Policies and Procedures
Ensuring Transparency, Trust, and Good Stewardship in Our Shared Mission.
Policy and Procedure Committee (PPC)
In the fall of 2022, the Senior Leadership Team established an ad hoc Policy and Procedure Committee (PPC). The PPC is tasked with a comprehensive review of the existing Policy and Procedure Manual.
- The review will occur in phases.
- Priority has been given to update key policies and procedures to ensure that appropriate care and attention is given to key areas (policy and procedure relating to safe environments has been updated).
- The first phase of the review will be focused on the implementation of the Radical Rethink organizational structure and embedding this into the Policy and Procedure Manual (PPM).
- Once this work is complete, and in collaboration with the Archdiocese portfolios, a detailed review and policy and procedure update will get underway.
Any need for interpretation of the policies or procedures throughout this transition process, including any conflict or confusion within the PPM, will be referred to the Senior Leadership Team for review and recommendation decision, with the final matter being settled by the Archbishop.
Purpose and Application of the Policies and Procedures Manual
- The purpose of the Policies and Procedures Manual is to establish policies and procedures for the Catholic Archdiocese of Edmonton.
- These Policies and Procedures shall be interpreted according to the norms of Canon Law and any relevant particular law of the Archdiocese of Edmonton.
- These Policies and Procedures shall take effect upon approval by the Archbishop after review and recommendation by the Senior Leadership Team. All formally constituted committees will be disbanded and new committees responding to current needs will be replaced.
- These Policies and Procedures may be amended or suspended at any time by the Archbishop and communicated to all affected individuals and groups.
- These Policies and Procedures shall be reviewed from time to time.
- The process for amending these Policies and Procedures can be found in this document.
Approved by the Senior Leadership Team, March 16, 2022
Current Catholic Archdiocese of Edmonton Policies (PDF)
Note: Policy numbering is not always continuous, as over time some older policies have been deleted, replaced, or combined into newer policies.
100 — General Norms and Accountability
Click to open
200 — Temporal Goods of the Church
Click to open
Project Assessment Tools
300 — Human Resources
Click to open
400 — Clergy
Click to open
400PD — Clergy: Permanent Deacons
Click to open
| No. | Policy Name | Promulgated |
|---|---|---|
| PD400 | Structure and Responsibility | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD401 | Appointments | 15 Aug 2016 |
| PD402 | Diaconal Faculties | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD403 | Diaconal Service Agreement | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD403A | Diaconal Service Agreement — Appendix | 26 Aug 2016 |
| PD404 | Continuing Education | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD404A | Annual Formation and Learning Plan | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD405 | Spiritual Direction | 08 Jun 2010 |
| PD406 | Retreats | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD407 | Vesture | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD408 | Dress and Title | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD408A | CCCB Decree 25 Ecclesiastical Dress | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD409 | Public Office | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD410 | Remuneration and Gifts | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD411 | Expenses | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD412 | Conflict Resolution Process | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD413 | Leaves of Absence | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD414 | Incardination | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD415 | Retirement from Diaconal Ministry | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD416 | Suspension and Loss of Clerical State | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD417 | Funerals of Permanent Deacons | 30 Jun 2010 |
