The Cross receives the living Saviour and gives
Him back dead; the shroud receives the dead Saviour and gives him back alive.
Blessed Sebastian Valfré (1629-1710)
Chaplain
to Duke Victor Amadeus of Savoy[1]
The authenticity of the Shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ
and the image that lends support to the account of his Resurrection pose challenges
not just for skeptics but also for science and the Church ‑ particularly Pope Francis
and those who will succeed him to the papacy. They also pose a challenge to all
of humanity, facing as it does the Apocalypse of Selfishness.
The challenge to the Catholic Church, Pope Francis and his successors
is to realize that the Church holds possession of the Shroud not just for Roman
Catholics, but for all Christianity, and ultimately, all humanity.
The challenge to science is to complete to the greatest extent possible
examinations of the Shroud and an analysis of the results of those examinations.
The challenge to humanity is to recognize that the selfishness which
crucified Christ is the same selfishness, inherent in our evolved nature that is
driving the human race to extinction. One does not have to be Christian to understand
that only through selfless action can humanity survive.
"We Roman Catholics have been its custodians for the
last eight hundred years after stealing it from the Greeks (i.e. Orthodox) who performed
that function for the first twelve centuries. But in truth, it belongs to no one
denomination - maybe not even to Christianity. Rather, it is in actuality ’God’s love letter in linen to all mankind.’"
Fr. Anthony Delessi
Monastery of the Holy Spirit
On March 18, 1983, the exiled King of Italy and head of the House of Savoy,
Umberto II died. In 1946, a plebiscite had ended his brief reign as king. However,
there was a treasure of the House of Savoy that had remained in Turin, Italy:
the Shroud. In his will, Umberto left the Shroud in perpetuity to the Pope and his
successors on condition that it remain in Turin.
The first Pope to become the "owner" of the Shroud was John Paul II. The
results of his administration of his trust were mixed at best.
John Paul was elected to the papacy on October 16, 1978, five years
before Umberto’s death. As this book describes in Chapter 10, in 1983 the movement
to carbon date the Shroud was gaining impetus. In his memoir, Harry Gove revealed
the close cooperation between the President of the Pontifical Academy of Science,
Carlos Chagas, and the carbon dating labs in their efforts to exclude STURP from
further examination of the Shroud.
[3]
Ironically, it was the exclusion of STURP from the carbon tests that resulted in
the choice of the most inappropriate location for sampling the Shroud. As this book
has previously explained in Chapters 10 to 12, that error impeached the carbon dating
results. Be careful what you wish for.
Despite the botched carbon dating, both Popes John Paul II and his
successor Benedict XVI had reverence for the Shroud. Now a new pope “owns” the Shroud.
Without rehashing old controversies, it seems quite clear that a new regime in relation
to the Shroud is essential and it may be that Francis is just the person to understand
that.
For one thing, Francis has taken unprecedented steps to recognize
the universality of the Christian message, even for those who are neither Catholic
nor Christian. His washing the feet of a young Muslim girl on Holy Thursday 2013
is one simple gesture of that. So too is his virtual camaraderie, not just with
the senior ranking prelate of the Orthodox Church, but with high ranking Moslems
and Rabbis.
The Shroud challenges Pope Francis to employ the same universality
in respect to the Shroud. The recent conference at the Vatican over climate
change which cast such a wide ecumenical net is perhaps a good template. The openness
of that process was of paramount importance. A new group of experts from a wide
range of scientific disciplines must be gathered to examine the Shroud; and when
gathered, harnessed for the project. Its proceedings and decisions must be open
and transparent. Fortunately, Francis has at hand a scientist who both represents
five centuries of dedication to the Shroud and has expressed a commitment to such
an international effort.
Professor Bruno Barberis, the current head of Turin Centro, should
play an important role in any new tests. As noted in Chapter 13, at the 2012
Valencia conference,
he set forth an ambitious program for future Shroud research emphasizing the importance
of an international scope for the scientific research team. In effect, he proposed
a new STURP, but one with a broader membership which would utilize the most advanced
analytical tools available. Barberis’ 2012
Valencia presentation is available on
shroud.com.
