Jesuit Prison Ministries Blog

This website will be taken down shortly - continue to follow us

on Facebook.  Coming soon:  JPM  West!!

Effective prison reform requires attention to the concerns of corrections officers (COs), not just prisoners.  Any attempt to reform the prison system will fail if it does not address the concerns of prison guards[i]. Few professions are as stressful.  In the face of the explosion of prison building and rates of incarceration in the United States, much attention is given to the harmful

effects of retributive penal policy on prisoners, yet scant attention has been given to the effects of these policies on those who work in these facilities.

There must be an increased focus on the professional stressors and strains that characterize COs’ work. The damage wrought by the ascendance of retributive penal policies over the last 30 years has had a corrosive effect on the lives of both the prisoners and their keepers.  Undoing this damage will require mitigation of the sources of stress for COs.  Without the cooperation of security staff, no lasting improvement in prison conditions for inmates is possible.

In his classic work on prisons, The Society of Captives, Gresham Sykes (1958) writes, “Prison is an instrument of the State, an organization designed to accomplish the desires of society with respect to the convicted criminal.” (p. 14)  According to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Department of Correction (DOC),

[The DOC] is comprised of professionals who are committed

to an open and respectful organization dedicated to public safety through the safe, secure, humane confinement and successful

re-entry of our offender population. (MA DOC Website).

         The State’s desire to protect public safety while at the same time ensuring safe, secure and humane confinement contains within itself the seeds of a conflict.  This conflict is the dilemma faced by those who are tasked with the care and custody of a large population of needy persons, while at the same time maintaining a strict level of control over these same people who have been deemed a menace to public safety.

         Using the insights of Michael Lipsky’s street-level bureaucracy theory, this paper will review the literature on the sources of stress encountered by COs in their daily line of work.  It will then suggest new policy directions for the Corrections Department to transform the nature of the COs’ work.  This CO-centered approach would serve to reduce stress among the guards and ultimately improve the conditions of the inmates in their care.  It would also reduce institutional managerial conflicts and allow more focus on the mission of the agency as a whole.

 

Background:

        

Street-level Bureaucracy Theory

Lipsky (1980) describes the contradiction that stems from the incompatibility of the goals of humane treatment of prisoners and the maintenance of orderly prison life (Lipsky, l980 cited in Blau, Light & Chamlin, l986).  His Street-level bureaucracy theory offers insight into the quandary faced by COs in their daily work as they attempt to work in the dangerous and chaotic environment of prison.  Correctional Officers represent what Lipsky describes as “perhaps the most highly refined example of street-level bureaucrat[s]” (Lipsky, l980, p. 13).  

         The essence of Street-level bureaucracy theory is that human services workers such as police, social workers, court agencies and prison guards who deal directly with the public as their clients, play a major role in delivering what is,  in effect the actual public service policy of their respective agencies.  “The actions of most public service workers actually contribute the services “delivered” by the government.” (Lipsky, 1980,

p. 3).  They are an extension of that “instrument of the State.” (Sykes, 1958).  Correctional Officers, while seemingly the lowest-level workers in a prison, in reality function as managers. (Blau et al, 1986).  In the prison environment this creates a “double-bind” for COs because on the one hand they must function in a dynamic and threatening environment, requiring a certain degree of discretion on their part to handle unpredictable clients, while at the same time they are bound by a paramilitary command structure that requires them to comply at all times with strict bureaucratically-mandated directives from the senior managers of the DOC. (Blau et al., 1986, citing Cheek and Miller, l982, p. 132).          

         An extensive literature review by Blau et al., (1986) empirically demonstrates low morale and alienation among prison guards (pp. 132-133). Stress-inducing work conditions breed “cynicism among guards [that is] the result of the difficulties of conforming to bureaucratic rules in day-today work and the impossibility of implementing managerial goals . . . If guards, in fact conform to regulations too rigidly, they lose informal control over inmates.” (Blau et al (l986, p. 132).

