Recently, a Catholic priest in Ann Arbor encouraged his
congregation to take classes to get concealed pistol licenses (CPL) in order to
protect themselves and their families. (The
Detroit Free Press article citing his letter can be accessed here.) Even
though he has since been advised by his bishop to discontinue these classes
which were taking place on the church premises, I want to address his actions
because they represent a growing association in America between conservative Christianity
and gun culture. In his lengthy letter
explaining his reasoning he cited a few police officers who recommended this
route of action since crime is on the rise while police forces have been
cut. He gave the church’s teaching on self-defense
as further support of carrying a weapon.
Besides the fact that defending oneself from harm doesn’t have to equate
with carrying a gun, I take issue with several aspects of this church leader’s
influence in promoting gun culture.
According to the priest, a police officer stated that more
criminals from Detroit are going to the suburbs to steal because people in
Detroit know better and pack heat. There
are several problems with this statement.
First of all, it’s simplistic. Studies
into crime indicators show that there are many factors that determine crime
rates, such as population growth and density, intrinsic differences in urban
and suburban areas, and community involvement in quality of life programs.
Second, this statement feeds the common assumption that
crime is specific to urban areas and people of lower classes. While, certainly, there are correlations with
poverty and crime, these elements are present in any community. And, on the contrary, crime rates have been
dropping in urban areas and growing in suburbia.[1] To suggest that this is because the citizenry
of urban areas are carrying weapons to defend themselves is nonsensical. How do criminals know who has a weapon and
who does not? I live in Detroit and I
know plenty of people who do not either carry a weapon or even have one in
their homes and would never ascribe to this philosophy. Also, the fact that crime has a correlation
with poverty should raise the question of why a group of religious people who
follow the teachings of Jesus would respond to social ills by merely defending
themselves.
The priest also used the example of a “druggie couple from
Detroit” who stole and smashed a car, and evaded a SWAT team just “yards of
Father Gabriel Richard [high school].”
He then deduces, “had the shooters got in, we would have had our own
Columbine.” The flippant use of fear
mongering and stereotype is disturbing in his statements, not to mention that he
has neglected the fact that mass shootings in America have almost entirely been
carried out by young, white males who live in the suburbs.
The picture being painted by his descriptions is that our
safe, white, suburban neighborhoods are being infiltrated by the overflow of
Detroit lowlifes and it’s time to stand up as strong Christians and defend
ourselves. Race is never mentioned in
his letter, of course, but the implication is present by the obvious
demographics. Our human tendency is to
look for places to live that we perceive as safe, but to want to isolate
ourselves from the greater society because we believe we have a way of life
that is separate and superior to that society is 1) naïve 2) irresponsible and
isolationist. He goes on to address what
he sees as two problematic approaches currently being taken by some of his parishioners:
burying their heads in the sand and ignoring realities, and relying on God’s
protection and safekeeping to the neglect of themselves and their
children. So, as if there are only three
possible responses to the reality of crime in the communities in which we live,
he advocates that everyone grab a gun and be prepared.
I am a relative newcomer to Detroit, but I’ve been here long
enough to know that you have to be smart about where you go and when you go
there. I have had my car vandalized. There has recently been a rash of break-ins
in the area that I live in. So I’m not
promoting a kind of naïve denial of social realities. But I have noticed a distinct difference in how
people in Detroit respond when confronted with crime and the common responses
in the suburbs. Detroiters know what
causes crime. Perpetrators of crime may
come from their own neighborhoods or sometimes even families. They understand what any person is capable of
if they are put in extreme enough circumstances, denied access to living-wage
work, unable to get needed mental health care, or a good education. They have a certain compassion because they
have witnessed first-hand the decline of Detroit and they have a much better
understanding of what caused that decline than those looking in from the
outside. (That is an entirely different
discussion for another time.) Because of
this awareness and compassion, there is a level of community involvement in
Detroit that I never experienced in all my years of living in the burbs. People in Detroit are extremely pro-active
and look for positive solutions. They
understand that poverty and unequal access to education, jobs, and other
resources have a direct impact on crime rates.
For that reason, greater numbers of people who live in Detroit work
together to offer meaningful community experiences in their neighborhoods and
parks and places of business. They are
politically involved because they know that it will take the community working
with government to solve the many issues facing the poor who live in this
city. As much as I hate going to
meetings, there is always a meeting for the planning of different activities,
or devising community responses to growing concerns, because they know that
when they come together to solve problems they are strong.
The difference in response to crime is that one sees the
criminal as a distinct “other,” someone who is not like me and therefore to be
avoided and defended against; the other response understands human frailty,
sees our own capacity for failing, and attempts to effect change that benefits
the broader community.
This priest states that he used to be a pacifist exempting
himself from the Vietnam War as a conscientious objector. But then he matured and realized that he had
an obligation to protecting the “common good.”
My question is how does he define “the common good?” I have no problem with protecting my loved
ones. But part of loving them and
passing on something of value to them, includes how we look to the broader
community, not just those who we identify with and call family or fellow church
goer. Jesus gives us plenty of examples
of who we need to be concerned about, starting with the parable of the Good
Samaritan. The driving force behind the
call to pack heat is not a concern for the common good, but a divisive,
protectionist stance by those who have a desirable place within society and
want to protect it at all cost. That he
uses his position as a representative of God to promote self-preservation, and a
growing lack of understanding of social dynamics is sad, to say the least.
Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, I have to admit
something. Twenty years ago I was a
member of this priest’s parish and left due to my own growing concerns about messages
and practices I heard and experienced there.
I can only hope that his letter and actions will give pause to his
current parishioners to at least critically assess his approach in light of the
example and words of the person they claim to follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment