ECLECTIC REFLECTIONS ON THIS AND THAT

I've posted another sane and balanced article on the Shroud by Professor Barrie Schwortz (see post below), because, apart from my own personal reverence for the Shroud, the sacred icon tends to be 'owned' by the ultra-orthodox who use it to assert that Christianity in general, and Roman Catholicism in particular, are the exclusive channels of divine grace and salvation in this world. So apart from Jewish folk and agnostics who believe in the Shroud's authenticity, I felt we needed a few radical gay fairies to come forward and express their support as well,  just to shake up those ultra-certain-dox persons of the right.

Barrie Schwortz was the Official Documenting Photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project, the team that conducted the first in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978.  Today, he plays an influential role in Shroud research as the editor and publisher of the internationally recognized Shroud of Turin Website (www.shroud.com), the largest and most extensive Shroud resource on the Internet, with visitors from more than 160 countries.  Mr. Schwortz has conducted Shroud lectures around the world and is frequently called upon as a leading imaging expert.

I don't know who this Bishop is warmly greeting Barrie Schwortz, but I like his hat! They even look like they might be related. (In fact, this is Archbishop Gewargis Sliwa, of the Assyrian Church of the East (Apostolic Church) of Baghdad, Iraq)

And on another front, Pope Benedict and his 'new' inquisitor, Archbishop soon to be Cardinal Levada, have finally cracked down on the spectacular but unruly Marian shrine of Medjugorje. Before I get into the complications of this issue (and it's so complicated that I dare not get in too deep), let me just say that I feel the restrictions applied to the shrine and village as of September 5, are probably healthy for all concerned. A little distance, silence and solitude will no doubt benefit the last remaining 'visionary' to be receiving 'visitations and messages,' all those tours from Ireland promising a personal interview with a visionary will have to think up a new selling point, and the Franciscans will have to get back in touch with their original charism and practice some measure of detachment regarding the vast sums of money generated by the shrine in the past. Of course, the distance and solitude will only be relative, since ways will be found to make the 'monthly' visitations accessible to the public off of church property. However, there will be a general cooling of the atmosphere and this seems like a spiritually sane turn of events. Things were becoming just a little too weird. This doesn't imply a negative judgment on my part (not that my opinion matters a whit). The whole phenomenon strikes me as an apt metaphor for the whole Roman Catholic Church - at it's core a mystery of inherent sacredness that defies explanation, but surrounding it are whorls and whorls of strangeness, weirdness, fanaticism and deceit. So I think it's time to take the visionary out of the storm and tell everyone to go home (they won't). One look at any of the videos of this woman available on You Tube and I defy anyone to claim that this women is 'faking it.'

 

And in fact - surprise! - that was the judgment of a commission of scientific experts convened by the diocese of Mostar a year ago to examine Mirjana.  The commission expressed their opinion that Mirjana was not faking her visions, but was in fact seeing something of 'supernatural beauty,' at least from her own subjective point of view (repeating the judgments of earlier investigations of all of the visionaries). The commission concluded - very wisely to be sure - that they could not make a judgment about the objective nature or authenticity of Mirjana's visions.

So why the present judgment from Pope Benedict and Levada, stating, not implying, that it's all fakery and hokus pokus? Here are a few clues.

Medjugorje and its vast sums of money are not controlled by Opus Dei, which does control the tourist trade at Lourdes and buses tourists from Lourdes to its own shrine of Santuario de Torreciudad in Spain.  As a possible motive, does this surprise anyone?

The Gospa of Medjugorje (The Lady of the Visions), whoever she may be, has proven to be tolerantly ecumenical from day one. Search through all of the statements over the years, remarkable for their blandness, and you will not see any statements that assert the superiority of Christianity or the Roman Catholic tradition. Quite the contrary, when the visionaries asked the Lady for an example of a truly prayerful person, the Lady referred to the one Muslim woman in the village. And there have been repeated statements from the theologically unsophisticated visionaries that the Lady of the Visions asserts that 'all religions are the same' in so far as they lead their adherents to a prayerful connection to the sacred. Well, I'm sorry, that is a position that is anathema to the present Pope, so for this reason more than any other, the crackdown is not a surprise.

