Reminds me of a piece I wrote during last years Online Retreat, which you can find here<\/a>, or in the right-hand sidebar (remember, the earliest posts of the retreat are toward the bottom, and the last at the top).<\/p>\n Poof!<\/strong><\/p>\n The Shroud of Turin is a most interesting artifact.<\/strong> Whether or not it is indeed the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth is perhaps unprovable at this time. There is a lot of conjecture out there, and a great deal of theory. People without access to so much as a fiber from the remarkable cloth have nevertheless formulated ideas on what might have caused the image, which is more readily viewed in a photo negative than with the naked eye. I recall my high school science teacher, who was officially agnostic on the issue but still intrigued, suggesting that the highly detailed image of a brutal scourging and crucifixion \u201ccould have been made in a moment of radiation; maybe the instant Jesus came back to life, there was that burst of energy \u2013 \u2018Poof!\u2019<\/em> \u2013 and the energy left that imprint!\u201d<\/p>\n This was back in the day, you understand, when teachers and students could talk in free-wheeling fashion \u2013 in the closing minutes of class \u2013 about things like religion or politics without tempting lawsuits.<\/p>\n For some, the question of the imprint\u2019s origin is of enormous scientific import, for others, it matters that the shroud be proved Jesus\u2019 burial cloth because their faith wants it to be so. And some desperately want the thing to be disproved, and shown a hoax, because their lack of faith demands it.<\/p>\n Mother Angelica tells a great story in one of her books;<\/strong> a visitor to her in the monastery brought a tag-along friend. As their time together drew to a close, Angelica offered both women a set of her little inspirational books. The \u201ctag-along\u201d refused them. \u201cIf I read them, I might have to change, and I don\u2019t want to,\u201d the woman said to her.<\/p>\n I had a similar email, once, wherein a writer confessed an attraction to Christianity that was resolutely fought against because \u201cI don\u2019t want to live my life differently, and if I became a Christian, I would have to.\u201d<\/p>\n I don\u2019t remember Mother Angelica\u2019s response to the tag-along\u2019s refusal, but I remember mine. \u201cOh, dear,\u201d I wrote back, \u201cI honor your strong ethical feeling about it, but if all of us who loved Christ managed to live perfectly saintly lives, what would we need of Him?\u201d<\/p>\n It was a snarky remark meant to lighten the discourse and also try to put the correspondent at ease, but there was some truth in it. Christ came, he said, because \u201cthe sick need a physician.\u201d And as the saying goes, church communities are \u201cnot museums of saints but hospitals for the sick.\u201d<\/p>\n I know some people have a conversion experience and it is a single miraculous moment that literally transforms them \u2013 \u201cPoof!\u201d<\/em> President Bush said Jesus \u201cchanged my heart\u201d and made him a different person. I believe those stories, too, when they\u2019re told. As I wrote<\/a> a while back:<\/p>\n \nSome would argue that the experience of conversion is one-part emotional breakdown and one part synapse-misfirings, not dissimilar to an unusual drug experience. That would be more convincing if people who\u2019d tripped exceedingly well \u2013 or badly \u2013 then found their lives, their perceptions, their conscience, their attitudes and their desires to be instantly and immediately and permanently changed. But usually a drug experience does not result in such a radical shift.<\/em><\/p>\n Conversion is a life long process. One does not drink the Milk and Honey only once in life. Indeed, we humans are easily distracted and often need to be taken by the arm and steered back like recalcitrant children. But speaking only for myself, that first experience of Christ changed me enough so that each new experience, each new Milk and Honey moment \u2013 whether drunk in a garden or a desert \u2013 simple deepened my knowledge and appreciation; it renewed. It brought further surrender and thus further intimacy. \u201c<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Without being dismissive, then, we must consider that the Shroud \u2013 while fascinating \u2013 is a picture of Christ, but not a reflection<\/em> of Him. For reflections, we have to look elsewhere; we have to look to each other.<\/p>\n \u201cYou may be the only Christ your neighbor ever sees!\u201d<\/em> That\u2019s obvious, and yet we forget it all the time. We forget that sometimes we see Christ \u2013 the loving and gentle Christ \u2013 in the story of a son gently helping his father through his last years<\/a>, or we see him in a teenager laughing with his friends while pondering mystery<\/a>, and we see him again in the people who cannot do enough to help<\/a>, and sometimes it is the face of the brother who thirsts<\/a>.<\/p>\n All reflections of Christ, all Christ to each other. And when we stop to notice it, we see Jesus in that instant \u2013 \u201cPoof!\u201d<\/em> \u2013 and it changes us. Each time, it changes us, heightens our awareness, so that we can more easily find Jesus, reflected in others, again and again.<\/p>\n By the way, the Shroud of Turin<\/strong> will be put on display again in 2010<\/a>. For what it is worth, I believe it is the burial cloth of Christ. It would be so great if it were, wouldn\u2019t it? But, my faith would not be shaken if it were not<\/a> the authentic cloth.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\nThere are people who have<\/strong> spent years<\/a> of their lives trying to prove<\/a> or disprove<\/a> the authenticity<\/a> of the Shroud of Turin, and I expect they will be replaced by others, and the debate will rage on for decades or even centuries \u2013 because even if science could prove either question beyond a shadow of a doubt \u2013 people will still believe what they want, or need, to believe.<\/p>\n
\n\u2014 Mother Angelica<\/p><\/blockquote>\n