Loading ...
With the Superbowl coming up this weekend, I think it’s time to pose this gripping moral question: is gambling sinful?
I ask this partly because I feel confident that someone out there will pull from the shelf one of those delightful old manuals of morality that the Church doesn’t seem to publish anymore, and give us a concrete answer. I love those old manuals (even while considering them a tad bit less authoritative than, say, Scripture), so that’s always a treat.
But the question is at least mildly interesting. Evangelicals (and the conservative Bible-thumping Protestant groups of a younger America, from which present-day Evangelicals draw their inspiration) tend to condemn gambling in a fairly unequivocal, across-the-board sort of way. I remember getting in debates back in grade school about whether card-playing was permissible in any form, and a childhood friend of mine used to play gambling-free poker with her siblings. (And when her parents said gambling-free, they meant it: the kids would deal the cards, and then see who got the best hand. Oh, it was table-thumping fun, I can tell you.)
Actually, Evangelicals like to ban a lot of things, and they are particularly fond of placing pre-emptive bans on things that might become addictive. Alcohol is the most obvious example — as a former Mormon, I have lots of thoughts about that one, but perhaps I’ll save those for another post. Tobacco is also a popular target, and various odd groups will ban other less addictive things as well (i.e. the Mormons and coffee.) Gambling seems largely to fit under the same heading, since it certainly can be addictive.
Everybody agrees that addictions are bad, but Catholics aren’t normally such sticklers about avoiding anything that has even the potential for it. A critic could suppose that that’s because we’re lazy and self-indulgent. A more charitable interpretation might be that we just like to distinguish between genuinely sinful things and those that are merely inadvisable under certain circumstances. And it really does seem odd to ban wagers of any kind. What would make them wrong? The fact that they involve risk? But lots of normal things that we do involve elements of risk-taking. Being too risk-averse could under some circumstances be positively wrong, since it makes it harder for us to trust God and do his will. The risk-averse person may be more reluctant to give to the poor, more hesitant about having another child, or less willing to openly proclaim his faith under hostile circumstances. It isn’t entirely bad to develop a take-what-comes attitude towards life.
Let’s be honest, though. There’s a pretty wide gulf between the pious sacrifices I mention and blowing money at the dog track. There is nothing holy or virtuous about becoming too obsessed with that thrill of excitement, waiting to see whether you’ll win or lose. Even if we can’t think of a reason why betting should be categorically wrong, there may be activities that are so reliably connected to sin that nobody except the systematic theologian need worry much about the distinction. I take this to be the case with pornography. Technically it is the lustful feelings, not the actual looking, that is sinful, but the case in which a person views porn for non-lustful reasons is so exceptional that it doesn’t seem very necessary to get ordinary people worrying about the distinction. Certain overt forms of gambling might be similar. Is there any very good reason for frequenting the dog track? Isn’t that sort of betting overwhelmingly likely to be slimy, unwholesome, and addictive? Is there any moral upside to playing dice, or cockfighting?
Another thing to consider: the Catholic “softness” on things that Protestants view as moral issues can be a cause of scandal. I think Catholics do often get a bad reputation for being unconcerned about “everyday” morality, and while we can’t plan everything in our lives based on what other people think, it might sometimes make sense to avoid certain behaviors just for the sake of avoiding offence. This is largely why I remained a teetotaler even after apostizing from Mormonism, even though I don’t think drinking is necessarily wrong. It just seemed better to save the battles for genuine truths or requirements of the faith. Drinking is not morally required, and neither is gambling.
I find these arguments somewhat compelling, but on the whole, I’m inclined towards the soft, easy, sloppy solution to the title question: it depends. Risking destitution for the sake of a casual pastime is unwise, and immoral too if one has a family to support or other financial obligations. Addictions of all kinds can have terrible spiritual consequences, so anyone with a proclivity to this addiction should be especially strict about avoiding it, in the same way that a recovering alcoholic must shun the casual drink that would be morally unproblematic for another person. And probably, as with alcohol, we should be realistic about the risks: anyone can get addicted if they don’t take great care.