| PD417A | Planning Form for Funeral of Deacon or his Wife or Widow | 11 Oct 2016 |
500 — Liturgy
Click to open
| No. | Policy Name | Promulgated |
|---|---|---|
| 511 | Sunday Celebration of the Word | 01 Feb 2016 |
| 512 | Access to the Sacraments | 11 Jul 2014 |
| 513 | Order of Christian Funerals | 02 Nov 2013 |
| 513A | 4th Degree Honour Guard Protocol of the K of C | 02 Nov 2013 |
| 514 | Liturgical Celebrations in School Context | 01 Aug 2014 |
| 515 | Eucharistic Celebrations at Non-Consecrated Sites | 06 Mar 2017 |
600 — Sacraments of Initiation
Click to open
700 — The Sacrament of Marriage
Click to open
| No. | Policy Name | Promulgated |
|---|---|---|
| 701 | Determination of the Proper Parish | 30 Jun 2010 |
| 702 | Marriage in Other Dioceses | 07 Nov 2014 |
| 702A | Procedures to Follow with Other Dioceses | 07 Nov 2014 |
| 704 | Prenuptial Interviews and Forms | 07 Nov 2014 |
| 704A | Instructions to Complete Prenuptial Forms | 21 Oct 2015 |
| 704B | Form 1A | 09 Jul 2018 |
| 704B | Form 1B | 01 Jun 2016 |
| 704B | Form 1C | 21 Oct 2015 |
| 704B | Form 2 | 29 Jun 2018 |
| 704B | Form 3 | 01 Jan 2012 |
| 704B | Form 4 | 01 Jan 2012 |
| 723 | Submission of the Prenuptial File | 07 Nov 2014 |
| 740 | Place of the Marriage Celebration | 15 Dec 2014 |
| 740A | Guidelines for Marriages at Fort Edmonton Park | 15 Dec 2014 |
| 749 | Previous Marriages and RCIA | 30 Jun 2010 |
| 752 | Lack of Canonical Form Petition | 15 Dec 2014 |
| 752A | Petition for Declaration of Nullity — Lack of Form | 15 Dec 2014 |
| 761 | Prohibition Regarding Marriage | 17 Jul 2018 |
800 — Archives & Sacramental Registers
Click to open
900 — Communications
Click to open
| No. | Policy Name | Promulgated |
|---|---|---|
| 900 | Advertising and Promotion | 26 Mar 2018 |
| 901 | Archdiocesan Visual Identity | 30 Jun 2010 |
| 902 | Media Relations | 30 Jun 2010 |
| 903 | Parish Information | 30 Jun 2010 |
| 904 | Awards, Honours & Invitations to Speakers | 30 May 2019 |
| 905 | Invitations to Speakers | 10 Jul 2014 |
| 905A | Speaker Preliminary Invitation Form | 02 Mar 2018 |
| 906 | Advertisements of Speakers | 30 Jun 2010 |
| 907 | Protection of Personal Information | 22 Jul 2015 |
| 907B | PIPA Registration and Participation Form | 24 Apr 2020 |
| 907C | Participant Consent Form & Release | 24 Jul 2013 |
| 908 | Website Content | 21 Jul 2015 |
| 909 | Social Media | 02 Jun 2014 |
1100 — Parishes
Click to open
| No. | Policy Name | Promulgated |
|---|---|---|
| 1100 | Parish Twinned/Clustered or Merged | 21 Aug 2015 |
| 1101 | School Trustees Election Protocol in Parishes | 05 Apr 2017 |
| 1102 | Protocols in the Sudden Absence of the Pastor | 01 Feb 2016 |
| 1103 | Naming of a Catholic School | 20 Jan 2023 |
| 1104 | Groups, Associations and Movements | 26 Mar 2018 |
| 1104A | Group, Association or Movement Information Form | 26 Mar 2018 |
| 1105 | Parish Pastoral Council | 18 Jun 2018 |
| 1106 | Political Activities Protocol in Parishes | 24 Sep 2025 |
| 1107 | Naming of Meeting Rooms or Halls, Parish Church | 14 May 2019 |
Additional Information
Gambling FAQs
Why did the Archbishop ban casino fundraising?
Although some people had the impression this policy was a complete surprise, in fact the gambling policy was the conclusion of a 12-year process.
In 1998, the Bishops of Alberta issued a statement entitled The False Eden of Gambling, in which they voiced concerns over the growing prevalence of gambling in this province and its detrimental effects on individuals and families, particularly among the poor. Since then, the Bishops of both Calgary and St. Paul have offered further teaching on this issue and established guidelines that forbid the participation of parishes and institutions of their dioceses in gambling practices that harm others.