         This is another double-bind COs find themselves confronting every day.  They are required to conform to standards of behavior and policies decided upon by managers who are not in the housing units on a daily basis.  At the same time, they feel frustrated and disempowered by their inability to react to inmates with a free hand.  Society has a stake in preventing brutality and retaliation on the part of the COs toward difficult to manage prisoners.  At the same time it is expected COs will manage often violent and unpredictable inmates with patience and restraint. 

         In an interview with a Correctional Officer on Friday, November 28, 2007, (interviewee requested anonymity), the CO described a problem with a disruptive inmate  who wanted to be sent to a Maximum Security Prison.  To force a move, he repeatedly broke off the sprinkler head in his cell, “flooding out.”  The CO reported his exasperation with this behavior but felt his (and his co-worker’s) hands were tied by the regulations.   The policy required the COs to phone the Prison Superintendent (at home on a weekend) to get his permission to remove the inmate from his cell by force.

The “flooding out” behavior was repeated several times in the course of a single week until finally the inmate was moved out of the prison by the administration.  “Why should this inmate get to dictate to us where he should go?” the CO asked.  “Why do we have to call the Superintendent who is at home and does not know what is going on in there when we should be allowed to deal with the situation ourselves.”  By this he meant he

believed they should have been allowed to move on the inmate sooner and restrain him from further vandalism.   The CO expressed frustration that “the administration always sides with ‘them’ [inmates].  This frustration is heightened by the DOC’s self-description as a “paramilitary” organization. Rigid hierarchical structures have been shown to be “the most common source of stress [resulting] from the policies and procedures of law enforcement agencies.” (Finn & Tomz, l996, p. xiv).[ii]

 

 

Sources of Stress for COs

         Schaufeli and Peeters (2000) in their literature review of job stress and burnout factors among Correctional Officers, found empirical data supporting the hypothesis that the four greatest psychosocial generators of stress among COs are:

·      Role problems

·      Stressful social contacts with  superiors, prisoners and colleagues;

·      work overload;

·      poor social status. (p. 38)

        

Role Problems:

As “street-level bureaucrats,” COs are in constant contact with their “clients” – the inmates.  This interaction with inmates both  reinforces and limits their relationship. (Lipsky, 1980 p. 117).  Lipsky notes, “Every social order depends on the general consent of its members.  Even the most coercive of institutions, such as prisons, function only so long as those affected by the institution cooperate in its activities.” (p. 117).[iii]  

         The characteristics of the COs’ job are a “lack of decision-making opportunities by the lowest-level personnel in a paramililtary organization, little training for expected tasks, fear of violence, boredom, and low public recognition.” (Philliber, 1987, p. 17).  Despite this, he or she is charged with achieving the compliance of a population of unwilling captives.  Sykes (1958) sums up the dilemma: 

         Thus the guard – backed by the power of the State, close to armed men

         who will run to his aid, and aware that any prisoner who disobeys  him

         can be punished if he presses charges against him – often discovers that

         his best path of action is to make “deals” or “trades” with the captives

         in his power.”(p. 57).

         The COs learn early in their careers that they have to both “comply with bureaucratic directives and maintain some latitude of judgment in dealing with prisoners.” (Blau et al., 1986, p. 133).  This dichotomy is stress-inducing because the CO must be accountable to the administrative supervisors who set policy, while at the same time must manage

the inmates in a practical and often nuanced manner.  The danger on the one hand is loss of their jobs for disobeying the paramilitary hierarchical chain of command over them, while at the same time risking a loss of control if they attempt to impose regulations too rigidly on the inmates. (Blau et al., 1986, p. 132).   Role ambiguity and role conflict are unavoidable in such an environment.  The CO is caught between conflicting demands;  “the role of the CO is problematic by its very nature since two conflicting demands have to be met simultaneously – guarding prisoners and facilitating their rehabilitation.” (Schuafeli & Peeters, 2000, p. 34).   It is not surprising that Phlliber concludes after her study that “role difficulties in prisons appear to take a  rather serious toll.” (Philliber, 1987, p. 19). 

