13 July 2014

Homily - 13 July 2014



The Fifteenth Sunday of the Year (A)

Dear brothers and sisters:

Today the Lord Jesus says, “blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear” (Matthew 13:16). He said these words to his disciples – to those who followed him seeking to learn from him – to those who questioned him about the meaning of his parables. They are those who saw and heard what the prophets of old longed to see and hear: the face and the voice of God (cf. Matthew 13:17).

Throughout the Old Testament – and, really, throughout all of human history, even to our present day – we find this desire to look upon God’s face. King David sang in the psalms, “Of you my heart speaks; you my glance seeks; your presence, O Lord, I seek. Hide not your face from me” (Psalm 27:8-9). Another psalmist sang, “O Lord of hosts, restore us; if your face shine upon us then we shall be safe” (Psalm 80:20). Another psalm resonates with the fundamental desire of every human heart: “Athirst is my soul for God, the living God. When shall I go and behold the face of God” (Psalm 42:3)? They knew that “the splendour of the divine face is the source of life, it is what makes it possible to see reality; the light of his face is guidance for life.”[1]

It sometimes seems that this desire to see the face of God stands in opposition to the first of the Ten Commandments as expressed in the Book of Exodus: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus20:4). Here it should be remembered that this prohibition was not absolute; it was the Lord himself who commanded the forging of a serpent of bronze (cf. Numbers 21:8), the fashioning of two golden cherubim atop the Ark of the Covenant (cf. Exodus 25:18), and the embroidering of cherubim on the cloth of the Dwelling Tent (cf. Exodus 26:1). Still, no image of God could be made.

His Holiness Benedict XVI noted that this prohibition against the making of images “seems totally to exclude any ‘seeing’ from worship and from devotion.” He continues with an important question:

Yet what did seeking God’s face mean to the devout Israelite, who knew that there could be no depiction of it? The question is important: there was a wish on the one hand to say that God cannot be reduced to an object, like an image that can be held in the hand, nor can anything be put in God’s place; on the other, it was affirmed that God has a face — meaning he is a “you” who can enter into a relationship — and who has not withdrawn into his heavenly dwelling place, looking down at humanity from on high. God is certainly above all things, but he addresses us, he listens to us, he sees us, he speaks to us, he makes a covenant, he is capable of love. The history of salvation is the history of God with humanity, it is the history of this relationship of God who gradually reveals himself to man, who makes himself, his face, known.[2]

Yes, in Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary, God has taken on our flesh and revealed his face, the very face that his disciples saw, the very face upon which the prophets longed to look.

With the Incarnation, “the search for God’s face was given an unimaginable turning-point, because this time this face could be seen.”[3] Prior to the Incarnation, it was impossible for man to attain in this life the fulfillment of his desire; as God himself said, “my face is not to be seen” (Exodus 34:23).

Even so, do we not also long to look upon his face? Do we not also beg with the Apostle Philip, “Show us the Father, and that will be enough for us” (John 14:8). As he answered Philip so does Jesus answer us: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

But what of our eyes? Are they not also to be blessed? Are they not also to see what they long to see? Can we not also see his face?

After the Crucifixion of Jesus, many of the disciples, like those two on the road to Emmaus, lost faith in the truth of Jesus’ identity and were overwhelmed by his death (cf. Luke 24:21). But this doubt was soon restored to faith, certainly by the presence of Jesus himself, but also with a small cloth, a napkin.

When Saint Peter entered the tomb of Jesus on Easter morning, he “saw the burial cloths there, and the cloth that had covered [Jesus’] head, not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place” (John 20:6-7). When Saint John entered the tomb, he, too, saw the cloths “and believed” after seeing them (John20:8). Saint Luke adds that Peter “went home amazed at what had happened” when he saw the cloths (Luke 24:12). They must have seen something more than simple cloths to believe in the Resurrection after seeing them.

We know the burial cloth as the Shroud of Turin, which shows - in a remarkable and inexplicable fashion – Jesus in death. It is an image that has, since the invention of the photograph, taken on greater importance as photographic negatives have shown aspects of the image heretofore undetectable, aspects that have confirmed its authenticity. Seeing an image of the dead Jesus would surely not have brought John to faith in the Resurrection. What, then, was that other cloth?

Two hours east of Rome, one can travel by car to a tiny village in the mountains called Manoppello. Up until the recent construction of the highways, arriving at this quiet village was no easy task. There, in a church formerly dedicated to Saint Michael the Archangel, is housed il Volto Santo, the Holy Face.

