Fr. John Hogan, OCDS, a Secular Discalced Carmelite priest in Ireland, is the founder and current Father Director of the Fraternity of St Genesius, an international association of prayer for those in the arts and media. He has responded eloquently and forcefully to Tom Chiver’s article in The Telegraph (see my earlier posting on it here):
The Shroud of Turin is a fake, some scientists and atheists say. "We know it’s a fake. Okay all the evidence (scientific, historical, literary, botanical) suggests it may be authentic. We can’t figure out how the image was made – we can’t reproduce it correctly with all our technology, but that doesn’t mean a medieval artist couldn’t do it. We stick by the carbon dating tests that have now been discredited – we refused to accept that they are discredited. It is a fake. Okay, there are more questions than answers and every scientific examination presents even more questions – it is a mystery – but it is not the shroud of Christ."
Such is the response I hear in Tom Chivers’s article ("The Turin Shroud is Fake. Get over it.") in the Telegraph. In terms of our faith, it matters little that it is the Shroud of the Lord – our faith does not depend on it. However, without being credulous, we must also be open to the possibility that God might actually have left us a document of the Resurrection to strengthen our faith. That may well be the Shroud of Turin.
That said, it seems, given the big picture, with all the evidence before us, the chances are that it is authentic. The only (and the I mean the ONLY) examination which casts doubt over authenticity is the carbon dating, and a number of scientists have doubts about those results. If this was a court case and the jury had to take all evidence into account, they would probably go for authenticity, and question the only test over which there is a shadow. Perhaps scientists that doubt may need a chat with the very uncomfortable archaeologists who have discovered Sodom and Gomorrah.
So, will we revise Chivers headline and suggest: "The Turin Shroud may be authentic, get over it!"?
Nicely written article!. I didn’t think the “whole picture” could have been described so simply and eloquently…Did archaeologists really find Soddom and Gomorrah? I must be falling behind in my reading ;-)…Dan you may want to fix your Title/header ;-)
It is true though; All evidence points this relic to being authentic and almost certainly to the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but these skeptics can still make comments like; “with loads of evidence for this being a medieval forgery” …What are these people smoking? What loads of evidence? Are people so STUPID that they will accept a single carbon dating test and forego all other evidence? I’ll bet my last buck, if science were to confirm that this Shroud is what it appears to be and unequivocally authentic, these skeptics would still blindly oppose it. Oh well they can go on not believing, it’ll be their loss in the end and I’ll show no remorse for them personally.
it is so sad that people will do anything to hold their beliefs so true to them. Radio carbon tests prove that it isn’t that old, even the carbon monoxide penetrating the fabric doesn’t hold up anymore.
there is not one piece of evidence suggesting this was a) that old to begin with b) that the person in the shroud was this infamous Jesus c) that how it was made was a miraculous divine process. Religious folks love to jump to conclusions to protect their beliefs? why are they all so scared?
@ Ron – you mention evidence? what evidence?? an unknown explanation is not evidence. the correct thing too say is “at the moment we can’t quite replicate exactly what made this, however there a several possibilities, this does not imply that it is miraculous” – so in essence you say “we don’t know yet”. not jump to conclusions – because that is Gullible.
I imagine you consider the Catholic church holding it as evidence that is true right?? ;-) the catholic church wouldn’t mislead anyone would they now?? LOL
The only, yes only piece of substantial evidence was the dating which all three science laboratories confirmed. All hypothesis about it being incorrect (increase carbon affecting age) have been tested and non till date are showing any effect on the dating processes.
Unfortunately some people have a very weak burden of proof to accept claims.
If you believe the carbon dating was correct, then you are the one that is gullible. You want evidence to what I claim? There is plenty of material to read out there. Dan has a pretty good website where you can start, that of course takes some effort on your part and I am definitely not going to educate you. By the way, since ‘scientifically’ with peer-reviewed evidence, the carbon dating HAS BEEN proven INVALID and the original results put in serious question now, what will you skeptics possibly use in your opposition to the Shroud? It is now your burden to prove.
Comments are closed.