Shroud’s truth is in the fruits

by Editor · February 17, 2010

As the Church prepares to exhibit the Shroud of Turin, which many hold to be Christ�s burial cloth, the debate concerning its authenticity doubtless will go into overdrive again.

Catholics are free to believe that the shroud, which features a photographic image of a crucified man, is indeed Christ�s burial cloth. Pope John Paul II made no secret of his devotion to it, calling it a �relic�, and Pope Benedict � always a sceptic in matters of apparitions and revelations � has indicated that he too believes the shroud to be authentic.

By the same token, Catholics who do not believe that the shroud is the real article are perfectly entitled to hold that view. Pieties relating to the Shroud of Turin are private devotions, along the same lines as devotions to various Marian apparitions, the Divine Mercy or novenas. These may encourage spiritual growth but are not necessary for salvation.

But even sceptical Catholics would welcome definitive proof by sindonologists, as Shroud researchers are known, that the Turin Shroud is indeed the genuine burial cloth of Christ referred to in John 20:5-7, for there would be no greater known relic than that, as those who believe in its authenticity will testify.

Alas, such evidence has yet to materialise. What we do know of the Turin Shroud�s history is that the earliest historically conclusive reference to its existence dates to 1357 (though some sindonologists conjecture earlier dates).

Carbon testing on a portion of the shroud�s cloth in 1988 dates its origins to between 1260 and 1390. However, critics of that test have claimed that the portion of cloth used for the carbon test was a medieval patch � a notion denied by the test�s proponents � and that exposure to smoke in a 1532 fire might have contaminated the sample.

The carbon test results, in any case, cannot explain by what process the image of the crucified man appeared on the cloth. Some have speculated that the image was created by the use of primitive photographic techniques available in the 14th century (more excitable theories even involve machinations by Leonardo da Vinci). These methods have been tested by modern sindonologists, but none arrived at an exact replication of the composition of the image on the Shroud, only rough facsimiles. Anyhow, there is no reasonable explanation why the invention of photography should have remained a mostly unexplored secret for another five centuries.

In other words, for every item of evidence that denies the shroud�s authenticity, there is a refutation which can be answered only by speculation and extrapolation. And vice versa.

We may never learn the whole truth about the Shroud of Turin, and the polarisation of entrenched positions may mean that the argument will never be settled to universal satisfaction. And to Catholics, that should not matter. Even if the shroud is not an authentic relic, it nevertheless is an icon which brings those who venerate it closer to Christ. In this way it is wholly unimportant whether or not it is the genuine burial cloth of our Saviour.

For Catholics, the truth of the Shroud can be found in its fruits: the deepening of faith of those who believe in it.