In the following pastoral statement, Atlanta Archbishop James P. Lyke, OFM, and Savannah Bishop Raymond W. Lessard say that the proposed lottery for Georgia is not, of itself, immoral, but that there are drawbacks which responsible citizens must consider in voting to accept or reject such state-sponsored gambling. On their part, the two bishops believe that such a lottery is not in the best interests of all the citizens of Georgia. Voters will decide the referendum question on Tuesday, Nov. 3.

The Georgia bishops' statement follows:

In November, voters in the state of Georgia will be asked to approve a state-sponsored lottery for the purpose of raising funds to improve education in our communities. During the past several months, many groups and individuals have presented their opinions on the proposed lottery in the hope of influencing the outcome of the referendum. In making this statement, we, the two Catholic bishops in Georgia, intend to offer some ethical reflections for our Catholics and others of good will to include in their decision-making process.

The proposed lottery is a form of gambling in which a sum of money is wagered in the hopes of winning a larger sum. As such, it can be a legitimate recreational opportunity. Catholic theologians do not believe that such games of chance or other forms of gambling are in and of themselves immoral. However, other considerations generally come into play and certainly must be taken into account before engaging in any such activity or when we are asked to cast votes for or against a state-sponsored lottery.

Two points often cited in support of a state-sponsored lottery are: (1) that gambling of this sort is legitimate entertainment, and (2) that it could provide a source of much needed additional revenue for education. It can be argued that a lottery would provide benefit to society by supporting much needed programs, especially those that have been adversely affected by the difficult current financial conditions in our country and state. That would presume, of course, that existing funding is not reduced as lottery revenue is infused.

Opponents of the lottery often cite three drawbacks: (1) the social danger of compulsive gambling and the pain this can bring upon families and society; (2) the danger of attracting organized criminal elements, often associated with gambling in general; (3) the danger that those who are least able to lose will be most likely to play, and thus will be adversely affected to a disproportionate degree.

Our freedom to dispose of our property - in this case, money - must be exercised within the context of our obligations in justice and charity, and it must not jeopardize our ability to fulfill our obligations to ourselves and others, especially our families for whom we are responsible. In the case of the enjoyment of any luxury - and gambling is certainly a luxury - our legitimate freedom must be balance with the legitimate needs of others. In a sense, we are our "brother's keeper," and we have a communal responsibility to avoid societal conditions which would lead others into habits or practices contrary to their best interests. That obligation becomes proportionately for those who have less of the world's goods than we do.

Since the proposed lottery would be sponsored by the state for the purpose of increasing revenue, a further consideration comes into play. The state has the constitutional right and duty in justice to levy fees and taxes in a manner that is fair and just to fulfill its responsibilities for the common good. However, to promote a lottery as a so-called "voluntary tax" provides no assurance that all citizens will bear the burden in a reasonably equitable way. Nor does it offer any protection for those with limited financial resources so that they will act in moderation. In reality, the "get rich quick" attraction of a lottery will entice them to dole a disproportional share of their income to this hoped-for easy money. We must consider these possibly adverse effects on others as we weight the potential benefits of the proposed lottery.

As in many questions of personal judgement, there are multiple factors that responsible Christian citizens must consider in voting to accept or reject a proposed state sponsored lottery. We encourage each one to study carefully and weigh the many dimensions of this question, and to reflect prayerfully upon the Christian values involved, as opinions are formed and votes are cast on this issue. For our part, we are persuaded that, from a moral standpoint, such a state-sponsored lottery is not in the best interests of all the citizens of our state.

Devotedly yours in Christ,

James P. Lyke, Archbishop of Atlanta

Raymond W. Lessard, Bishop of Savannah