The Truth About the Shroud of Turin

Posted: October 2, 2012 | Author: David Roemer | Filed under: Correspondence | 1 Comment »

Letter to the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of New York dated April 12, 2012
Dear Bishop Sullivan:
The following is a letter of complaint against the pastor of the Church of St Paul at East 117th Street in New York, Msgr. Greg Mustaciuolo, Sr. Joan Curtin, and Sr. Pauline Chirchirillo.

Sr. Maria Madre de la Sabiduria, SSVM, invited me to give a slideshow/lecture (http://www.holyshroud.info) about the Shroud of Turin on March 30, 2011, at the Church of St. Paul. On March 27 in a telephone conversation, Sr. Maria expressed some concern over the fact that I was not promoting the theory that the Shroud was authentic. I suggested that nobody in the audience would notice that nuance. We agreed that Sr.Maria would address the audience after my talk about the Shroud. The next day, Sr. Maria left a message on my answering machine cancelling the slideshow.

I didn’t check my messages and arrived at the church with my projector and slides. It was the pastor’s decision, not Sr. Maria’s, to cancel my talk. The pastor said he thought I believed the Shroud was authentic because I am on the Shroud Speakers Directory at The Shroud of Turin Website (http://www.shroud.com). He seemed to think the Catholic Church taught that the Holy Shroud was authentic. He certainly believed the image was created with a burst of radiation when Jesus rose from the dead. He mentioned how moved he was to see the Shroud up close up in Italy, but he deprived the group that night of the same experience.

The Catholic Church grants indulgences to people who pray before the Shroud itself or an image of the Shroud. I feel my slides of the Holy Shroud are just as deserving of veneration as the cloth itself. I feel that the pastor desecrated the Holy Shroud by depriving his parishioners of the experience of seeing a miraculous artifact.

I contacted the other individuals by email and telephone to tell them about my slideshow/lecture in 2011. No one gave me any help or encouragement. I was pretty much given a runaround. I feel they desecrated the Holy Shroud just as much as the pastor of The Church of St. Paul.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Letter from Archbishop Sullivan dated May 10, 2012
Dear Mr. Roemer,

Your April 12th email to my office concerning Father Claudio Stewart outlines your complaint about him and Sister Maria Madre de la Sabiduria. I suggest that you should resolve the issue as it is personal between you and them. It is not a matter that requires my involvement on behalf of the archdiocese of New York as it is personal. I have shared your letter with Father Stewart and asked him to speak with Sister.

Sincerely yours, Bishop Dennis J. Sullivan, Vicar General

Letter to the Vicar General dated May 22, 2012
Dear Bishop Sullivan,

I got your letter of May 10, 2012, and had a lengthy conversation with Sister Maria Madre de la Sabiduria on May 17, 2012. There is no way I can resolve the issue with Fr. Stewart and Sister without the help of a third party.

What I suggest is that I give my slideshow/lecture about the history and science of the Holy Shroud to Sister and Fr. Stewart with other people in the audience, preferably Catholics knowledgeable about fundamental theology.

Religion produces conflict, conflict produces anxiety, and inhibition is a defense mechanism for anxiety. When it comes to the Holy Shroud, many people are inhibited from thinking intelligently. They have thoughts that give them some kind of personal satisfaction, but their thoughts cut them off from other people.

Fr. Stewart, for example, is personally devoted to the Holy Shroud. But he deprived his parishioners from learning about a relic about which over 1,000 books have been published.

I am a member of the Princeton Club at 15 West 43rd St., and can get a meeting room in the morning with breakfast cheap. Without breakfast it is more expensive.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Email sent to Cardinal George on July 10, 2012, and letter to Cardinal Wuerl on July 31, 2012
Your Eminence,

I’v developed a slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin that you can see at http://www.holyshroud.info. I told a number of officials in the Archdiocese of New York about my talk in 2011 with the expectation of getting support and direction. Instead, I was given a runaround.

Acting on the advice of Fr. Daniel Gatti, Alumni Chaplain of Fordham, I contacted churches directly. I was invited to give a talk at a church in Harlem on March 30. When I arrived with my projector, the pastor told me he cancelled the talk. His reason was that I was not promoting the theory that the Holy Shroud is the actual burial cloth referred to in the Gospels. I’v attached the flyer for the event.

The pastor deprived his parishioners of the experience of seeing the Holy Shroud and learning of its history and the science of the image. My presentation includes the prayer supposed to be said when looking at an image of the Holy Shroud. I feel the pastor desecrated the Holy Shroud. In my opinion, he is also deceiving himself about the history the Holy Shroud, which is part of our salvation history.

