User:Marskell/RCC

Handy links

Marskell's comments

It's hard to know where to begin here. I'll go to the main section of contention and try.

Strawman sentences. "The Church has frequently been criticized for the house arrest of Galileo, and also for the execution of Giordano Bruno. However historians of science, including non-Catholics such as J.L. Heilbron, A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, and Thomas Goldstein, have argued that the Church had a significant, positive influence on the development of civilization. In contrast to scholars such as Ramsay MacMullen, who take a negative view with respect to the loss of ancient literature with the rise of Christianity, they hold that not only did monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions of Europe, but the Church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of universities and Catholic schools throughout the world."

The use of MacMullen is awful here. He is shuffled to a subordinate clause and his views are mentioned in the sentence merely so that they can be dismissed. A more subtle note: always pause to consider the use of "although," "but," or "however," particularly at the beginning of sentences. "Smith argues X. However, Jones argues Y." The "however" renders the POV in favour of Jones. In the paragraph above, the second sentence clearly reads as an apology for the first.

Finally, the whole thing is logically jumbled. Why are we jumping back from Galileo to the barbarian invasions? Given that you have a massive history section, I would cut this entire paragraph and slip it into history in shortened form. If you need to mention Galileo, try: "The Church ordered house arrest for Galileo in 1633 after his presentation of heliocentricism. In 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for the action and conceded the heliocentric model." That's all I would say. Let the facts speak for themselves. Don't tell us if it was good, bad, or ugly. And avoid making large scale judgements on the "development of civilization". The question is both too big and too vague.

I'm going to suggest something similar for the first paragraph but we'll see how this goes first. Marskell (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, good comments. I am going to work up a reword today. Please be patient, I am a little busy today but I will be able to give this my full attention tonight and all day tomorrow. I appreciate you help here and would appreciate seeing your offering for the second paragraph too. Thanks very much for helping me here. NancyHeise ^talk 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The page is something of a moving target at the moment. I think Nancy has been improving the section in question. (Simply changing "improved" to "affected" the status of women helps; again, it lets the facts speak for themselves.)

As I type this we have "...a modern perception of antagonism between the Church and science of that era" for Galileo. Does this mean that in recent times a retroactive perception has developed? Not really. Nor can it be limited to that era: it extends to Darwin and beyond. On the whole the Galileo treatment is much better in terms of POV, but it's wordy.

Also "...scientific discoveries that they shared..." from the first sentence. This strikes me as a little bit patronizing and implies an intentionality that isn't always true of cultural transmission; I'd look for a different verb than "shared." For balance the next sentence might read: "In turn, Christendom absorbed foreign technologies, such as paper, which would prove critical to cultural development." You don't have to use the paper example, of course, but it would segue into the sentence on Catholic universities.

Aside from these two things, I think the second para of the section is fine. Much more logically constructed. I'll have more to say later today. Marskell (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have incorporated your and Ealdgyths comments, please have another look. Thanks for all your help. NancyHeise ^talk 08:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth's comments

Let's look at the Cultural influence section first:

Possible issues:

The statement: "Most significant was its role in the spread of Christianity throughout the world, a process which ended practices like human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide and polygamy in Christian lands." This is cited to Kohl (which appears to be a work discussing infanticide) and Bokenkotter p. 56. Note that Bokenkotter is not a sweeping statements on p. 56, he's merely saying "Roman law allowed abortion, imposed no criminal penalty for abandonment of a child, and even permitted infanticide. It was only through Christian influence that these crimes were eventually outlawed." The problem is that that statement, which is specific to the Roman empire, is being used to support a statement that is sweeping and general in implication, i.e. "throughout the world". Also note that nothing is said there about human sacrifice or polygamy or even the prohibition of slavery.