We seem to have forgotten over the years the simple fact that these six young children saw a mysterious woman on the hillside, weeping and crying out for 'Peace', six months before the outbreak of the horrendous Yugoslavian war that pitted Christians against Muslims in the most savage example of ethnic cleansing in Europe since the Nazi death camps. This was a barbaric outbreak that took everyone by surprise, because you will search in vain through the commentary of the time to find any political analyst who saw it coming. No matter how 'obvious' the breakup of Yugoslavia after Tito might have seemed in hindsight, no one anticipated the sheer murderous savagery of the war, even in light of Yugoslavia's tragic past.  Except six children on a hillside and a weeping Lady in White. Anyone confused by the phenomenon of Medjugorje should rest in contemplation of this simple fact. And let Pope Benedict and Archbishop Levada be the first.

And to offer a more inspirational thought (maybe, maybe not), the roads from the main road up to the mountain top village of Garabandal in Spain are now being repaved and widened in anticipation of a massive influx of pilgrims who will be coming 'soon' to witness the anticipated 'miracle.' "Ahem....excuse me...," you say, "what the hell are you talking about?" To which I reply - You don't remember Garabandal in the 1960's, the site of the Marian apparitions to four young peasant girls that started the craze and which was so quickly overshadowed by its younger sister, Medjugorje?

How quickly we forget. Yes, Garabandal, which has not been condemned by Pope Benedict, is showing signs that it's anticipated consummation may be at hand (whatever that may mean). I visited Garabandal in the 90's also and was immediately impressed by the palpable spirituality of the place.  A hilltop of genuine holiness and radiance with a peace that rivals that of Assisi. Is there something providential, then, about the Vatican restrictions on Medjugorje or is it by (sinister) design? Probably a little bit of both. After all, Bishop Jose Vilaplana Vasco, the Bishop of the diocese of Santander until 2007, where Garabandal is located, and its strong supporter,  is a known member of Opus Dei, and Garabandal itself is a hundred miles or so away from the Opus Dei Marian shrine of Torreciudad. Let us see what the future may bring.

The Pines of Garabandal

However, to offer a counterbalance, Pope Benedict and Archbishop Levada also cracked down on a visionary of dubious merit (me opinionating here),  Father Geno Burresi of the Fatima shrine of San Vittorino outside of Rome. This is old news from 2005, but in fairness to the Vatican watchdogs, it bears mentioning. Father Burresi was (is?) a renowned stigmatist who founded his own religious order and seminary together with a shrine devoted to the Virgin of Fatima at San Vittorino outside of Rome. The story is rather unsavory, so I refer any readers to John Allen's report in the NCR. But the gist of it is that Father Burresi was accused by several of his young seminarians of having lured them to his room at night where he then sexually molested them ("to the point of consummation", says the report!).  Here we go again, you say, and you would be right (echoes of Marcial Maciel). This is not the accusation that is at the top of the list, but it probably should be. How wearisome it all gets, especially when you learn of the efforts of Pope John Paul II to protect this man, even to the point of dismissing his accusing superiors from their positions of authority.

