The gambling business from the point of view of Catholic moral and social teachings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is the gambling business compatible with Christianity? Catholicism, the largest Christian denomination, does not provide a clear answer to this question, which has also been largely dismissed by scholars from gambling studies and religious studies alike. This article fills this gap through an assessment of the gambling business in light of Catholic moral and social teachings. It offers two main findings. First, it challenges the widespread notion of the neutrality of the Catechism towards gambling and argues that contemporary commercial gambling is in contravention of core Catholic moral teachings. Second, it offers a novel assessment of the legitimacy of the gambling enterprise through the application of the concept of ‘social usefulness’. It proposes that any positive social outcomes resulting from gambling, regardless of their entity, do not render the gambling enterprise socially useful and legitimate – from a Catholic social-teaching perspective – since gambling also brings about significant gross social costs. This article contributes to a better understanding of the place of gambling within Catholicism, and hence within Christianity more broadly. Likewise, it offers suggestions on how the Catholic Church could embrace a more accurate assessment of the gambling enterprise that better reflects Catholic social doctrine so as to mitigate problem gambling, which is particularly salient among Catholics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".