I found it very hard to read the narrative by Echevarria. Mainly due to the gruesome in his depictions, but also due to the strong influence the Church and government had on the people, yet it showed no morality in its actions. There was so much hatred towards the Unitarian people, that they enjoyed torturing them before killing them. It’s hard to believe that such religious Catholic people that to my understanding are supposed to hold some basic moral values, think it’s acceptable to be hurting others for a laugh. One fact that I was unaware of and learned through this reading was the fact that eating meat was considered a sin in the 1830s. The fact that modern science today (which in my perspective is not always true and objective) proves that the consumption of meat and fish is healthy for one to consume was considered sinful in a religion so common today strikes me. How/when did this law change in Catholicism?
Additionally, I was struck by the fact that basic human rights were hard to achieve back then, when I thought many people knew how to grow their own food and were allowed to grow and eat whatever they needed to survive. However, this doesn’t seem to be true. The Church and the government controlled many individual decisions that took place. So for how many years has it done that? Since it’s still evident today with many food sovereignty issues worldwide regarding genetically modified seeds that are being controlled by Monsanto and the government that is allowing it to happen.
Furthermore, it seems that the Church tends to give more than one exception to certain things. For example, as we saw in the reading about Catalina de Erauso, the pope was able to forgive her for becoming a transgender, disobeying her parents and lying to so many people throughout her journey. In this case, the Bishop granted the Restorer a special dispensation to eat meat, even though this was considered a sin. How is it that this religion is able to so many times forgive people who have not followed the Church’s rule to an extent that murder even becomes acceptable?
I don’t think it’s that meat was considered a sin, it’s just that during Lent you’re supposed to stop eating meat as a tribute to Jesus or something like that. However, I do agree that the church is flawed and shouldn’t be exempting certain people from their law. However, you have to take into consideration that the church is run by men and men are inherently flawed, making the church a flawed institution which favours those with power.
I agree that it’s hard to image people, who claim to have moral values harming and killing people for unjustified reasons. I was also unaware that eating meat was a sin, but I can understand their logic, as for the times if meat was not properly preserved it would result in serious illness and possibly death.