Recently on Twitter, Tom Reese, S.J., linked to an article from the Ignatian Solidarity Network detailing the ways in which Jesuit schools around the country were trying to respond to the murder of 49 people in Orlando on June 12. Many Jesuit schools have had prayer services or Masses; university officials from around the country, like Brian Linnane, S.J., at Loyola University Maryland, Lisa Reiter at Loyola University Chicago or Michael Engh, S.J., at Santa Clara University, have also issued statements of support for those hurt or killed and for the L.G.B.T. communities of our nation.
And as I read through the list of great schools, some of the country’s very best, filled with talented faculty and staff, dedicated alumni and passionate students, I couldn’t help but wonder what might be accomplished if our Jesuit schools and all our other institutions worked together to advocate for stronger gun control—a national campaign.
Because individually organized prayer services, while meaningful and important, are not enough. Statements of support, particularly for the L.G.B.T. community, are important, very important at a time when many of our leaders have been silent on this point, only reinforcing the sense of exclusion and danger that many L.G.B.T. people feel.
But statements, too, are not enough. Not in the face of the same events occurring over and over. Indeed, our situation calls to mind the oft-quoted definition of insanity: to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
These days I find myself haunted by the possibility that all our prayers and statements and articles on gun control are things that make us feel like we’re doing something meaningful, when in fact we haven’t actually committed to doing anything at all. I daresay that every Jesuit school at every level has had prayer services and issued challenging statements after other gun-related tragedies, notably the killings at the Sandy Hook school in 2012. But on Sunday 49 people were gunned down by a single armed individual. How can we tolerate that?
It’s quite clear that our politicians are not going to do anything unless they are forced (or, put more positively, given a tremendous amount of political cover). We can complain about that and retweet endless crazy comments made by right-wing politicians and others. It feels good, but none of it makes any actual difference.
I’m sure that some of our institutions and members of our institutions are already working for change on this issue. They should be praised and also consulted. Because if our institutions worked together, we could make an enormous difference. I daresay there are few-to-no networks in this country with more connections, resources and capacity to exert the kind of pressure needed for actual change than that of Jesuit institutions.
Obviously, there is risk in speaking out and organizing on the issue of gun control. Debate over gun laws are the definition of divisive in our country. Some alumni, employees, board members would not agree to our institutions advocating for any restrictions on gun ownership. Some may threaten to withhold donations or other support.
But if our institutions—which include not only the works of the Society of Jesus and our Ignatian-inspired colleagues but the Jesuit provinces themselves—cannot take the risk of standing up and leading when faced with such an obvious and ongoing moral and social catastrophe, honestly, what is the point of them?
It’s like the old joke about the guy caught in the flood who repeatedly refuses rescue because he believes God will save him. In the end he drowns, not because God didn’t hear his prayers, but because he never acted on any of the opportunities God provided. “Where were you?” he howls at God at the Pearly Gates.
“I sent you a jeep, a boat and a helicopter,” God tells him. “What more did you need?”
Or as late-night comedian Samantha Bee put it in furious, blistering, must see comments: “Love does not win unless we start loving each other enough to fix our [EXPLETIVE] problems.”
Jim McDermott, S.J., is America's Los Angeles correspondent.
Some interesting comments on this feed. William, I am aware the Jesuits have a range of opinions on guns and gun control. As I've written here before, there were about 100 hunting rifles in closets, under beds and in car trunks of men in my novitiate.
Notably, I'm pretty sure there were no automatic weapons, high capacity cartridges or guns with high speed shooting capacity among them. And I also feel very sure they would not have been allowed. Because, at least in Minnesota, the deer just aren't that dangerous.
I'm not arguing that all Jesuits should agree with me, or all people. Or that all guns should be confiscated, although personally I'd prefer that or something close to it. I am saying that I think there's a compelling argument that we have reached a point where there is a moral obligation at this point to work to change our current situation, and that as such our institutions should consider getting invovled.
And I think we're beyond "respecting one another's opinions". That has led to no change and further deaths.
Kevin, as to your comment about Samantha Bee, I think her arguments are persuasive and her outrage is warranted. I share it. And I don't think anyone should be written off just because they lean left or right or tend to attack the left or right. (And I should reguarly be reminded of that when I come down on others who represent points of view I don't agree with!)
Sandi, love what you had to say. Totally agree -- we have tried to do very very small things in the US, like background checks, and haven't even been able to accomplish that. I am pushing for much more, in part because I think the NRA and others like keeping us arguing about the small stuff that won't matter nearly enough. (As Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy pointed out during the filibuster, background checks would not have stopped Sandy Hook from happening. Blocking assault weapons, large capacity cartridges and high speed firing would have.)
The regular "THEY'RE TAKING OUR GUNS" reaction is as of yet completely without basis in fact. Research in fact shows that gun laws generally loosen after a major incident, not grow stricter. (For example, pretty much every state in the union has conceal and carry laws now; that wasn't the case ten years ago.)
J and Andrew, I think all of the above answers your questions. I think the argument for conceal and carry is predicated on the completely false notion that people with guns would know what to do with them in a crisis. That takes training. The police have it. We don't. (Also, as of yet to hear about a bad situation that was halted by a bystander with a gun. I'm sure there are examples. I'd need to hear many to be persuaded, given the amount of violence going on out there.)
And Andrew, sorry you feel that way. "Stupid" was one of ten words that my fifth grade teacher Mrs. McBride kept on the blackboard all year that we weren't allowed to say. As she said to us, so I say to you: you can do better.
Dmitri, congratulations on offering the glass half full take on our situation! Our interpretation of the Constitution is nuts, but at least it's not (yet) that nuts.
Gef, I'm no Dan Berrigan, but that's exactly the kind of spirit I'm hoping we can find.
And John, Hillsdale College isn't a Jesuit school. (But the alumni relations number is 517-607-2461.) :)