Turin Shroud: American Scientist Claims Cardinal Dolan Suppressing The Truth…

Turin Shroud: American Scientist Claims Cardinal Dolan Suppressing The Truth…

david roemerScience and the Catholic Church
by David K. Roemer Ph.D

The purpose of [my] blog is to record the Vatican’s response to the complaint I filed on October 1, 2014, against the Archbishop of the Diocese of New York for suppressing my slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin. On March 30, 2011, a pastor in New York City cancelled my scheduled slideshow on the grounds that I was not promoting the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. Cardinal Dolan supported the pastor’s decision. The Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization suggested that I bring the matter to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The canonical complaint and all the correspondence leading to it is on my blog titled New Evangelist, David Roemer. Appendix III of the complaint is a reproduction of the complaint I filed with the Ethics and Member Conduct Committee of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers against Bruno Barberis, et. al., for rejecting “Science, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Theology, History, and the Holy Shroud” which I submitted to a conference about the Shroud of Turin sponsored by the IEEE. Dr. Barberis is an advisor to Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia, who is the Custodian of the Shroud of Turin. In my complaint, I argue that my paper was rejected because it explained why the Shroud of Turin was not authentic. Appendix IV is an book review titled “Cognitive Dissonance and the Shroud of Turin.” Letter to Holy Father (December 2, 2014) Letter to New York Province of the Society of Jesus (November 24, 2014) Letter to President of the Italian Episcopal Conference (November 20, 2014) Letter to Roman Rota (November 19, 2014)  TurinShroud



Since I’m no expert on science, full stop, and since I’m not scholarly enough to hold a scientific view on the authenticity or otherwise of the shroud, I’ll be interested to read what others say on this topic.  We’re not afraid of the truth here… if the evidence shows that the shroud is not authentic, it makes no difference whatsoever to our Faith. So, why would Cardinal Dolan suppress information which may cast light on the subject, one way or the other?  Whatever happened to “dialogue”?

Comments (116)

  • Therese

    Ah, a little light amidst the darkness of your beliefs. You are not a Catholic, Mr Roemer, if you believe that Hindus, Protestants, Muslims etc do not need to become Catholics. You would deny them the Truth because you judge that they already have “meaningful” lives. And who the heck are YOU to judge that? You deny Christ by such a statement, Why do you think that Christ died?

    I would also ask you a plain question, to which I would like a plain answer. Do you believe that Christ is God?

    December 12, 2014 at 6:13 pm
    • editor


      I look forward to your answer to Therese’s question plus this one:

      What do you think that Jesus meant by his very last words on this earth: “Go into the whole world, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost… teaching them [all that I have] commanded you.”

      There were no exceptions given – EVERYONE is to be baptised and follow Christ.

      How do you square that circle with your policy of leaving Protestants, Muslims and Hindus to follow their false religions?

      December 12, 2014 at 7:03 pm
      • David Roemer

        The Indian and Chinese religions believe in the existence of a transcendent reality and that perfect fulfillment comes from being united with this transcendent reality. This is the same as believing our purpose in life is to serve God in the hope that we will be with Him at the end of time. These people have meaningful lives, just like Catholics, and I am not interested in converting them.

        Nor am I interested in converting people who don’t have the gift of faith but keep it to themselves and give religion to their children. My ministry is to so-called atheists, agnostics, and liberal Christians who try to persuade people that life ends in the grave. You convert these people by telling the scientific truth about the Shroud of Turin about the historical truth about the Resurrection of Jesus. This is why I asked Pope Francis to correct Timothy Dumbkopf Dolan.

        December 12, 2014 at 9:04 pm
      • Athanasius

        David Roemer

        As Confucius say: Awa’ an’ bile yer heid!

        December 12, 2014 at 9:19 pm
      • editor


        Confucius said that? And here’s me thinking it was Rab C Nesbitt… Shows… one learns something new every day, one really does…

        December 12, 2014 at 9:58 pm
  • Therese

    Are you unable or unwilling to answer my simple question? I repeat: do you believe that Christ is God? This is not a difficult question and requires a Yes or No answer.

    December 12, 2014 at 9:08 pm
    • David Roemer

      To be saved you have to believe in and profess what the Catholic Church teaches. I believe in the Apostle’s creed. The answer is yes.

      December 12, 2014 at 9:23 pm
      • Therese

        Mr Roemer, are you constitutionally unable to answer a straight question? Do you believe that Christ is God? Yes, or No??

        Also, if, as you assert, one has to believe in and profess what the Catholic Church teaches, what becomes of those Muslims, Buddhists etc and their “transcendent reality”???