 

Stressful social contacts

         Another key stressor revealed in the empirical studies concerns the difficult social interactions implicit in the daily work of the CO.  “Intensive and emotionally charged contacts with prisoners are the hallmark of the COs job.” (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000, p. 35).  Officers with little or no training in psychology and human behavior are expected to monitor, control and protect incarcerated individuals.  These prisoners often suffer from the effects of past physical and emotional trauma, mental illness and addictions.  Grassian (2006) observes, “Many of these people who are said to be the ‘worst of the worst’ are simply the wretched of the earth. They’re sick people.”(Vera Insttitute, 2006, p. 60).  COs must cope with both the tedium of daily prison life and the ever-present potential of violence.  While prison regulations forbid abusive language from inmates to guards and from guards toward inmates, in practice, this rule is not enforced.  As a result, the prison work environment is often characterized by vulgarity, demeaning and insulting language directed at the COs.  

         In addition, the interactions between guard and prisoner are restrained by the institutional structure: 

         The prison guard must follow the rules and their interpretations

         made by his superiors; the guard is not free to act toward inmates

         -either sentimentally or punitively- as he would personally prefer.

       (Johnson, l981, p. 82).

         Schaufeli & Peeters (2000) observe that [problematic] social contacts of COs are not restricted to prisoners but include colleagues and superiors as well. (p. 36)  Studies of COs work relationships suggest that peer support actually serves to increase COs level of job stress (Schaufeli & Peeters (2000), because the ethos of guard culture is that of “the CO as a tough lonesome cowboy who is emotionally unaffected by his job and can solve his own problems without the help of others. (p. 36)  To seek help and support is to admit weakness and incompetence for the CO. 

         Philliber (1987) also found the increasing numbers of female COs, posed a threat to the “macho” self-image of guards (p. 13).  She adds that “contrary to the gentle stereotypes often ascribed to women, [female] guards competed intensely with one another for jobs, and were aggressive and subverting of newcomers.” (p. 13)  Women Guards have also complained that male coworkers sometimes undermine their decisions (Zimmer, l987, p. 420).  This suggests evolving gender roles and attitudes within the CO profession exacerbate tensions within the prison work environment.

         Data shows a strong negative attitude toward superiors as well. (p. 36).

Because the authority to formulate policy is wielded by administrators who are often not security personnel, there is “goal dissensus” (Philliber, 1987 p. 17) between the policy makers and the policy implementers.  This of course illustrates the dynamics of Street-level bureaucracy Theory: 

         Managers are interested in achieving results consistent with

         agency objectives.  Street-level bureaucrats are interested in

processing work consistent with their own preferences.

(Lipsky, 1983 p. 19) 

Alienation of COs often results from their perception that they have no

discretion in carrying out their duties.  Inmates perceive this and exploit it to their own advantage at time, leading officers to conclude that their superiors “care more about the inmates than about the officers.” (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000, p. 36.) 

 

Work overload

         The third major source of stress identified by Schaufeli and Peeters (2000) is the sense among COs that they are overloaded with work.  Prisoner

populations have increased five-fold over the last 25 years, adding considerable stress to an already overcrowded prison system.  High turnover among COs and high absenteeism rates increase the workload for those who remain.[iv]

         The shiftwork structure of correctional institutions creates stress on COs personal lives and family life.  Due to constantly shifting institutional requirements, many COs experience their work as unpredictable because they can be “pulled” from one assignment and sent to another part of the institution at any time.  It is not uncommon for a CO to be “frozen” into working an additional overtime shift if the institution experiences a critical shortage of essential personnel.  Adding to the lack of professional solidarity among COs is the tendency to be selfish about holiday time off. Holidays are particularly difficult, especially for relatively new officers who lack seniority.  Many COs are forced to work for years over weekends until they get the seniority to ‘bid’ on Monday to Friday jobs.  

