by Father Christopher Hunter

I've never had more than a passing interest in the Shroud of Turin. While I've long been aware of its existence, it was not sometihng that particularly fired my curiosity. I believed it was authentic simply because I could find no compelling reason to doubt it. Over the centuries the Church has accumulated many relics relating to our Lord, His passion, our Lady, and the saints. The Shroud was simply one more of the same.

Recent assertions, however, that the Shroud may not be the linen wrapping in which our Lord was buried changed that attitude somewhat. To make a simple assertion that the Shroud is not genuine when the Catholic mentality of centuries asserted otherwise presented to me a situation that was unacceptable.

Now the reader must understand at the outset that I have always been something of an iconoclast when it comes to science. Billing itself as the "impartial arbiter of empirical evidence," it is far from being the rigidly truthful, objective discipline its practitioners claim. With a long history littered with hoaxes, misconceptions, and downright falsehoods, it dogmatizes error and imposes ideas and opinions as fact. Its record is not as impressive as we are led to believe and the inability of scientists to consider explanations of certain phenomena which are deemed to be beyond the pre-determined boundaries of "orthodoxy" has always been a point of contention with me.¹

Thus, when on October 13, 1988, it was announced at a press conference by Anastasio Cardinal Ballestrero, archbishop of Turin, that "...the interval of the calibrated date assigned to the sindonic cloth, with a confidence level of 95%, is between 1260 and 1390 A.D.," I could no longer remain indifferent. Science can only too often be used as a weapon against Christianity and here was a perfect opportunity to do just that. And there can be little doubt that every atheist and agnostic around the world was delighted to hear the announcement. Besides, it simply didn't make sense. Over the years, the Shroud has been carefully scrutinized by experts from a variety of disciplines and the more it was examined the more marvelous it appeared. Now, to expect all of this carefully accumulated data to be rejected on the basis of a single finding that the cloth only goes back to the 14th century was asking too much.

The assertion by Prof. Edward Hall, head of the Oxford Research team that did the carbon dating (in conjunction with two other laboratories, one in Arizona, the other in Zurich) that "someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up, and flogged it" was the very kind of statement that I took to be a declaration of war against another facet of Catholic devotion.

In fact, to deny that the shroud is not the burial cloth of our Lord raises greater problems than to assert its authenticity. For, if the Shroud is not what we have come to believe, then what is it?! This opens up a whole new field of inquiry, for it implies a forger of incredible talent and technical skills beyond what was known to 14th century science. Not surprisingly, the scientists who so confidently tell us the Shroud is a hoax have not told us how they think it came about. Prof. Hall even admitted that it did not matter to him that there was no explanation of how the Shroud image was produced.

In examining the question of the Shroud's authenticity, let us begin by looking at a few conclusions experts have already come to that show what the Shroud cannot be.

Dr. Pierre Barbet, a surgeon and author of the book, A Doctor at Calvary, tells us that the cloth is not painted to give the effect of blood because "there is no clogging, not the slightest thickness of coloring matter between the threads of the material... in the eyes of the surgeon they (blood stains) possess a most striking realism which I have never yet seen in any painting."

— And it is believed that in 1503 the Shroud was boiled in oil as a test of its authenticity which, it would seem, would have removed any pigment.

That the stains on the Shroud are blood has long since been confirmed. If the blood is then real, whose blood is it? Some have suggested that a cloth could have been put over any man who may have been bleeding. But, as Dr. Barbet points out, nothing will explain how the body was removed "while leaving on the Shroud a fine and unblemished impression of the body and the marks of its bleeding. A man would not be able to remove the body of another without destroying them." Numerous microchemical tests have likewise proven that the bloodstains on the Shroud are, in fact, blood.

The impossibility of the Shroud being a painting has been established by more than a few experts, some of whom are artists themselves. One such individual is Martin Haigh who both studied and taught art for 40 years and has said "... I would unhesitatingly say that the face on the Shroud is stylistically not the work of a thirteenth or fourteenth century painter..."

