We'll receive a $25,000 grant if others match it by Pentecost. $24,070 to go. Your gift will be doubled!
Click here to advertise on CatholicCulture.org

Shroud is fake: British journalist

Catholic World News - December 21, 2011

Tom Chivers of the Daily Telegraph insists that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery. Chivers lightly dismisses the latest finding that there is no plausible scientific explanation for the image on the cloth, and bases his own skepticism mainly on Carbon-14 testing results, which have been called into question by subsequent research.

Chivers does, however, make the accurate observation that the truth of Christianity does not stand or fall on the evidence of the Shroud.

Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:

Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!

Our Spring Challenge Grant
Progress toward our Spring Challenge Grant goal ($24,070 to go):
$25,400.00 $1,330.00
95% 5%
Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 3 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: Chelle,SFO-MI - Dec. 21, 2011 8:00 PM ET USA

    Christianity doesn't stand or fall on the scientific evidence of the Shroud's authenticity...but what is sad is the failure of human beings to recognize a gift of love when they see it...that's what is truely shameful about the skeptics and all their years of arguing about one stupid FAILED "scientific" test.

  • Posted by: Chestertonian - Dec. 21, 2011 5:36 PM ET USA

    And, what is Chivers' expertise? Is he perhaps a scholar and expert on ancient textiles, or an expert on historical forensics, or is he merely a journalist who writes about scientific topics? I believe the latter is correct, so unless he has some new, accurate, evidence to the contrary, he should keep his opinions to himself. Concur also with AgnesDay, and add that the Shroud is further evidence of the Cross and Resurrection. A blessing, like the tilma image of OL of Guadalupe.

  • Posted by: AgnesDay - Dec. 21, 2011 1:18 PM ET USA

    Actually, the article isn't quite as ignorant as it appears on first reading. Where it falls apart is that the author asserts that an authentic Shroud is meaningless and signifies nothing. Untrue. An authentic Shroud reveals a God Who leaves the mark of His Lordship where He wills. Who is Mr. Chivers to suggest that He should not do so?

Matching Campaign
Subscribe for free
Click here to advertise on CatholicCulture.org
Shop Amazon

Recent Catholic Commentary

A silent scandal: Catholic schools promoting morally unacceptable vaccines 4 hours ago
A More Militant Church? 5 hours ago
How we'll know if the Vatican and the US hierarchy are serious about deposing negligent bishops 5 hours ago
Final take on the LCWR: A time to plant, a time to uproot 8 hours ago
With the LCWR, has the Vatican taken Gamaliel's advice? 11 hours ago

Top Catholic News

Most Important Stories of the Last 30 Days
Pope challenges world leaders' silence on persecution of Christians CWN - April 6
Pope outlines plans for the extraordinary jubilee of mercy CWN - April 13
Vatican completes doctrinal assessment of Leadership Conference of Women Religious CWN - April 16
Pope accepts resignation of Bishop Finn CWN - April 21