         The violent nature of prisons takes its toll on the emotional resilience of officers, adding to the stressful effects of work overload.  Recently, an inmate  attempted suicide by biting open the arteries of his arms.  He survived, but the incident shocked the COs who came to his assistance.  One CO remarked to this author, “No one should have to carry around such images in his head.”  Many of the acts of

violence in the prison are profoundly traumatic.  Thornton (2002) notes, “Following a traumatic incident, the victim officer may experience symptoms that affect the cognitive, physical, emotional, and behavioral aspects of normal functioning..”(p. 79).  

         The hidden psychological stressors caused by the occasional horrors of

prison life suggest the need for more research on the work of COs.  For example, despite data showing the risk of suicide among prison guards is 39% higher than that of the rest of the working age population in the U.S., research on suicide in correctional facilities has focused on prisoners to the neglect of the guards. (Stack and Tsoudis, 1997 p. 185). 

 

Poor Social Status

Among the various possible careers in Criminal Justice, Correctional Officers rank near the bottom in terms of social approval.  “No one plans careers as prison guards for their children.” (Philliber, 1987, p. 9).  For many,  “Working in a prison has low social status.” (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000, p. 38).  Philliber (1987) found this description of COs in social science literature:  “Some guarding jobs are said to require only 20/20 vision,

the IQ of an imbecile, a high threshold for boredom and a basement position in Maslow’s hierarchy.”(Philliber l987 citing Toch, l978 p. 9).  It is  not surprising that work requiring direct contact with prisoners (the lowest social status people in our society) would not be considered an appealing profession by most Americans.  Added to this is the media portrayal of prison guards as ignorant, sadistic and corrupt, there is little that would encourage a bright young man or woman to consider life as a CO as their first calling.

Policy Implications:

To focus on treating the stress alone is to put a band-aid on a major wound.  A better policy would be to address the underlying factors that are the source of the stress.  Schaufeli & Peeters (2000) note there are basically two types of approaches to deal with work-related stress:  helping employees develop coping skills or changing the work environment itself to reduce the stressors. (p.. 38) 

Given the empirical data about the sources of  stress, one can determine some approaches to changing the prison environment itself that might prove helpful in reducing the stress felt by COs. 

For example, the problem of role ambiguity is connected to the conundrum cited by Lipsky in Street Level Bureaucracy Theory:  “In the corrections area rehabilitation often conflicts with deterrence and isolation of convicted criminals from the rest of society.” The COs’ daily adversarial relations with inmates conflicts with the stated goals of the organization (the DOC).   The reality for guards however is that while they are expected to uphold these core values, their clients do not feel obligated in any way to do the same.  (Some of course do,) but the nature of the  prison is rather toward the opposite of the above stated values.

         Blau et al. (l986) found “the overall importance of relations of social control in prisons for the morale of those who staff them.” (p. 149).  As Street-level bureaucrats, CO’s must feel empowered to exercise their authority without unnecessary interference from administrators.  A total institution such as a prison, as Goffman (1961) notes is “riddled with contradictions.” (Goffman as cited by Blau et al., 1986, p. 149).  The major contradiction is in the top-down authoritarian structure of the prison administration that nevertheless requires ‘street-level’ decision making on the part of the guards.  The rules imposed from above must be  obeyed, but in order for those rules to work, they require a measure of informal control between the officers and the inmates themselves.  It is these informal agreements between inmates and COs that serve to make prison life more bearable for all. (p. 149) 

A problem arises however when the institution curtails the decision making ability of COs which paradoxically requires them to negotiate more informal “deals” with inmates to maintain order.  Being placed in a position where their sense of personal safety seems dependent upon the cooperation of the inmates tends to increase attitudes of repression on the part of COs. (Philliber citing Lombardo, 1982, p. 27). 

Simply attempting to “professionalize” the CO career is not the solution.  Lipsky notes that “professionals by definition are accountable only to peers” (p. 203).  But we have seen from Schaufeli & Peeters, (2000) work that  “group loyalty and collegiality among COs are weakly developed because they interact only occasionally.”(p. 36)  This is because the paramilitary organization “emphasizes individual responsibility rather than team responsibility . . . asking for social support is considered to be an expression of incompetence [or weakness].” (p. 36) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Cheek, E. and Miller, M. (l982).  The experience of stress for correction officers – a

double-bind theory of occupational stress. Washington, D.C.:  American Friends

Service Committee

Finn, Peter and Tomz, Julie E.  Developing a Law Enforcement Stress Program for

Officers and Their Families.  Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice, Washington

D.C.: Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Gibbons, John, Katzenbach, Nicholas. (2006).  Confronting Confinement, A Report of

the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons. Vera Institute of

Justice.