But some gamblng, in moderation, may be acceptable. I can’t see much problem with the occasional friendly, low-stakes poker game. Betting on sports has always seemed superfluous to me; if you’re a real fan, games are exciting enough without involving money. But I don’t know that the occasional low-level bet is necessarily immoral. I’ve never been able to understand why playing slot machines would be fun, but I know there are people for whom the occasional casino trip is their idea of a great weekend. As long as it doesn’t take over their lives, I guess I’m inclined to shrug and say, “to each his own.”
That’s my intial take, but I’ll sit back now and wait for people to dig out their moral manuals.
go to main page
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Johnboy,
You must be referring to Novus Ordo Catholics since Traditional Mass Churches are noted for their being well supported by generous parishioners without the use of Bingo.
I like one priest’s comment on the parishes who have bingo — presumably due to the lack of generosity of its parishioners:
so we go and serve the devil, if you will
Well… that does seem a little dramatic to me. I’m inclined to agree with Tobias Petrus that it’s probably not that horrible if parishes try to combine money-making with fun community activities. It needn’t necessarily be an act of desperation. I mean, giving to the Church outright and participating in Bingo or a fish fry aren’t mutually exclusive. You could take the attitude of, “I like to go out on Friday nights anyway, and this way my entertainment expenditures can help the parish too.” Everybody wins.
Johnboy, do you think that parish bake sales and fish fries are “obviously bad,” too?
Agreeing that Bingo is not a sin, does not exclude it from perhaps being an occasion of sin and at any rate, Church run Bingo is not the ideal situation. The game seems to be part of the American Catholic tradition, which was introduced by a Priest in PA in 1934—a tradition that has been rejected by those attached to Roman Catholic Tradition. Correct me if it is found flourishing in the FSSP or Institute of Christ the King. How did the Church survive prior to Bingo?
If I were a priest and sent to a parish, I would slowly phase out the gambling game, even at the cost of being called Puritanical. I would first take down the huge sign next to (or in front of) the name of the Church so that people would no longer call it Saint Bingo’s. Good idea, Tobias Petrus! I would introduce Fish Fries on Friday nights—something with a more traditional Catholic bent. And after all, eating is a necessity of life where gambling is not. Yes, I might tolerate a raffle a couple of times a year but weekly Bingo is definitely addictive, which means you can’t do without it. No one should lose his will power on anything. If it were the custom to play Bingo in the Church basement, I would put up a sign, “My Father’s house is a house of prayer but you have made it a den of thieves.” I could picture the Patron Saint of Parish Priests doing the same thing. “Maybe not,” you say. But can you picture him calling out the numbers?
Again, I don’t thing the parishioners are sinning when playing Bingo but neither do I think our leaders are the best of shepherds for promoting it. Are they partly responsible for the increasing addiction to gambling today? You can’t blame state lawmakers for wanting to make money for the treasury if the Church is giving the cue. The same applies to matters of much more importance.
Bingo is one tradition, I’m glad to see go. Hopefully it will never be said of Traditionalists (excuse the label), “Every Tuesday night, even in bad weather, the family is packed in the old station wagon and takes off for Timbuctoo just to attend a traditional Bingo session.”
“My Father’s house is a house of prayer but you have made it a den of thieves.” Do you see what I mean? If you don’t think that the parishioners are sinning by playing bingo, then how is anyone a *thief* for playing it? I admit that for some it is an occasion of sin, just as church potlucks are an occasion for the sin of gluttony for those who have that vice. Just as Ladies Altar Societies are occasions of sin for gossip, and the Knights of Columbus are an occasion of sin for dirty jokes. I don’t fault people who don’t like church bingo (mutatis mutandis, I’ll probably never join the K. of C.), and if I were a priest I probably wouldn’t use bingo for funding the parish (though I’d let the Knights of Columbus or Ladies Altar Society continue bingo if they wanted it). But why does the criticism of it require hyperbole about it being “of the devil” or “a den of thieves”?