But the testimony of doctors and artists is not the only reason that the suggestion of a painting is unacceptable. Other factors mitigate against it. Again I quote Haigh:

Another expert, Dr. John Jackson, a physicist who teaches part-time at the University of Colorado, has stated:

We see then, that the idea of a painting is simply not possible, nor is there any point in belaboring the issue. I have simply tried to indicate the general attitude of experts on this question and tried to demonstrate the problems that exist in claiming the Shroud is a fraud.

The present controversy surrounding the Shroud results from the assertion referred to near the beginning of this article that it cannot be dated earlier than the 14th century. This is strangely coincidental, I can't help mentioning, with earlier assertions by the professional debunkers that the Shroud is a 14th century forgery. (Perhaps we need a book written called Science at the Service of Skeptics.) Needless to say, those who do not wish to believe in the Shroud were delighted that science has spoken and now settled the question once and for all. However, such is not the case and those who think this are grasping at straws.

Figure 1. Frontal Image on the Shroud (Upper Part)

To begin with, any attempt to build a case against the Shroud on the basis of a C-14 dating is absurd in itself. Carbon dating is only one of the many scientific tools used in examining the Shroud. The question of authenticity cannot rest on a single indication that it may not be 2,000 years old. If the other disciplines, e.g., photography, chemistry, medicine, textile and computer analysis, etc., indicate that the Shroud accurately mirrors the image of a real man who suffered a bloody death, apparently by crucifixion, and another branch of science comes along and throws us a curve ball, one does not throw out the large amount of accumulated data indicating authenticity because of an apparent discrepency. One either attempts to reconcile the conflicting data or tries to find out why the anomaly occurred. Yet in this case some are obviously happy to jettison all previous findings so as to cling to that one piece of evidence that supposedly discredits the shroud. This is hardly scientific!

Besides the application of common sense to the question, is the attitude of a number of scientists themselves regarding the degree of reliability that can be expected from carbon dating and the particular problems presented by the Shroud. Here, I can do no better than to rely upon those authorities who have examined that Shroud and have given us their insights regarding this technique.

William Meacham is an American archeologist who teaches at the University of Hong Kong. He was a member of the small team put together by the Vatican to study the feasibility of using the C-14 method. In a paper presented to the Hong Kong symposium on the Shroud in 1986, Meacham outlined its "pitfalls and uncertainties." Meacham said that the frequently heard comment that carbon dating would give a scientific proof of the Shroud's age were "seriously in error." He pointed out that:

Far from being alone in his analysis of the problem, he is one of a number of such experts who share the same thinking. For example, at an international radiocarbon conference held in Trondheim, Norway in 1985, and attended by R. A. Johnson, J. J. Stipp, M. A. Tamers, G. Bonam, M. Suter, and W. Wolfli, a statement was issued which included the following:

Some problems regarding the use of radiocarbon dating are unique to the Shroud. When samples are taken for C-14 testing a number of precautions have to be observed in order to prevent containments from influencing the results. They must be handled in special ways and only certain kinds of containers can be used. The testing is both complicated and sensitive. The sensitivity of the test is not what makes it accurate, but is, in the case of the Shroud, that characteristic which invalidates it. Over the centuries, the Shroud has found itself in many environments handled by a great many people. It has suffered both fire and water damage, been exposed to the smoke of candles and direct sun, and had myrrh, aloes, and other substances touch it. The number of different containments it has been subjected to is considerable and therefore there is no way that carbon dating cannot be influenced by them.

That discrepancies exist between dating laboratories concerning the same item is well known. For example, dates arrived at by Harwell, Oxford, and archeologists for the British Museum's Lindow man differ by eight centuries. Carbon datings of the Santorinic Volcanic eruption, which is thought to have occurred about 1500 B.C., vary between 2,400 B.C. and 1100 B.C. W. Wolfli, mentioned earlier, dated the tablecloth of his wife's mother which was 50 years old. yet the carbon dating showed it to be 350 years old!