Actually, we should have the statement sourced also to Noble who had pages of cultural influence changes due to Christianity and then discussed Roman Catholic Church involvement. I will re-reference the sentence an possibly reword depending on the source. I agree that Kohl needs to be tossed. I kept it because it was added by another editor who put it back after I tossed it the first time. NancyHeise ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement: "Historians note that Catholic missionaries, popes, laymen and religious were among the leaders in the campaign against slavery, an institution that has existed in almost every culture." Which campaign against slavery? I'll note that slavery existed in much of medieval Europe, and also in Renaissance Italy. This is too sweeping a statement, implying that there is ONE campaign against slavery, which there really wasn't.

I was using the words used by Owen Chadwick who states "The leaders of the campaign against slavery were of five kinds:..." I will try to find a better wording for the sentence that will not be too sweeping.NancyHeise ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The statements: "Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and women in contrast to the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices. Others say the Church and teachings by St. Paul, the Fathers of the Church and Scholastic theologians perpetuated a notion that female inferiority was divinely ordained." I'll just note that the weight here is possibly a problem. There are three citations for the "improved status" bit but only one for the "others say" Perhaps you might try "Supporters of the church argue that the Catholic Church improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity begining in the Roman Empire. Critics of the Church, however, say the Church and teachings by St. Paul, the Fathers of the Church and Scholastic theologians perpetuated a notion that female inferiority was divinely ordained." which gives a more equal weight to the statements, and balances them by making them both opinions, instead of the current statement that gives one side as a fact, the other as an opinion.

I am not entirely opposed to a rewording here but I want to know if you think that is really correct. The opinions are not necessarily those of supporters of the Church but of scholars who wrote the university textbook on Western Civilization and other professors of history. We don't really know if they are Church supporters or just offering the scholarly view do we? Arent we assuming something that is not explicitly stated in the references when we call someone a supporter of the Church for maybe saying something that is just an accepted fact? The other sentence can be called Church critics because the reference calls them that. I changed it to "others say" because that is what SandyGeorgia suggested as being more NPOV. Let me look at this again and try to come up with an accurate rephrasing. NancyHeise ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps instead of supporters, we use "Some historians argue..." and then "Other historians, however, say ..." which is neutral enough, I'd think. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The statements: "The Catholic Church was the dominant influence on the development of Western art, at least up to the Protestant Reformation. Important contributions include its patronage of artists, its consistent opposition to Byzantine iconoclasm and the creation of the Romanesque, Gothic and Renaissance styles of art and architecture." which is odd. Why is the opposition to iconoclasm a developement of Western art? I'd cut that, honestly. And the church did not "create" the styles of Romanesque, Gothic and Renaissance art. They cultivated it, and they patronized, but surely the artists themselves "created" the art?

OK, will try to reword this. However, I think the opposition to Byzantine iconoclasm was an important issue that affected art. I will look at the references again. Thanks for your suggestions here. My daughter is in an honors orchestra and soccer practice this afternoon so I will be busy but will attend to these tonight and all day tomorrow. I sincerely appreciate you help Ealdgyth, it has been very key at very important points in this process and - gosh- I just want to hug you! Thank you very much for helping me with this most difficult issue. NancyHeise ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement: "In music, Catholic monks developed the first forms of musical notation, and an enormous body of religious music has been composed for the Catholic Church through the ages." The Oxford Classical Dictionary notes under music that "Our knowledge of Greek and Roman music comes from seven main sources. (a) A number of Greek musical scores survive: most are fragmentary, and almost all date from the Hellenistic period or later.", so at the very least there is disagreement about when the first musical scores were created.

I will research this paragraph, it was entirely written and sourced by other editors so I can still do searching for more sources and info to supplement there. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This should be a good start. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I have incorporated all of your comments here. Please have another look. Thanks again. NancyHeise ^talk 08:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good so far. Further comments:

"In previous centuries Christendom absorbed Chinese technologies, such as papermaking and printing." I'm not complaining about the information, but it's connection to the Catholic church, and the vague "in previous centuries" ... previous centuries to what? It's floating out there in chronological limbo. And by using "chrisendom" instead of "church" you're implying that the Catholic Church IS all of Christendom. I know you don't really mean that, but someone will complain about that, I'm sure.

