Gambling nuns didn't strike it lucky

  • Thread starter Thread starter childofmary1143
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn’t aware that the Church had such a rigid rule. Perhaps it applies only in the Philippines?

On the webpage you referred to, there are some links to related stories. One of them is about American nuns winning $78,000 at the racetrack. int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=29&art_id=qw1048664884579S313
I agree. I think it may be the rule of the Bishops in the Philippines. I would also think that certain orders would prohibit it (e.g. Franciscans). There are some priests and deacons on the Forum. Hopefully, one of them can confirm this.
 
The Curt Jester has some discussion of canon law on this.

Scroll down to the third item on March 23.
Thanks Joe.
Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.
§2. Clerics are to avoid those things which, although not unbecoming, are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state.
So, it doesn’t specifically prohibit gambling, but it certainly seems clear to me that gambling would be “unbecoming to their state” and definitely “foreign to the clerical state.”
 
Note that while the news article only mentions the nuns, The Curt Jester column notes a bishop was also criticized for participating and a priest was recently defrocked for gambling. I suppose it made a better news story if it looked like the bishops were picking on women.

They have a serious Council of Bishops in the Phillipines. 👍
 
Note that while the news article only mentions the nuns, The Curt Jester column notes a bishop was also criticized for participating and a priest was recently defrocked for gambling. I suppose it made a better news story if it looked like the bishops were picking on women.

They have a serious Council of Bishops in the Phillipines. 👍
Perhaps the USCCB could outsource discipline of the clergy to their brother Bishops in the Philippines? 😃

I was surprised the article said the Church “opposes all forms of gambling”. What about bingo? Las Vegas night?
Maybe the Church takes a harder stand in the Philippines because it’s a poorer country.
 
I recall sitting in a meeting years ago at which our commander read a note from headquarters cautioning care on transferring personnel to the Philippines. The Philippines were cracking down hard on drug possession and usage.

One of the officers volunteered to prepare a list of personnel for immediate transfer.
😃
 
Thanks Joe.

So, it doesn’t specifically prohibit gambling, but it certainly seems clear to me that gambling would be “unbecoming to their state” and definitely “foreign to the clerical state.”
I have issues with these codes - I believe they were purposely written to be ambiguous. A nun stopping to play a quick game of hop scotch or double dutch with a group of children - or a Priest stopping for a quick lay-up of basketball can be considered and interpreted by others as unbecoming their state. What the heck does THAT mean? Dumb
 
Aren’t ALL religious (nuns, monks and sisters) bound by a vow of poverty? If so, then gambling would inherently include the crime of misusing community funds.

Diocesan priests are not necessarily under a vow of poverty, so it might actually be somewhat ambiguous for one of them to be caught. Before anybody goes nuts on unfairness, let’s remember that there is no DRAFT for religious life…
 
Aren’t ALL religious (nuns, monks and sisters) bound by a vow of poverty? If so, then gambling would inherently include the crime of misusing community funds.

Diocesan priests are not necessarily under a vow of poverty, so it might actually be somewhat ambiguous for one of them to be caught. Before anybody goes nuts on unfairness, let’s remember that there is no DRAFT for religious life…
I think it was noted in one of the articles that they were not using their own funds. They had been given some guest tokens.

A pastor in a neighboring parish went to Las Vegas once. He wondered about the appropriateness of minor gambling. Some one assured him that Jesus approved. For Jesus said, “Render unto Caesars that which is Caesars.”
😃
 
Um, from what I understand only priest(religious/diocesan) are considered clergy. That nuns, brothers, and sisters are not clerics. They are religious lay people. Am I wrong?
 
A few of the dicoesan priests in this area that I know take an occasional trip to Reno together for some fun & fellowship.

Diocesan priests get a stipend that they can spend on pretty much whatever they want. I don’t see a big difference between dropping $50 into the one-armed bandit, versus $50 for a round of golf, except that the latter sounds to me a lot more healthy and invigorating. As long as they’re spending their own money and not stealing from the church. I think most priests end up putting a lot of their personal spending money back into charitable causes, so I’m not going to begrudge them spending a little bit on some relaxation. Most of these guys work pretty hard, especially on holidays, evenings, Saturdays and Sundays.

Religious priests, sisters, and brothers on the other hand typically get a much smaller amount of personal spending money. Any salary/stipend they earn through their ministry generally goes directly back to their community, so I wouldn’t expect to see them out at the casinos (or on the links) nearly as often.
 
I was surprised the article said the Church “opposes all forms of gambling”. What about bingo? Las Vegas night?
Maybe the Church takes a harder stand in the Philippines because it’s a poorer country.
The Church allows gambling for small stakes.

CCC
2413 Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top