I filed a complaint against this pastor and the officials with Bishop Dennis Sullivan, the Vicar General. Bishop Sullivan’s response to my complaint and my subsequent correspondence is blameworthy in a number of different ways, so it seems to me. He is in effect supporting the actions of the pastor.

I’v already contacted Bishop David Ricken and Bishop Gregory Mansour of the Evangelization and Catechesis office of the USCCB in the hope that they would help me resolve my complaint against the pastor which has now escalated into a complaint against the Vicar General. They have not been helpful. Bishop Mansour told me in an email that he “believed in the Shroud.”

I’ll be grateful for any help or guidance you can give me.

If there is anything I can do to be of service to you or the Archdiocese of New York, please let me know.

Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer

Email from Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com) dated Aug 16, 2012
Dear David,

Thanks again for your inquiry. I forwarded your suggestion to the production team but they are not interested in another Shroud of Turin show at this time.

We discussed the Shroud of Turin with Dr. Niels Svensson just last year– If you are interested you can listen to the archived show by following this link: http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/how-did-jesus-die-pre-recorded-5000 and selecting “Listen” or “Download” in the upper right corner of the page.

Thank you and God bless, the Radio Department

Email to Catholic Answers  on Aug 18, 2012

What concerns me is that your production team believes the Holy Shroud is authentic, and doesn’t want me to explain the true history and science of the relic. The Patrick Coffin podcast discussed the Holy Shroud in a way that might cause Catholics, in this age of atheism, to lose their faith. The theory that the Shroud is authentic is farfetched.

The Holy Shroud is a sign that Jesus is alive in a new life with God, and the history and science of the relic should be publicized in an honest and rational manner. The pastor in New York City, who cancelled my slideshow/lecture, deprived his parishioners of the experience of seeing the Holy Shroud. The pastor was also unwilling to discuss the history and science of the Holy Shroud with me. I suspect that he was inhibited from such a discussion because of anxiety. Christians should not be anxious about their faith, but should give their reasons for believing and should summon everyone to believe in Jesus.

It is not just that one pastor whose behavior was fearful. All the cardinals, bishops, and monsignors that I have contacted about my slideshow/lecture have reacted in a way that shows the Holy Shroud causes them anxiety.

The disingenuousness of your response is another instance of fearful behavior. Catholic Answers never acknowledged receipt of my correspondence with the Archdiocese of New York about the Holy Shroud. The proposed radio show is not just about the Holy Shroud, it is about the existing conflict I am having with the Archdiocese of New York. Did you really expect me to believe you were not interested because you just did a show on the Holy Shroud last year?

Email from Jeff Mirus of Trinity Communications dated August 24, 2012
David–

The shroud is not an important point of salvation history, and the Church has never pronounced on its authenticity, leaving that entirely to the scientific community.

However, I can understand why a pastor would not want to sponsor a program debunking the shroud, as he probably believes (as I do) that the evidence is far stronger pro than con– and–more important– he is aware as a pastor how easily people can be upset in their faith on an issue which should not affect their faith at all.

Jeff Mirus, Trinity Communications

Letter to Cardinal Dolan dated August 28, 2012
Your Eminence:

I developed a slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin (http://www.holyshroud.info, attached transcript) and think you should know about the negative reaction of Catholics to my analysis of the science, history, and theology of the Holy Shroud. After sending emails to Newman clubs, Catholic colleges, and Catholic churches in Brooklyn and Manhattan, I got only one invitation to speak. To my chagrin, the pastor cancelled the talk at the last minute on the grounds that I was not promoting the authenticity of the relic. I am the only one on the Shroud Speakers Directory of The Shroud of Turin Website (www.shroud.com) who does not think the Holy Shroud is authentic.

My impression is that the question of the authenticity of this precious relic causes anxiety. Inhibition is a defense mechanism for anxiety, and everyone I have contacted seems to be afraid of even discussing the matter. Bishop Dennis Sullivan, for example, did not respond to my invitation of May 22, 2012 to attend a proposed lecture at the Princeton Club. My invitation was a response to his letter to me dated May 10, 2012 in answer to my letter of complaint against certain clerics in the Archdiocese of New York of April 12, 2012.

I’v included my email correspondence with Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com). There has been no response from Catholic Answers to my criticism of a radio show they produced about the Holy Shroud last year.