In Edmonton, Archbishop Collins was transferred to Toronto before establishing a policy, so Archbishop Smith continued the task. In reality, some of our parishes, church groups, and school divisions had already withdrawn from dependence on gambling revenue, while others were required to do so.
The effective date of the policy was October 1. This date was chosen to coincide with the implementation of a broad range of newly revised Archdiocesan policies, among which the policy on gambling is only one.
What exactly is covered by the policy?
We recognize there are a range of practices that fall under the title “gambling,” from harmless raffle tickets for a quilt to dangerous activities that feed addictive personalities and cause great harm, such as casinos. The policy pertains precisely and only to three harmful gambling practices — namely, casinos, VLTs, and high-stakes bingos.
It is guided generally by the principle that we should not seek to profit from activities that we know harm others, especially the poor. It follows that:
- Formal co-operation in these activities for fundraising purposes is not to take place;
- Application for grants from sources funded solely by harmful gambling practices is not to be made; and
- Monies offered to us by groups that have raised them through harmful gambling practices are to be politely and respectfully declined.
Catholics are called by the Church’s social doctrine to solidarity with the poor and the vulnerable of society. This call rests on the bedrock principle of the inalienable dignity of each and every person and summons us always to be attentive to how our individual actions may have a negative impact upon others.
In recent years, our awareness of the harmful effects of some forms of gambling on others has grown. It is this awareness, shaped by the Church’s social doctrine, that has led to the policy Archbishop Smith has put in place for the Archdiocese of Edmonton.
We recognize there are a range of practices that fall under the title “gambling,” from harmless raffle tickets for a quilt to dangerous activities that feed addictive personalities and cause great harm, such as casinos. The policy pertains precisely and only to three harmful gambling practices — namely, casinos, VLTs, and high-stakes bingos.
It is guided generally by the principle that we should not seek to profit from activities that we know harm others, especially the poor. It follows that:
- Formal co-operation in these activities for fundraising purposes is not to take place;
- Application for grants from sources funded solely by harmful gambling practices is not to be made; and
- Monies offered to us by groups that have raised them through harmful gambling practices are to be politely and respectfully declined.
Catholics are called by the Church’s social doctrine to solidarity with the poor and the vulnerable of society. This call rests on the bedrock principle of the inalienable dignity of each and every person and summons us always to be attentive to how our individual actions may have a negative impact upon others.
In recent years, our awareness of the harmful effects of some forms of gambling on others has grown. It is this awareness, shaped by the Church’s social doctrine, that has led to the policy Archbishop Smith has put in place for the Archdiocese of Edmonton.
What is meant by “high-stakes” bingo?
These are commercial bingo operations that offer prizes in the multi-thousands of dollars.
When is the deadline for schools to comply with the policy?
Institutions such as schools that rely to a large degree on revenues from gambling cannot be expected to change this overnight. Time will be needed for transitioning away from casino revenues, and the exact timelines will be determined in consultation with administration officials.
What authority does the Archbishop have in how our schools operate or raise money?
When a school is recognized and designated as Catholic, it undertakes as its mission to form students to become lifelong disciples of Jesus Christ. We strive to give them an education that is both comprehensive and excellent, in order to form them as individuals and prepare them to be engaged and active citizens. Woven through all that we do is the goal that unites our efforts and gives them their ultimate meaning: helping our students to know, love, and follow the Lord as members of His Body, the Church.
This means two things: first, both the activities and the environment of the school must be clearly centered upon the person of Christ; second, the school participates in the life and mission of the Church. As such, it is subject to the authority of the local Bishop regarding fidelity to the Church’s doctrine on faith and morals.
In Alberta, our Catholic schools have a dual accountability. On one hand, they have a responsibility to follow the civil law of the province and the policies of the Ministry of Education. On the other, they are also accountable to the Church, represented in the person of the Bishop, and are therefore expected to follow canon law and to hand on the faith in both its entirety and integrity to our students.
