A Rock and a Hard Place

EXCERPT:
As a true child of the sixties, my vocational priority has always been for some kind of activism. I’ve spent my adult life in church work hoping to promote the local church as a “global force for good.” Maybe I was expecting too much, but I have not stopped hoping for a greater Catholic influence in public affairs.

So it pains me whenever I see official Catholicism squandering its potential for public influence--especially because it reminds me how damaging the last decade has been to the Church’s public image.

Last week offered a case in point, when the Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts issued a public statement opposing casino gambling in response to pending legislation authorizing three casinos in the state. In part, the statement said:

While the Catholic Church views gambling as a legitimate form of entertainment when done in moderation, the gaming legislation opens the door to a new form of predatory gaming which threatens the moral fabric of our society. We are concerned that the Commonwealth’s reliance on gambling revenue continues to escalate.…

Many of our churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations rely upon bingo and other games-of-chance for relatively small amounts of revenue. We hope the citizens of the Commonwealth will recognize the difference between a local fund-raiser managed by volunteers and a multi-billion dollar industry that exploits vulnerable members of the community for financial gain.

…My concern is not whether the Bishops are right. My concern is whether they matter--whether their position makes any difference.
…

This case demonstrates once again that, at this moment in U.S. Catholic history, the official church is truly caught between a rock and hard place. As custodians of Catholic tradition and its values and also as public figures, Catholic bishops should have a presence in the public forum. They must represent our values to the general public, so they must speak up on the issues of the day. On the other hand, doing so in the current situation raises as many problems as it solves—maybe more.
First, there’s the problem of credibility. Since scandal has tainted the public image of Catholicism, Bishops remain hard pressed to present themselves as experts on “the moral fabric of society.” Such language attracts negative attacks like a red cape attracts bulls. The Bishops would be better off spelling out the practical problems and consequences of bad policy without presenting themselves as moral authorities.

Then there’s the problem of hypocrisy. The statement expresses the hope that the public will see a difference between bingo and casino gambling, and it is true that casinos are big money operations compared to parish level bingo. But parishes run bingo for the same reason government support casinos: to pay their bills. And parishes, like governments, pay those bills with money that comes from people who like to gamble. Both of them “exploit vulnerable members of the community for financial gain.” For those individuals, the money they spend may well be money they cannot afford. Saying that the institution does not raise large amounts ignores the impact on the gamblers themselves.

Anyone paying close attention knows there are bingo players who migrate from one parish to another simply because they need to gamble every day. It is no accident that many church workers sadly refer to bingo as Catholicism’s “eighth sacrament” because they acknowledge that both parishes and parishioners have become dependent on gambling to survive--and that is the very definition of addiction.

Next, there’s the problem of special pleading: many people will assume that the Church opposes casinos to protect its own profits. And since the Church is not a neutral player on this matter, its authority to speak out is diminished.

Finally, there is an important side effect: the merits of issues can get lost when church officials take positions without presenting the strongest case…Recently, Catholic officials have shown a tendency to split hairs, making doubtful distinctions in order to express opposition that does not conflict with their own practices…In this case, the Bishops oppose “predatory” gambling so they can condemn casinos without banning their own gambling operations. In my view, such doubtful distinctions create the impression of cherry-picking the practices of others to oppose, while justifying the practices of the Church.

In a time like ours, the bishops have enough difficulty speaking out at all. Increasingly, they are reduced to preaching to the choir--and the choir itself is shrinking. Caught between a rock and hard place, they must nonetheless speak up, but how they do it matters today more than ever. They undermine themselves if their own language creates more heat than light.