"For much of European history, most research took place in Catholic universities that were staffed by religious orders who had the education and means to conduct scientific investigation." Hm. Chronological issue here again, universities date from the 1200's (1100's if you wanna stretch), and that until today isn't "much of european history". And this is another loaded statement, as what modern folks consider "scientific investigation" didn't really take place in medieval universities much. The major subjects taught in medieval universities were theology and law, not science as we think of it. What's the original source say here, as I don't have that book?

"In part because of lessons learned from the Galileo affair, the Church created and sponsors the Pontifical Academy of Sciences." Only problem I see is that you'll want to say when the academy was created.

Only major sticking point I see is the second one above, and I think between us we can get something that gets the information out there in a NPOV manner, I have a number of books I've dug out we can use if needed. I'll try to start on the next sticking point, the history section, later today. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Re point one, I actually suggested something to this effect above. I don't think the para should leave the impression cultural transmission was all one way. I mention paper because it's integral to the scholarship the section deals with it.

Re relevancy, a reference to cultural borrowing from Islam is probably better. You could still use the paper example. Maybe follow links from Missal of Silos (isn't Wiki wonderful?). Marskell (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And Nancy, I think the second last should be as follows: "The 1633 Church condemnation of Galileo Galilei restricted scientific developement in some European countries, ~~and is credited with~~ creating a ~~modern~~ perception of antagonism between the Church and science of that era." The perception is not modern and the sentence is wordy. Marskell (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, good comments, I changed the wording to reflect these comments. Thanks NancyHeise ^talk 16:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Marskell's request on what the source says about scientific research, I am reproducing it for you here. From page 593 of the university textbook entitled Western Civilization, The Continuing Experiment authored by professors of history Thomas Noble of Univ of Notre Dame, Barry Strauss of Cornell Univ. Duane Osheim of Univ of Virginia, William Cohen of Indiana Univ., David Roberts of Univ of Georgia and Rachel Fuchs of Arizona State Univ.

"Scientists and scientific thought also remained closely tied to religion in both practical and institutional ways during the seventeenth century. Both religion and the Catholic Church as an institution were involved with scientific advancement from the time of Copernicus. Copernicus himself was a cleric, as were many philosophers and scientists after him. This is not surprising, for most research in the sciences to this point had occurred within universities sponsored and staffed by members of religious orders, who had the education, time, and resources necessary for scientific investigation. Some of Descartes's closest collaborators were clerics, as were certain of Galileo's aristocratic patrons and his own proteges. Moreover, religious and metaphysical concerns were central to the work of virtually every scientist. The entire Cartesian edifice of reasoning about the world, for example, was grounded in Descartes's certainty about God. Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and others perceived God's purpose in the mathematical regularity of nature. The notion that religion was the opponent of science in this era is a result of Galileo's trial, and represents a distortion even of that event. It is true that the new astronomy and mechanics challenged traditional interpretations of Scripture, as well as the fundamentals of physics and metaphysics that were taught in universities. Thus, in its sponsorship of universities, the church was literally invested in the old views, even though individual clerics investigated and taught Copernican ideas. ....(goes into detail about trial of Galileo and its mainly political causes)...The condemnation of Gallileo shocked many clerics, including the three who had voted for leniency at his trial. Clerics who were also scientists continued to study and teach the new science where and when they could. Copernicanism was taught by Catholic missionaries abroad. To be sure, Gallileo's trial did have a chilling effect on scientific investigation in most Catholic regions of Europe. "

NancyHeise ^talk 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I must say first that the section is different everytime I look at it and it's becoming hard to offer a judgement. I appreciate you took all the time to type the above; I figured you were sitting on words to this effect, which is why I support "perception of" in the sentence. I'm fine with how Galileo is handled now. At the moment, though, the first sentence of the para is a wall of blue links and the last is wordy. And I'm still concerned about presenting cultural transmission as a one way street. Perhaps Ealdgyph has a third opinion on that. Marskell (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you must have been trying to evaluate it while I was still creating it. It was finished yesterday morning and no one has changed it, please see again. I will try to find some words to deal with the one way street effect. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 19:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping to find time this afternoon to do some more work here. RL kinda got busy unexpectedly on me. (Hay guy decided it was time to deliver hay... NOW. URGH!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Image concern

Tenochtitlan was sacked by Conquistadors and their native allies in 1521, with 200,000 killed. It was one of the largest cities in the world at the time.