I visited San Torrino sometime in the 90's and was sitting alone in the large circular gathering area outside the shrine, when  Father Burresi emerged from one of the seminary buildings supported by two very young seminarians and proceeded to take an afternoon stroll around the circle.  His wrists were clearly visible bound with black stips of cloth. He cast one brief glance in my direction, but the two young boys (15-16?) watched me carefully like young hawks. At five o'clock, I attended his 'sold-out' Mass in the church and I have to say it was impressive. The Father possessed a demeanor of great dignity and gravitas and the moment of consecration was the most powerfully reverent I have ever witnessed. At this point, I don't quite know what to make of it all.  Surely he was not faking his devotion, no one could be that good of an actor, because it was a reverence that seemed seared into his very bones. And yet, call it instinct, but I trust the reports of the dazed and damaged seminarians who charge him with sexual abuse. And so it reminds me of some of the renowned Indian gurus of evident spiritual gifts, but not fully enlightened, who took their spiritual advancement for granted, whose sexuality was not yet fully integrated and who then used their spiritual fame as an excuse for indulging their not yet purified passions. The shock and scandal caused by such behavior is far greater than the abuse committed by a quite ordinary priest or minister. And Father Burresi was no ordinary priest. Every Good Friday, or so the story goes, he underwent the agonies of the Passion, his heart came to a stop and he remained clinically dead for up to 3 minutes, with two doctors on hand to revive him, just in case, which has never been necessary because his heart always resumed beating on its own.  Is this story a hoax, just a piece of propaganda, spread by his deluded followers? Who knows? But it does serve as a stern warning where extraordinary phenomenon in the mystical life are concerned. And so I tip my hat to Pope Benedict and Levada for removing this man from the public eye and confining him to a life of penance and contemplation (It's my understanding his victims were of legal age at the time of the incidents, but who can be sure.).

Why does life have to be so complicated with so many signs of contradiction?

But to end on an inspirational note which takes us back to the mystery of the Cross, the Shroud and the witness of Redemptive Suffering in the Church:

THE REAL THING

PADRE PIO AT PEACE

Read More

MORE ON THE SHROUD

Science by Press Release? 

An Editorial Response by Barrie Schwortz

October 7, 2009

(Taken from Shroud of Turin Website.)

I was away from my office and in Los Angeles yesterday when the story broke in the media that an Italian professor had "reproduced" the Shroud using techniques that were available in the 14th century. Although I didn't have my computer with me, my mobile phone rang again and again with friends calling to read me the story, so I heard the news almost immediately.

Upon my return late last night, my mailbox was flooded with e-mail, my answering machine was nearly full of messages and more than 20,000 people had visited the website since Tuesday morning. I finally was able to read the story myself at around 1:00 am.

Normally, I don't respond to this type of story, since the media rarely publishes the rebuttals anyway and the stories usually disappear by themselves after only a few days. In the end, giving it any attention at all usually only helps the author of the article and garners even more publicity for him because someone is publicly disagreeing with him. However, since so many viewers have written me, I decided to write this brief response in which I am expressing my own personal opinions on this topic. That is why I titled it an "Editorial" Response.
Frankly, knowing that the Shroud will go on public display again in around 6 months, I am not very surprised to see this type of story coming out, along with its resulting media coverage. This seems to happen every time the Shroud is about to go on public display. Yet whenever a serious scientific article about the Shroud is published in a peer reviewed journal, there is barely a ripple in the popular media. And now, once again, someone claims to have "reproduced" the Shroud, "proving" it is a medieval forgery. They made their claims via nothing more than a press release and got instant global media coverage. However, that is NOT the way science actually operates.

The author who made these claims states that he will make the details available "next week." In the real world of science, a researcher must perform his experiments, compile his data, draw his conclusions, write a formal paper and submit it to a scientific journal for peer review. The work is then examined by other experts, usually of the same discipline, before it is accepted for publication (or rejected). The data must provide a sound basis for the claims and be there from the beginning. Not "next week." And certainly not made public via a press release!

Sadly, in reviewing the article, it is apparent immediately that the author knows very little about the actual Shroud of Turin. He is not the first to suggest that the Shroud image was produced by red ochre pigment (iron oxide). In fact, he is at least the fourth to have proposed this theory in the last 30 years. Of course, this issue was anticipated by the STURP team in 1978 and a number of highly sensitive tests were performed that determined there was not enough iron oxide on the Shroud to be visible without a microscope. Iron oxide does not constitute the image on the Shroud. They also determined the image areas of the Shroud contain no more iron oxide than the non-image areas. It is more or less evenly distributed across the entire cloth.