Indeed, a school can only be designated Catholic with the approval of the local Bishop. This latter accountability explains why the Bishops of Alberta have spoken a number of times with respect to the use of gambling revenues in our schools. Their teaching dates back to 1998, when the Bishops issued their statement The False Eden of Gambling. Gambling and its effects upon people’s lives, especially on the poor and vulnerable, is an important moral issue. Schools must take care, then, to ensure that their practices pertaining to this issue are in keeping with the moral teaching of the Church.
Refusing to apply for casinos or government grants derived from gambling revenues doesn’t solve the real issue, which is gambling addiction. What is accomplished by not accepting this revenue source, other than depriving Catholic institutions of funds?
Addiction itself is one of three aspects to the gambling issue. The other two aspects are the systematic and intentional exploitation of the addicted by the provincial government, and the willing participation in this exploitation by Catholic institutions.
As Bishop Luc Bouchard wrote, “We can only effectively deal with real issues over which we exercise some control. We cannot directly control gambling addiction or the moral insensitivity of the provincial government.” (A Little Catechism on Gambling, June 27, 2008)
Bishop Frederick Henry highlighted the principle that a Catholic institution must never cooperate formally in an industry that exploits the weak and vulnerable, as well as the tenet that we must not do what is wrong in order that good may come of it — the ends do not justify the means. (Decision Time, June 20, 2006)
He has also recently drawn attention to the growing and alarming effect of gambling, particularly through its presence on the internet, upon our youth. (Entertainment, Needing Money, Wanting to Win, May 4, 2007)
Addiction itself is one of three aspects to the gambling issue. The other two aspects are the systematic and intentional exploitation of the addicted by the provincial government, and the willing participation in this exploitation by Catholic institutions.
As Bishop Luc Bouchard wrote, “We can only effectively deal with real issues over which we exercise some control. We cannot directly control gambling addiction or the moral insensitivity of the provincial government.” (A Little Catechism on Gambling, June 27, 2008)
Bishop Frederick Henry highlighted the principle that a Catholic institution must never cooperate formally in an industry that exploits the weak and vulnerable, as well as the tenet that we must not do what is wrong in order that good may come of it — the ends do not justify the means. (Decision Time, June 20, 2006)
He has also recently drawn attention to the growing and alarming effect of gambling, particularly through its presence on the internet, upon our youth. (Entertainment, Needing Money, Wanting to Win, May 4, 2007)
How can the Church condemn fundraising through casinos and yet have no problem with raffles, house and car lotteries, parish bingos and other forms of gambling? Isn’t gambling either right or wrong?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses the morality of personal involvement in gambling (cf. CCC 2413). Personal participation in a game of chance is per se morally neutral, but it becomes unacceptable if it leads to addiction, deprives others of what is their due, or involves cheating and lack of fairness.
We can compare gaming with liquor in this respect. Selling liquor is not in itself immoral, but selling it to minors or providing it to people who are completely intoxicated and intending to drive away in a car is. Making money from a raffle ticket with reasonable limits is one thing; profiting from VLTs that have swallowed the life savings of an addict is certainly another.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses the morality of personal involvement in gambling (cf. CCC 2413). Personal participation in a game of chance is per se morally neutral, but it becomes unacceptable if it leads to addiction, deprives others of what is their due, or involves cheating and lack of fairness.
We can compare gaming with liquor in this respect. Selling liquor is not in itself immoral, but selling it to minors or providing it to people who are completely intoxicated and intending to drive away in a car is. Making money from a raffle ticket with reasonable limits is one thing; profiting from VLTs that have swallowed the life savings of an addict is certainly another.
If the Church forbids our schools from raising money this way, will the Church make up the shortfall?
The constitutional responsibility for funding education lies with the provincial government. What is needed is a sustainable funding source that does not lead schools to have to accept funding from morally objectionable activities such as harmful gambling, and which is available and distributed to all schools with equity. All schools in Alberta should benefit equally from accessing funds for the purposes that are most critical to their individual programming needs, without having to compromise their principles or identity. A way forward must be found that can address not only the deep concerns of those who oppose participation in gambling-based fund-raising on either religious or non-religious grounds, but also the real inequity created among schools by the current funding framework.
