the same time subverting it (notoriously vicious vatican politics, etc.)
I'd also like to point out that the catholic church is comprised of many different "factions" The original writer mentioned jesuits. But I doubt that some marxist or radical priests would agree with the some of the tenets of the jesuits, especially when we talk about winning. Marxism and some liberal phils define both the process and product of winning mucho differently than other catholic factions.
As for winners writing history. This was true maybe 100 years ago, but that phrase became largely outdated around the 1920s in with structuralist thought, and later poststructuralist thought. Many contemporary historians view history as plural (polyvocal and maybe nonlinear) as opposed to singular (linear, monolithic, univocal.) For every history text you can point out that was written by the victor, I can point out one written by the loser. This is assuming that a "loser" is identified by (sub)culture and not physical characteristics.
That claim that the victor completely mutes dissent or overrruns history is an illusion. The victor actually writes a history and then controls the outlets through which that history is distributed. SUbversive or dissenting histories are everywhere. You just have to look hard enough. Feminism is a good example of this tenet; numerous musical compositions, novels, scientific treatises, works of philosophy have been (re)discovered in the last 20 years. They were always there, just not distributed.
rwg
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com