Restoration of Shroud of Turin is Completed

TURIN, Italy, SEPT. 22, 2002 (Zenit.org).- The figure of the crucified man imprinted on the Shroud of Turin can now be more clearly seen, following its restoration by experts.

At the official presentation of the restored shroud Saturday, Cardinal Severino Poletto, archbishop of Turin, explained that the purpose of the work was to guarantee the conservation of the cloth. The work involved the removal of patches sewn on the shroud 470 years ago.

The cardinal, who is the relic's pontifical custodian, said that the restoration was carried out with the permission of the Holy See (which owns the shroud), and in keeping with the advice of technical experts.

The restoration of the shroud, in which according to tradition the body of Christ was wrapped after the crucifixion, was carried out last June and July in the sacristy of the Turin cathedral. Work was done by a team headed by Swiss expert Mechtild Flury-Lemberg, former director of the Abegg Museum in Berne.

Thirty triangular patches, sewn by nuns of Chambery, France, in 1534, after a fire damaged the relic in 1532, were removed from the shroud.

Also removed was the "Holland cloth" sewn on the reverse of the shroud 450 years ago to preserve it. The work also enabled the removal of dust and debris that had accumulated on the cloth over the centuries. All the material removed has been catalogued and placed in safekeeping.

During the 1978 exposition of the relic, pilgrims read a sign stating: "Do not pay attention to the dark side borders." It was already evident at that time that the patches and Holland cloth made it difficult to recognized the figure of the crucified man that has remained mysteriously imprinted on the linen.

This sign is no longer necessary. The restoration makes it easier to recognized this image, which has undergone changes, since the holes the patches covered are now visible.

Cardinal Poletto said the shroud must not become a source of conflict, division or controversy, but a point of reference for deeper reflection and prayer.

He expressed the hope that Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II and John Paul II will be able to meet in Turin and pray together before the shroud. A great devotion to the shroud exists in Russia.

The shroud, measuring 4.39 meters in length and 1.15 meters in width (14.5 feet by 3.5 feet), has now been placed in a climate-controlled urn. The chapel of the Turin cathedral where the shroud is kept is constantly under surveillance.

The restoration resulted in a lot of digital information. For the first time, both sides of the Shroud of Turin have been reproduced on computers.

Cardinal Poletto said a dossier will be sent to the Vatican, which could then call for further scientific studies of the shroud.

There is historical evidence of the shroud's existence since the 14th century, although some historians say they can document its presence earlier, with stages in Jerusalem, Odessa, Constantinople and Athens.

A 1988 carbon-14 study, carried out in laboratories of Oxford, England; Tucson, Arizona; and Zurich, Switzerland, concluded that the shroud was made in the Middle Ages. Numerous scientists, however, challenged this result.

The Catholic Church has made no pronouncements on its origin. When John Paul II visited the relic in May 1998, he said: "As it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce itself on these questions. It entrusts the task of research to scientists, to arrive at appropriate answers for questions related to this cloth."

"What really counts for believers is that the holy shroud is a mirror of the Gospel," the Holy Father explained, emphasizing that there is a convergence between the Gospel narrative and the image of the man on the cloth.

How were the images formed?
It may be the David Hume's empirical-skeptical prescription on miracles is what we need to declare, at least philosophically if not also scientifically and historically, that a miracle did occur.

For those who read your link ("How were the images formed?), I thought the following excerpt from David Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding," as found on the Fordham University website, would be informative:

From David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.
In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

RESTORATION OF SHROUD OF TURIN IS COMPLETED