Photo: Paul Badde
It is a cloth woven of byssus, a type of silk made from mollusks that, depending on the light, can be both transparent and opaque, and can be neither painted nor dyed. The cloth contains the image of a man with long hair parted in the middle where there is also a small tuft of hair, with a broken nose set aright, a swollen cheek, open eyes that look out with love and mercy, and a slightly-open mouth, which sometimes shows the upper row of teeth. It is an image that can be neither reproduced nor explained and that subtly changes as the light around it, in front of it, or behind it changes.

The veil, called the sudarium, arrived in Manoppello more than four hundred years ago from Rome, where it was called the Veronica, the true icon, and venerated as the face of Jesus. Unlike the Shroud of Turin, it is not an image of Jesus in death but of Jesus alive, seemingly at the moment of the Resurrection, or very soon thereafter. This veil seems to be that cloth that Saint Peter found “not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place.” Seeing this veil with the image of Jesus not dead but alive explains why John “saw and believed” and why Peter left “amazed at had happened.” With these cloths, the shroud and the sudarium, they had a witness to the truth of the Resurrection that Jesus was dead and yet now lives!

With full knowledge of our constant and deep-seated desire to see his face, Jesus has left us the imprint of his face, an image that testifies that he is alive. Seeing this image, the Holy Face, we become keenly aware that “the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared to the glory to be revealed for us” (Romans 8:18).

Yes, even now, our eyes can see what they long to see, though only partially. The Holy Face kept in Manoppello is the face of Jesus, but it is not Jesus himself. Still, though we do not know what awaits us in the life to come, seeing the veil of Manoppello we know who awaits us: Jesus awaits us, whose face we long to see, and who gives himself to us in the Eucharist.

As it was for the those two disciples on the road to Emmaus, “the Eucharist is the great school in which we learn to see God’s face, we enter into a close relationship with him; and at the same time we learn to turn our gaze to the final moment of history when he will satisfy us with the light of his face” and we shall indeed be safe.[4] Amen.


[1] Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience Address, 16 January 2013.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.

09 July 2014

The Dirty 100 and the immaturity of NOW

At least twenty-four (24!) of the persons, businesses, or organizations named by the National Organization for Women as the "Dirty 100" are themselves Catholic, owned by Catholics, or made up of Catholics (there may be more; I know one the businesses is Catholic and I suspect others are, as well). Shockingly - and bizarrely - the Little Sisters of the Poor have, as it were, made the cut.

Now, pay attention (yes, that was purposeful): Notice the percentage of the groups that are Catholic: at least 24%. Yet we are to believe that our secular society does not have an anti-Catholic prejudice? Get real. And wake up.

Why are these the Dirty 100? Because they do not want to pay for their employees birth control, sterilizations, or abortifacients. How vile and cruel they are. You would think the NOW would be demanding instead that businesses provide mammograms for free.

An especially curious aspect of this list is its placement on NOW's web site: you can "take action" and "Ditch the Dirty 100" before you can even see the list NOW has compiled (you even have to click on "take action" to be able to click on the list).

The link to the list is at the very bottom of the page - beneath a declaration that "I do not believe that the religious beliefs of an employer trump the religious freedoms and bodily autonomy of their company’s female employees" and that "I cannot support businesses, nonprofits, and religious entities that do not respect the reproductive rights of their employees" and a spot for your contact information. It is almost as if NOW doesn't actually want you to know who the Dirty 100 are.

To my mind, this shows not only a certain mindlessness on the part of those who support the creation of such a list and insanely think that of all of the life-saving medicines and treatments available to women that only contraception should be free of charge, but also a certain immaturity on the part of NOW's leaders (and former leaders).

This immaturity also comes across in a recent - and impressive - interview conducted by Fox News' Megyn Kelly with Patricia Ireland, a former president of NOW:


Megyn's suggestion to call the list "groups with whom we disagree" is an excellent, reasonable, and civil suggestion, one met with disdain and mockery. Ireland claims she has "the right to say these people are wrong and to not patronize them," yet she patronizes them ("Bless their hearts") throughout the interview. It only shows her insincerity.

This immaturity is further shown by Ireland's refusal to answer Kelly's direct questions and her failure to acknowledge when Kelly shows her to be incorrect.

In the end, I suspect this campaign against the Dirty 100 will prove ineffective for NOW.