Johnson, Elmer. (l981) Changing world of the Correctional Officer.   In R. Ross, (Ed.),

Prison Guard/Correctional Officer, (pp. 77-85).  Toronto: Butterworths.

Levi, L. (1987). Definitions and the conceptual aspects of health in relation to work. 

In R. Kalimo, M. El-Batawi, & C. Cooper (Eds.). Psychosocial factors at work

and their relation to  health.  Geneva:  World Health Organization

Lipsky, Michael. (l980). Street-Level Bureaucracy:  Dilemmas of the individual in public

service.  New York:  Russell Sage Foundation.

Philliber, Susan. (l987).  Thy Brother’s Keeper:   A review of the literature on

correctional officers.  Justice Quarterly, Vol 4(1) 9-37.

Schaufeli, Wilmar and Peeters, Maria. (2000) Job stress and burnout among correctional

officers: a literature review. International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 7

(1) 19-48.

Stack, Steven & Tsoudis, Olga. (l997). Suicide Risk among Correctional Officers:  A

logistic regression analysis.  Archives of Suicide Research, Vol. 3, 183-187.

Sykes, Gresham M. (l958).  The Society of Captives. Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University

Press.

Thornton, Robert L. (2002). New Approaches to Staff Safety. 2d ed.  Washington, DC:

            U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

Zimmer,     (l987). How women reshape the prison guard role. Gender and

Society, Vol 1(4). December, l987 415-431.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

page 8:  NIJ  - Finn and Tomz  1996

Sources of Psychological Stress

I. Intra-Organizational Practices and Characteristics

  1. Poor supervision. The actions and attitudes of police supervisors can either increase or help alleviate

the stress of the job.

  2. Lack of career opportunities. The promotional process is frequently viewed as being limited and

unfair, causing frustration among officers.

  3. Inadequate rewards. Recognition for a job well done is rare; however, criticism for mistakes is

frequent.

  4. Offensive policies. Many departmental requirements are viewed as threatening or unreasonable.

  5. Excessive paperwork. The need for duplicate forms of every police transaction is often questioned.

  6. Poor equipment. An officer’s well-being may depend on the quality of his or her equipment;

therefore, faulty equipment is a significant source of anxiety.

II. Inter-Organizational Practices and Characteristics

  7.  Lack of career development. In most police departments, there is little room for advancement

regardless of the performance of the officer.

  8. Jurisdictional isolationism. There is often an unfortunate lack of cooperation between neighboring

jurisdictions; sometimes an unhealthy competitive relationship exists.

III. Criminal Justice System Practices and Characteristics

  9.  Ineffectiveness of corrections system. Officers are alarmed by the recidivism rate of criminals who

seem to be perpetually “on the street” rather than incarcerated.

10. Unfavorable court decisions. Many court decisions are viewed by officers as unfairly increasing the

difficulty of police work.

11.  Misunderstanding of judicial procedure. Officers find the adversary system difficult to adjust to,

particularly when their testimony is challenged.

12. Inefficient courtroom management. Delays, continuances, and inconvenient scheduling make

courtroom appearances a frustrating experience.

13. Preoccupation with street crime. The police officer must focus on street crime, often committed by

disadvantaged people, yet the officer knows that “white collar” crime in business and politics

flourishes.

 

---

 

[i] The terms C.O. and guard are used interchangeably.  In some areas of the country,

the word “guard” is perfectly acceptable; in other areas, it is considered pejorative.  While generally pejorative in Massachusetts, the use of the word Guard in this paper is not meant to be derogatory.

