In Waiting for the for the Mail: the Ubiquitous and Not-So-Right Reverend David Sox, John Klotz writes:
The fact that he had advance knowledge of the results of the Carbon dating is some evidence of the extent to which the protocols were violated by the labs. One interesting fact: Sox claims he has a letter from Fr. Rinaldi stating he was no longer relying on the Shroud to prove his faith. Sox’s implication was that Fr. Rinaldi no longer accepted the Shroud as genuine. He was a skeptic. A bridge too far, to say the least.
John points out:
As a matter of fact, Judgment Day by Walter McCrone is now available from Amazon Kindle. There seems to be an explosion of old Shroud books now on Kindle including Harry Gove’s skeptical book published in 1998. One comes away with renewed respect for STURP. It is subject to bitter attack even as its science seems to escape the authors’ understanding, or discussion. I just regret that Sox’s book isn’t there. Perhaps I should check under farce.
The thing about Kindle: the books are cheaper, never out of print and never in short supply.
Love this tidbit from John:
Also, while describing the STURP team as a group of religious fanatics in 1988, in his 1998 article Sox described the STURP team (most of whom he claimed to know) as "a couple of Episcopalians, a Rotarian, one or two agnostics and a sprinkling of Catholics."
“One interesting fact: Sox claims he has a letter from Fr. Rinaldi stating he was no longer relying on the Shroud to prove his faith. Sox’s implication was that Fr. Rinaldi no longer accepted the Shroud as genuine”.
I can assure you as far as my vast amount of papers I have from the Guild, Fr. Rinaldi never stopped believing the Shroud’s authenticity.
Thank you Giorgio.
I have made two corrections in my piece. I finally received my copy of Sox’s book this afternoon and the statement about the STURP team being a “militarily organized religious fanatics.[1]” was a paraphrase by the authors of the book cited, and a fair comment, in my opinion on his attiyude expressed in the book.
Secondly, my attribution of the comment in the Tablet about the two Episcopalians, a Rotarian etc. being a comment about STURP, it was a comment about the make-up of the three carbon dating labs. It is significant because it underscores his relationship with the labs which were in the US, GB and Switzerland.
I want to add this. I find the this blog extremely helpful in allowing to test ideas and approaches and see what resonates. And what doesn’t. Earlier this year I was impressed with a report that a massive gamma ray burst had skewed carbon dating by increasing the C-14 content. I was enlightened to be reminded on this blog that since the flax that made up the linen of the Shroud would have ceased to be living organism in 30CE, the gamma ray burst would have no impact.
JK: “Sox claims he has a letter from Fr. Rinaldi stating he was no longer relying on the Shroud to prove his faith.” G: “…Fr. Rinaldi never stopped believing the Shroud’s authenticity.”
The inference I would take from the comment in the alleged letter to Sox, is that Fr Rinaldi had discovered a deeper reason for his faith, perhaps some kind of spiritual experience, awakening or maturing, and no longer required the Shroud as a kind of prop for his faith. Some of us may not be so fortunate to have such an experience.
No doubt that was what Father Rinaldi meant with that statement. Rev. Sox however interpreted the statement to reinforce
his point. And DWnz your correct to state that some of us are not as fortunate, I envy anyone who has that type of faith.
The statement…
“Also, while describing the STURP team as a group of religious fanatics in 1988, in his 1998 article Sox described the STURP team (most of whom he claimed to know) as “a couple of Episcopalians, a Rotarian, one or two agnostics and a sprinkling of Catholics.” ”
…is true if one ignores the actual people in STURP. Amazing denial of reality.
Andy,
I have already noted I made an error on that. The statement by Sox is apparently a reference to carbon dating scientists. He was refuting the idea that they were freemasons as alleged by a Cardinal.
However, I have now read about 3/4s of his book and Sox and Harry Gove really have a problem with STURP. Sox is a late blooming admirer of Ulysses Chevalier, the French cleric who was the bane of Pia’s existence. He more less adopts the whole D’Arcis painted forgery schtick and frankly, with all do respect, that is an absurdity and indicates his desperation to prove the Shroud a forgery.