“Every Tuesday night, even in bad weather, the family is packed in the old station wagon and takes off for Timbuctoo just to attend a traditional Bingo session.” First off, traditionalists often have ironically “untraditional” parishes. For many traditionalists, their parish church might as well be in Timbuctoo. Not so for most Catholics (and Novus Ordo Catholics are most Catholics), who live within a few miles of their church. Secondly, I don’t see prima facie what is ridiculous about going as a family to a church-sponsored recreational event. It is better than TV. You are around members of your parish, whom you might not talk to much otherwise. If someone has a gambling problem, they shouldn’t go. Just as alcoholics shouldn’t drink — but I’ll still serve wine (an occasion of sin) at my wedding. And gluttons shouldn’t pig out at parish fish fries. If a parish can do without bingo, more power to them — one less profane activity that can be jettisoned. If the people like it, fine. It is not prayer, but it is fundraising — and churches need funds as well as prayer. And for the little old ladies and cantankerous old codgers who go, it may be one of the few social outings they get. And that counts as a corporal work of mercy — giving the elderly something to do, together, as a group. And many times their grown children drive them to bingo, which means that the families come together. You can sneer at that if you want, but I can tell you that it is true for all the sneering.
I guess there is no disputing tastes. Is bingo trite? Yes. But I think that in so much of the criticism of it, taste (i.e. snobbery) is the operating principle behind the opposition. It seems to me that most people who object to bingo in church would never play it outside of church either, just because they don’t enjoy it and look down on it as vulgar and stupid. If someone who actually seemed to like doing it nevertheless objected to its use at church on the grounds that it was profane and potentially sinful, then I would view the criticism as more sincere, i.e. motivated on moral grounds as opposed to those of taste. And, I sometimes worry that it is precisely the unnatural situation in which traditionalists find themselves (e.g. commuter parishes composed of like-minded, committed people) makes them less sympathetic to the practical day-to-day life (and traditions) of regular parishes. I am *not* referring to liturgy, but rather to the importance of groups like the Altar Society, the K. of C., and, yes, the bingo people in normal parishes. When, God willing, the Novus Ordo is repealed, the surviving Novus Ordo parishes will not all be hijacked by FSSP or ICK priests, nor will all those people in those parishes suddenly end everything they’ve been doing for three generations and more (e.g. since 1934) just because the traditionalist parishes abstained from those same activities.
“You can’t blame state lawmakers for wanting to make money for the treasury if the Church is giving the cue.” I don’t blame state lawmakers at all, so long as the gambling is regulated — as it is.
“weekly Bingo is definitely addictive” I object to this too. Is it addictive for a family to go to a particular restaurant once per week, or go to the movies once a week, or for a couple to go to a bar once a week? Is watching one sports game on TV per week addictive? Bowling? Darts? Most people “let their hair down” at least once per week. Would we call any of these other weekly activities addictive?
To me the most interesting thing about this subject is the approach of the conservative Novus Ordinarian. Because they are unmoored from Catholic tradition and have basically took on a form of sola scriptura - where they are ignorant of everything except what has been written on by a pope since Vatican II, it’s always interesting to see how they approach topics such as Church bingo!
In the case of Johnboy, and the conservative NO pastor he cites, it takes on a form of Puritanism.
Visiting St. Mary’s Mission (I believe that’s the name of the place) in western Montana where Jesuits ministered to the Flathead Indians what struck me the most was how practical their ministry was. Yes, they taught them the True Faith, but most of the time was spent teaching them basic medicine, farming, and craftsmanship. These Jesuit fathers were absolute geniuses when it came to practical sciences and technical labor. I was astonished at how much they knew about seemingly everything!
The Franciscans in South American of course did the same thing - focusing on teaching the natives trades and helping to build their civilization.
Catholic tradition worked hand in glove perfectly with a practical sense of ministry.
Today the Novus Ordinarians are lost. They can neither teach the True Faith (due to both their ignorance and their fear of being accused of proselytizing) nor can they teach anything practical (due to their total lack of any practical knowledge) — traditional priests used to be encouraged for the good of their own souls to engage in manual labor and to avoid lives of too much luxury - this concept is anathema to most NO priests.
Mother Angelica’s order used to make fishing lures and tie flies in order to raise money for their ministry. There’s nothing wrong with this tradition. The traditional Church was eminently practical.