Jan Hus, a religious thinker who influenced Martin Luther, was burned at the stake in 1415 for heresy.

OK, I am going to go over my image concern with examples. Top right. I'd have to double check the number, but the basic facts are sound. This is a better image choice, if you want to mention the Aztecs (again, you don't have to here): geopolitically, economically, symbolically, and in just about every other sense, the conquest and attendant massacres are of greater significance than ending human sacrifice, a point which is sort of moot once the society has been subdued. (See, for instance, Jared Diamond for a recent, popular look at this.) The whitewash continues down in the History section, but one thing at a time.

Bottom right. Do I even need to unpack this one? "But burning at the stake is overblown," you'll surely tell me. I would agree and I would oppose pictures of this sort on the same grounds I'm opposing the Aztec pic: do not reduce a complex subject to caricature; do not depict a culture or society only on the basis of its worse practices. I don't know how else to make this point clear. Marskell (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The first picture could be considered POV anti-Catholic because it offers an incorrect assumption that the Church sanctioned the invasion and bloodshed. The second picture selectively picks one martyr out of thousands that were murdered by both sides of the Reformation era that isnt even discussed in the cultural influence section because it is not a cultural influence. Right now, we have logically included the picture of Pope Urban preaching the Crusade which I think is quite negative for the Church but it is a more prominent event in the section of history being depicted than other events so it fits. The Aztec picture is more appropriate for the cultural influence section because it exactly depicts one of the major cultural influences affected by the Church discussed in the opening paragraph of that section. Neither the first nor second picture here do that and they are inappropriate for that reason. I do not understand why the Aztec picture is not OK but Pope Urban is. They are both facts of Roman Catholic Church and balance each other out regarding POV. NancyHeise ^talk 15:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't have our cake and eat it. What you're suggesting is that positive advances can be attributed to the Church because they were officially sanctioned but atrocities committed by Christians cannot be, even when of significant historical importance and even when proselytization was an understood goal. From a POV perspective this is a shell game. To be sure, the Conquistadors were, as individuals, serving Mammon more than they were serving Christ. But they also brought Catholicism by force of arms to the Americas; there's no way around that. (See Battle of Cajamarca for another clear intersection of missionary behaviour and massacre.) And what I'm objecting to most strongly is not the mention of human sacrifice but that it's the only thing attributed to the Aztecs (or any native society, as far as I can see.) I've said that about four times now. Go down to the history section and you find: "The following year, the first Franciscan missionaries arrived in Mexico, establishing schools, model farms and hospitals." And that's it. A nice, sunny picture with no mention made of the deprivations that led to it.

On that note, I said I would make some comparisons to Islam and I'll do so now.

"Conflict with Medinan Jewish clans who opposed the Muslims led to their exile, enslavement or death, and the Jewish enclave of Khaybar was subdued. At the same time, Meccan trade routes were cut off as Muhammad brought surrounding desert tribes under his control."

I pick this because it was specifically added to address a reviewer's concern at FAC and because it alludes to events that could easily lead to POV nightmares (particularly the massacre at Banu Qurayza). "Enslavement and death" are difficult words; a Muslim might wince. But they are relevant words, clinically stated. The editors at that article did two things right. First, they avoided extraneous detail. The two sentences above could easily be turned into two paragraphs. Deliberately, the editors avoided such expansion. This is the biggest difference with RCC; you have POV concerns in part because your article is so long. Second, they avoided apologetics and value judgements. Go to the family life section (also added for FAC): it doesn't imply that you should like or dislike polygamy. It states that a man may take four wives and moves along.