There is yet another problem which exists even if every contaminate could be removed. That problem is the image process. In two separate studies it was found that dehydration of the cellulose flax fibers caused the Shroud's image and that dehydration was caused by a chemical reaction between the acidic fluids of the body (blood and sweat) and the alkaline limestone of the tomb. This process was intensified by body heat which caused a corrosion of the fiber's surface which, in turn, caused a rapid dehydration of the cellulose of the fibers. The shroud image is contained within the fiber and is thus not a coating. To quote Sister Damian of the Cross, O.C.D., an archeologist in her own right: "Pre-treatment of fibers before carbon dating will only affect contaminating substances which have coated fibers. It cannot affect a process which has changed the cellulose itself."

Now the above considerations have to be taken into account regarding the error of allowing C-14 dating to determine the age of the Shroud. But our consideration does not stop here. There is at least some reason to believe that an element of duplicity may have been present in all of this. Let's examine that here.

To begin with, the three laboratories involved all use the same acceleration mass spectrometry (AMS) method of carbon dating. This is relatively new as compared to the older, more conventional proportional counter technique used by such laboratories as Brookhaven and Harwell. The AMS method is still competing for acceptance and has been relatively little used on textiles. Had both dating techniques been used the dates might well have been more diverse.

Then there is the problem of "leaks." Over the six month period in which the world awaited the results, various sources were revealing what the official announcement would be. The London Sunday Times, for example, of September 18, 1988 released one "official" result.

There were others. David Fox is author of The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Fraud of All Time, This book was printed, though not released, more than two weeks before the carbon dating results were announced and makes clear that Fox knew in advance the outcome of the tests. Undoubtedly, someone revealed the dates to Fox who, in turn, must have been responsible for two of the notable leaks in Great Britain, one of which has been noted above. In fact, the Sunday Times admitted that its information came from an advanced copy of Fox's book.

Another problem relating to credibility is the fact that the "blind test procedure" could not have been observed as is evident from the manner in which the tests were conducted. Although an agreement was signed not to confer with each other during the six month period, prior disclosures did take place. Some have been referred to already but the problem doesn't end there.

In the blind test procedure the laboratories were given a coded set of samples; one Shroud, two non-Shroud. The labs, of course, should not have known which was which. Yet such was not the case because (a) the scientists requested and received a viewing of the Shroud and, (b) Dr. Michael Tite, Director of Research at the British Museum, who acted as coordinator of the project, could not find suitable controls since he could not find fabric that was indistinguishable from the Shroud fabric.

Further, the wording of the certificate, along with the samples, that was given to each laboratory indicated that the laboratories not only knew which sample was the Shroud but also the exact dates of the control samples. As the BSTS Newsletter for October 20, 1988 stated:

So we see that the "scientific" manner in which the Shroud was tested is disquieting to say the least. While some may be surprised, I am not; for such has been the history of science and the events surrounding the story of carbon dating. The Shroud C-14 test can now be added to the already long list of fabricated results to agree with someone's personal opinion, rather than using the data to serve truth.

Some may argue that it doesn't really matter in any case since the Catholic Faith will not rise or fall on the authenticity of the Shroud. Such may be the case, but such is not the point. It matters to me when my faith is attacked, and I see that happening here. When questionable methods are used to disprove an aspect of both Catholic history and devotion, I will not take so apathetic an attitude as to say, "It really doesn't matter after all." The enemies of the Church get their way far too often. As President Lincoln observed: "To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of men."

1. Such a sweeping assertion will no doubt bring down some criticism unless supporting evidence is presented, so I direct the reader's attention to the following: The several works of Charles Fort. Although Fort espoused the philosophical error of monism, he was nevertheless an astute critic and ably saw the absurdities of scientific explanations of observable phenomena; Ivan Sanderson, a biologist, explored areas that science preferred to ignore; physicist Ruggero Santilli, whose book Ethical Probe on Einstein's Followers in the U.S.A. analyzes the serious flaws contained in the Theory of Relativity; Immanuel Velikovsky, in the acknowledgements at the beginning of his work Earth in Upheaval, tells us he compiled it "in academic circles generally charged with animosity".

Likewise, the continuous historical hype over the genius of Thomas Edison as opposed to the far more brilliant Nikola Tesla has always struck me as a bit odd.

As for hoaxes, the reader is advised to study the circumstances relating to the Piltdown and Sinjanthropus man.

Concerning the dogmatization of error, I need only refer to the fairy tale called "evolution."