the Holy Shroud - The Shroud of Turin Website

THE HOLY SHROUDBy Peter M. RinaldiTHE publicity given to the HolyShroud during its recent public expositionat Turin did all but create definiteideas about this venerable relic in theminds of Catholics at large. Beyond thevague notion of a singularly preciousrelic of Christ's Passion and the visionof fervent multitudes, the Press couldpresent us with nothing better than a fewunimportant details on the eventful exposition.Yet things both new and soul stirringcan be recounted of the Holy Shroud ofTurin. This holy relic, which the Churchhas treasured throughout the centuries,lies no longer unknown in its triple silvercase amid the lofty splendors of the"Sainte Chapelle" at Turin. The meaningof its mysterious signs, whichthe faith of generations haddivined but not understood,science has now definitely andunmistakably disclosed. In alanguage which is both vividand impressive the Holy Shroudtells the story of the Passion andDeath of Christ. It is no wonderthat the Church should callon her faithful to read aboutand meditate on this . uniqueversion of Calvary's Divinedrama during the Holy Yearcommemorating the nineteenthcentenary of our Redemption.Thtis it wa that the extraordinaryexposition of the Holy ­Shroud drew countless pilgrimsto Turin.Eagerly and reverently theygazed at the double imprint ofa human body dimly outlined ona wide linen which the ravagesof time and fire have considerablydamaged. The vision ofthat first gruesome Good Fridaymust have dawned on theirminds in all its tragic reality.And what feelings have enteredtheir hearts but the feelings ofthose few faithful ones whocared for the body of their belovedMaster the night of thePassover nineteen centuriesago?When, on May 3, 1931, theHoly Shroud was once moreexposed to the veneration ofthe faithful, doubt was ratherwidespread as to the authenticityof the relic. Thirty-threeyears had passed since it hadlast been exhibited. If knownat all, the Turin Shroud wasknown more as an object of polemics thanof veneration. Even now, on the morrowof a new and extraordinary exposition,the Holy Shroud is but little knownin the Catholic world.There are, no doubt, many who willbe glad to know how far this claimthatwe have the actual Burial Sheet ofChrist-has been confirmed by the examinationsthat have recently takenplace. A detailed desct·iption of theShroud will help our readers to a thoroughcomprehension of the subject.The Holy Shroud is a seamless linencloth woven in the ancient Damascuspatterns, 4.77 yd. long and 1.20 yd. wide,showing a number of stains or markswhich differ in their origin and significance.Over two black lines runningTHE HOLY FACE OF OUR BLESSED REDEEMER­A DETAIL FROM TilE NEGATIVE PHOTOGRAPHOF TilE HOLY SIIROUD AT TURIN, ITALY.685the length of the cloth parallel to thesides, eight large burns are strikinglynoticeable. These are the signs left bythe fire which threatened to destroy therelic at Chambery (Savoy) in 1532.Prompt intervention saved the Shroudfrom destruction, but not from damage.The fire had singed a corner of the carefullyfolded relic, the scorching reproducingitself to the extent of the entirelength of the cloth. The mended portionsare the work of the Chambery nuns,who used altar linen in repairing theprecious cloth.These and other spots divert considerablythe attention of the onlooker fromthe two dim images (one frontal andthe other dorsal, placed head to head)of a human body in natural sizeoutlined in the center of the-linen. Even to the casual onlookerthis mysterious figure- reveals itself with the unmistakabletraits of the Crucified One.- But what is -the-true nature ofthis double image or imprint?Science was confronted withthis problem for the f-irst timeduring the exposition of therdic in 1898. The researchesto which eminent scientists appliedthemselves and in which-- the camera, the microscope andthe laboratory proved of the- utmost usefulness, have led todiscoveries so astonishing that; . they leave no longer any roomfor doubt about the authenticityof this famous relic.It is a curious -paradox thatwhereas eminent scientists(some of whom, like M. YvesDelage, are not even Christianbelievers) are willing to acceptthe Shroud as authentic onpurely scientific grounds, not afew learned Catholics have opposedthis view wholeheartedly,basing their opposition solely onhistorical gwunds. The outcomeof the violent polemicsthat ensued was that those whohad not directly examined therelic very rashly concluded thatthe-scientific evidences gatheredin 1898 were all too fragile towithstand the overwhelmingweight of historical objections.To them the images upon theShroud were merely paintingsexecuted in the middle of thefourteenth century.The difficulty with the his-