I was not suggesting the top right photo for Culture; it would be appropriate to History. This image would work, as well. Marskell (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, no history book says that the Church was responsible for offenses perpetrated by Spanish Conquistadores and all history books explicitly go into great detail on how the Church fought against these abuses. The information goes into great detail on missions and how they helped the Indians. What you see in the article is what we found in the sources. Please stop assuming that we are POV, we have reflected in the article text what the sources support. I can not insert text that is unsupported by references. The last photo you suggest here this is nothing to do with anything in the article - it does not even mention the Church except for the fact that it is a funeral. Also, I eliminated value judgements on polygamy and such by removing the word "improved" womens lives and replaced it with "affected" womens lives. NancyHeise ^talk 19:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, this may be helpful. From Western Civilization, The Continuing Experiment (same book as quoted above) pages 450-451:

"The head of the administratio nwas the monarchy. As early as the reigns of Ferdinand and Isabella, Spanish monarchs had tried to curb the excesses of the explorers and conquerors who traveled in their name. Isabella initially opposed the enslavement of Amerindians and any slave trade in the new lands. Further, the monarchs promoted a broad-based debate about the rights of Amerindians and the nature of religious conversion. It was royal policy that native rights, even the right not to become Christian, were to be protected. Mexicans had to accept missionaries, but they did not have to convert." ....The problem that most plagued the government was the conqueors' desire for laborers to work on the lands and in the mines that they had seized. From Columbus' first visit the Spanish adopted a system of forced labor developed in Spain. A colonist called an encomendero was offered a grant, or encomienda, of a certain number of people or tribes who were requireed to work under his direction. The Spanish government expected that the encomendaro was to be the protector of the conquered peoples, someone who would Christianize and civilize them. In theory, Indians who voluntarily agreed to listen to missionaries or to convert to Christianity could not be put under the control of an encomendero. If they refused, however, the Spaniards believed they had the right of conquest. In many areas encomenderos allowed life to continue as it had, simply collecting traditional payments that the preconquest elites had claimed. In other cases, where the subject peoples were forced into mining districts, the conditions were brutal. The treatment of native peoples was 'more unjust and cruel,' one reformer concluded, 'than Pharaoh's oppression of the Jews.' The pressures exerted by the encomenderos were worsened by the precipitous fall in the indigenous population. Old World diseases such as smallpox and measles swept through peoples with no previous exposure to them(see pages 453-454). ....At first plantations and mines were worked by Amerindians, but when their numbers shrank, the Spanish and Portugese imported large numbers of slaves from Africa."

My point in placing this here is to show you that there is a difference between what the Spanish Government sanctioned and what the Catholic Church sanctioned. The Church followed the conquistadores but they were offering Christianity, not forcing and it was really a way out for those Amerindians who did not want to be placed under the control of an encomendero. NancyHeise ^talk 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From same book, next page where it discusses the Church page 452:

"Initially the conquerors claimed the right to wage a just war of conquest if Amerindians refused to allow missionaries to live and work among them. Later, on the basis of reports of human sacrifice and cannibalism written by Columbus and other early explorers, Europeans concluded that the inhabitants of the New World rejected basic natural laws. Juan Gines de Sepulveda, chaplain of King Charles I of Spain, argued in 1544 that the idolatry and cannibalism of the Indians made them, in Aristotles terms, natural slaves-'barbarous and inhumand peoples abhorring all civil life, customs and virtue.' People lacking 'civil life' and 'virtue' clearly could not be allowed self-government. Other writers commented that nakedness and cannibalism were both signs of the lack of 'civility' among the Amerindians. Sepulveda implied that Indians were merely 'humanlike,' not necessarily human. Franciscan and Dominican missionaries were especially vocal opponents of views such as Sepulveda's. To these missionaries the Indians initially seemed innocent and ideal subjects for conversion to the simple pity of Christ and his first apostles. In their eyes Indians were like children who could be converted and led by example and, where necessary, by stern discipline. The simple faith of the newly Christian native peoples was to be an exampl, the missionaries believed, for the lax believers of old Europe. These mendicants saw themselves as advocates for Indians: they desired to protect the natives from teh depredations of the Spanish conquerors and the corruptions of European civilization....The most eloquent defender of Indian rights was Bartolome de Las Casas, a former encomendero who became a Dominican missionary and eventually bishop of Chiapas in Southern Mexico. Las Casas passionately condemned the violence and brutality of the Spanish conquests. ...That being the case, even the most brutal could be civilized and Christianized, but by conversion, not coercion. In the view of Las Casas, the argument for natural slavery was indefensible. King Charles accepted Las Casa's criticisms of the colonial administration. In 1542 he issued "New Laws" aimed at ending the virtual independence of the most adventurous encomenderos. He further abolished Indian slavery and greatly restoricted the transfer of encomiendas.