        You make NO sense.

        December 12, 2014 at 9:26 pm
  • Therese

    “The Indian and Chinese religions believe in the existence of a transcendent reality and that perfect fulfillment comes from being united with this transcendent reality. This is the same as believing our purpose in life is to serve God in the hope that we will be with Him at the end of time.”

    It is not the same, and you are placing your soul in serious danger with this devilish nonsense.

    December 12, 2014 at 9:16 pm
    • David Roemer

      Why isn’t is the same? God gives us bodies so we can communicate with our fellow humans. The resurrection of the body means being united with God gives us perfect fulfillment based on our human experience. According to Thomas Aquinas, God is a pure act of existence without a limiting essence. What is the difference between this and saying there exists a transcendent reality? According to Thomas Aquinas, faith in Jesus is of primary and doctrines are secondary. It is more important to believe Jesus is alive in a new life with God than believing in the doctrine of the Trinity. Hindus, most Buddhists, and all Western religions believe that Jesus is alive in a new life with God.

      December 12, 2014 at 9:34 pm
      • editor


        St Thomas Aquinas said nothing of the sort. You cannot quote the Angelic Doctor as you do without giving source references. Of course, anyone remotely familiar with his writings, knows that he has never separated Christ from His Church or made any such distinction between the Person of Christ and His doctrines. That’s utter nonsense. You are creating false dichotomies and putting them into the mouth of Aquinas. Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity so it makes no sense to argue that it is more important to believe in Jesus than in the Trinity. That’s like saying it’s more important to know David Roemer than to know David Roemer… Ridiculous. If what you actually mean that it is more important to do the holy will of the Trinity than to be able to define it, that’s a bit different… IS that what you mean?

        As to your question “why isn’t [pagan “transcendent reality”] the same? The answer is, because God has revealed Himself as Father, Son and Holy Ghost, NOT as one “transcendent reality” among many. God cannot lie, cannot deceive nor be deceived, and cannot contradict Himself. He cannot, therefore, chop and change to fit the desires of the various founders of the many world religions. He established One True Religion – Catholicism – and He instructs US to do all in our power to spread that truth and bring others into the Church. To leave people in their false religions is a manifest lack of charity. It is a scandal. I pray that you will think again. Stop reading the nonsense of heretics like Raymond Brown, study the authentic Catholic writers who preach the Faith without diluting it in any way. Oh and – crucially – begin to pray the daily rosary if you haven’t already started to do that. You’ll soon find your mindset changing: the heresies you are currently espousing will stare you squarely in the face and the scales will fall from your eyes – big time.

        December 12, 2014 at 10:02 pm
      • David Roemer

        I got my ideas about the historical Jesus and the Resurrection from Raymond Brown. Why is he a heretic? What about John Meier, Edward Schillebeckx, and Hans Kung?

        Also, I remember distinctly Norris Clarke, SJ, who wrote a book on metaphysics, saying in 1963, that Thomas Aquinas said faith in Jesus is more important than doctrine.

        December 12, 2014 at 10:41 pm
      • editor


        Click here to read a short article about Raymond Brown – this will do for starters. I should have been elsewhere half an hour ago, so I’ll respond to the rest of your post later.

        December 13, 2014 at 11:20 am
      • David Roemer

        My complaint against Cardinal Dolan has nothing to do with the Robin Brace article except for the statements he made about the Resurrection of Jesus. I could not understand them. This means, I think, I don’t understand you and you don’t understand me. Let me start with a quotation that makes sense to me:

        “…but Barth eventually became much more evangelical and can be praised for his ongoing fight against the liberalism of his age.”

        My understanding is that liberal Christians believe life ends in the grave, but say God exists to express their compassion for fellow human beings. They follow Jesus because Jesus taught peace on Earth and good will, not because Jesus taught about heaven and hell. Karl Barth is not a liberal Christian.

        I consider the following statement heretical, ignorant, and unintelligent because Brace is confusing the Resurrection of Jesus as an historical event and as an act of faith.

        “For sure, the resurrection of Jesus occurred in real time and space and the acceptance of this becomes clearer in Barth’s later writings but there remains a real sense in which ‘only the eyes of faith’ really see Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection, and it is nonsensical to others.”

        December 13, 2014 at 3:44 pm
      • Margaret Mary

        David Roemer,

        I always wonder why people say Jesus came to bring peace on earth, because he never said that, as far as I know. What he did say was that he can come “not to bring peace but a sword”.