 

 

[ii] The idea of stress is used commonly to refer to a wide variety of phenomena.  For the purpose of this study, Levi’s (l987) description of stress is useful:            

When the environmental demands made upon a person are beyond his or

her response capability, when expectations are not met, or when abilities are over-or undertaxed, the organism reacts with various pathogenic mechanisms.  These are cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and/or physiological and under some conditions of intensity, frequency or duration . . . they may lead to precursors of disease. p. 10)

 

 

2 Sykes (1958) similarly notes in Society of Captives that “the guard’s position as a strict enforcer of the rules is undermined by the fact that he finds it almost impossible to avoid the claims of reciprocity.  To a large extent, the guard is dependent on inmates for the satisfactory performance of his duties.”(p. 56).

 

 

[iv] The majority of states experience 25% or higher turnover annually of correctional staff . (Philliber, 2000, p.15).

 

 The attrition rate for C.O.’s is quite high (though I don’t have the stats at my fingertips- anyone have the numbers out there?)   For those who stay, there is the prospect of steady work, health care for themselves and their families and endless hours of boredom punctuated by occasional (and unpredictable) adrenaline-pumping moments of fear and violence.  It’s no wonder the rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, divorce, stress-related illness and suicide are quite high for C.O.’s.  As a chaplain, my heart goes out to these men and women.  As in any career field, the vast majority are decent, hard-working people of good will.    One of the ironies of prison work is that the culture of inmates in certain ways mirrors that of their guards.  Among inmates there is a strong and pervasive “no-snitch” code of silence.   The worst sin a convict can commit in prison is to ‘rat out’ another con.  The same holds true for the guards.  There is a sense of brotherhood, camaraderie and “us-against-them” attitudes shared by most C.O.’s.  As a result, the guards do not let their “guard” down - especially in front of their peers.  This makes ministering to them particularly difficult.   It seems to me that the cops need chaplains every bit as much as the cons - obviously I cannot do both in my role as chaplain (I am too much aligned with the inmates’ concerns in the guards’ eyes to be really trusted).  What is needed is a separate chaplain dedicated to C.O.’s alone.

Most of the C.O.’s I have worked with over the years I have liked as persons.  Being a prison guard is probably in the top 5 least glamorous occupations.  They work in dangerous environments around hostile people  and receive little social recognition for their efforts.  It is the ultimate “thankless job.”    Up until a few years ago I would have described the C.O.’s I worked with as primarily high school graduates with little or no college.  Many entered enlisted service in the military after high school and served at least one tour of duty.  My sense of their attraction to prison work is that it provided a blue collar population access to steady work with good benefits and wages at the upper tier of what an otherwise unskilled high school graduate could expect to earn.  The men and women I have worked with, for the most part, began their careers at around age 21 and all look forward to retirement after 20 years. (Most C.O.’s can tell you within a few days how much time they have left before retirement).   It is a time-clock punching,monotonous, day in-day out slog, often requiring the newest recruits to take the least popular shifts.   C.O.’s generally work 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. or 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.    Speaking of new recruits, I have noticed a change in the type of person coming into corrections work lately.  Over the past 10 years or so many have served in Afghanistan or Iraq.   More and more come into the job with at least an associates degree, though many have earned B.A.’s as well.  Criminal Justice programs at state schools seem to be the biggest source of educational background.

My friend Jim Martin, S.J. suggests bloggers write consistently but short entries …

Was at a meeting recently where someone asked me about “success” stories.  The first person who came to mind to me was a guy who died of a heroin overdose about 12 years ago.  Not exactly a success by the world’s standards.  But prior to his death he had undergone a real conversion of heart, he was confirmed and he knew that God loved and forgave him.  Many men and women survive prison and go on to live happy and productive lives.  Many do  not.  I suppose if I measured “success” by our cultural standards, I’d go crazy.  Instead, I try to look at them through the lens of the Gospel.  Do they know Christ?  Do they accept God’s mercy and forgiveness, having genuinely faced the reality of their own sin and hurtful pasts? If the answer to the above two questions is yes, everything else is just gravy…

Here is a site worth visiting about a prison behind the walls in NY state.