[4]
The first task of such a group would be to plan for a new series of
tests and experiments that, while preserving the integrity of the Shroud, would
provide even greater revelation of the information that the Shroud might hold concerning
Christ’s death and Resurrection.
One examination that ought to be given priority is Multispectral Digital
Imaging (MDI) as was used on La Bella Principessa and
the Mona Lisa. It is described in detail in Chapter 14. Properly executed,
MDI can produce definitive answers as to the composition of the entire Shroud
and whatever differences there may be. It would provide minute details of the blood
residue, the Shroud image and the miscellaneous items such as the limestone traces
with far more detail than any other process. The limestone was of a particular type
(travertine aragonite) that is found in Jerusalem
on the Via Dolorosa, the Way of the Cross.
The results of an MDI examination of the Shroud would
be a detailed database of the Shroud's composition which could be distributed to
appropriate institutions for study throughout the world. By allowing the database
to be ubiquitous and not confined to any one place, the survival of the Shroud would
be guaranteed for millennia to come.
The results of such an international effort ought to be regarded as
the intellectual property of humanity.
The STURP’s 120 hours of scientific examination in Turin were unique in the history
of the Shroud, both in the breadth of the examinations and the results published
in peer reviewed journals. Yet, STURP subsequently foundered, a victim both of its
success and the fact that it was essentially an ad hoc organization. Its very successes
engendered forces that colluded to deny it continued access to the Shroud. Because
STURP was ad hoc, it had no permanent portfolio at the Vatican.
In science, a catalyst is a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without
itself undergoing any permanent chemical change. In a great many different contexts,
that word is now applied to a person or thing that causes an event to happen. There
were several human catalysts in the story of the scientific study of the Shroud,
but none was more important than Fr. Peter Rinaldi whom this book first discussed
in Chapter 6.
It was Fr. Rinaldi’s
1934 article in the Sign magazine which
ignited a surge of Shroud interest in the United States. He wrote that piece when
he was still a young seminarian in Turin.
One result was the establishment of a Holy Shroud center in Esopus, New York
which evolved into the U.S. Holy Shroud Guild.
Eventually, Fr. Rinaldi aided a diverse
group of individuals in their work on the Shroud. Ian Wilson directed David Rolfe
to Fr. Rinaldi at the beginning of his Silent
Witness film project. Eric Jumper and John Jackson wrote to the Guild for a
better photograph of the Shroud and were taken under Rinaldi’s wing.
It was Rinaldi’s
Turin connections
which opened doors for both STURP and Rolfe. Rinaldi was the catalyst that connected
the dots, but he was not omnipotent. The carbon labs connected with Shroud skeptic
Chagas and Pope John Paul II sanctioned the butchering of the scientific protocols
and the exclusion of the STURP from the process. Had the protocols been followed,
carbon dating tests might have retained their credibility and quite likely the results
would have been different.
Rinaldi died while the carbon dating
results were not yet impeached. In Chapter 10, this book noted his final reported
remark on the subject: “I might
be persuaded to accept the results of the test only when someone will demonstrate
beyond all question, how a medieval artist produced so extraordinary an image as
that of the Shroud.”
There is no Fr. Rinaldi now with familial
connections in Turin.
Pope Francis has much on his plate. He like Benedict and John Paul II reveres the
Shroud. Yet now the Shroud is his responsibility. His greatest task might be to
protect the Shroud from those in the Church who are content with a holy icon but
are threatened by an authentic Shroud. This era of selfish apocalypse needs more
than an icon. That leads us to the next challenge: the challenge to science.
The initial reaction of many agnostic or atheistic scientists to the
1988 carbon dating tests indicating a medieval origin of the Shroud was a sigh of
relief. To pseudo-skeptics, an authentic Shroud, especially one that gives circumstantial
support to the Resurrection, is a troublesome thing. The announced results of the
carbon dating provided an easy out for the skeptical community. Pay no attention
to that Shroud behind the curtain in the Turin Cathedral.
