The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1904-11-26
OPINIONS DIFFER
The Morality Of Gambling Dis.
cussed in the Press.
Motives and Effects to be Con-
sidered in Connection.

Question: There has been con-
siderable difference Of opinion in the
expressions of churchmen and moral
lists recently made public through one
of our leading newspapers, says a
writer to the Dolphin, touching the
question whether card playing or
gambling Of any sort is permissible
when there is no attempt at fraud in
the play Would the Dolphin" kindly
give an opinion that might satisfy the
still doubtful inquirer?
RESPONSE: Accepting the current
definitions of gambling" as-Q play
ing a game Of chance, and risking
something Of value on the issue; or as
e. the reckless specializing with
things of value; we distinguish two
sets Of motives and effects.
In the first of these the object and
result Of the play is amusement, slim
ulated by proportionate reward for
ingenuity or attention in the game. In
the second the object is gain resulting
Regardless of the proportions or claims
of industry or sagacity) from chance;
or it is the desire to crafty a passion
which produces i'll turn disposition
"a to risk, unreasonnbly and immOder-
ately, the loss of ones own or ones
neighbours belongings; (2) to squander
time; (3) to sacrifice health of mind
or body through the effects resulting
from irascibility, jealousy, fraud and
similar excuses.
Since, however, the various games
which serve as means Of bodily and
mental recreation are in themselves
lawful and even commendable, the
stimulus to interest in such games,
which arises from gift accorded by
mutual agreement to him whom either
deXterity, attention or chance points
out, does not render such diversion un.
lawful. Such chance is not a forecast
ing Of the divine DEGREES wisely hid.
den from men, but simply the good for
tune OF one who prospects and finds
Each party to the game is at liberty tt
give to another what is his own OF
not otherwise pre-engaged by obliga
tions Of duty or charity.
r. But every right and reasonable act /.
determined by the limits of the natura
or positive law. Thus chance gam,
may exceed the bounds of moderation
and of justice. II it be immoderate iii
the judgment of good and reasonable
men, according to varying conditions
of life), it offends against the dignit.
of the human soul responsible to God
who demands our reasonable service
in all things; if it be unjust, it offend
also against our neighbor, to whom
by the same law Of God, we owe Ger
tain duties.
The difference between these tw
classes of offense against God and on
neighbor is marked in the result, tina
is to say, in the reparation which bot
acts demand. The one calls for tn
satisfaction of repentance; the othe
demands repentance and restitution.
The offense by which we act agains
81 reason occurs when we play for exces
sive stakes or through an excessiv
waste of time; since the squanderin
of money and Of time is sinful, bot
having been given for definite pul
pose, which renders man responsible
u creature.
The offense by which we act agains
&. Justice occurs in playing with none
or means which we owe to others, on
creditors, or our family, or with tim
which is not our own because we ar
n paid for its use in the fulfllment o
q professional duties, etc.
n It may be asked regarding the frs
offense. viz, that Of unreasonable