Isn’t it hypocritical for Catholic institutions to forgo gambling revenues and yet accept money from the provincial general revenue fund, which may include proceeds from gaming?
In Alberta, the gambling culture is so pervasive, and is used so extensively by the provincial government for the funding of services, that its residents are often in a situation of seemingly cooperating with what is a morally unacceptable action. Citizens who do not agree with the gambling industry nevertheless have no choice but to use the roads, hospitals, and schools financed with gambling revenues that have been combined with other sources of funds. In fact, this is not cooperation per se in an unacceptable activity; given the absolute lack of choice, there is no culpability on the part of citizens.
Formal cooperation describes the situation in which one freely and with full agreement cooperates in a morally unacceptable action. This is never permissible. When one cooperates in a morally unacceptable action, but without agreement and for some justifiable motive, the cooperation is material. Such material cooperation can be considered legitimate in some situations where one’s moral choices are seriously compromised.
An example often used to illustrate the distinction between formal and material cooperation is the case of a car driver who helps a bank robber escape from the scene of a robbery. If the driver is an accomplice who agrees with the robbery and freely chooses to drive the robber away in his car, then his cooperation with the evil action is formal. If, however, he is an innocent bystander who happens to be parked outside the bank at the time of the robbery, and who is forced by the robber at gunpoint to help him escape by driving him away, the cooperation of the driver is material, and he is not culpable.
In Alberta, government revenues derived from gambling are distributed in two ways. The first manner is to channel gambling revenues to the various government ministries, which combine these dollars with those received from general taxation. This pooled revenue is used to finance such provincial services as highways, education, and health care. Our schools and other institutions may legitimately receive this funding because they cannot exercise control over the manner in which the government provides it. As mentioned above, it is impossible, practically speaking, for them to differentiate between gambling receipts and other revenues.
The second way of distributing funds derived from gambling is to allow groups a direct sharing in the proceeds of gambling activity, such as a casino. Groups may:
- Choose to apply directly for a grant from a fund that has been sourced solely from gambling revenues; or
- Choose to volunteer as workers in casinos and earn a portion of the profits.
Both scenarios are morally problematic. Groups in the first case would be complicit in an immoral activity by applying directly to a fund sourced only from harmful gambling activities, while groups in the second case would be formally cooperating by direct participation in those activities.
In Alberta, the gambling culture is so pervasive, and is used so extensively by the provincial government for the funding of services, that its residents are often in a situation of seemingly cooperating with what is a morally unacceptable action. Citizens who do not agree with the gambling industry nevertheless have no choice but to use the roads, hospitals, and schools financed with gambling revenues that have been combined with other sources of funds. In fact, this is not cooperation per se in an unacceptable activity; given the absolute lack of choice, there is no culpability on the part of citizens.
Formal cooperation describes the situation in which one freely and with full agreement cooperates in a morally unacceptable action. This is never permissible. When one cooperates in a morally unacceptable action, but without agreement and for some justifiable motive, the cooperation is material. Such material cooperation can be considered legitimate in some situations where one’s moral choices are seriously compromised.
An example often used to illustrate the distinction between formal and material cooperation is the case of a car driver who helps a bank robber escape from the scene of a robbery. If the driver is an accomplice who agrees with the robbery and freely chooses to drive the robber away in his car, then his cooperation with the evil action is formal. If, however, he is an innocent bystander who happens to be parked outside the bank at the time of the robbery, and who is forced by the robber at gunpoint to help him escape by driving him away, the cooperation of the driver is material, and he is not culpable.
