ROMAN CATHOLICS AND BETTING

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26059, 11 March 1950, Page 7

ROMAN CATHOLICS AND BETTING

Views Outlined To Commission “NOT CONSIDERED WRONG IN ITSELF ” (Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) LONDON, March 9. “Betting could not be considered wrong in itself and the filling in of football coupons was often quite a beneficial way oi spending a happy evening in the family circle,” said a memorandum submitted by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales to the Royal Commission on Betting. “It is not wrong to play for stakes, even for large stakes, provided that the players can easily afford them and that the game is not vitiated by circumstances which \yould make it wrong,” said the memorandum.

“There is also nothing essentially wrong in a man earning his livelihood as a gamester or ar bookmaker. It is, however, recognised that gambling may be wrong tor certain persons and may be inconsistent with a man’s commitments to his creditors and his duties to himself and his dependants. “It has been the experience of parish priests that gambling, compared with other evils is far less likely to lead to the breaking up of home life. Little evil seems to flow diredtly from betting on racecourses, although many dishonest people And opportunities for practising their methods at such places. Totalisators are conducted properly and large numbers of bookmakers are quite honest.” The memorandum stated that dogracing with large tracks in the cities presented a serious problem. It was one thing to tolerate betting and entirely another to stimulate it. This was the danger with dog tracks for, unfortunately, any citizen could acquire the habit of attending them. The church considered more power should be given to local authorities to prevent the construction of dog tracks m their areas. . The memorandum also objected to off-course betting and to women’s bridge clubs, because both encouraged people to bet beyond their means. It was suggested that bettors should be allowed to take cash bets to the registered offices of bookmakers and that the law regarding street bookmakers should be rigidly enforced. It was agreed, however, that bookmakers should be entitled to sue for any debts for which credit had been properly given. Canon Fitzgerald, rector of St. Mary’s, Stepney, who presented the memorandum on behalf of the church, said that he did not like betting shops, but he saw no reason why the poor people of the East End of London should be denied the facilities which were extended to wealthy men in their clubs. “I feel very strongly about the way my poor little people are persecuted for doing something which, when I join my friends in my club, we all do and I do myself,” said the Canon. Asked by a member of the commission to indicate the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church to State lotteries, the Bishop of Southwark, Monsignor Cowderoy, said that the church did not consider that there was anything immoral in a State lottery. In principle there was nothing against it. There was laughter when Canon Fitzgerald, in reply to a question, said that betting was wrong when it became the occasion of wrongdoing. He gave as an analogous case that of a man who played cricket when he should have been at work. His questioner was Herbert Sutcliffe, the famI ous cricketer.