Obviously, if the image were made in the manner detailed in the article, we would still find thousands of particles of iron oxide embedded into the image fibers of the linen and these would be clearly visible with just a good magnifying glass. Yet the microscopy done directly on the Shroud in 1978 revealed no such thing. These particles just don't go away on their own. STURP's instruments could detect parts per billion (a very small amount) of any substance on the Shroud and ALL known paints and pigments (including iron oxide) were excluded by the data. Interestingly, iron oxide is also a by-product of retting linen and the minute quantities found on the Shroud were pure and most likely the result of the retting process. The iron oxide used in red ochre pigment has many impurities and is rarely if ever found in its pure form.

I have stated on more than one occasion that making images on linen is relatively easy. However, making images on linen with the same chemical and physical properties as the Shroud is another story. Considering the massive amount of scientific data that now exists about the Shroud of Turin, anyone making claims such as these must submit their work for careful scrutiny and comparative analysis before drawing such dramatic conclusions. That has not been done in this case. Anyone making such claims must create an image with ALL the same chemical and physical properties as the Shroud, not just a few, if they wish to be taken seriously.

It has been demonstrated scientifically that the bloodstains on the Shroud came from direct contact with a body and are all forensically accurate. It has also been shown that the bloodstains were on the Shroud BEFORE the image was formed since the blood and serum acted to inhibit the image formation mechanism. There is NO image under the blood and serum stains on the Shroud.

However, to make this new "reproduction," the "blood" was added (using a different pigment) AFTER the image was created. Obviously, it is much easier to add the blood to the image than to first create the blood stains and then create the forensically accurate image around them, which is exactly what a medieval forger would have had to do to duplicate the actual physical properties of the Shroud!
Many of the bloodstains on the Shroud show a surrounding halo of serum stains that are ONLY visible with UV fluorescence photography. Also, the blood has been chemically analyzed and determined to include components of actual blood, NOT pigment.

A proper, detailed scientific response to this press release is now being drafted by the online Shroud Science Group and I hope to publish an in-depth article by true Shroud experts addressing these claims in the near future.

However, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the press release also stated the researcher "received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics but said it had no effect on his results." This is an interesting statement from someone representing a segment of the skeptical community that has frequently charged the STURP scientists with religious bias, implying that their data was somehow flawed because some of them happened to be Christians! Until such time that the data is made available so it can be properly examined and compared to the known data about the Shroud, I will not take these claims very seriously. And neither should you.

Barrie Schwortz

7 October 2009

PRESS RELEASE: 

Los Alamos National Laboratory team of scientists prove carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin wrong

COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 15 — In his presentation today at The Ohio State University’s Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton. According to Villarreal, who lead the LANL team working on the project, thread samples they examined from directly adjacent to the C-14 sampling area were “definitely not linen” and, instead, matched cotton. Villarreal pointed out that “the [1988] age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.” Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to the theory that the threads were spliced together during a repair. 

 

LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. This hypothesis was presented by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Orvieto, Italy in 2000. Benford and Marino proposed that a 16th Century patch of cotton/linen material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the region ultimately used for dating. The intermixed threads combined to give the dates found by the labs ranging between 1260 and 1390 AD. Benford and Marino contend that this expert repair was necessary to disguise an unauthorized relic taken from the corner of the cloth. A paper presented today at the conference by Benford and Marino, and to be published in the July/August issue of the international journal Chemistry Today, provided additional corroborating evidence for the repair theory. 

OHIO STATE SHROUD CONFERENCE

Read More

INTERFAITH REFLECTIONS ON THE SHROUD

One needs to pause before this image with reverence and respect.

Between 10 April 2010 through 23 May 2010,  the Shroud of Turin will go on display for the first time since 2000. It was scheduled to be displayed in 2025, but Papa Razzi has acceded to a request from the Archbishop of Turin to move the date ahead, though one suspects that  it might have been Papa Razzi who first asked the Archbishop of Turin to officially ask the Vatican to move the date ahead. Whatever the case, I will be among the first in line to view the ancient icon (reservations made here: http://www.sindone.org/

Ever since Ray Rogers, of Los Alamos Laboratories, reversed his opinion on the Shroud, between 2002 and 2004, and following the further disclosures of impeccable scientific articles in peer reviewed journals, (Thermochimica Acta 2005, Chemistry Today, 2008, and the peer reviewed conference paper last May at Ohio State University) I've come to believe that the Shroud is authentic, both as a first century burial cloth of a crucified man (supported by growing scientific evidence) and as the authentic burial shroud of the historic Jesus of Nazareth (an opinion beyond the reach of science, but within the realm of faith).