        December 13, 2014 at 4:22 pm
  • Therese

    Your refusal to answer my question is telling. It seems obvious that you don’t believe that Christ is God, and yet you seem afraid to openly admit it. Why, I wonder? You are clearly not a Catholic, and should not purport to be one. You will not fool any Catholic who knows their Faith. You have been seriously misled by the heretical writings you quote above, to the extreme danger of your immortal soul. I will pray for you, but like Athanasius, I see no point in continuing to communicate with you.

    December 13, 2014 at 10:47 am
  • David Roemer

    As I explained to Pope Francis, there is a close connection between the discovery of the radiation from the Big Bang in the 1960s and the Shroud of Turin. They are both reasons to believe in Jesus. Jesus was a Jewish prophet and the Bible repeatedly says God created the universe from nothing. The Holy Shroud is a reason to believe in Jesus because it can be traced back to the 1st or 2nd century and there is no explanation of how it was created. It is wrong to say God caused the Big Bang and the Shroud is authentic because atheists are listening and it makes you look superstitious and irrational. You first have to explain why God exists.

    December 14, 2014 at 2:04 pm
    • Margaret Mary

      David Roemer,

      “You first have to explain why God exists”

      How do you do that?

      December 14, 2014 at 2:53 pm
      • David Roemer

        The argument for God’s existence is called the Cosmological Argument. It is an argument, not a proof. However, what transforms it into a proof is that practically all atheists, agnostics, and liberal Christians are ignorant, stupid, irrational, and dishonest about the argument. Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have an entry on the Cosmological Argument, bud do not know it, or understand it, or are lying about it.

        The argument is based on the observation that we have free will. This means we possess a center of action that unifies us with respect to ourselves but makes us different from each other: I exist and you exist, but I am not you and you are not me. We are finite beings. But finite beings need a cause.If all beings in the universe were finite, the universe would not be intelligible. Hoping or assuming that the universe is intelligible, an infinite being must exist. In Western religions we call the infinite being God.

        December 14, 2014 at 6:31 pm
  • Confitebor Domino

    You first have to explain why God exists.

    Well, go on then – we’re all waiting!

    December 14, 2014 at 2:58 pm
  • David Roemer

    I’d like to add that the first step to understanding the argument is understanding the mind-body problem. In my slideshow, at the end, I quote a biology textbook’s statement about the mind-body problem. The author knows only two solutions: materialism and dualism. Most atheists are materialists, but Thomas Nagel is not. He is an atheist who understands the mind-body problem. He understands that humans are embodied spirits. You can tell this from the title of his latest book: “The Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian view of Nature is Most Certainly False.” This means he is not ignorant, stupid, or irrational. But he is a liar.

    In the book he mentions four solutions to the mind-body problem: 1) dualism, 2) materialism, 3) idealism, 4) monism. Monism is the solution Nagel judges to be true. However, he calls the other three “traditional” solutions. This is nonsense the only traditional view is what he calls monism. This is the position of Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church. Dualism and idealism are just quirky bright ideas.

    December 14, 2014 at 6:47 pm
  • Christina

    Therese, I think he answered when he said ‘Jesus was a Jewish prophet’. Muslims believe this. Catholics believe that He was Himself the fulfilment of all the prophecies and the Son of God. Why have you all been so patient with the nonsense pedalled in this thread?

    December 15, 2014 at 12:08 am
    • Fidelis


      It’s because people are treated with patience on this blog that I like it, no matter if they are trolls – not that David Roemer is one. I think he is sincere but just sincerely wrong!

      People are scathing and nasty on other blogs when someone they disagree with makes comments, but on CT, everyone is allowed a fair hearing and most of the bloggers try to set them straight without being rude to them.

      Dr Roemer,

      I can see that you really believe what you write here but it is completely heretical and so you need to pay attention to the corrections given you on this blog and acquaint yourself with the traditional teachings of the Church, not pay attention to the “scholars” who contradict those teachings. They don’t have any authority.

      December 15, 2014 at 4:19 pm
      • David Roemer

        What is my heresy? Raymond Brown was accused of heresy in thIs conversation and Robin Brace was quoted. My response was to accuse Robin Brace of heresy. I suspect that many people who think the Holy Shroud is authentic don’t understand that faith is both a decision and a gift from God. In revelation, we believe exactly what God wants us to believe. Someone who says, “God hasn’t given me the gift of faith,” is admitting the God exists, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that they have a meaningless life. You can’t accuse such a person of having bad judgment. This is what Brace wrote:

        “For sure, the resurrection of Jesus occurred in real time and space and the acceptance of this becomes clearer in Barth’s later writings but there remains a real sense in which ‘only the eyes of faith’ really see Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection, and it is nonsensical to others.”