Floodwater Reflections

As the Mighty Mississippi continues to rise, its waters are encroaching on my hometown of Quincy, which allowed Loretta Greving-Nobis to capture this beautiful image which she has titled "Floodwater Reflections" (which she shared on her Facebook page):


If you can imagine, this is only part of the beauty that is the Gem City.

08 July 2014

News round up - 8 July 2014

The news you may have missed:
  • It may seem a piece out of a George Orwell or Aldous Huxley novel, but scientists in Massachusetts have developed a contraceptive computer chip. This, it seems to me, is a clear case of science not asking if it should do what it can do. The chip can be activated by remote control, which might make one wonder what would stop a government from deciding who can and cannot have children (or how many children a woman may have, not that we've seen governments do this before [note the sarcasm]). "The ability to turn the device on and off provides a certain convenience factor for those who are planning their family," said Dr Robert Farra. I wonder if he knows that are easier ways to do so. One might also wonder about the possibility of hacking into the computer chip.
  • After she posted a photo of herself holding a Chick-Fil-A cup in front of Hobby Lobby store, Holly Fisher has received death threats directed at herself and at her children. Oh, she was also wearing a pro-life t-shirt. And this from people crying for tolerance and for an end to hate. If only they could recognize their hypocrisy.
  • In Illinois, Governor Quinn (D) recently signed SB 3434 into law, which allows the government to confiscate watercraft belonging to those caught boating under the influence. The new law takes effect July 1, 2015.
  • The Louisiana Supreme Court may compel a Roman Catholic priest to reveal under oath what he has learned in the Sacrament of Penance. We have been warning you for years now about the growing threats to religious liberty in the United States of America. Here is yet another clear threat. And it won't stop here, you can sure. The case at hand involves sexual abuse, but if the court can force a priest to reveal what he may or may not have learned about such abuse, what is to stop the court from requiring a priest to reveal other things he may have learned from confessions. One might also wonder what impact such a decision might have on doctor-patient privilege.
  • After being mocked for falling asleep during a baseball game (it is one of the most boring things anyone can watch), a man is suing for $10,000,000 because he claims his reputation was harmed and he suffered mental anguish. All that's needed next is for him to declare he was bullied. 
  • A Kentucky woman has been fired for saying to her customers, "Have a blessed day." Personally, I find the phrase rather meaningless (a person cannot simply decided to have a blessed day; their day has to be blessed), but I understand what she means with the phrase. I wonder if a person might also be fired for saying to customers, "Have a cursed day."

07 July 2014

What anti-Catholicism?


A news round up - July 7, 2014

Some of the news you may have missed:
  • Despite claiming "to providing primary care in a timely manner," a veteran just received an appointment with a doctor through the VA. There's just one problem: he died 22 months ago. And people actually want the federal government involved in their healthcare? 

05 July 2014

Mary: Beauty in majesty and simplicity

"...all my own small perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded [upon Our Lady]."

- J.R.R. Tolkien

Paul Badde speaks with Raymond Arroyo about the Holy Face

Raymond Arroyo recently sat down with Paul Badde to talk about the Holy Face of Manoppello:


04 July 2014

Another impressive photo of the Holy Face

After I posted the photograph of His Eminence Kurt Cardinal Koch before il Volto Santo, I sent an e-mail to Paul Badde, who sent several photographs back, including this particularly striking one:


In the Gospel today we hear of the call of Matthew, of how, as Jesus passed by his customs post, Jesus said to him, "Follow me" (Matthew 9:9). When Matthew looked up to see who it was who called him, those eyes looked upon him. One day we, too, will look upon those eyes. Let us, then, this very day make the words of the Psalmist our own: "With all my heart I seek you" (Psalm 119:10).

The gift and responsibility of freedom

As we celebrate today the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the birthday of these United States of America, we would do well to recall the words His Holiness Benedict XVI spoke when he visited these shores in April of 2008, particularly the words he spoke during the welcoming ceremony on the south lawn of the White House (with my emphases):
....From the dawn of the Republic, America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the “self-evident truth” that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God. The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations.

In the next few days, I look forward to meeting not only with America’s Catholic community, but with other Christian communities and representatives of the many religious traditions present in this country. Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard. As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more humane and free society.

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation”, and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent “indispensable supports” of political prosperity.

The Church, for her part, wishes to contribute to building a world ever more worthy of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27). She is convinced that faith sheds new light on all things, and that the Gospel reveals the noble vocation and sublime destiny of every man and woman (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling, and the hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.

