Immoral to Play Chess? Yes, according to St. Peter Damian

[Geremia]

From the old 's entry on GamblingCatholic Encyclopedia:

There was some doubt as to whether chess was to be considered an unbecoming, and therefore, an unlawful, game for clerics. In the opinion of St. Peter Damian it was certainly unlawful. On one occasion he caught the Bishop of Florence playing chess, to while away the time when on a journey. The bishop tried to defend himself by saying that chess was not dice. The saint, however, refused to admit the distinction, especially as the bishop was playing in public. Scripture, he said, does not make express mention of chess, but it is comprised under the term dice. And Baronius defends the saint’s doctrine. Some sciolist, he remarks, may say that St. Peter Damian was under a delusion in classing chess under dice, since chess is not a game of chance but calls for the exercise of much skill and talent. Let that be as it may, he proceeds, priests must at any rate be guided in their conduct by the words of St. Paul, who declared that what is not expedient, what is not edifying, is not allowed.

 

[JohnAlexander]

Ok so what is the point? Individuals are free to believe what they want. They can also be mistaken.

 

[Khalid]

No, according to anyone else. Even gambling isn’t inherently immoral, although, like sex, it often leads to disordered desires or over-gambling. I’ve never seen a man bet on a chess game within my lifetime. Chess is a game with absolutely zero chance (except for black or white) and 99% skill, unlike dice, which are 100% chance. And, did I mention, people don’t usually bet on it?

 

[CountrySteve]

Ok so what is the point? Individuals are free to believe what they want. They can also be mistaken.

But we are also told to beleive what the Church teaches as Truth

 

[Geremia]

Ok so what is the point? Individuals are free to believe what they want. They can also be mistaken.

Yes, but a saint’s views shouldn’t be dismissed this way.

 

[exoflare]

Yes, but a saint’s views shouldn’t be dismissed this way.

Do you actually agree with him, then? Normally we shouldn’t dismiss the opinion of a saint, but in this case IIRC the opinion directly contradicts what’s written in the Catechism.

 

[Qoeleth]

I could find chess edifying and improving- does it improve one’s reason, detachment from material things, does it reduce other vices (I mean, for example, do you not get drunk because you play chess instead?). I think on the whole chess improves reason, it diverts sinful tendencies of competition and avarice into an abstract channel, etc. I hate chess (and generally lose!), but sometimes play out of charity with someone who enjoys it. So for me, chess has penitential value!

On the other hand- if someone experienced chess as completely unedifying, it would sinful. It is sinful to waste time, in any form.

 

[The_Scott]

For the life of me, I can’t find which council or document, but around this time, it was generally frowned upon for priests to be within battles or skirmishes. I’m not sure if it was banned yet, as I can’t find the specific document.

But chess is, after all, a military strategy game - essentially “playing” war.

 

[Seira]

No, according to anyone else. Even gambling isn’t inherently immoral, although, like sex, it often leads to disordered desires or over-gambling. I’ve never seen a man bet on a chess game within my lifetime. Chess is a game with absolutely zero chance (except for black or white) and 99% skill, unlike dice, which are 100% chance. And, did I mention, people don’t usually bet on it?

Yeah, if gambling was really strictly immoral then what is up w/ church raffles, bingo, etc… in which you are paying $ to a game of chance. A friend of the family’s Mom was a gambling addict & she would religiously (pun slightly intended) hit the local church bingo circuit.

 

[LilyM]

Yes, but a saint’s views shouldn’t be dismissed this way.

When they are way out of left field as St Peter Damian’s is, then we absolutely can and maybe should.

Are you aware that St Thomas Aquinas (and I think St Catherine of Siena too) did not believe that Mary was immaculately conceived? In their day such a view did not make one an unorthodox Catholic, as the Immaculate Conception was not declared definitively until hundreds of years afterwards.

So yes, we can dismiss the views of even very eminent saints.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Yes, but a saint’s views shouldn’t be dismissed this way.

Which St. Damian are you talking about? The one from the 3rd Century, or the Hawaiian one? Your premise is absolute nonsense and foll-do-rol! Saints are human and as such can be in error about mundane things, such as pastimes.
Like it or not, many of our saints would be considered fanatics today, just as are the Puritans of early Colonial America.
Some Saints considered any human pastime other than prayer and the adoration of G*d to be bordering on sin. Others were much more practical- like St. Francis Xavior, St. Ignatius Loyola (who created what is now know as modern theater) and St. John Bosco, who realized that young boys needed recreation in order to delovelope into healthy adult males .
Your premise, maybe historically accurate-I don’t know- but it puts you outside the teaching of the contemporary Catholic Church- and puts you in the camp of the fanatics, not the saints.

 

[Bowljr300]

I read that Saint Teresa of Avila was an accomplished chess player and that Blessed Pope John Paul II was a chess enthusiast.

 

[Rhuarc]

This saint should be taken with a grain of salt. He in saying this or believing it wasn’t claiming his opinion to be an infallible doctrine. It would be like a certain saint saying he prefers french wine over spanish wine. Why would it matter? I highly doubt someone will/would be sent to hell for playing chess.

 

[midori]

1.Do not imagine that a great part of my work is done. No, I have only been ‘placing the board’ for the game. You asked me to teach you the foundation of prayer, my daughters, although God did not establish me on this foundation, for I am almost destitute of these virtues; yet I know no other.