For those interested in the highly complex scientific issues involved here, these are the two leading sites on the web that discuss the Shroud: Shroud Story (more user friendly) and Shroud of Turin Website (highly technical), both sites offer numerous links.

To briefly summarize the latest scientific findings, the 1988 carbon dating results have now been discredited and that judgment has been confirmed by the scientific community. The sample chosen by the Vatican in 1988 was from a medieval repair patch and not from the original linen cloth of the shroud. Had the Vatican followed the protocols as asked and cut four small samples from four different areas of the Shroud, the mistake would not have occurred. After being considered a 'fake' for the past twenty years, the Shroud is now being increasingly seen as a genuine 1st century burial cloth. It would seem that in recent years the Shroud has passed through a startling 'death and resurrection' experience of its own. Secondly, among a host of other recent discoveries, the most significant has been the existence of a second image of the face of the Man of the Shroud found on the reverse side of the cloth. According to expert scientific opinion, this simply re-confirms in the strongest terms that the Shroud is not a human artifact or painting. Secondly, and most importantly, it strongly suggests a natural explanation for the initial creation of the image on the Shroud. What still confounds scientists and what some of them find the most interesting question is how the body could have been removed (since it was clearly removed within days of burial before decomposition could have damaged the image) without smearing the image, since the blood clots would have adhered to the cloth. Some scientists have seriously suggested, using language from the New Physics that is way over my head (and which invites scoffing and guffaws from the most hardened skeptics and at least raised eyebrows from the most tolerant of the rest of us),  that the body passed through the shroud in a moment of instantaneous dematerialization. This is enough of a suggestion to place one squarely in the realm of "Ha Ha Land" and one's views from that point on are no longer worthy of serious consideration.

Scripture scholar John Dominic Crossan had this to say about such theories:

We assume, dichotomously,  if the Shroud is not fake then the images we see on the cloth must have been miraculously produced as a byproduct of a resurrection event. This overwhelms modern sensibilities. Sensational theories in polemic writings—theories such as dematerialization or radiation coming from the body of Jesus—only magnifies our incredulity. 

 

It needs to be pointed out to the distinguished scholar that suggestions of dematerialization  or radiation are coming from credible scientists of impeccable credentials (see websites) and not simply found in 'polemical writings', though such writings may take up such theories and exaggerate them. But as I have already mentioned, it is not the production of the images that seems to be 'miraculous,' but the 'fact' that the images were not damaged upon the removal of the body. Bishop N.T. Wright, in his monumental work of scriptural scholarship, The Resurrection of the Son of God, (a book which despite it's 800 pages has not succeeded in convincing many) reaches a similar conclusion. From the point of view of biblical scholarship, he concludes that the early  Christians themselves believed that something very strange had happened to the body, but a transformation that did not result in the resuscitation of the corpse. From the point of view of faith, Wright concludes that the body underwent a transformation in the tomb, taken up into a new mode of existence and leaving behind an empty space. I have to say I find the good Bishop's arguments cogent and sound. He argues quite strongly that the early Christians had words in their vocabulary for a spiritual experience that a loved one was 'alive' in the Spirit, but instead deliberately chose the more radical language of 'Resurrection' which clearly implies a physical transformation. The spiritual interpretation of the Resurrection (a purely interior experience that Jesus is 'alive' in a new way in the Spirit) has always seemed a bit too 'thin' an explanation for the extraordinary transformation of the early disciples of the Risen Lord. We are in the realm of faith here, of course,  and there is ample room for belief in both positions, but I have always personally felt that the Resurrection of the Lord was accompanied by an extraordinary physical sign.

