From Crux:
Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Worcester Bishop Robert McManus, Springfield Bishop Mitchell Rozanski and Rev. George Coleman, the Apostolic Administrator of Fall River, say the gambling industry threatens local businesses, “weakens the moral fabric of society” and “fundamentally alters communities.”
And before people scream like Helen Lovejoy-they’ve clearly done their homework and lay out the economic case too-perhaps they have been reading BMG:
The bishops say the Massachusetts’ economy has improved markedly since the casino law passed in 2011. They note that other Northeast states have seen casino gambling revenues decline and that five casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey could close by the end of the year.
And in case anyone dismisses the influence these prelates have in voters as waning or insignificant, I would remind them that the Church’s opposition to euthanasia helped defeat that proposal.
I wonder what their effect is. The euthanasia vote was always going to be close.
The ballot question #3 to repeal casinos will be won on the merits of economic and social justice. It will be the faith-based communities and exceptional principled elected leaders like Senator Elizabeth Warren who will lead the outreach to the many voters who are not engaged with the special interest driven, predatory business model, cynical partnership of state government with gambling to raise regressive taxes/revenues and corruption.
Faith-based communities and human service providers are the last house on the block for people whose lives are destroyed by addiction, violence, social and economic injustice.
They heal the misery created by humanity upon humanity.
New Papal leadership and renewed Catholic Social Doctrine can elevate society. The Catholic Bishops are joined by outspoken and bold leadership with Bishop Doug Fisher of the Western Mass Episcopal Diocese, Minsters from the southeastern part of the state and central Mass. East Boston won their referenda with Pastors from diverse religions and cultures speaking truth to their congregations about the underbelly of predatory gambling.
defeating the euthanasia ballot question, then this will be very helpful… but it has to be more than just a medium or small effort on their part.
The cause is important enough that I think they should go ‘all in.’
It looks like they will. It’s not just Cardinal Sean but also the Bishops of Worcester and even more importantly the Bishop of Springfield. So the full press, and it’s the only initiative they took a stance on. Getting other members of the faith community as Rye suggested is also important, and obviously progressives across the Commonwealth. But we can beat big money with people power if we organize.
I believe the Massachusetts Council of Churches, representing most Christian denominations in the state, is opposed to gambling. Mass Conference UCC statements can be found here, though there has been no resolution on this year’s particular question.
I was actually unaware of mainline groups coming out against this, and was happy to find that they have. I know the UMC opposed casinos in Illinois, and my father in law to be often preaches against them.
It’s a cross partisan, interfaith, issue that as John T has pointed out-a lot of self-identified conservatives oppose. Tea Party members, like a friend he met during their efforts against the Milford casino, view it correctly as an example of crony capitalism and a government boondoggle. Religious conservatives view it correctly as an unethical industry, profiting off of ‘vice’ but also manipulating the vulnerable into spending money they can’t afford to blow. And that is where we find a great convergence with progressives who don’t want the poor to tax themselves, don’t want the money taken from poor communities and distributed to rich ones, and are tired of Beacon Hill solving the revenue problem with gimmicks and tricks.
What a relief it was to read the four Roman Catholic bishops’ statement on Question 3! They said the church (my church) “views gambling as a legitimate form of entertainment when done in moderation.” So when I go to Suffolk Downs once a year to put a twenty dollar bet on the Kentucky Derby, I have not put my immortal soul at risk. Praise be!
And the thousands of my fellow Catholics who go over the state lines to drop about a Billion in entertainment dollars annually in CT and RI and ME can do so without incurring a penance.
The Bishops express concern for the poor, the addicted and small businesses. But the root truth of this matter is that poverty results when jobs are unavailable. The casino law was specifically created by the governor to create jobs, 10,000 jobs that pay a living wage with benefits.
The casinos currently being proposed will also provide millions of dollars in goods and services contracts to help expand local small businesses, not hurt them. And lastly, the $400 million increase in tax revenue to the state generated annually by casinos will go a long way toward adequately funding human service programs that serve the poor, the addicted and elderly in our state.
In their statement the bishops pointed to the falling unemployment rate to argue that the state’s economy is “clearly more robust” than it was three years ago. With all due respect to them, try to convince the 200,000 people who are unemployed in the state today, many of whom have no college degree, that a casino/hotel/tourism job with benefits is not pristine enough to have in Massachusetts.
The bishops are not calling for banning the Lottery or Bingo or raffles…hmmmm…and those are the “venues” that really tempt the poor. Casino patrons are middle class with entertainment dollars to spend. They will spend them whether MA gets casinos or not. The bishops will not affect their spending habits.
I was very glad to read that my church will not be using MY Sunday offering to support the repeal Question 3. James F. Driscoll — executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the church’s public policy arm, said it was not clear if the bishops will take as active a role in the casino fight. “There’s no plan in place right now to do a more coordinated effort,” he said in the Globe story interview. The more the church spends on ballot questions the less they will have for members of their parish flocks who are in true need of help.
The poor cannot multiply fishes and loaves to feed their families, they need jobs. I fervently pray that Massachusetts voters will see that the casino/hotel/tourism jobs and revenues created by our gaming law should NOT be repealed by Question 3.
…one of the Brothers referred to bingo as the 8th sacrament.
I also read a story (maybe it was one of those real-life Readers Digest anecdotes). A Catholic couple moved to town and were looking for a parish. At one church they visited they mentioned to the priest that they were surprised that the bingo times were listed on the sign out front, but not thr Mass times. The priest explained that they were a small church and all their parishioners knew what time Mass was, but they needed to make sure the town’s Protestants knew when to come for bingo. Many Protestant churches won’t even allow raffle tickets as a fundraising method.
Massachusetts decriminalized bingo in 1931 in an attempt to help churches and charitable organizations raise money. Hypocrisy? No. A group of friends & neighbors gathering together for a game of chance to raise money for charity is a far cry from predatory gambling syndicates luring poor people with the illusion of fortune in a con game.
And everyone knows it, apparently except for you.
At the end of the day, our wallets are a net sum game. A dollar spent at the casino is a dollar not spent at the local pub.
But unlike the local pub, which has a positive multiplier effect when money is spent there because that money is kept local, money spent at the casino is shipped off to its international investors. Consequently, money spent at a casino actually has a negative multiplier effect – money spent at the casino is money taken out of the local economy, as Steve Wynn and Sheldon Adelson drink your milk shake.
Eru Ilúvatar would support Repeal as well, I believe.