[5]
Richard Dawkins was at one point ambiguous about the carbon dating
of the Shroud, recognizing the criticisms of it, but then later declaring the results
“rock solid.” Another example of a skeptic placing undue weight on the carbon dating
is contained in an aside in Carl Sagan’s final book that was published posthumously:
The basis of Sagan’s curt brush-off of the Shroud was the D’Arcis memorandum
discussed in Chapter 4. As noted, it is doubtful that the memorandum was ever delivered
to Pope Clement and it was entirely based upon a hearsay statement uttered years
before. D’Arcis claimed that his predecessor as bishop was told by an artist that
he had painted the Shroud. Yet, the Shroud is not a painting. If there is a hoax
at work, it is the claim that the Shroud is a painting. That hoax has been thoroughly
debunked.
The scientific evidence that the Shroud is not a painting is overwhelming.
It is obvious that those who still claim it is such have not taken the time to review
the evidence with an unbiased eye.
[7]
Prof. Barberis’ Valencia
proposals provide a framework for future scientific research. What is needed, however,
is determination by Pope Francis that it be done. The most important challenge to
science is to solve the mystery of the process by which the image was created. That
may be the final, most important, unrevealed revelation of the Shroud of Turin.
“For in the final analysis, our
most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe
the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal."
John
F. Kennedy
American University
June
10, 1963
In October 1962, the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war of
apocalyptic consequences. The survival of humanity rested ultimately in the hands
of two men: Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy. They faced alarmingly similar
problems, including military leaders who were all too willing to let loose the dogs
of war.
There can be no doubt that a nuclear exchange between the United States and the USSR would have been catastrophic for
those two countries: an actual apocalypse. What was not widely understood at that
point is that it would have ultimately extinguished all human life and that of many,
if not all other species.
While both Kennedy and Khrushchev heroically put the interests of
the citizens before their own selfish interest in preserving their power, they could
not have appreciated in 1962 just what the real stakes of the Cuban Missile Crisis
were. It wasn’t just the tens of millions of casualties in the United States and the USSR that were at risk; it was the survival
of the entire human race.
It was not until twenty years later that scientific studies began
to hypothesize the likelihood that a major nuclear exchange would lead to the extinction
of all human life and quite possibly all other life on earth itself.
[8]
Extinction would come in two stages in the aftermath of a nuclear
war. First, there would be a nuclear winter where combustion debris thrown into
the atmosphere from hundreds, if not thousands, of nuclear bomb generated fire storms
would shield the mass of the Earth from the sun’s warmth. Ironically, that would
be followed by a second punch: global warming on a massive scale. As the particulate
matter thrown-up by the fire storms inevitably dissipated, the atmosphere would
be left with massive infusions of methane and carbon created by the firestorms.
The problems we face are daunting and some damage has irretrievably
occurred. We can only ameliorate future effects, but ameliorate we can – and must.
Andrew Revkin who writes on environmental issues for the
New York Times blog attended the 2014 PAS-PASS
Vatican Conference on the environment. He was tapped to summarize the conference
on its last day. His summary was reprinted in full on May 11, 2014 on the
N. Y. Times blog.
[9]
Among other things, the conference dealt with the challenge to both individuals
and society posed by the deteriorating environment and the ominous fate looming
for humanity:
“The physical and biological sciences, along with revolutionary advances
in technology – from satellites to supercomputers – have provided a clarifying picture
of human-driven environmental changes. Psychological and sociological studies have
revealed deeply ingrained human traits; many shaped by our evolutionary history
as a “here and now” species, that prevent us from acting rationally in the face
of threats with long time scales, dispersed impacts and inherent complexity. Possible
paths have been delineated in recent decades using ever more sophisticated models.