6$6torian of the Shroud is apparently veryserious. His efforts to reconstruct thechain of events that links the TurinShroud with Christ's burial have literallycome to nothing. The chronologicaldata at his service are all too scarce andoften even doubtful. The few documentsthat directly bear on the subject wouldseem to discourage any serious attemptto prove the Shroud's authenticity onmerely historical grounds. Besides, itmust be stated, other "shrouds" areknown. to have existed.THESE objections, which the opponentsof the authenticity advancedwith so much certainty, face to face withthe more recent examinations of the relic,have broken down irrevocably. In archeologywhen an object can supply itsown authentication it is of small consequencewhat may have been its history.Now the evidences gathered from theobjective examination of the TurinShroud are more than sufficient to warrantits claim to authenticity. This explainswhy opposing scarce and doubtfulliterary documents to scientific evidencesof the highest import has become, in thecase of the Holy Shroud, a rather discomfortingtask.Doctor Arthur S. Barnes who, to anextensive knowledge of the Shroud'sliterature, joins the experience of apersonal examination of the Relic, thussums up the scientific evidences gatheredin 1898 and fully confirmed during themore recent expositions:"There are four reasons, each of·whichcould be decisive by itself, and which,taken together, make any further suggestionof painting quite inadmissible. They·are as follows:"I. The process of painting on a fabricinvolves the deposit of solid particles ofcoloring matter upon the threads, so thatthese latter become partially or entirelyhidden. But in the case of the Shroudevery thread is visible, and no trace ofsolid extraneous matter can be detectedeven by microscopic examination. Thethreads themselves are stained more orless throughout, so that the same figures,fainter in coloring but otherwise identical,appear on the other side. Not thuswas any human painting done in thefourteenth century, or indeed at anyother time."2. Human work, however minute,necessarily shows outline and shading.It may be so fine as completely to deludethe unaided eye, but its nature at oncebecomes manifest when it is put underthe microscope. But these figures haveno outline and no trace of shading. Thecoloring becomes more or less intense byquite imperceptible degrees. The edgesfade away into the general fabric so thatit is impossible to say where the tint beginsand. where it ends. That effect ischaracteristic of natural processes; it isquite unattainable by human effort, atTHE t SIGNTHE HOLY SHROUD AS SEENBY THOUSANDS DURING ITSRECENT EXPOSITION AT TURIN.THE FIGURE OUTLINED ON THECLOTH RESEMBLES A PHOTO-GRAPHIC NEGATIVE,Vol. 1 3. No. 11any rate if unaided by any elaboratemechanical device."3. In the fourteenth century in Franceanatomy was not understood, and nothingwas known of the circulation of theblood. But here the anatomical detailand proportion is exact, the behavior ofblood flowing from a wound is true tonature, and the contrast between livingblood and dead blood is duly preserved.Even the characteristic way in which aclot of blood dries, the coloring matterthicker on the circumference than inthe center, is truly represented on theShroud, though it takes the microscopeto reveal it. But the realism of thefourteenth century was not of this kind;science had not attained to such detailsof knowledge, nor did men do work thatonly the microscope could test; themicroscope itself had not been invented!"4. The fourth reasoi1 carries convictionto the mind even more readily thanthose three already g iven. It is that thefigures upon the Shroud are shown reversedin light and shade, somethingafter the manner of a photographed negative.If they are photographed they produceupon the plate a positive picture,with light and shade more as we 1reaccustomed to see it. Even the expressionupon the face is perfect. But no humanbeing, even now, could paint in this way,not even if. he were an expert retoucherof photographs. Such a one might beable to produce a passable representationof a human body in negative, butto preserveso delicate a thing as the expressionon a face while thus reversing the lightand shade is quite beyond human skill. Ifthat is so even today, when photographyhas made us familiar with the phenomenaof inverted light and shade, how muchwas it so in the fourteenth century, whenthe very idea had not yet been thought of.Nor, even if it had been possible, couldthere be any conceivable motive whichwould have led a painter to work in thisway, and make his wod< so hard tounderstand."These four considerations are sufficientto put completely out of court thetheory that the Shroud is nothing but' ·amedieval painting. It should never beheard of again."THE double imprint upon the Shroudhas, then, all the characteristics of aphotographic negative (light and shadereversed, inverted positions, etc.) so thatif photographed it produces on the platethe positive picture of a man exact inevery detail, proportioned, artisticallybeautiful and endowed with a marvelousexpression. Through photography wehave the surest identification of thismysterious image and the ir'tefutableproof of the Shroud's authenticity.The magnificent photographs, takenin 1931 by competent Signor Enrie ofTurin and issued with ecclesiasticalauthority, have once more disclosed the