A deeply troubling set of answers in the U.S. Naturalization Self-Test

This morning Father Zuhlsdorf directs our attention to the Naturalization Self-Test 1 as found on the web site of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that posits the following four possible answers to the question, "What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?":
  1. freedom of speech and freedom to run for president
  2. freedom of speech and freedom of worship
  3. freedom of worship and freedom to make treaties with other countries
  4. freedom to petition the government and freedom to disobey traffic laws
There is one very large problem with this set of possible answers, which, if you know your history and your rights, if glaringly obvious and deeply troubling: none of the possible choices is correct.

Under the First Amendment, we enjoy both the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion, which is not the same as the freedom of worship. The freedom of worship, as was enjoyed during Communist Russia, only pertains within a building designated for worship, but does not extend beyond the walls of such a building. On the other hand, the freedom of religion extends wherever a person is because it recognizes that religious faith must, of its very nature, influence and direct every aspect of life, from work to play to study to life in the home.

If the freedom of religion can be taken away, then every other freedom can also be taken away. This is the warning the U.S. Bishops have been declaring for the past several years through the Fortnight for Freedom campaign. It is a warning we would do well to heed.

03 July 2014

Cardinal Koch visits the Holy Face

Father Brian Jerabek kindly shared with me a wonderful picture of il Volto Santo taken during a recent visit to the Holy Face by His Eminence Kurt Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity:




In this photograph, you can clearly see how transparent the veil is, and yet how clearly the face of Jesus is seen in it.

Let us join His Eminence in prayer for the unity of all Christians, that we may be gathered once again into one flock with one shepherd.

02 July 2014

The "Hobby Lobby case": What's it really about?

As part of the liberal-minded world erupts in tremendous anger over the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. et al (going so far as the encourage people to engage in sexual relations inside Hobby Lobby stores and even to burn the stores down), it might be good to take a breath and consider what is really at the heart of the matter.

Though many of those dissatisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court claim the decision restricts access to contraception and harms women's overall health, Katrina (a.k.a. the Crescat) rightly points out, "you are not going to die from not having sex." More to the point, contraception was not the issue of the case, as the decision clearly states.

Of the twenty (20!) different forms of "birth control" required under the HHS mandate (which was not passed by the Congress and is not actually part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), Hobby Lobby willingly paid for sixteen (16!) of them.

Here we should pause to ask an important question, which Katrina brilliantly asks:
So I ask – birth control of all things?! I mean of all the drugs out there that people actually need to survive, why something as selective as birth control. No one is going to go into heart failure, kidney failure or diabetic shock without their Yaz. So what the hell, people! I seriously don’t know how anyone can legitimately think free contraception is a dandy idea and a good use of tax payer and government funds. 

I could have asked every single one of my patients what drug they would love to have for free and I can guarantee not a single one of them would’ve said, “Hook me up with some free condoms and pills, please.” Has anyone in our administration ever even met a sick person or someone suffering from a chronic disease and asked them what medications they would like Uncle Sam to foot the bill for?
The government has not yet offered to pay for my arthritis medicine, which I need to move each day. Why? No one will - or, perhaps, can - answer her question.

Back to the case in question. The four forms of contraception to which Hobby Lobby objects (one device and three medicines) do not prevent conception, but instead prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg; this is not contraception but abortion, as even the Obama administration has admitted.

N.B.: The issue before the Supreme Court was not contraception, but abortion and the free exercise of religion (even if the media and liberal politicians maintain otherwise, as only someone who has not read the decision could do).

So the rhetoric of the "war on women" goes on, despite the fact that a majority of the decisions that led to the declaration of the HHS mandate as unconstitutional were given by female judges:


All of this is irritating and frustrating because it is dishonest, immature, and illogical, but more troubling to me are arguments that go along the lines of this meme:


This is another immature and illogical argument, but one far more dangerous because of its lie and deception.

On a friend's Facebook page yesterday, I showed the error of this meme:
So far as I can tell, Islam does not accept abortion as morally licit. At the heart of the Hobby Lobby case was not contraception, but abortifacients. That being the case, inserting "Islam" in place of "Christian" - or even along side it - wouldn't actually change anything.
While it may be true that some Christians would be opposed to the above scenario, I do not think I know any of them. Certainly, the Catholic Church advocates for the free exercise of religion in general and not only of her own, as was clearly stated with the Second Vatican Council's declaration Dignitatis Humanae.