In cooperation with the American Association of the Knights of Malta, Jesuit Prison Ministries is cosponsoring what we hope will become a “Parish Bulletin” for the incarcerated.  We published our first edition for Thanksgiving, 2009.

The next edition is planned for Ash Wednesday (Feb 17, 2010)

a copy is included here - feel free to reproduce all or part of it for your own prison ministry:     The Serving Brother

 

This year the Protestant Chaplain, Pastor Dave Renna and I held a Christmas service for the men of both the Catholic and Protestant worship communities at MCI-Concord.  This was my homily to the prisoners:

 

A decree went out from Caesar Augustus:

The powers of this world wanted a major count.  A standing count was ordered by the rich and powerful who held their power through fear and violence and greed.

A standing count meant that everyone had to go back to  his hometown and be counted.

The powers of this world haven’t really changed.   The power of this world is about controlling people.   The selfishness and greed that run the world’s economic system requires violence and prisons to force people to obey them.

Things haven’t really changed.

But they have.  Because in the Middle of the Count that the Empire ordered, God had a surprise.   During their major count, God snuck into the prison that man had made of this world. 

Despite all of Caesar’s power, despite all his armies and his wealth, his locks and shackles, his guards and guns, He could not stop God from breaking in.

The Birth of Christ is the greatest prison break of all time, but it was God breaking into the prison, not escaping it.

King Herod and Tiberius Caesar had all the military and political power anyone could ever need, but they were no match against the power of love that came into our world defenseless, as a newborn baby lying in his mother’s arms in a barn in Bethlehem.

The devil was not expecting this.  He was probably expecting a great king to be born in a royal palace surrounded by power and money.  He got it all wrong.  

Over the centuries, people have got religion all wrong.

They think it’s just about following rules – pray, pay and obey.

People confuse true religion with rules-  They think if you break the rules you get a free ticket to Hell.   And they think somehow they can or should be good.

So people are controlled by the rich and powerful who use Religion as a threat to keep them well-behaved and in-line.

But that is not God’s way.

Because with Jesus’ birth, God broke all the rules. 

Christmas is about turning the whole world upside down.

Christmas isn’t supposed to rock us to sleep with sentimental lullabies. 

It is meant to shake us awake and make us sit up and pay attention.

The story of Christmas is supposed to astonish us and leave us speechless with wonder and shock.

The REAL Christmas is an OUTLAW holiday.

Outlaw Christmas - Monks at Nada – Christmas Eve – bonfire, couple bottles of jack Daniels, music, . . .

Christmas is an OUTLAW holiday!!

The Shepherds were outlaws.  Day-laborers – labor-ready guys.  Lowest status work.    Angels came to them with the good news.

The Christmas story begins with the most powerful man in the world – Cesar Augustus – the emperor of Rome – who thinks he can control everyone in the empire with his rules.

But it ends with the true honor going to God – the one who isn’t about controlling us, but setting us free from all the things in life that would control us.

God broke into our prison on that first Christmas morning so long ago.   And he has the power to break through our prison walls today.

He comes to us in our brokenness, in our weakness, in our lack of faith.

He comes to us when we are held helpless by the powers of this world.

It is not just the physical walls around us, the worst prison of all is our hearts that we have walled off to stop feeling any more pain.

Christ breaks into that blackest of dungeons as well and shines his light into our darkness.  

His coming gives us the one thing that can overcome the powers of Caesar, of King Herod, of the prison system:  HOPE

The best way to celebrate Christmas would be to have a great day here.  The powers that be don’t care - and the people working here don’t care – But God cares – and that’s all that matters.

No one can take away the Hope and peace and Joy that comes from God.

I propose this Catholic community do something really subversive this Christmas – enjoy it.  Be good to one another.  Sing Christmas carols in your rooms and don’t let the darkness steal the light that is in your heart.

Don’t walk around frowning and looking down. 

Smile and look up – breathe and remember you are alive and you are loved.  And all the barbed wire in the world cannot separate you from God.

Jesus’ life began in Love and ended in Love.  And he showed us that the one thing that is more powerful than all the powers of death is Love.

