Is Gambling Sinful?

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