In Alberta, government revenues derived from gambling are distributed in two ways. The first manner is to channel gambling revenues to the various government ministries, which combine these dollars with those received from general taxation. This pooled revenue is used to finance such provincial services as highways, education, and health care. Our schools and other institutions may legitimately receive this funding because they cannot exercise control over the manner in which the government provides it. As mentioned above, it is impossible, practically speaking, for them to differentiate between gambling receipts and other revenues.
The second way of distributing funds derived from gambling is to allow groups a direct sharing in the proceeds of gambling activity, such as a casino. Groups may:
- Choose to apply directly for a grant from a fund that has been sourced solely from gambling revenues; or
- Choose to volunteer as workers in casinos and earn a portion of the profits.
Both scenarios are morally problematic. Groups in the first case would be complicit in an immoral activity by applying directly to a fund sourced only from harmful gambling activities, while groups in the second case would be formally cooperating by direct participation in those activities.
I’m not an addict, but I like to play bingo or go to a casino once in a while for entertainment, and I occasionally buy lottery and 50/50 tickets. Is the Church saying all this is immoral?
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, personal participation in a game of chance is, per se, morally neutral; however, it becomes morally problematic if it leads to addiction or deprives others of their due, such as family support.
Catholics are called by the Church’s social doctrine to solidarity with the poor and the vulnerable of society. This call rests on the bedrock principle of the inalienable dignity of each and every person, and it summons us always to be attentive to how our individual actions may have a negative impact upon others.
If public schools are accepting money from the Alberta Lottery Fund and/or provincial grant programs while Catholic schools are not, a growing revenue disparity will result — potentially tempting parents to send their children to better-equipped public schools.
It is not likely that the prevalence of gambling will diminish in this province anytime soon. Our province has itself become dependent upon it.
As long as this situation remains, a way forward must be found that can address not only the deep concerns of those who oppose participation in gambling-based fundraising on either religious or non-religious grounds, but also the real inequity created among schools by this particular funding framework.
What is needed is a sustainable funding source that does not lead schools to accept funding from morally objectionable activities such as harmful gambling, and which is available and distributed to all schools with equity. All schools in Alberta should benefit equally from funds that support their most critical programming needs, without compromising their principles or identity.
Yes, Catholic institutions may lose money as a result of choosing to act morally. But if we fail to act morally in line with our beliefs, we risk losing our identity, moral purpose, and public credibility.
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, personal participation in a game of chance is, per se, morally neutral; however, it becomes morally problematic if it leads to addiction or deprives others of their due, such as family support.
Catholics are called by the Church’s social doctrine to solidarity with the poor and the vulnerable of society. This call rests on the bedrock principle of the inalienable dignity of each and every person, and it summons us always to be attentive to how our individual actions may have a negative impact upon others.
If public schools are accepting money from the Alberta Lottery Fund and/or provincial grant programs while Catholic schools are not, a growing revenue disparity will result — potentially tempting parents to send their children to better-equipped public schools.
It is not likely that the prevalence of gambling will diminish in this province anytime soon. Our province has itself become dependent upon it.
As long as this situation remains, a way forward must be found that can address not only the deep concerns of those who oppose participation in gambling-based fundraising on either religious or non-religious grounds, but also the real inequity created among schools by this particular funding framework.
What is needed is a sustainable funding source that does not lead schools to accept funding from morally objectionable activities such as harmful gambling, and which is available and distributed to all schools with equity. All schools in Alberta should benefit equally from funds that support their most critical programming needs, without compromising their principles or identity.
Yes, Catholic institutions may lose money as a result of choosing to act morally. But if we fail to act morally in line with our beliefs, we risk losing our identity, moral purpose, and public credibility.
Would it be acceptable for a Catholic institution to accept money from the Alberta Lottery Fund or a provincial grant program if the money came through an arm’s-length third party such as a group of parents who establish a legal society for this purpose?
No Catholic institution should accept gambling revenues coming through such thinly disguised and questionable sources. The poor are still being victimized and Catholics would be profiting from their suffering, whether the institution knowingly applies for the money directly or indirectly.