I have never before quoted anything from Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (a.k.a., the Mormons), but this quote seems especially apt here:
If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing before Heaven to die for a 'Mormon,' I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbytarian [sic], a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.
The issue at hand is the free exercise of religion - of any religion - as protected by the First Amendment. I am unaware of any religion that claims the use of abortifacients on religious grounds.

01 July 2014

A quick pilgrimage to Belgium

As I watched the World Cup match this afternoon between the United States of America and Belgium, I couldn't help but recall that one week ago today I was in Belgium. I went with another priest who lived at the Casa Santa Maria to make a quick pilgrimage to Tremelo, the birthplace of Saint Damien de Veuster, and to Leuven, where he is entombed.

The day began with an early rising to catch an early flight from Rome's Ciampino airport to Brussels' Charleroi airport. My fellow pilgrim arrived in Brussels the night before from Paris, rented a car, and drove to the airport to collect me.

Because the pilgrimage was put together at rather the last minute, we didn't have anything definitely arranged. A Google search indicated that the museum is not open in the afternoon on Tuesdays. With this in mind, we decided to head to Tremelo early and head to Leuven from there after visiting Father Damien's home and museum.

Getting around Belgium was very easy, in no small part because the country is orderly and clean (in many ways it is everything Rome is not) and we soon arrived at the museum:



It turns out the museum is closed and will not reopen until sometime in 2015. With some 13,000 inhabitants, Tremelo remains a quiet town whose citizens are clearly hard workers, somewhat serious on your first encounter with him, and yet friendly in a reserved way.

Father Damien's family - which is now the museum, if I understand the situation correctly - is today surrounded by facilities for the care of the elderly. Behind the museum is the parish church of Saint Damien:


The front doors of the church are no longer accessible as nursing facilities have been built along the front of the church. The side door somewhat visible in the photo above is now - so far as we could tell - the only way into the church. Though this door was open, interior doors leading to the church were locked and we could find none of the staff. Clearly, a visit to Tremelo should be made after initial contacts have also been made.

Having exhausted our reasons for visiting Tremelo, we returned to the car and drove to Leuven (thankfully Belgium is a very small country) and made our way to the chapel of St. Anthony (of Egypt/the Desert):




When the mortal remains of Father Damien were translated from his grave on the Kalaupapa peninsula of Molokai to his home country of Belgium, he was entombed below this sanctuary:

 

We were able to offer the Holy Mass at Father Damien's tomb (there is a small altar just to the right of the photograph).

The shrine also has a room filled with small statues of Saint Damien and even a few paintings. We were given a brief tour of the museum and had a good visit with one of the staff members (many Belgians speak very good English).

My initial impressions of Belgium were very good (not least of all because you can find both bacon and chocolate milk) and I look forward to returning next year when the Damien Museum reopens in Tremelo, and maybe even before.

30 June 2014

Reason prevails in SCOTUS decision regarding HHS mandate

Today, with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America that the Health and Human Services mandate is unconstitutional, reason has prevailed.


29 June 2014

Homily - Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul - 29 June 2014

N.B.: Were I preaching this weekend, the following homily is something along the lines of what I would preach. I'm not entirely happy with the ending yet, but I'm not sure what to do with it without making it exceedingly lengthy.



The Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

May the Lord give you peace!

As we reflect today on the two great Apostles, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, we might well ask what it was that led each of these two men to lay down their lives for Christ Jesus and for his Body, the Church, Peter by crucifixion and Paul by the sword.

A beginning to the answer we seek is found in the words of the Psalmist: “Look to him that you may be radiant with joy, and your faces may not blush with shame” (Psalm 34:6).

When do we blush with shame if not when we have not been faithful to what is required of us; when we have not lived up to our potential; or when we have not been genuine in word, deed, or thought? In a word, we could say that we blush when we are not authentic or sincere.

Standing before their persecutors, the Prince of the Apostles and the Apostle to the Gentiles both knew their lives would be required because of their fidelity to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to proclaiming the truth of Him who died and yet now lives.

Detail, painting in the church of Quo Vadis
When confronted with the cross on which he would be crucified upside down, Saint Peter surely recalled the words the Lord Jesus spoke to him when he signified the kind of death the Galilean fisherman would suffer: “Follow me” (John 21:19). By following his Master and Teacher in death, Peter knew he would also follow him in life.

Detail, doors of the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls
Likewise, when confronted with the sword by which his head would be severed from his body, Saint Paul surely realized anew the words he wrote to the Church in Colossae: “He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead” and knew that his life was hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 1:18; cf. Colossians 3:3), that he, too, would live.