His book is entitled: “The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time.” I in no way mean to diminish the importance of the Shroud, but there are other candidates for the “Greatest Forgery of All Time.” The millions Hitler killed in the Holocaust or who were victims of Czarist pogroms might suggest “The Protocols of Zion.” I guess because the image can not be explained by either scientists or art historians, that might make it a great forgery if it were one, or it might just make it the truth. C-14 carbon dating is not inerrant. That’s a scientific fact.
My apologies, John. Thanks for the clarification.
It seems to be wrong for Christian Shroudies to rely on the relic as a prop for faith. Would there be no faith if there was no Turin Shroud? And then, as commented more than once previously, if the relic is “proved ” to be genuine it would still not answer many questions that have been raised by sceptics in this fast-changing world.
Regarding Father Peter Rinaldi, he would always say that you can’t leave people at the Shroud, but that you need to lead them “from the linen to the Lord.”. He never wanted people to base their faith on the Shroud but that it simply yet prodoundly points the way.
The well-known German journalist Peter Seewald, former editor of “Der Spiegel” and official biographer of Benedict XVI considered the former pontiff as “a spiritual master who can give answers.” That was probably what led him to abandon atheism and return to Catholicism. Benedict told him that “Anyone who has come to Christ seeking what is comfortable has indeed come to the wrong address.” Who can with certainty that all those who have “touched the Shroud” have not felt comfortable?
Louis,
I am not sure what the right word is. I have been “flirting” with doing something about the Shroud for some time but a year and a half or so ago, I chose to get deeply into it. When I began to get into the Shroud pictures and the evidence of the lashes and the vividness of the wounds, I suddenly felt an empathetic rush. Although a Catholic all my life, for the first time, I grasped the enormity of his pain and suffering. He was more real to me through the Shroud that he was at any other time in my life.
Comfortable is not how I would describe it. Peace is a better word.
Thanks for the comment,John. You are right about choosing the right word and “uncomfortable” was employed only because Benedict XVI said “comfortable”. Your experience can also be clearly understood and may also help in understanding what has been described as a “real presence”. The only problem is that it does not answer the question about the experiences of those who have “touched the Shroud”, and, as you may know, this has been mentioned more than once in the realm of Shroud studies.
Louis,
It’s late and I have been working on my income tax for tomorrow. I am not being cute when I suggest that have trouble understanding “touched by the Shroud” as something other than the common usage. I was really touched by the “New World Sympathy” or West Side Story or St. Paul’s Epistle on love. I suppose that being touched by the Shroud is at a different level of experience. I do believe as I understand the use of “touched” I was touched by my unexpected feelings of unique empathy when the horror that He endured seemed suddenly real to me. Not that I was suffering, but for the first time I began to really understand his suffering. I would call that being touched by the Shroud but I am a newby, and I don’t want to trifle with established conventional meanings if such there be.
John, “touch the Shroud” is an expression I first heard from a Shroudie many years ago, and it seems that there are references to what happens — with no details, obviously because personal life is involved — once in a while in exchanges about the relic. It is clear that what is meant is that whoever “touches” the Shroud, believing it to be the burial cloth of Jesus, or perhaps is even drawn to it for some unknown reason, has these problems. Therefore the reference to what Benedict XVI told journalist Peter Seewald, in #11, and the use of the word “uncomfortable”.
Dan, In reply to John Klotz reporting on David Sox speaking about the faith of Fr. Rinaldi, I doubt that Fr. Rinaldi ever relied on the shroud as the basis of his faith. He repeatedly said that one’s faith should NOT be based on the shroud, belief in the shroud would enhance one’s faith. Further, Sox would have been referring to the early, unauthorized carbon 14 test that reported a fifth century result. At that time Fr. Rinaldi was concerned about the faith of the shroudies who relied on the shroud as the basis of their faith. Those of us who were with Dorothy Crispino at her home when Fr. Rinaldi called from Turin to inform us of the result of that C14 test can attest to that call and its content. I spoke with him on that call! Richard Orareo