Religion

Faith, fact and the Shroud

John D. Lambert

In these days of scepticism an announcement that science is about to support faith • is quite an event. So the report in the British press and the Universe that a Commission was imminently about to confirm the Turin Shroud as genuine, caused considerable excitement. Such a categorical affirmation would have had an impact both for the sceptic and the Christian.

The Shroud has long been the subject of speculation. Discovered in the fourth century, and now kept in Turin, it was held by many to be the actual grave cloth used on Jesus Christ. Imprints on it showed the shape of a man who had been crucified, scourged and stabbed in the side. The impregnation of spices in the cloth seemed to increase the similarity with the Gospel account of the Crucifixion.

Sc when articles are written, clearly outlining the tests which had taken place, under a headline, " How the scientists proved this is the face of Christ," it seemed a time to take notice — not just for Catholics, but for Christendom and all serious thinking people.

Tests showing that the cloth once held the body of a young man approximately thirtyfive years old, who had been beaten, crucified, and wrapped in myrrh and frankincense gave food for thought. Add to this the claim that Carbon 14, a scientific process of dating ancient relics, puts the garment at a time identical to the accepted date of Christ's crucifixion, and the level of coincidence is getting pretty thin. No small wonder that the Pope, according to the reports, is about to make a proclamation to the whole of Christendom on the authenticity of the Shroud as his biggest gift to Christians in this Holy Year.

Once you have established scientifically and irrefutably that there was such a body. treated in a manner identical to the Gospel

reports, the question of what happened to it is easier to face. It is still a matter, finally, of faith. But now faith, which has been undergirded by preceding events, seemed considerably proved in fact.

The number of sermons preached on this since the appearance of the Daily Mail article by Ronald Singleton, based on evidence given by the Right Rev Guillio Ricci, must have run into hundreds. At least one clergyman who is a public figure, preached eloquently and passionately on the report, How many hundreds of thousands of people dispersed from their churches feeling a little bit more light-hearted and confirmed in their faith is impossible to guess. And all on a lie!

As the Shroud has been a source of such speculation and scepticism for years, interest quickened. The BBC considered a full documentary and many magazines were showing great interest in what might well have been 'the religious story of the century.'

Research quickly showed that informed Catholics in this country knew nothing about a Papal Commission of inquiry into its authority: something unlikely to escape the attention of people like Group Captain Cheshire, VC, Cheshire has for years been one of the foremost Catholics in this country deeply concerned with the subject, having published books on it and commissioned a touring exhibition about it. Yet he knew nothing. Nor were the British experts named in the press article as members of the Papal Commission traceable. Likely candidates of the same name as that given either expressed astonishment, or could not be traced at an address or telephone number.

Telephone calls to Rome fared no better, even when the name of the source of information as a Right Rev Guillio Ricci was given. The reply from people in Rome who would

have known amounted to a virtual "Whe:5, Ricci?"! The final straw which broke story's back was the confirmed report th the identical story carried by the Mail and Lt Universe had been offered to the editor of principal Roman Catholic family magazine° Europe. He had turned it down!

In the end Ricci was run to earth as a diplomat recently settled in the Vatican BT who had been a student of the Shroud. tit obviously ' leaked ' his own hopes and es' pirations as facts and Singleton, the reportt did not bother to check them out fully. LT: most lies, it nearly succeeded because it hm" basis of truth. A commission of investigation into 01! Shroud was set up in 1969 by Cardinal Areei'd bishop Pellegrino. Even non-Catholics NA/Ng,' recognise that this is as different in sigri". cance from a Papal inquiry as chalk is frel cheese. The real rub lies in the comments°, the chairman of the Papal Commission,.'e Monsignor Cottino. He has now stated Olt categorically that, "the Committee is a log way from being able to state anything of an authoritative nature with regard to til` Shroud. In any case we are in no hurry produce evidence. Most people doing the IT, search are doing it in a part-time capacitP

'

is not a matter of a group of doctors forming a post mortem on a body on a but a piece of historical research full of gree problems and difficulties." A very significant difference between el press report with its authoritative stater and that issued by Monsignor Cottino is sunikt med up in his words, "It was not up to Commission to say yes or no to the evidene`i which may be found supporting the belier that the Shroud is the actual grave cloth e., Jesus. It is only for them to produce the dence and leave people to decide the scientid merits of such findings." On the question of Ricci in Rome, Cott1„11°I, was adamant. He had no authority to sPe0 on behalf of the Commission. So this ought leave the Shroud where it was—as an obJe,'” of faith for some and scepticism for othe,,,',1 But does it leave the work of the Commis, undamaged and without prejudice? If stl'e sidiary facts are not carried out how does oed evaluate the real substance of evidence if when it arrives? What of the countless uraiii nary people, who now have to be told — priest and cleric are to be truthful and do nes do another Ricci — that the whole thing a lie? It would be utterly wrong to conclude tlitate the priest.and reporter who started the ha', did so as a calculated 'cooked up' scheere,:t Discovery sooner or later was inevitable, P:o later the lie was told because both wanted to believe it was true and shut thee,' eyes to the facts. A concept that has b, devilled the church and still does: the uric°,:th. scious belief that God needs the half-t1, and the zealots' exaggeration in order to p°, ster his name. Unfortunately, that human weakness is u,e01 simply confined to a passionate priest, but every person who falls into the trap of c0ui4 ing heads, not feet — as when recounting te simple facts of the size of his congregation, The Shroud only outlines for me have found to be my sad experience as a I0"11 nalist within the church. We are afraid to tere the truth, naked and unashamed, and often try to do some sort of public relati°'is act on behalf of God. The inevitable resed that His Kingdom suffers and the fait" small people is hurt. If this sad incident manages to teach s° of that, then at least it will not all have bein vain.

ter John Lambert, a journalist and broadon non-religious topics, was formerly ch."tere lain at Pinewood Studios and is now Mints of the church at Cuffley.