Novus Ordinarianism on the other hand is lost. Up is down and down is up. Black is white and white is black. Bingo is a sin, but communion in the hand is ok. Church raffles are Satan’s work and a sign of lack of piety among parishoners, but the wanton selling off of Churches that our immigrant ancestors gave their lifeblood to build is absolutely necessary to raise money.
How insane is this?
There’s a great section on gambling in St. Joseph Caffano’s “The Priest the Man of God”
Sellies…
Seriously, another great N.O. priest:
Father Larry Richards
http://www.thereasonforourhope.org/
The Cure of Ars, patron of Parish Priests, put an inscription at the bottom of a picture of St. John the Baptist: “His head was the price of a dance.” I think there is a little hyperbole here linking all dancing with murder. I can picture the saint writing that inscription with a twinkle in his eye and likewise another priest who said, “so we go and serve the devil, if you will.” Nevertheless a point is well made and it remains for the hearers to take it for what its worth.
I am amazed to find this subject of bingo such a golden calf for one and a pragmatic cash cow for another. Perhaps it would be appropriate to exchange pictures of this article with the previous. Is the linking of its moral worth with Ladies Altar Societies and the Knights of Columbus meant to be hyperbole? Apparently we do it an injustice by calling it gambling since it is a family and church sponsored event. From whose pen did the sneering come and “the little old ladies and cantankerous old codgers?” Not mine. And snobbery makes a good straw man.
The packing the family in the car bit is something already said about Traditionalists putting themselves out spending hours driving to attend a Traditional Mass. People say that in admiration. My point is for anyone to make the same sacrifices for bingo, thereby putting it on the same level with the Mass, would be ludicrous—but apparently not to some.
Do you think gambling is well regulated today? We’ve come a long way in liberalizing gambling or maybe just getting rid of those puritanical blue laws. A simple drive through Atlantic City will show you the effects of gambling. On one side of the street there is luxury, opulence, and let’s be honest and say sin. On the other you see men leaning over into garbage cans for a morsel to eat. Take your pick as to which is better.
I agree with you Joe about the need for the Church to be practical and down to earth, like the early missionaries. One such Jesuit who worked among the Flatheads was Father Pierre De Smet, S.J. One of his biggest problems was a lack of funds. Once while crossing a stream he picked up a huge nugget of gold, but being a practical man, he through it back in knowing that it would be cause of more harm to his people than good. I agree in learning and doing practical things but bingo doesn’t fall into that category. You don’t know my opinions on anything but bingo so why not leave out communion in the hand etc.
If I were the priest I mentioned going to a parish with bingo and found that the people rebelled against me, I would definitely back off because the issue is really not that important. I would probably fall back on the words of Our Lord, “Some are only cast out by prayer and fasting.”
All in all, I admire Tobias Petrus, Joe Six Pack, and all who run this blog. You’re doing a great job and I appreciate reading the thought provoking articles you post. I know others do too, since they put me on to it. Your on the firing line all the time and you handle it very well. And I believe that in the essentials we are in unity but let’s not make bingo an essential. I don’t like to use that ecumenical phrase, “We agree to disagree.” So, if it’s alright with you, I’ll say, “Some of my best friends like to gamble and drink a six pack now and then.” Peace
I do not run this blog. Do I sound like an egghead ivy leaguer?
I’m just the chief gadfly.
Yes, discipulus–you got it.
I just threw something from another angle. No need to battle over it.
Me personally–I look unfavorably on casinos and bingo in general. Usually bingo events at churches are open to the public and not merely Catholic parish socials like many perhaps (?) imply.
As for the dangers of fish fries–this can be serious. Think of the opportunity for folks to act out as gluttons. It is a danger to eat out period. Ok, anyone got me?
I found JSP’s comments funny (seriously) and his new induction into your society pretty impressive. Great job.
“the little old ladies and cantankerous old codgers” I am not sneering at all. I like those people and wouldn’t have them any other way. We all know people like this, and they pretty much know they are what they are. I am a cantankerous young codger myself.