But that is where science’s task ends. It
is up to individuals and societies to choose which paths to pursue.” (Emphasis
added)
The United Nations is the most obvious instrumentality to serve the
interests of the whole of humanity. However, until now, despite some progress, the
actions by the world community have been but a drop in the proverbial bucket. The
sound of the apocalyptical hoof beats is growing ever louder.
Worldwide, September 2014 was the hottest month on record and 2014
is on track to be the hottest year for which any records exist.
[10]
Because of shifting wind patterns, some areas may actually feel cooler. But those
are anomalies; the climate crisis is both deepening and accelerating.
Our leaders will need the same kind of courage that Kennedy and Khrushchev
displayed in order to steer humanity away from the fast approaching Apocalypse of
Selfishness. But the task today is more complex. The disciples of selfishness have
amassed enormous wealth. They control many of the instrumentalities for disseminating
information to the mass of humanity. What they don't own, they often buy – and sadly
that often includes political leaders.
It is a difficult challenge to defeat the Antichrists of selfishness.
It is a challenge we must not evade, but must rather embrace. Churchill quoted Scripture
when the United States finally
entered World War II at Britain’s
darkest hour. “The lion of Judah
picks up his sword and laughs.” Christian martyrs sang hymns on their way to the
Roman arenas.
Nietzsche, an apostle of selfishness, declared that “God is dead.”
It’s not God that is endangered now; it is humanity. The issue is whether humanity
can overcome the selfish instincts that drove evolution or yield finally to them
and lose itself in an orgy of selfish conduct. It is the advances of science that
have propelled humanity forward, but it is selfish abuses of the gifts of science
to humanity that are now driving humanity to extinction. Science appears as both
Christ and Antichrist.
Advances in the study of consciousness and the quantum are opening
the door to new realities of existence. Scientists have found intriguing, and to
some inexplicable, relationships between consciousness and existence. This book
has defined God as the primordial consciousness from which our existence sprang.
We can theorize God’s existence but left to ourselves we cannot truly comprehend
it. We can comprehend the existence of Jesus Christ for he was a real human being
who shared in our existence. His existence also opens a pathway through the quantum
to the primordial consciousness, which He also shares, that is God. That pathway
is love, because simply put, God is love.
The power of the selfish conduct which drove humanity forward through
evolution is now driving humanity to extinction. It is in our power to resist that,
but our resistance must be through acts of selfless love both collectively and individually.
Humanity may survive another 100 years or perhaps another 100 million.
Because of the triumph of selfishness, it may end when the world becomes a poisonous,
toxic rock unsuitable for any habitation. Or, humanity could be extinguished when
a massive meteorite or asteroid plummets to earth starting a chain of events that
will render human life untenable. Whether we, collectively or individually, find
our lives overwhelmed by selfish power, we can survive no matter how beleaguered
we may feel or become, remembering always that God is love.
Every human being is gifted with a reflective consciousness that removes
us from the mundane and opens the path to the eternal consciousness. That will never
change. And we have the Shroud that in the words of Fr. Delessi, is “God’s love
letter in linen to all mankind.” In this time of peril, let us embrace it.
Joyfully!
END NOTES
[1] Dreisbach,
Ecumenical Implications, Appendix, p.
10
[2] As
quoted by Dreisbach, supra.
[3]
Marinelli
Valencia,
p. 15
[4] http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/barberisv.pdf
[5] Kindly
excuse the author’s paraphrase of an immortal line from the
Wizard of Oz.
[6] Carl
Sagan, p. 21,
Billions and Billions: Thoughts
on Life and Death and the Brink of the Millennium (Random House, New York 1997)
[7] The
evidence is thoroughly discussed in Chapter 9: "The Blood of the
Lamb"
[8] Science
23 December 1983,: Vol. 222 no. 4630 pp. 1283-1292
[9]
Andrew Revkin, "
Can a Pope Help Sustain Humanity and
Ecology?"
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/can-a-pope-help-sustain-humanity-and-ecology/