 

This is such an enormous issue, which I crudely summarize, but I only raise it in order to make the following foray into interfaith reflection on the Shroud and the Resurrection. In 1936, the great Indian sage, Sri Ramana Maharshi, whom I've featured on this blog,  was asked to comment on the Resurrection of Jesus. He said simply,

 

"Sometimes the Guru disappears." 

 

He then made reference to two of Indian's greatest saints from the past. "Manickavasagar is one of those whose body finally resolved itself in a blazing light, without leaving a corpse behind...The gross body is only the concrete form of the subtle stuff-the mind. When the mind melts away and blazes forth as light, the body is consumed in that process. Nandanar is another whose body disappeared in blazing light." (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, page 186-188)

 

Seventy years have passed since these comments were made and we have seen the advance of 'form criticism' and the 'hermeneutics of suspicion' and a whole host of intellectual tools which were probably not available to the saintly Indian guru, who was self-taught. After all, rumors abound in India to this day that Nandanar had been burnt by jealous Brahmins who then  covered up the murder by a miraculous tale of 'merging with the Lord." Nonetheless, Sri Ramana was a man of vast erudition where his own traditions were concerned and would have heard of such rumors and obviously dismissed them. One should also not discount the profound insight afforded to such a realized master.  His opinion clearly deserves consideration and respect. These are tantalizing mysteries, but in light of recent Shroud studies they offer a possible window into another dimension, and suggest a possible explanation for the mystery of the Resurrection. After all, the paranormal has always accompanied religious figures throughout history. In the Roman Catholic tradition, no one denies that Saint Teresa of Avila had to be restrained by her nuns from levitating in Church or that when visitors went in search of Saint Joseph of Cupertino the first place they looked was up at the ceiling! Padre Pio is on record commenting on his own powers of 'teleportation,' his ability to move his body instantaneously from one side of the monastery to another. Skeptics may guffaw, but the phenomenon was observed by too many credible witnesses. The Dalai Lama has also said (in a statement I read years ago and cannot source), that there are ancient Tibetan legends of very high Lamas capable of dematerializing their bodies at death. It seems that the highly realized spiritual master can access certain  spiritual laws of the universe which science in it's present state of development does not yet understand, and this rare access seems to involve the manipulation of matter. The suggestion that the corpse of a 'Divine Master' might be transformed in a blaze of light - does such a suggestion 'magnify our incredulity' - or does it leave us suspended in awe before a profound mystery of faith?

As a final comment, I've always been very moved by the number of Jewish scientists and scholars who have come out publicly affirming their belief in the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. None of these distinguished figures, some of them Nobel laureates, is lining up for Christian baptism. Belief in the authenticity of the Shroud as an indirect testimony to the mystery surrounding the death of the Nazarene does not automatically lead to acceptance of all of the Christian interpretations: Messiah, Son of God, Savior of the World. 

Barrie Schwarz, the Jewish scholar who runs the most prestigious scientific journal on the web devoted to the shroud,  has commented:

 

God must have a great sense of humor, because for the past thirty years, I've been trying to convince Christians that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth....Frankly, I am still Jewish, yet I believe the Shroud of Turin is the cloth that wrapped the man Jesus after he was crucified. That is not meant as a religious statement, but one based on my privileged position of direct involvement with many of the serious Shroud researchers in the world, and a thorough knowledge of the scientific data, unclouded by media exaggeration and hype. The only reason I am still involved with the Shroud of Turin is because knowing the unbiased facts continues to convince me of its authenticity. And I believe only a handful of people have really ever had access to all the unbiased facts. Most of the public has had to depend on the media, who always seem to sensationalize the story or reduce the facts to two minute sound bites from so-called experts who have "solved the mystery." Very few of these "experts" ever took the time to research the subject, perhaps in part because so much of the information was hard to find.

 

And in response to the endless doubts about the identity of the Man of the Shroud, Barrie exclaims with some degree of exasperation:

Who else could it possibly be?

Read More