In many parishes, I’d say that bingo is a tradition of the parish, and its defenders would come from the ladies’ altar society and K. of C., etc. Those people tend to run the game, so they would probably not be offended in the least by a casual reference to their engagement in such an activity, whether that is right or not. I was not engaging in hyperbole, but observing actual conditions on the ground. Of course these organizations do much more important things, but they are occasions of sin to some people, in some respects. I know how much gossip accrues to prayer chains, for instance. The early Church even banned Church potlucks because they gave way to gluttony and drunkenness. The point is: they did not ban such activities until the sinfulness actually became a problem. If a parish had no extracurricular activities, thhen of course there could be no occasion of sin from that direction. If the game does not present a proximate occasion of sin to anyone who actually plays, then it cannot be faulted on these grounds. But I am not a confessor — for all I know maybe people tend to lose amounts of money that would in fact be at least venially sinful.
“My point is for anyone to make the same sacrifices for bingo, thereby putting it on the same level with the Mass, would be ludicrous—but apparently not to some.” And my whole point (read it again, please) is that 1) I was talking about Novus Ordo people, the ones who actually play bingo, 2) most of these people don’t make a big sacrifice just to drive to church, whether for Mass, bingo, fish fries, or anything else, 3) most people who play bingo don’t put it on the same level as the Mass. That would be ludicrous — so ludicrous that I suspect that it is a straw man. Unless there are people like that — I don’t play the game, so I wouldn’t know. It’s conceivable some people who would never go to Mass would still go to bingo. Do you know people who are so addicted to it? People who go broke or blow their paycheck this way? Maybe you do, and maybe there are people like this, and I am just mistaken. If so, in those parishes it should be shut down.
Additionally, I am not from New Jersey or from Nevada. In the Midwest, most gambling goes on 1) on riverboats on the Mississippi, 2) via lottery tickets, 3) on the occasional Indian casino, who can legally do whatever they want. So where I live, it is fairly well regulated, I’d say. But yes, New Jersey is, from what I hear, a fantastically rotten place to live, and unregulated gambling has much to do with it. Point taken.
I’m glad you admit that banning bingo at a parish that resisted probably wouldn’t be good. I’m glad I’m not a priest and don’t have to find out.
Yes, in fact, I can see the Cure d’Ars using hyperbole such as you mention — he probably would ban bingo as profane and an occasion to sin, even a remote one. I think that darts and bowling are okay activities in themselves, yet I wouldn’t put a bowling alley in the church basement to make money. That would be profane. What’s different with bingo? Just the fact that it has become institutionalized, as you admit, as an okay Church thing in this country. Maybe the fact that I would not encourage developing new practices along similar lines shows that I would have disapproved of it when it was first introduced.
Church bingo is permissible and not intrinsically sinful, which is pretty much what you write. I admit that the game is problematic, and I’ll even go so far as to say that better priests would probably discourage it as unbefitting of a church. Yes, there are better parish activities, and better ways to raise funds. I’ve probably fallen into the trap of taking up an unworthy cause simply because I found the opposition to the cause inordinate. But I still think that unequivocally attributing the game to the greed of parishioners or calling weekly bingo necessarily “addictive” is in fact inordinate. Clara’s question was: is gambling sinful? In regard to parish bingo in particular, you seem to think not, but you still have grounds for rejecting it. I’m fine with that, and to “agree to disagree” I’d have to find out to what extent we actually do fundamentally disagree. There are much, much bigger problems in the Church, like Holy Communion in the hand, female altar servers, etc. Thanks for commenting here, please do so again, and for complimenting us!
Points well taken, Tobias Petrus.
Joe, Better a gadfly than a barfly.
Point well taken. Granny’ll appreciate it.
Since no one offered a response from the dustbin of our faith, here is the pertinent section from St. Francis de Sales’ Introduction to the Devout Life
CHAPTER XXXII. Of Forbidden Amusements.