June, 1934astonishing characters of the figures ofthe Shroud.The stain images of the linen becomeon the photographic negative (plate) aperfect portrait of a dead body, andevidently enough of the body of a manwho has suffered crucifixion after a cruelscourging; who has been crowned withthorns and whose side has been piercedwith a lance. The face which on theShroud is quite meaningless, reversed asit is in light and shade, takes on thephotographic negative the wondrousexpression which has excited the admirationof countless artists. The woundwhich is to be seen in the left wrist (theright hand is covered ove1· by the left),while against all pictorial traditions, isin perfect harmony with anatomicalrequisites. The rivulets of blood visibleon both forearms would imply that thearms of the Crucified One were raisedabove the head. The arms had, therefore,to support much of the weight of thebody. The long nail, driven through thelower part of the palm, would have to beslanted downwards that it might holdthe better and not tear through the flesh.The wound on the back of the hand wouldnaturally come out on the wrist.THE wounds of the feet are strikinglynoticeable on the back image,part of the linen having been foldedback from the heels so that it lay alongthe bloodstained soles.The wound of the side is clearlysituated on the right (in proximity of themended portion of the I in en). The flowingof the blood is true to nature. DoctorP. Barbet of Paris can infer the trail ofthe lance from the position of the wound."It penetrated between the fifth and sixthrib, bored through the right lung andpierced the right auricle of the heart."The scourge has left traces of its gruesomework over the entire body; yet thebruises are particularly numerous anddistinct on the dorsal region. Theirshape, number (about 80) and distribution(two by two) enable us to infe1· thatthe condemned was inflicted the fortylegal st1'okes and that the two whip lasheswere provided with a metal strip. Butthe eye is irresistibly drawn to the faceof this mysterious figure. It is a truephotographic portrait because it has resultedfrom a negative (the stained imageof the Shroud) . The features are asimpressive as they are definite : the whiteshowing blood marks on the foreheadtell of the crown of thorns; the longsemitic nose shows a pronounced tumefaction; the right cheek is swollen; thelower lip slightly protruding; the hairstiffened by the sweat and the tricklingblood.Yet neither the insults of the mob no1·the agony of an excruciating death hasaltered the calm, serene, majestic expression·of this incomparable countenance.One can ·only cry out with ProfessorTHE t SIGNTHE HOLY SHROUD AS IT AP­PEARS ON THE PHOTOGRAPHICNEGATIVE PLATE. THE FIGUREIS NO LONGER NEGATIVE, BUTHAS TURNED POSITIVE. NOTETHE DISTINCT BODY.687Yves Delage, non-Catholic and non­Christian as he was, "Who but theChrist could impress this image on theShroud?"Some there are, even among the morelearned admi1·ers of the Holy Shroud,who would not entirely eliminate thesupernatural factor in dealing with thisrelic. They see something more than themerely ordinary course of nature in theway with which God was pleased to leaveto His Church so striking a memorial ofthe Passion of His Son. The scientist,however, believes himself to have reacheda very definite conclusion as to the originof the Shroud's images. Whatever providentialguiding there may have been,their origin, he holds, was natural.CLEARLY, these images are not thework of an artist; consequentlythey can only have been caused by someinfluence proceeding from an actual bodywhich was laid upon one half of the sheetand then covered with the remaining portion.But under what circumstances cana dead body produce upon the linen whichsurrounds it definite images of itself suchas we see upon the Shroud? Two arethe requisites determined by laboratoryexperiments: first, a coloring substance. on the linen, which being thus madesusceptible of impression, would actmuch like the sensitized plate in thecamera; second, a fluid emanated fromthe body which determining a reactionwith the coloring substances causes indeliblestains to be formed on the linen.This fluid is evidently a gas since it actsat a distance and by osmosis throughwhatever linen cloths that might separatethe sheet from direct contad withthe skin. Furthermore it must draw itsorigin from the blood. The stain imagesof the Shroud show that the emanationhas been present in greater activit'ywhere the flesh was bruised and most ofall in the blood itself.Now physiology points to urea, preser.tboth in the clotted blood and in thesweat, as a substance which yield s firstcarbonated ammonia and then ammoniacalgases. Experiments have shown thatalkaline substances, such as ammonia,react with a principle of the aloe; forminga reel-brown colored and coloringsubstance.It was following these considerationsand the Gospel narratives that PaulVignon, Professor of Biology in theInstitut Catholique of Paris, framed hisfamous theory of "contact" experimentedand accepted as the most probable explanationof the Shroud's images byeminent professors of the SorbonneUniversity.The body of the Redeemer was givena hurried and temporary burial. We insiston this fact because, while it answersto truth, it is of capital importance to thetheory."The sabbath drew on" (Luke 23, 54)

