Still, it would probably be difficult to, say, run a casino, while credibly claiming that you’re *not* deliberately feeding and encouraging unhealthy addiction.

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.”

The first two “its” refer to gambling, the third one to the Catechism. And I used to criticize Johnboy for his writing . . .

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.

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.

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!

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’m just the chief gadfly.

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

Seriously, another great N.O. priest:

Father Larry Richards

http://www.thereasonforourhope.org/

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?

“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.