 

I have been using the Modern Parable movies in our bible studies and the guys seem to really enjoy them. They are very well done and thought-provoking and best of all, they hold the attention of the viewers.

go to: modernparable.com

The following is a homily I gave on the Feast of Saint Ignatius (July 31st)

It was based on the Gospel reading: Luke 9:18-26

 

A monk went to the desert to see Abba Joseph and said to him,

‘Father, I pray my prayers, I say my office, I keep my fasts, I live in peace

and as far as I can, I purify my thoughts. What more can I do to be holy?’

Abba Joseph stood up. He stretched his hands toward heaven.

His fingers became like ten torches of flame and he said to him,

‘Why not   -    be completely transformed  -     into fire?’

We Jesuits are called to set fire to the world with the light of the Gospel and the Love of Christ that burns in our hearts.

GC 35, Decree 2:  “Our deep love of God and our passion for his world should set us on fire – a fire that kindles other fires!”

We are called to become living flames of love in a world grown cold

and dark from human fear, cruelty and indifference,

Every day of our lives we have the opportunity to respond with gratitude and passionate love to the merciful call of the King. 

This is the journey of our lives – both our interior lives and our lives shared in community –

“Who do you say that I am”?, Jesus asks.   This is the most radical question because it cuts through the chains of our egos and our defenses and our pretenses.

We, sinners loved by God, are invited through the graces of the Spiritual Exercises - to be completely transformed by the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and so, gradually, day by day, to be drawn into friendship with him and to become more and more like him.  As we are set on fire with gratitude and love

For, as St Paul writes:   “Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom, and We, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s Glory, are being transformed into his likeness.” 

Indeed, we are all being transformed into His Likeness!

And it is, by looking at Christ, that we Jesuits discover who we are.

We are called to help souls, and we go freely, unshackled by the constraints of institutions or special interests, wherever we can do the most good and wherever we can serve those who have no one else to minister to them.  That is our mission.

We Jesuits don’t flee the world; we engage it head –on. 

That is why I consider prison ministry as a Jesuit to be the greatest gift of God in my life – so far – because it is there that I have truly encountered the face and heart of Christ in the midst of what is often overwhelming darkness…

Today, on this feast day of Ignatius of Loyola, we celebrate the charism of St. Ignatius – a gift we have all been blessed to share. 

And today we all renew our vows - as Jesuits.  Our vows are our way of gratefully responding to God by returning to him the love that he has set ablaze in our hearts. 

We freely give back what we have freely received – the love and grace of Christ.  Our vows are our answer to the question, “Who do you say that I am?”

I am humbled and grateful to celebrate my profession of final vows with you, my brothers here in this beautiful chapel.  I am grateful to each of you, and to all those holy men and women who have prayed in this chapel.  So many men were ordained here, made their vows here and so many of our brothers have been committed to God from this chapel. 

This is truly Holy Ground.

And just as this chapel has been renewed and the fire of the Holy Spirit above us shines so fresh and bright, so too are we renewed in our love for God through the living of our vows. 

We each, to the measure of God’s grace embody the flame of God’s love and Compassion that transformed Inigo into St. Ignatius.

And just as with Ignatius, the Flame of God’s love and Compassion can shine forth from us, whether we hold an endowed chair or sit in a wheelchair. 

“Who do you say that I am”?

We answer this as novices, as scholastics, as priests and brothers. 

We answer it in our youth, in the prime of our lives and in our old age.  

As long as we breathe, the flame lives and we carry it in our prayers: 

And this living flame transcends even our inevitable diminishment 

we are all, slowly being transformed into the fire of God’s love —

We are, with God’s grace, becoming fire,

Come, True Light

Come, Life eternal,

Come, hidden mystery.

Come, treasure without name,

Come, rejoicing without end,
Come, Light that knows no evening,

Come, resurrection of the dead,

Come, my breath and life,

Come, consolation of my soul,

Come, my joy, my glory, my endless delight.

Come, Fire of God, and kindle in me the love of Christ.