The Catholic Church's contradictory responses to bullfighting festivities

The Catholic Church has always maintained a contradictory position with respect to bullfighting festivals. On the one hand, it has condemned them by comparing them to the ancient roman ludi but, on the other hand, it has also enjoyed them, including their economic benefits. In spite of the differences in their positions manifested during the centuries, the reality is that the position of the church is a sample of gatopardismo, where everything changes so that nothing changes.

A failed ban

In 1526 we already have condemnations of this practice. In the work of brief title Las cuatrocientas respuestas a tantas otras preguntas que el ilustrísimo señor don Fadrique Enríquez, Almirante de Castilla, and other people at various times sent questions to the author, the Franciscan monk responded to the missives of Fadrique Enríquez, concerned about the morality of bullfighting. Although he altered the question to look for an ethical loophole to justify his participation, the monk was firm: it was always a sin, no matter the circumstances or scenarios, because it risked life unnecessarily and was cruel to a creature that did not threaten him, and he considered that those who died in bullfighting lost their souls by offending God.

This was not an isolated position. At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), many bishops proposed to prohibit it, but only threatened to excommunicate the participating clerics and to forbid celebrating such festivities on days dedicated to saints, the Virgin Mary or Corpus Christi. In Toledo, a council was held in 1565 presided over by the bishop of Córdoba, with the participation of the bishops of Sigüenza, Segovia, Palencia, Cuenca, Osma and Alcalá, as well as distinguished members of the clergy. The council agreed that bullfighting was an offensive practice before God, threatening with excommunication anyone who faced a bull and had taken the vows.

On November 1, 1567, Pope Pius V (1528-1556) published the bull De salutis gregis dominici ("On the health of the Lord's flocks"), where he pointed out bullfighting as a cruel spectacle of the devil, not of man, as it did not maintain Christian piety and charity. Consequently, officials and princes would be excommunicated and would be denied a Christian burial if they allowed bullfighting, while clergymen were forbidden to attend under sentence of excommunication.

Having pronounced the papal authority, one might wonder why we still continue the practice. It is something we owe to King Philip II of Spain. Although he had no personal interest in the holiday, it was in his interest to maintain the support of the nobility, so he forbade the publication of the papal bull in his lands. Philip II not only remained inflexible in the face of appeals from the church or the courts of Castile, but insisted that successive popes reduce the harshness of the prohibition. Thus, although Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585) reiterated the prohibition in his Exponi Nobis of August 25, 1575, he only limited attendance by religious and celebration on religious feasts. However, even members of the church turned a deaf ear and still attended the festivities. This is why Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) sent the message Nuper siquideu on April 14, 1586 to the Bishop of Salamanca to authorize him to punish clerics who did not comply with the norms of Pius V and Gregory XIII. However, in the end Pope Clement VII (1592-1605) further reduced the prohibition in the bull Suscepti muneris (1596), allowing the secular clergy to attend.

Constant discrepancy

In spite of this, the division of opinions among the members of the church was maintained. St. John of Avila (1500-1569) indicated that participation in bullfighting, besides being dangerous to the conscience, was a mortal sin. In the third discourse of Razón para llorar (1590), Friar Damián de Vegas lamented the cruelty of bullfighters against innocent animals and the lack of compassion of the public, aware that the bullfighter would die in a state of mortal sin. One of the chapters of Beneficios del trabajo honesto y daños de la ociosidad en ocho capítulos (1614) by Father Pedro de Guzmán described bullfighting as a practice more typical of pagan Romans than of Spaniards. He compared bullfighters to suicides and the public as promoters of their death, considering the money collected as an expense that would have been more useful if it had been dedicated to God. The posthumous work of Father Juan de Mariana (1536-1624), Contra los juegos públicos (1854), also interpreted the practice as pagan and a source of evil. Moreover, he considered it absurd to try to satisfy the saints with them instead of with piety, innocence and good works.

Father Jaume Balmes (1810-1848) in El protestantismo comparado con el catolicismo en sus relaciones con la civilización europea (1857) expressed the contradiction of having this barbaric practice in a Catholic country. However, although he did not support the practices, he reasoned that human nature tended to experience danger, especially among Spaniards and their taste for tragedies.

Bullfighting became a commercial spectacle in the 18th century, often serving to raise funds, which were usually used by the church to construct buildings and pay salaries. Although it was held on Monday afternoons, as people stopped working to attend, it was moved to Sundays. There was criticism in the church, as it was competing with it, but eventually they adapted. In the mid-19th century, Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) reduced the religious holidays at the request of the Spanish government to increase the days on which bullfights could be held.

Unrelenting criticism

In 1920, Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), recalling the bull of Pius V, again condemned these bloody spectacles, as did Cardinal Gasparri, Vatican Secretary of State, the same year. Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) also rejected them and refused to meet with bullfighting representatives.

In Spain, the Episcopal Conference has generally maintained its silence on this issue, despite its recurrent interventions on political and social issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriages, where it focuses most of its efforts. The same is true in Mexico, where José Guadalupe Martín Rabago, bishop of León, declared that the bull of Pius V was temporary and that it dealt with a less important issue than abortion. Nevertheless, it continues to be a controversial topic, as Ubaldo Santana, bishop emeritus of Maracaibo, or Monsignor Mario Canciani condemned bullfighting or supported animals.

Sources

• Carretero-González, M. (2018). Catholic law on bullfighting. In The Routledge handbook of religion and animal ethics (pp. 286-294). Routledge. 
• Alpert, R. T., & Alpert, R. (2015). Religion and sports. Columbia University Press.