688and the usual ceremonies had to be postponedto the first clay after the hallowedseason of rest. The fact that the women"returning prepared spices and ointments"(Lnke 23, 56) implies that thebody had not been anointed at all. St.John says that "they bound it in linencloths with spices, as the manner of theJews is to bury." (! ohn 19, 40.) He doesnot say that they went through all theoperations after the manner of the Jews.It is rather arbitrary, then, to infer fromthat text that the body was washed,anointed and wrapt with the long linenbands. What would the women come tothe tomb for early on Sunday morning?Still unprepared for the definite burial,the Body of the Savior was laid uponone half of a "clean linen cloth" and thencovered with the other half. This linen,purchased by Joseph of Arimathea onthe spur of the moment (Marll 15, 46),had been profusely spread with the spices(a compound of myrrh and aloes groundand mixed together) provided by Nicodemus(John 19, 39). It is quite certainthat some smaller linens were used besidesthe wide sheet. The hands, reverentlycomposed together, were boundwith a strip of cloth. The napkin referredto by St. John (! ohn 20, 7) wasprobably put about the head to hold thechin into position. A cloth was quitecertainly placed about the loins wherethe hands rested.Joseph, after having thus "wrappedthe body in the clean linen cloth laid itin his own new monument" (Matt. 27,THE t SIGN60) ; "there," adds St. John, "because ofthe parasceve of the Jews, because thesepulchre was nigh at hand." It was,then, but a temporary deposition theyprovided for the body of their belovedMaster, and this in view of the definiteburial they would give It soon after thehallowed repose of the Great PaschalSabbath.THE Body which the Shroud envelopedwas exceptionally fit to producethe amount of ammonia necessary for thereaction. An agony of sorrow and of dismayhad drawn from its pores a heavyperspiration of blood, particles of whichremained hidden along the channels ofthe sweat glands. Then, the scourging,the crowning with thorns, the tragicjourney up Calvary, the crucifixion, theviolent death after hours of untold sufferings.These were the determiningcauses of an abundant emanation of ammoniacalgases which, developing fromthe dissolving urea, reacted with thealoe on the Shroud.The ammoniacal vapors did not equallyreact on the different parts of the sheet.The linen was stained through andthrough; very strongly at those pointswhere there had been actual contact, lessintensely precisely in porportion to thedistance which separated that particularportion of the Body from the surface ofthe sheet. The blood and the bruises actedmost strongly of all, and made darkerand redder stains. The images thusformed present the appearance of aVol. 1 3. No. 11photographic negative, with light andshade reversed from the effect ordinarilyproduced upon our eyes.As to the probability of this theory,which still enjoys the favor of manylearned admirers of the Turin Relic, wewill observe with Doctor Barnes that toreproduce the conditions of the crucifixionis obviously impossible. Once it isgranted that the images like those on theShroud may conceivably have beencaused by slow chemical action of thiskind, there is little to be gained by furtherexperiment. But it will be well to notethat all the four points, mentioned beforein order to prove that in the case of theShroud we are not dealing with anyhuman production, are precisely thosewhich would certainly be present in anysuch work of nature.Does the theory of contact exclude thesupernatural factor?When we think of the unusual processthat has caused the images on the Shroudand consider all the circumstances thatwere necessary for their production, wecannot but admire the Providence of GodWho was pleased to leave to the Churchand to the world the material documentof the Passion and Death of Christ. Andif by a new and no less admirable trait ofHis Providence, it has pleased Him toreveal to us the figure of the sufferingGod-Man, it is doubtlessly in order tocall us to a greater and deeper appreciationof His love for us. "He hath lovedus, and hath delivered himself for us."(Eph. 5, 2.)UNCLE SAM: INVESTORThe Government Enters the Investment MarketBy Gerhard HirschfeldN GW that the wheels of industryare turning again, that more men go towork and larger pay envelopes find theirway into millions of happy homes, oldfriends are showing up again: doubts inthe Government's wisdom, complaintsabout retarding what is convenientlyca1led the natural process of business recovery,and last, but by no means least,a rather tardy self-awakening of privatebusiness, proudly proclaiming its abilityto pull itself up by its own bootstraps.We have not heard much from privatebusiness since the spring of 1933 when itwas not precisely ambitious to get anywhere,except out of the red. Occasionally,it was accused of code violation;more often, it showed itself ready to cooperate,or, at least, careful not to takeany direct attitude toward, in favor oragainst, the New Deal, as long as thecourse of business was not more definitelyascertained.The time has come now when evenconservative business interests admit thegeneral improvement that has takenplace in almost every field and branch.And, with the assurance of a limitedamount of business recovery, there hascome an also limited amount of oppositionon the part of private business.There is, as you can convince yourselfin your daily routine of news digesting,opposition to further restriction of production,to further reduction of workinghours, to code administration, and manyother prominent New Deal measures.One of the more important attacksdeals with the complaint that the Governmentis competing with privatecapital in seeking investment opportunities.The recovery program absorbsmany a million dollars which, in normalyears, would have gone directly to industry.By the middle of next year, it is estimated,the Government will have spentmore than ten billion dollars for purposeswhich, in former years, attractedprivate capital, for instance, loans tobanks, to farmers, to home owners, railroads,mortgage companies, power trusts,and the like. There is truth in thischarge. The Government is, indeed, in-