Last month the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that prohibited sports gambling, paving the way for states to fabricate their own legislation regarding sports betting. What each of the states end up doing is still to be decided, but before political expediency takes over, we should take an opportunity to consider the morality of gambling. The topic of gambling and games of chance is not foreign to the moral teachings of the Church. It has been a part of her Magisterium from very early on. And so we can look at the principles that have been articulated in order to shine some light upon the subject of betting.
Over the past century, the Church has seen a profound shift in her pedagogical methods. Gone are the days of the manualists, paving the way for more positive virtue-based pedagogy. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange described the prevailing views of the two schools as “the science of virtues versus the science of sins to be avoided.” Whether this change in emphasis is a good thing or not is a question for another time, but what is not questionable is the fact that the “science of the virtues” approach has brought with it an open antagonism towards the science of “sins to be avoided.” The manuals were very useful at the time because of the manner in which they taught. They would first articulate general moral principles and then give examples of applying those principles to concrete examples. It gave the readers (who were mostly confessors and theologians) a moral vocabulary that enabled them to navigate the practical realm with greater ease. These manuals still retain their use today, even if in a complementary way.
The point of this digression, and how it relates to gambling, is that one would be hard-pressed to find an adequate discussion of gambling in today’s moral theology books. The emphasis may be on developing the virtue of temperance, but without concrete situations in which the virtue is formed leaves us without any frame of reference. Even if half the story is positive, it is still only half the story. Discussing the virtue without discussing how the stop the opposing vice from forming is not enough. Virtue isn’t only formed by facing a temptation head on, but also in the speed in which we flee from those moments of trial. In other words, virtues are positive things that are formed by avoiding the near occasion of sin, a concept we hear very little about today.
Moral Approach
With that being said, we have to return to one of the most popular manuals of moral theology (partially because it was the first that was written in English) to find a thorough discussion of gambling. In his Manual of Moral Theology, Fr. Thomas Slater, S.J. briefly treats the subject of gambling and games of chance. He says that gambling, when it is framed within the realm of recreation and entertainment, is morally legitimate with some obvious caveats. First, on the part of the gambler he must be acting freely and betting what is at his free disposal. This means that he is not betting money that would otherwise be necessary for living and providing for his family. Likewise both parties must clearly understand the rules of the game and that the outcome of the game is uncertain.
The reason why it is helpful to examine this issue from the “old” schema of moral theology is that this is one of those situations where just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. Gambling is fraught with moral danger because it is a highly addictive form of entertainment that very quickly gets out of control, paving the way for moral ruin. Neuroscientists have recently discovered, what St. Thomas and the Scholastics already knew, certain behaviors by arousing our passions, can become addictive. Specifically they have found that certain behaviors like gambling produce similar chemical responses in our brains as some of the most addictive drugs like cocaine. These neurotransmitters (of which dopamine is the primary one) are produced in response to certain stimuli and produce a feeling of pleasure. This release is not just in the actual winning of the bet, but in the anticipation of the winning. This means the pleasure comes not so much in winning but in betting. And like all physiological pleasures we must “up the ante:’ (pun intended) in order to reproduce the same response. The stakes must become higher and higher to produce the same feeling. We do not need to look to far to find examples of men (mostly) and women whose lives have been ruined because of this addiction.
We are Catholics and that means we do not flee from things simply because their abuse can lead to addiction. As Chesterton once said, “In Catholicism, the pint, the pipe, and the Cross can all fit together.” But recall that gambling was a morally legitimate means of recreation. Once it ceases to be that, either because we do as a source of income, or it becomes an addiction, it no longer serves its purpose. In fact one must ask how exactly this type of recreation, even when engaged in as such, re-creates us especially given the obvious dangers. Still it remains legitimate, even if I cannot personally see its merits.
Legal Approach
Chesterton’s quote also reminds us of a related historical failure in which laws were made to curb abuse by prohibiting all use—Prohibition in the 1920s. At the time, drunkenness was a social problem that needed to be dealt with. Unfortunately by prohibiting “the production, transport and sale of (though not the consumption or private possession of) alcohol” (18th Amendment), it opened the door to even greater social ills. This was because they were not good Thomists, failing to recognize that you cannot outlaw every vice. The Angelic Doctor thought that laws should only treat “the more grievous vices from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others…” In essence, the Angelic Doctor is saying that when a law prescribes acts that are far beyond the virtue of the average person in society, then there ought to be no laws against it. One of the reasons for this is that the law may become a pathway to further vice. What instead should have happened at the time was further support of the Temperance Movement, even through legislation. The law cannot create virtue, but it can clear the way for it.
The parallels to sports gambling are obvious, even if it does not quite effect the same percentage of society as Prohibition did in the 1920s. There should be no laws prohibiting sports betting, but instead the aim should be towards forming and fostering the virtue of temperance, even if this requires oversight and rules that limit the amount of gambling a person may engage in.