"It seems to me that all those denigrating Cortes have one thing in common: they seem to be judging him and his actions according to the “lights” of modern understanding and theology."

Hmmm.  A point to consider, certainly.  However, there were near-contemporaneous condemnations of what the Spaniards were doing.  I’ll take Cortez in that context, but not in the revisionist way he is portrayed here.

Regards,

Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic [Latin rite] & generally inveterate amateur)

"In reality, Cortés was a great soldier of the Church with a deep devotion to Mary. "

I guess thie quoted statement, above all, grates intolerably.  Most especially the claim that he was a "great soldier of the Church."

I know that in many of the communities of the "Native Americans" this statement would be the death-knell of any thought of following Catholicism. 

As misguided as he may have been, it is not possible to challenge the claim that he was devoted to Our Lady, but it is easy to see how one would be sceptical about the claim’s validity at least at the time of his invasion of Mexico.  If he honestly was, maybe she heard his prayers and so had her attention drawn to the horrible results of his actions (but of course, enjoying the beatific vision, her attention didn’t need to be drawn anywhere).  Perhaps that is what led her to intervene, though much later.

Regards,

Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic [Latin rite] & generally inveterate amateur)

This note of understanding, as it were, should not be confused with blindness. We cringe in horror at the news reports out of modern Liberia (for example) where non-combatants have had their limbs hacked off by the soldiery. Such grotesque evil was engineered by the likes of Charles Taylor, and Cortes did much the same during his wars. If Mr. Taylor causes you to cringe, so should Cortes. But it would be too much to simply write off Cortes's career as the mere consequence of circumstance. Many did not choose the life chosen by Cortes. We cannot forget that Martin of Porres and Rose of Lima came on the scene at about the same time. Cortes's courageous contemporary, Bartolomé de las Casas, stood up before the Spanish crown to argue successfully that the indigenous of America had souls, were therefore human, and must therefore be treated as any other bearing the inherent dignity of a living image of God. Now, the good Friar Bartolomé's name has been sullied of late, pressed into the service of banal politics and even seen as a forebear of Liberation Theology. But this usurpation is not the good Friar's fault. The historical Cortes has been similarly usurped as symbolic of the problems with alleged Western hegemony. But the evil of Cortes cannot be presented honestly as a foil for evils of the pre-Hispanic indigenous peoples (or in contrast to their alleged good). (It is interesting that neither St. Martin nor St. Rose has been similarly usurped, but in each case, the saint's greatness is a direct consequence of his real-life humility, lived out under some of the most horrific social circumstances imaginable. Humility does not lend itself well to political causes, and so these two great saints remain largely unsullied.)

Still, the article serves a useful purpose, I think. The historical Cortes was no mere killing machine, nor was religion instrumental to the mythologized "diabolical" purposes attributed to him. Religion was clearly part and parcel of who he was, and it no doubt served to soften the hardest edges of his martial exploits. Nevertheless, those edges remained harsh and merciless on many levels, and it is not too much to suggest that his terrible exploits created a situation where a genuine, sacramental miracle was required to bring sanity onto the scene — especially since that scene was despoiled of sanity long before Cortes arrived.

The Blessed Mother provided that sanity with her miracle. We should be thankful and attentive to her wishes. It really doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

Beyond the providential coincidence of the Virginia/Maryland location of our capital, consider this:

The USA declared war and entered into WWII on December 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception.

The Japanese surrendered ending that war on August 15, the feast of the Assumption.

Thanks PTR for the Maryland clarification. I forgot that one. What's to stop us from consecrating Virginia and Maryland to the Blessed Lady?

Cortez marched inland, accompanied by Cempoalans, subjugated vassals of the Aztecs with their own motives.

Before reaching Mexico City, his forces entered the republic of Tlaxcala which had successfully resisted the Aztecs.  The Tlaxcalans fought bravely but could not pierce the iron armor of the Spaniards.  They lost the first battle. 

Bernal Diaz, a Spaniard who provides an account of these events, wrote, in part: " we dressed our wounds with the fat from a stout Indian whom we had killed and cut open, for we had no oil."

One might be forgiven for wondering what Christian virtue was thereby exemplified. 

At least the Aztecs believed the sacrifices were called for by their deity.

Naturally we know the Spaniards didn’t sacrifice this man just to get dressing for their wounds.  After all, we have their word for it.

The Tlaxacans had retreated and sent ambassadors to spy on the Spanish before they would have to fight again. 

They were denounced to Cortez by his mistress and he ordered their hands to be cut off and sent them home.  I would think such benignity would tend to leave even the Pope speechless. 

The perspective of the Aztecs towards Cortez was somewhat different than we have presented to us most often.  It comes from one of their own through the offices of a Spanish friar, fluent in the Nahuatl language. 

(The Aztecs had blundered badly when word reached them of the gigantic canoes that had appeared from where the Sun rises.  They sent ambassadors bearing gifts to Cortez.  These objects were the finest in their realm, beaten gold, colorful, rare feathers and many other things.  Cortez however sneered at the gifts and chained the ambassadors, fired off a cannon to frighten them, plied them with wine and tried to provoke them to resist him.  (It seems he had tried hard to provoke them to violence.)  They had declined and eventually made good their escape.  These events had taken place before the march towards Mexcio City, which I have described above, began.  It is this encounter which led to the record of the Aztecs’ point of view.) 

"Is this all?" he is reported to have said to the ambassadors.  "Is this your gift of welcome?  Is this how you greet people?"  They answered: "This is all, our lord.  This is what we have brought you." What followed was the mistreatment of them already noted. 

Suffice it to say the Spanish record of this encounter runs quite differently.

Oh yes, the Aztecs were oppressors.  They sacrificed many humans on their altars. 

However, I fail to see where the Spanish had a divine mandate to commit atrocities in the name of Our Lord. 

If the history of salvation teaches us anything, we ought to realize that God works continually despite the evil that humans introduce into the equation.  Mary’s appearance is an example of that sort of intervention undoubtedly willed by God.  An intervention that took place, many years later, in spite of the climate of the times, not as an endorsement of what the Spanish ahd done and were doing. 

Cortez came for gold.  To deny this is to indulge in rank self-deception.  Oh, yes, he had friars with him but that was an expedient to secure the backing of the Spanish throne for his expedition.  According to the European doctrine of discovery, the first European authority to "discover" a hitherto unknown (to the Europeans) land, had the exclusive right to negotiate with the inhabitants of that land for trade privileges.  Cortez could not hold the benefit of this doctrine as a private individual.  He had to have a commission from the King, a recognized ruler in Europe.  For his part, the King would not grant the commission unless Cortez took the friars with him.  What motivated the King?  Perhaps the Queen.  In any case, Cortez wasn’t interested in bringing religion to the people he met beyond allowing the friars to travel with him.

Cortez a Catholic??? Pulleeese. 

One might be tempted to say, with the leader who was charged with apostasy by the Spaniards (he had been compelled to convert, and when they discovered that he continued to practice his own religion, they had brought him to book over it), «If you are the kind of people to be found in your "paradise" then I want to go to the other place.»

Regards,

Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic [Latin rite] & generally inveterate amateur)

Virginia was not named for the Blessed Virgin, but after Queen Elizabeth I.

Plus, Maryland was not named after our Blessed Mother either, but to honor King Charles’ wife Queen Henrietta Maria (Queen Mary).

But God works in mysterious ways.  And the fact is the states called Virginia and Maryland are the two which surround our nation's capital.