No where in this book is there mention that any "atrocities" were created by, sanctioned or carried out by the Church institution - it is always in all sources the Church institution as the defender of the Indians against Spanish atrocities. NancyHeise ^talk 22:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the Aztec image with another depicting missionaries encountering Amerindians. NancyHeise ^talk 02:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have gone over the article's coverage of Latin America again. I am wondering if you are overlooking some coverage here. You point to the mention of the Spanish missions in California and that is only part of our coverage. The main part that discusses the brutality of the Spanish is in the first paragraph of Late Medieval and Renaissance which also has a wikilink at the top of the section to Roman Catholic Church and colonialism. Did you see that? The Spanish missions came much later and it is also there that we mention the spread of disease that greatly affected the Indian populations.NancyHeise ^talk 11:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is wearing me down. I almost wish you hadn't shown me the link to Roman Catholic Church and colonialism. "The discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus did not occur until 1492." Christopher Columbus did not discover the Americas.

Anyway, that article isn't up at FAC. Yes, I saw the beginning of the Late Medieval and Renaissance section. In an attempt to tame the POV, it's just being reintroduced.

"When Islam presented a serious military threat to Italy and Central Europe during mid 15th Century, Pope Nicholas V tried to unite Christendom against them but failed. He then granted Portugal the right to subdue and even enslave Muslims, pagans and other unbelievers in the papal bull Dum Diversas (1452)." This is fine, but why "even enslave"? Just say "enslave." Also, "during the mid-15th..."
"While this bull preceded the Atlantic slave trade by several decades, slavery and the slave trade were part of African societies and states which supplied the Arab world with slaves long before the arrival of the Europeans." Sigh. As in so many places in this article, this sentence is simply there to apologize for the one that came before. "They did it too"-ism. I think that's become an instinctive editing habit of yours on this article and that is perhaps the most significant POV challenge facing it.

The paragraph then progresses not too badly except for another clear instinct on display throughtout the article "last word"-ism. When I said the POV was "inbuilt on the level phrase" I had this paragraph in mind. Marskell (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, I have great difficulty seeing these facts in the same light as you see them. What you are calling POV on my part I see as very necessary facts to ensure Reader understands context in which events occurred. I would appreciate also an effort of those trying to help me be NPOV to also consider that there is some POV shining through on your part. The goal of the article is not to offer Reader something so "NPOV" that it lacks context. The article has now failed FAC. In spite of Sandy's encouraging words, I am not so positive that a clear "NPOV" version of the article is acheivable based on these conversations. Thanks for your help anyway. NancyHeise ^talk 18:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for coming to this conversation late, but there seems to be a confusion over who did what. The unity of governments with Catholicism in Europe does not make Catholicism guilty of the actions of these nations or their citizens. I just finished reading "Conquistador" by Buddy Levy; no where does he allege these conquers of the Aztecs was directed by the Catholic Church though priests did accompany them. In fact, it makes it very clear that the Cortez directed the priests not the other way around. Marskell, are you saying that you think the Catholic Church was behind these actions or have I just misunderstood your position above? --^StormRider 01:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)