de las casa was actually both. a conquistador-turned-ordered monk.

i think the point is still quite salient though, de las casas was not the first representative of the church in america and many within the church were quite content with what was happening in america--to heathens--as it were. it's quite right to question the moderating influence of the catholic church when it appeared late and in actuality quite feebly (when its representatives were even interested in the new laws)

what is most responsible for spanish colonization not totally exterminating native peoples and ways of life is not de las casas and directives from the metropole, but a heap of credible indigenous power. limitations on colonial excesses was more about preventing uprising than it was humanitarianism, and though the usual historical overview is "spain conquered x, x, x, countries lets move on to the 18th century already" rebellion was constant after the conquests and very often not overcome by spanish military force. accomidation, detente, and autonomy with native groups underwrite the Big Maps of spanish colonies in america.

Then you'd have to compare Catholic clergymen to Protestant clergymen (if possible), and Catholic laymen to Protestant laymen. It doesn't really change anything about the argument.

This was originally about Catholicism being comparable to Protestantism in how bad it was. The stem comment literally started with "catholicism sucks a heap of shit too, pal" and you responded to that, defending the honor of your preferred ecclesiastical body with unsubstantiated allegations.

and given 90%+ were done by protestants

You keep spewing that out with nothing to back it up.

Literally the most famous person ever burned at the stake was a Roman Catholic, executed by other Roman Catholics, as part of a decades-long war that the Roman Catholic Church failed (for a second time) to preclude, as many would suppose to be the function of an international/interethnic political religious entity.

The Catholic Church exercised widespread violent pressure against pagans and Muslims and Jews (and sometimes even Eastern Orthodox Christians!), and was a bulwark of patriarchy.

Burning at the stake was practiced and common enough before Protestantism even became a thing. In fact, execution by fire was in practice pre-Luther for longer than it was in practice post-Luther. You can say that Calvinists and Lutherans (just two of many kinds of Protestants) did it too, but to say that it was exclusively typical to Protestants is completely wrong.

If we're going to recognize that Protestants only started controlling states and armies later on, and compare apples to apples, consider that when an American (Protestant) president started his second large-scale war, and claimed to have consulted "a higher father" about it, the bishops of his denomination vehemently refuted and disavowed the idea that such a war would be approved by God. There are plenty of Protestant denominations that can rightfully claim to have never condoned war or genocide, and some that can even claim to have never condoned violence of any sort.

Protestants are a mixed bag, but you certainly don't see Protestant churches adorned in silver from the Potosí mines or anything like that. In absolute terms they are nowhere near as blood-soaked as the Catholic Church, and in relative terms many of the Protestant churches are rather clean (some, not others).