But, again, why this great confidence? Why did they have no shame in proclaiming Jesus no longer dead? It is because they knew the truth of what they proclaimed. If we could have looked into their eyes we might have used the words the wizard Gandalf said to the Hobbit Pippin: “There is no lie in your eyes.”[1] There was no lie in the eyes of Peter or Paul, but only the conviction of truth. Their faces did not blush with shame as they looked upon the end of their earthly lives because they knew that their faces would soon be radiant with the joy of Christ even as the face of Moses radiated the glory of the Lord God (cf. Exodus 34:29).

They both knew Jesus’ face well, even though Saint Paul did not know Jesus before his crucifixion and was not present among the disciples when the Lord appeared to them before he ascended to the Father. Saint Paul himself asks, “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord” (I Corinthians 9:1)? Jesus certainly showed himself to Saint Paul on the road to Damascus when he said to the Apostle, “Get up now, and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and a witness of what you have seen [of me] and what you will be shown” (Acts 26:16). What else was Paul shown?

On Easter morning, we are told that when Saint Peter entered the tomb of our Lord, he “saw the burial cloths there, and the cloth that had covered [Jesus’] head, not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place” (John 20:6-7). John entered the tomb, as well, saw the cloths “and believed” (John 20:8). Saint Luke adds that Peter “went home amazed at what had happened” when he saw the cloths (Luke 24:12). He must have seen something more than simple cloths to believe in the Resurrection.

We know the burial cloth as the Shroud of Turin, which shows - in a remarkable and inexplicable fashion – Jesus in death. It is an image that has, since the invention of the photograph, taken on greater importance as photographic negatives have shown aspects of the image heretofore undetectable, aspects which have confirmed its authenticity. Seeing an image of the dead Jesus would surely not have brought Peter to faith in the Resurrection and filled him with amazement. What was that other cloth?

Two hours east of Rome, one can travel by car to a tiny village in the mountains called Manoppello. Up until the recent construction of the highways, arriving at this quiet village was no easy task. There, in a church formerly dedicated to Saint Michael the Archangel, is housed il Volto Santo, the Holy Face.

PHOTO: Paul Badde
It is a cloth woven of byssus, a type of silk made from mollusks that, depending on the light, can be both transparent and opaque, and cannot be painted or dyed. The cloth contains the image of a man with long hair parted in the middle, with a broken nose, a swollen cheek, open eyes, and a half-open mouth. It is an image that cannot be reproduced or explained and that subtly changes as the light around it, in front of it, or behind it changes.

The veil, called the sudarium, arrived in Manoppello in 1506 by the hands of a stranger who entrusted it to Doctor Leonelli, who was sitting outside the church when the stranger arrived. The doctor opened the package inside the church who, when he saw the contents of the package, went immediately back outside only to find the stranger gone without a trace.

It remained in the doctor’s family until 1608 when it was sold by Marzia Leonelli to a Doctor De Fabritiis to ransom her husband from prison. Doctor De Fabritiis entrusted the veil to the Capuchin friars at Manoppello, in whose keeping it remains today for the veneration of the faithful.

The veil arrived in Manoppello from Rome, where it was called the Veronica, the true icon, and venerated as the face of Jesus. Unlike the Shroud of Turin, it is not he image of Jesus in death but Jesus alive, at the moment of the Resurrection, or very soon thereafter. This veil is that cloth that Saint Peter found “not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place.” Seeing this veil with the image of Jesus not dead but alive explains why he “saw and believed” and left “amazed at had happened.” He looked upon the face of God and his face could not blush with shame. With these cloths, the Shroud and the sudarium, they had a witness to the truth of the Resurrection that Jesus was dead and yet now lives!

It is this face - so filled with love and mercy and preserved for us in the veil - that we, too, must seek. In looking upon the face of Jesus, we will look upon everything we desire. We will look upon the face of Truth Himself and he will look upon us with his discerning eyes of just judgment and abiding mercy, the same eyes that turned to look at Peter when the cock crowed (cf. Luke 22:61). Looking into his eyes, we, too, will weep bitterly for our sins even as we experience the tenderness of his mercy. We will be filled with peace and he will remove our shame.

With this confidence in the Resurrection, which so marked the preaching of Saints Peter and Paul, we, too, will know that “the Lord will rescue me from every evil threat and will bring me safe to his heavenly kingdom” there to enjoy the vision of his face forever (II Timothy 4:18). Amen.


[1] J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King (London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013), 593