I also sent an email to Cardinal George that was not acknowledged. Cardinal Wuerl responded with the enclosed letter. I have also contacted Bishop David Ricken and Bishop Gregory Mansour. All are members of the Office of Evangelization and Catechesis of the USCCB.

The science and history of the Holy Shroud is part of our salvation history. The Catholic Church in America should broadcast our salvation history to everyone. No part of our salvation history should be obscured and covered up with half-truths and misrepresentations.

Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer

Enclosures:
Announcement
Transcript
Letters dated April 12, May 10, May 22
Email to Cardinal George dated July 10
Emails to and from Catholic Answers dated August 16 and August 18.
Letter from Cardinal Wuerl
Emails to and from Catholic Culture

Letter from Cardinal Dolan dated September 5, 2012
Dear Dr. Roemer

Thank you most sincerely for your letter of August 28, 2012, together with the enclosures. Your thoughtfulness is deeply appreciated.

To begin, Dr. Roemer, I don’t think that you should equate a lack of interest in your slideshow/lecture, with the Church’s unwillingness to determine the authenticity of the Shroud. Through the centuries, the Holy See has permitted the shroud to be scientifically tested, and there have been countless articles, books, and documentaries in this regard.

While I do no know Mr. Jeff Mirus, of Trinity Communications, I think the reasons he gives for the decision of the Harlem pastors to cancel your slideshow/lecture make perfect sense. Until the Church has made a final pronouncement on the authenticity of the shroud, with more pros than cons at this time, why would a pastor want to sponsor an event that debunks the shroud.

With prayerful best wishes for a blessed fall, I am

Faithfully in Christ, Timothy Michael Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York

Letter to Cardinal Dolan dated September 17, 2012
Your Eminence:

Thank you for your letter concerning the cancellation of my advertised (“Conference About the Shroud of Turin”) slideshow/lecture five minutes before I was to begin. The pastor in charge thought my slideshow was “debunking” the Holy Shroud because it gives an unbiased account of the history and science of this important relic.

The human mind is structured like the scientific method. The lowest level is observation, which requires paying attention. At the level of inquiry, humans ask questions about what they observe. This requires intelligence, and extremely intelligent humans invent theories or hypotheses to answer the questions. At the level of reflective judgment, humans marshal the evidence and decide whether a theory is true or just probable. This level requires being rational. The next level is deciding what to do with our bodies, which requires being responsible.

Intelligence is usually a measure of how fast or how slow it takes someone to grasp a theory or insight. In the case of religion, there is so much conflict and anxiety that people are inhibited from thinking intelligently and rationally. Humans have blind spots and are biased.

According to John Paul II (Slide #6), the Holy Shroud is a sign or a reason to believe in revelation because “no one at present can explain” the image. A related sign is the Resurrection of Jesus, which is an historical event that can’t be explained in terms of any other historical event. Whereas the Shroud is a miraculous artifact that everyone can see, the Resurrection is a miraculous event that cannot be seen. The Holy Shroud is part of the historical Jesus, and I consider its mysteriousness just as persuasive a reason to believe in Jesus as the Resurrection.

According to Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan (The First Christmas: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus’ Birth), the Resurrection can be traced to within a few years of Jesus’ death. Since Borg and Crossan do not have the gift of faith, this admission, and others like it by nonbelievers, proves Jesus appeared to his followers after he died. Crossan and Borg deny, however, that Jesus was buried in a tomb. On this matter, I side with Raymond Brown who said Jesus’ burial in a tomb is historically certain (The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: Commentary on the Passion Narrative in the Four Gospels).

The Holy Shroud is a reason to believe Jesus is alive in a new life with God not just because the image is inexplicable (Slides #7, #11 to #23, and #30). It is a sign because the Catholic Church believes in Jesus and the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Shroud and images of the Holy Shroud should be venerated (Slides #6, #8, and #10). As with all relics, it is not the physical object that deserves to be honored, but the person the relic represents.

A similar sign, as I explain in Slide #6, is the discovery in the 1960s that the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang, as this phenomena is called, is a reason to believe God inspired the human authors of the Bible because John says that God created the universe from nothing (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God …”).

I don’t consider the Big Bang evidence of God’s existence. The evidence of God’s existence is the spirituality of the human soul and the intelligibility of the universe. The lack of any theory of the Big Bang is evidence the universe is not intelligible, so I consider the Big Bang evidence that God does not exist.

