Catholic School Gambling Revenue Debate


karrie
#1
This debate has been a unique one. Rarely have I seen a Catholic School Board release a letter like this one...

http://www.archbishoposcarromero.ecs...ept%202010.pdf

... disagreeing with a policy being handed down by a head of the church.

Archbishop Smith makes some good points in his disagreement with the school board about funding...

Creation of Church's gambling policy a 12-year process

I'll be watching this one with interest (in part because I have yet to decide if I need to hand in my form to volunteer for a casino night or not... lol!)

(***please stick to the topic at hand if posting in this thread***)
 
Spade
#2
The real issues are:
1. Underfunding of education by the province,
2. A comparative advance by Edmonton Public Schools that have no restriction on revenues generated through gambling; and,
3. The possible rise in school fees to meet the shortfall.

Neither district, Public or Catholic Separate should subsidize education by preying on the vulnerabilities of the poor and addicted!

I congratulate Bishop Smith on his ethical stance.

Now Bishop Smith, about women in the Church...

Whoops! Comparative "advantage" not "advance." My bad!
 
gerryh
#3
Bishop Henry from the Calgary Arch Diocese made the same decision that Bishop Smith has made concerning gambling revenues. This was done 3 years ago and no amount of discussion, cajoling, or whining swayed Bishop Henry in his decision. I believe this decision comes from higher up than the individual Arch Dioceses, and the only control each Arch Diocese has is the when, not the if.
 
Spade
#4
Schools can be designated as a "charitable institution." One done, you can make a tax-deductible donation in lieu of working a casino. Or, simply donate without the associated deduction to your school parent council instead of working the casino.

I understand the trustees' reticence, but I presume their role is two-fold:
1. To assure school funding and set policy for a quality education, and
2. To reflect the values of the Church.

Those values should not be in conflict, or...
 
karrie
+1
#5  Top Rated Post
'simply' donate? 6 million dollars every 18 months, do you really think that's all money that parents can 'simply' give? I'm a stay at home mom. I have time, not money. That's not to say I like the idea of the casino revenues, but, there's no such thing as 'simply' replacing those revenues out of our own pockets.
 
Spade
+1
#6
I should not have used "simply" as many parents in the District struggle with fees, supplies, and extras.

In 2009, there were 33 441 students in Edmonton Catholic Schools. $6 000 000 every 18 months is about $119 per child per year. Perhaps that amount would not impact the quality of their education and sense of community to the point that parents would consider Edmonton Public? What price doctrinal purity?

I just had an idea...
Why doesn't the Archdiocese of Edmonton have a special Sunday collection to distribute among the schools to help address the shortfall? After all, 40% of Edmonton is Catholic. If 50% attend mass, that's $20 per attendee. And, would that not be a tax-deductible amount?
 
karrie
#7
I think the Archbishop has a fair point though Spade... why is it that parents are expected to fundraise to come up with money for computers and playground equipment, when they're vital parts of an education. Do we not pay taxes for that?
 
Spade
#8
Of course! He's right, but will he lobby actively? Does he have the courage? You don't make archbishop through dissent!
 
karrie
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Spade View Post

Of course! He's right, but will he lobby actively? Does he have the courage? You don't make archbishop through dissent!

Dissent? He'd be lobbying the government, no? He's made no promises to obey them. You have to know if it's an issue in the seperate school system it's an issue in the public system as well (they come knocking on my door too for fundraisers).
 
Spade
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

I think the Archbishop has a fair point though Spade... why is it that parents are expected to fundraise to come up with money for computers and playground equipment, when they're vital parts of an education. Do we not pay taxes for that?

Here's the same suggestion!
Letters to the Editor — wcr:X10/04/2010
 
karrie
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Spade View Post

Here's the same suggestion!
Letters to the Editor — wcr:X10/04/2010

yeah, but it's still an imbalanced suggestion in terms of education. It still means no one fights for the government to properly fund education at all public school levels, separate and public, and instead continues a disparity of funding for those with a church. While I enjoy and value the Catholic separate school division, I don't like the idea of a solution that only benefits us.
 
gerryh
#12
maybe its just a matter of parents forking over just a little more money per month for the extras. Parents deciding whats important.
 
karrie
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

maybe its just a matter of parents forking over just a little more money per month for the extras. Parents deciding whats important.

Which again, doesn't solve it for all students, as some areas are much poorer than others.
 
damngrumpy
#14
My God, after decades of Bingo to finance the schools
they are going to condemn the practise. Give me a break.
Is it any worse the Kinsmen holding a gambling night to
finance a ball field for kids to play on? Do Catholics not
gamble? Of course they do. All this stuff is just nonsense
and people should spend their time protesting things that
really matter.
 
gerryh
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

My God, after decades of Bingo to finance the schools
they are going to condemn the practise. Give me a break.
Is it any worse the Kinsmen holding a gambling night to
finance a ball field for kids to play on? Do Catholics not
gamble? Of course they do. All this stuff is just nonsense
and people should spend their time protesting things that
really matter.


The Kinsmen is not a Catholic organization, and there is no "debate". The Arch Bishop of Calgary, Bishop Henry, has already decreed that gambling can no longer be used to generate revenues for anything in the diocese. Now the Arch Bishop of Edmonton is doing the same thing. There is no debate, there has been whining and complaining, but there is no debate.
 
damngrumpy
#16
And many Catholics in Calgary including relatives of mine claim
is nothing more than a wind bag. Three say they have had enough
and will no longer attend Church
Gambling for education and charitable purposes is almost as old as
history of the church.
I think if the good Bishop and some of his colleagues were to take as
much interest in gambling as they did about sex abuse in the church
things would be much better. Years ago, when I was a good Catholic,
I watched the things going on and said I am out of here.
So many of my relatives tried to get me to reconsider, but now more
and more are leaving the church.
Personally I see nothing wrong with legal gambling supporting schools,
or other programs. I would take a different view if they were engaged
in illegal gambling.
 
karrie
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

My God, after decades of Bingo to finance the schools
they are going to condemn the practise. Give me a break.
Is it any worse the Kinsmen holding a gambling night to
finance a ball field for kids to play on? Do Catholics not
gamble? Of course they do. All this stuff is just nonsense
and people should spend their time protesting things that
really matter.


When part of your funding goes to aiding families who are suffering from assorted addictions, alcohol, drugs, and gambling, to then also be profiting from them seems a bit funny. But then, maybe if an organization is providing services like that it should be mandatory that they share their profits. I dunno.
 

Similar Threads

22
Cut Off From Revenue Canada Telephone Line
by dumpthemonarchy | Apr 21st, 2009
2
The Agriculture Revenue Crisis
by FiveParadox | Apr 24th, 2006