That's between him and the Lord but, sadly, he is guilty of not abstaining from the appearance of evil.
How is that? Gambling with money that you can not afford to lose is wrong. Gambling addiction is wrong. I'm not buying that gambling, in and of itself, is giving the appearance of evil. Does everyone who has a drink giving the appearance of evil? If I go to Krispy Kreme am I giving the appearance of evil to some glutton?
SD
On second thought I think you're correct. My comments were more geared toward Bennett being high profile in public and perhaps the "abstaining from appearance of evil" should have been more incumbent up on him. I should have made that clear.
Its not often I disagree with you, Dave. But I've got to go with Stephen on this one. Certainly, buying the occasional lottery ticket, having the occasional glass of wine, or eating the occasional donut is not in and of itself sinful. The question becomes, then, does engaging in these acts lead to an appearance of evil, does it create the circumstance in which another may fall thus making it an action against which St. Paul preached. To a certain extent, the answer is virtually always, "yes" in that even if the action is observable by only one person, it could have a negative effect on that one person.
However, some sense of balance is called for, here. For to avoid every action which may lead another to fall could lead to heresy: the notion that everything in the material world is evil or capable of producint the appearance of evil, e.g. the glass of wine, the donut, the lottery ticket. It seems to me two factors must be considered to determine whether engaging in such acts offer the 'appearance of evil.' First, the 'magnitude,' for lack of a better word, of the act -the extent to which we are engaged in it. And second, our own awareness of the effect our engagement in the act may have on others.
Let's take your Krispy Kreme donut example. I think we can all agree that were an individual to be hitting KK, say, five times a day, then that would indicate to others aware of the activity an appearance of evil. Further, doing so would indicate an intrinsic lust or greed for gluttony evil in itself. Even if the effect on those aware of the activity in no way led to temptation on their part, it would still diminish the individual in their eyes and, thus, at least weaken the testimony that individual could offer on behalf of the Gospel.
Similarly, if an individual were to visit KK even once a week, if he is aware of another struggling with gluttony he is tempting another to fall and, thus, acting wrongly.
Bennet's case seeems problamatic for two reasons. First, because even if he can afford to lose the money, it seems his gambling is excessive which, in turn, calls into question his qualifications to speak specifically on the subject of virtue. Already, one can see the self-satisfied smugness of the Left as it bashes Bennett for this fault, using it as a means to call into question everything he's said on the subject. Second, given his national audience and prominence, it seems very likily those who can't afford to gamble may get the impressions its "o.k." to gamble and will thus engage in harmful activity.
Thus, in the case of Bennett's gambling, I would say the excessiveness should be of concern to his confessor for the sake of Bennett's own soul, while the 'appearance of evil' it offers could negatively affect others.
I'm not making the case that gambling in and of itself is wrong...I'm making the case that gambling for monetary gain is wrong whether you can afford to lose it or not.
I don't think the analogy of drinking and gambling hold up. You can gamble without it being about money, but it becomes wrong when you gamble for money.
There is a biblical precedent for drinking, but not getting drunk. And there are biblical precedents for "casting lots" (if you want to call that gambling) but not casting lots for money.