DICE, cards, and the like games of hazard, are not merely dangerous amusements, like dancing, but they are plainly bad and harmful, and therefore they are forbidden by the civil as by the ecclesiastical law. What harm is there in them? you ask. Such games are unreasonable: the winner often has neither skill nor industry to boast of, which is contrary to reason. You reply that this is understood by those who play. But though that may prove that you are not wronging anybody, it does not prove that the game is in accordance with reason, as victory ought to be the reward of skill or labour, which it cannot be in mere games of chance. Moreover, though such games may be called a recreation, and are intended as such, they are practically an intense occupation. Is it not an occupation, when a man’s mind is kept on the stretch of close attention, and disturbed by endless anxieties, fears and agitations? Who exercises a more dismal, painful attention than the gambler? No one must speak or laugh, if you do but cough you will annoy him and his companions. The only pleasure in gambling is to win, and this cannot be a satisfactory pleasure, since it can only be enjoyed at the expense of your antagonist. Once, when he was very ill, S. Louis heard that his brother the Comte d’Anjou and Messire Gautier de Nemours were gambling, and in spite of his weakness the King tottered into the room where they were, and threw dice and money and everything out of the window, in great indignation. And the pure and pious Sara, in her appeal to God, declared that she had never had dealings with gamblers.
“and therefore they are forbidden by the civil as by the ecclesiastical law.”
Well, Mark, gambling is no longer entirely forbidden by civil law, and, at least in the United States, not by the ecclesiastical law, as far as I know. I don’t claim that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is infallible, nor do I claim that it is perfect, but it seems to reflect the position that gambling per se is not sinful. That does not mean that it is good, nor does it make it appropriate for a church, but I think that it might have somewhat more authority than a devotional work. That said, St. Francis does make some good points about the gambling neurosis. Once again, though, does this mean that all gambling results in this? Not all who drink are drunkards. Not all who gamble are “gamblers” in this sense, it seems.
Just to be up front, I was aware of St. Francis’ teaching on gambling but in a cursory run-through of the book I couldn’t find it. Back in high school, I refused to learn how to play cards (even without gambling) because of St. Francis. Since I’m reading his book again, maybe he’ll persuade me once more.
“That does not mean that it is good, nor does it make it appropriate for a church, but I think that it might have somewhat more authority than a devotional work.”
The first two “its” refer to gambling, the third one to the Catechism. And I used to criticize Johnboy for his writing . . .
The ethics of gambling are different from the ethics of sponsoring gambling.
Gambling is not so much wrong, as stupid. It’s not just that the house always wins (after all, the insurance company always wins, too); it’s that the marginal utility (sorry, I’m an economist) from the millionth $ is less than the marginal value of 10th $, so that you reduce your expected utility.
There are exceptions to this rule– “the Mafia will kill me tomorrow if I don’t give them $100,000, and I only have $10,000, and I can’t earn $90,000 in one day, so… here goes nothing!”– but they are rare to the point of being negligible.
Poker strategy is more interesting, of course, if some sort of tokens of value– it could be just “points” scribbled on a pad of paper– are in play. Fine. But the main reason that gambling with non-token amounts of money at stake occurs is a combination of (a) greed, and (b) failure to understand the laws of probability.
Now, if you are running a gambling operation, you are consciously profiting from other people’s failure to understand the laws of probability. Yes, maybe a few gamblers are smart enough to know that “the house always wins” and they’re just doing it “for fun,” and with respect to them your ethical position is okay maybe, but it’s a safe bet that most of the gamblers are suckers, and you’re taking advantage of them.
So I’d say the priest was right (though maybe exaggerating a bit) when he said that to sponsor a parish bingo night is to “go and serve the devil.”
Well, that’s a good point; I hadn’t really thought much about it from the standpoint of the sponsors. I don’t quite agree that gambling is (almost) necessarily pointless/foolish. People aren’t necessarily unable to understand what’s going on; to some degree it’s the excitement that they purchase, with the lottery ticket or the bingo card or whatever. I think it’s intelligible to do that while remaining entirely aware of the probabilities.
Still, it would probably be difficult to, say, run a casino, while credibly claiming that you’re *not* deliberately feeding and encouraging unhealthy addiction.
Thanks to this post, the content filter on my computer now halts access to the blog since we discuss alcohol and gambling.