The question of what caused the Big Bang brings up the much-discussed conflict between science and religion. One supposed instance of this conflict was the disagreement between the Catholic Church and Galileo over the Copernican system. I think the Church exercised better judgment than Galileo because the stars were fixed in space. The shift in the position of stars during Earth’s rotation around the Sun was not observed until a century later with the improvement of telescopes. This was not a conflict, but a disagreement between rational and intelligent people about evidence.

In my opinion, the controversy over whether the Holy Shroud is the actual linen cloth referred to in the Gospels is indeed a conflict—not a disagreement about evidence. The question of the Holy Shroud’s authenticity is related to the question of what caused the Big Bang because of the scientific question of what caused the bloody image of a crucified man. Fr. Manuel Carriera, a physicist and member of the Vatican Astronomical Observatory, thinks that the Holy Shroud is authentic and the image is an epiphenomenon of the Resurrection. He also thinks God caused the Big Bang.

Thinking God caused the Big Bang is just speculating about the content of revelation. Likewise, there is very little evidence supporting the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. These two theories are anti-evangelical because we live in an age where there are many people who think believing in God is irrational. Preaching the gospel means preaching to nonbelievers and preventing believers from becoming nonbelievers. This requires understanding nonbelievers and following Matthew’s advice to present Christian doctrine judiciously (“…neither cast ye your pearls before swine…”)

Many nonbelievers have a blind spot about the mind-body problem. They grasp only two solutions to the question of what the relationship is between ourselves and our bodies: dualism and materialism. They don’t understand the insight that the human mind is a mystery and humans are embodied spirits. It is a failure at the level of inquiry, not a failure at the level reflective judgment.

However, these same nonbelievers are intelligent and rational about the cause of the Big Bang. They realize there is no evidence that God or an angel caused the Big Bang. They reject the idea that the universe is unintelligible, and hope that science will someday understand the cause of the Big Bang.

Many nonbelievers will admit that the human mind is a mystery, but they consider the Big Bang a mystery too. This means they don’t know what a mystery is. They don’t grasp the difference between these two questions: 1) Why is the sky blue? 2) What is knowing the sky is blue? Christians have a duty to explain the difference between these two questions so that nonbelievers can understand why humans are embodied spirits and why God exists. We should build upon what people already know and understand. Telling stories about the laws of physics being violated only confirms the assumption that believing in God is irrational.

On March 30, 2012, the pastor’s congregation was five minutes away from seeing the Holy Shroud and being moved by the image. How would the parishioners have reacted to the theory (Slide #30) that the blood stains and body image on the 14-foot by 3-foot piece of linen were somehow created by heretics in the 1st or 2nd century after torturing and crucifying a volunteer or victim?

There is a 2002 movie titled Signs about a married Catholic priest (Mel Gibson) who lost his faith because his wife died in a freak accident. The priest regained his faith when his son survived an attack by an alien from another planet. The weapon the alien used was a dose of poison gas injected into the child’s nostrils. By coincidence, the child had an asthma attack and was unable to breath in the poison. The Mel Gibson character interpreted the coincidence to be a sign from God and regained his faith. My hope is that the parishioners would have thought it is quite a coincidence that there exists a two-thousand-year-old image—not a painting or a photograph—of the man who is believed to have saved mankind two thousand years ago.

My metaphysics teacher in college was Fr. Norris Clark who told us that finding oneself in error is wonderful experience because it helps us understand how other people can be in error. I’m praying the pastor sees that he made a mistake.
Yours respectfully in Christ,

David Roemer

Enclosures
Script of slide show
DVD of Signs

Email to Cardinal Gomez of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles dated 10/1/2012
Your Excellency,

I have a slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin (http://www.holyshroud.info), and have gotten into a conflict with Cardinal Timothy Dolan about it. The attached letter to His Eminence tells the story. The letter does not say so, but Cardinal Dolan indicated that he thought I was “debunking” the Holy Shroud. I’m hoping you will bring the matter up with the synode on the New Evangelization. My letter to the Archbishop and a transcript of the lecture is attached.

Sr. Paula Jean Miller, Sr. Sara Butler, and Fr. Ralph Martin have gotten this email, but they don’t seem interested in the subject of the Holy Shroud.

Asking Your Excellency’s blessing, I am, yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer

Email to Sister Mary Lou Wirtz dated 10/4/12. Subject: Re:Re Letter
Dear Sister,

I hope you agree that Cardinal Dolan and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which I have also contacted, is harming the new evangelization by suppressing my lecture/slideshow (http://www.holyshroud.info). All of my correspondence is at http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/. A related controversy is over the theory of intelligent design (ID).