But, be sure that any one who does not understand how to set the pieces in the game of chess will never be able to play well, nor, if he does not know how to give check, will he ever succeed in effecting checkmate. You may blame me for speaking of a game, for such things are neither played nor permitted in our convent.

This will show you what a mother God has given you, skilled even in such vanities as this ! Still, they say that sometimes the game is lawful, and how well it would be for us to play it, and if we practised it often, how quickly we should checkmate this divine King so that He neither could, nor would, move out of our check!

The Queen is His strongest opponent in the game, and all the other pieces help her. No queen can defeat Him so soon as can humility. It drew Him from heaven into the Virgin’s womb, and with it we can draw Him by a single hair into our souls. And doubtless, the greater our humility, the more entirely shall we possess Him, and the weaker it is, the more reluctantly will He dwell within us.

For I do not and I cannot understand how humility can exist without love, or love without humility, nor can either of these virtues be held in their perfection without great detachment from all created things.

1. Perhaps you ask me, my daughters, why I speak to you of these virtues: they are taught in plenty of books and you only wish me to write about contemplation. If you had asked me about meditation, I could have instructed you, and I advise every one to practise it even though they do not possess the virtues, for this is the first step to obtain them all : it is most essential for all Christians to begin this practice. No one, however desperate his case may be, ought to neglect it if God incites him to make use of it. I have written this elsewhere, as have other people who understand the subject, which, as God knows, I certainly do not.

Contemplation, however, is quite another thing, daughters. We fall into a mistake on this point, so that if any one thinks about his sins every day for a certain time (as he is bound to do if he is a Christian in anything but name), we at once call him a great contemplative, and expect him to possess the sublime virtues proper to such a state: he even thinks so himself; but he is quite wrong. He has not yet learnt how to ‘place the board,’ but thinks he can effect checkmate simply by knowing the names of the pieces—in this he is deceived; this King will not let Himself be taken except by one who is entirely given up to Him.

St Teresa of Avila, The Way of Perfection Chapter 16, paragraphs 1 - 2; c. 1567

 

[NickVA]

This is pretty crazy. Close the tread before anymore time is wasted.

 

[joshua_b]

But we are also told to beleive what the Church teaches as Truth

This is correct. When the Church canonizes a Saint, they are simply declaring that the person has entered into heaven. That does not make the Saint a member of the Magisterium.

Saints, although examples of virtue to those still members of the Church Militant, and although excellent illustrations of the effects of God’s Grace working through us, still hold no authority on doctrinal matters.

Truth be told, I think we have adopted a far too “sanitized” view of the saints as constant picturesque examples of neverending piety and perfection, ignoring the sometimes glaring flaws in their humanity.

St. Peter (yes THAT Peter) was screwing up constantly, forever putting his foot in his mouth, was a total thug (he did cut off someone’s ear in the garden, don’t forget), and was once told personally by Jesus Himself “get ye behind me satan”, and yet he still managed to be the rock upon which the Church was built.

I also believe that there is a story about St. Nicholas breaking the nose of another bishop during a magisterial conference or something of the sort. That does not mean that it is official Church teaching that when you disagree with someone you are to punch them in the face.

 

[Qoeleth]

This is pretty crazy. Close the tread before anymore time is wasted.

I think it’s great to raise teachings of the Saints. While they are not infallible, we can’t simply ignore them. The more crazy they seem to us, the better, because it cahllenges what we take for granted. A lot of people think Church bingo is OK. Maybe it isn’t.

St. Nicholas of the Holy Mountain said the clergy should not take baths or use mirrors…

 

[Geremia]

Are you aware that St Thomas Aquinas (and I think St Catherine of Siena too) did not believe that Mary was immaculately conceived?

That’s a myth. St. Thomas certainly did believe it, although he struggled explaining it.

In their day such a view did not make one an unorthodox Catholic, as the Immaculate Conception was not declared definitively until hundreds of years afterwards.

Although the dogma was defined relatively recently, does that mean one could believe otherwise before its definition and remain a faithful Catholic?

 

[Geremia]

St. Nicholas of the Holy Mountain said the clergy should not take baths or use mirrors…

That makes sense; he didn’t want effeminate priests.

 

[Geremia]

Which St. Damian are you talking about? The one from the 3rd Century, or the Hawaiian one? Your premise is absolute nonsense and foll-do-rol!

Thanks for the ad hominem.

Saints are human and as such can be in error about mundane things, such as pastimes.
Like it or not, many of our saints would be considered fanatics today, just as are the Puritans of early Colonial America.

Except the saints are only Catholics, since there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church

Some Saints considered any human pastime other than prayer and the adoration of G*d to be bordering on sin. Others were much more practical- like St. Francis Xavior, St. Ignatius Loyola (who created what is now know as modern theater) and St. John Bosco, who realized that young boys needed recreation in order to delovelope into healthy adult males .
Your premise, maybe historically accurate-I don’t know- but it puts you outside the teaching of the contemporary Catholic Church- and puts you in the camp of the fanatics, not the saints.

How do you define “fanatic”? St. Catherine of Siena, e.g., as reported in this biography of her, was considered a “fanatic.” So what? To me that means she took the Faith seriously.