I don’t have any ideas about how these two topics (Holy Shroud and ID) can be brought up at the Synod. But I can tell you about the conflict I am having with the Academy of Catholic Theology and First Things about evolution.

Evolution is the theory that life evolved from bacteria to mammals in a period of 3.5 billion years. There is a lot of evidence for it, and scientists judge the theory to be true. Creationists are including evidence from the Bible, which makes their point of view a matter of faith.

The only theory that even attempts to explain evolution is the theory of intelligent design, but there is no evidence for this bright idea. The theory of natural selection only explains the adaptation of species to the environment. Natural selection explains why giraffes have long necks, but now how giraffes evolved from bacteria in only 3.5 billion years. Biologists always speak of “adaptive evolution.” The old model for evolution was a tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a Boeing 747 in flight. The new model is a computer generating an English sonnet by the random selection of letters. The advantage of the new model is that you can calculate how long it will take a computer to do such a thing.

Advocates of ID compare ID with natural selection to make ID look better. Atheists go along with the scam because they don’t want to admit that ID is a better theory than natural selection, in some sense.

The second law of thermodynamics is that nature tends towards a state of disorder. This is why a gas will fill up the entire container it is in. The second law does not apply to biological evolution or the evolution of stars. Nevertheless, the American Journal of Physics published an article with an absurd equation proving that evolution did not violate the second law. The Catholic Truth of Scotland newsletter published my explanation of why the AJP should retract the article.

Stephen Barr is a prominent physicist who writes about evolution on the pages of First Things. He is also a member of the Academy of Catholic Theology. He told me in an email that I was wrong and the AJP article was right, and that I was harming the Catholic Church. In my opinion, Barr is harming the Catholic Church. Barr does not go so far as to advocate ID, but he doesn’t say there is no evidence for ID. His argument is that ID is not science. In my opinion, Barr is helping atheists propagate misinformation about evolutionary biology. Barr should be expelled from the Academy of Catholic Theology because he is lying about science (http://newevangelist.me/2012/08/02/first-things/).

I’v attached the AJP article and a version of the article published in the Catholic Truth of Scotland. These are some links to more information about my conflict with the AJP, First Things, and the Academy of Catholic Theology:

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf

http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/22/physics-department-of-new-york-university/

http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/02/american-journal-of-physics/

http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/23/american-association-of-physics-teachers/

http://newevangelist.me/2012/05/06/american-institute-of-physics/

http://newevangelist.me/2011/12/07/american-scientific-affiliation-2/

My YouTube video titled “The Truth About Evolution and Religion” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ) also sheds light on this issue.

Email sent to Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States on Nov. 13, 2012

Your Excellency,

Cardinal Dolan is suppressing my slideshow/lecture on the history, theology, and science of the Shroud of Turin (www.holyshroud.info), and I am hoping you can help us resolve this conflict. My correspondence with the Archdiocese of New York is on my blog at

http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/

Cardinal Dolan did not answer my rebuttal to his letter of September 5, 2012.

I’v attached a transcript of the slideshow.

Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer

Letter sent to Vatican on 11/19/12
Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella
Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization
Via della Conciliazione 5
00120 Vatican City State

Your Excellency,

I sent the following message on the contact page of http://www.annusfidei.va on November 18, 2012:

On March 30, 2012, I arrived at a church in New York City to give a slideshow/lecture (“The Truth About the Shroud of Turin”; http://www.holyshroud.info). To my dismay and chagrin, the pastor cancelled my presentation because it does not promote the authenticity of this important relic. After explaining the science, history, and theology of the Holy Shroud, the slideshow gives evidence that Gnostics created the artifact in the 1st or 2nd century with methods that have been lost to history.

I complained to Bishop Denis Sullivan, Vicar General, to no avail. My invitation to attend a proposed my slideshow/lecture was ignored. Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, sent me a letter saying I was “debunking” the Holy Shroud. He did not respond to my answer of this criticism, which is at http://newevangelist.me/shroud-of-turin/.

The Cardinal Archbishops of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington D.C. all ignored my requests for support, as did Bishops David Ricken and Gregory Mansour of the Office of Evangelization and Catechesis of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Archbishop Vignanò, papal nuncio to the United States. Most of my correspondence is at http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/.

The science and history of the Holy Shroud is part of our salvation history. The Catholic Church in America should broadcast our salvation history to everyone. No part of our salvation history should be obscured and covered up with half-truths and misrepresentations.

Respectfully yours in Christ, David Roemer

---