        I interpret this to mean Brace is criticizing Barth for not criticizing people who do not belief in life after death. This is heresy. This is like saying baptism is just a ceremony. Brace does not thank God for his faith. He congratulates himself for being more rational than non-believers.

        December 15, 2014 at 9:46 pm
      • editor


        Your heresy, it seems to me, is to accept the beliefs/claims of schismatics and heretics over the legitimate teaching authority of the Church.

        You accuse the Protestant Robin Brace of heresy – I paid a flying visit to that website (UK apologetics) where the following error is posted:

        “To focus on ‘keeping’ God’s law is an attitude and worldview which can never succeed for the Christian who must strive to walk with God in love and faith. The former was the approach of the Pharisees.” Robin A. Brace.

        “Keeping God’s law… the approach of the Pharisees?” Rubbish. This is a Modernist mantra, which makes no sense and has no basis in fact. Our Lord actually said: “…not one jot or tittle of the Law will pass away till all be fulfilled…” And “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments”.

        So, not surprising that you found Robin Brace guilty of heresy, since schismatics are so, by definition.

        Ditto the other Protestant whom you’ve mentioned more than once, Karl Barth. You are going round in ever-decreasing circles because you are reading the nonsense of these pseudo-theologians/biblical “scholars”, without having a solid grounding in the authentic Catholic interpretation of Scripture. Protestants, in any case, however well meaning, are, by definition, schismatics. They are outside the Church founded by Christ. Are you seriously suggesting that, nevertheless, the Holy Spirit will use them to enlighten us about the Faith?

        And the same goes for the nominally Catholic Fr Raymond Brown – a priest who cast doubt on umpteen dogmas of the Faith including the virginal conception of Our Lord. Why on earth would anyone pay the slightest attention to him when he can’t even get the basics right?

        As a scientist, I would expect you, David, to be aware of the central importance of sources. If you want to find your way from the USA to Scotland, you’d contact a reliable travel agent for all the necessary information about transport, accommodation etc. You wouldn’t ask someone without any serious credentials or authority, would you? If you did, you couldn’t complain if you ended up in Wales. I mean New South Wales!

        And my point is….

        The ONLY reliable authority in matters of religion in this world, is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church… a Pope who does not deviate from what the Christian community has always believed, what has been handed down from the beginning, and those Bishops who teach this same doctrine, in communion with him.

        I suggest you waste no time in studying the landmark encyclical on the subject of the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture, Providentissimus Deus and be alert, thereafter, to the limited role of bible “experts” and theologians.

        No Catholic is free to contradict the traditional teaching of the Church on any article of Faith, so any priest, such as Brown, who does so is immediately suspect and his writings are to be avoided. Barth, Brace & Brown – seriously bad news, David, all to be avoided, despite the fact that they sound like a firm of top lawyers. You have to laugh… 😉

        December 15, 2014 at 11:35 pm
      • Athanasius

        David Roemer

        You ask what your heresy is. Well, here’s a few of them.

        You deny the Divinity of Christ by calling Him a Jewish prophet, which is blasphemy as well as heresy. You deny the physical (bodily) resurrection of Christ, which is heresy. You uphold the practices of pagan Eastern mysticism, which is heresy and you assert that Catholic doctrine is of secondary importance, which is heresy. I trust those few examples answer your question.

        December 16, 2014 at 12:10 am
      • Lily

        David Roemer,

        I think you should read the link to the encyclical of Pope Leo in editor’s answer. If you keep on reading the Protestant exegetes you will definitely go astray. I’ve heard so many student priests and teachers saying they got so mixed up because they were reading Barth and Bultmann – Protestant scripture scholars always contradict the Catholic dogmas, and say that things like the Virgin Birth are myths. To avoid heresy, you need to know the teaching of the Church and how to read the Scriptures so that encyclical by Pope Leo will enlighten you.

        December 16, 2014 at 12:27 am
  • Athanasius

    David Roemer,

    What you represent is not a “slideshow” but a sideshow!

    I can well understand why everyone you have corresponded with regarding your eccentric (to say the least) theories has pretty quickly given you short shrift. Now, please be good enough to go peddle your mad ideas somewhere else. We are Catholics here, not Gnostics. Try the Jesuits, they’re generally into looney theories these days.

    December 15, 2014 at 12:48 am
  • David Roemer

    I don’t think anyone here grasps the gravity of the situation. I am accusing Cardinal Dolan of violating Canon 279, section 1 against pseudoscience, that is, lying about science. It the Pope ignores my complaint, I will ask the College of Cardinals to cancel his election and choose another Pope.

    You should consider what happened as a result of the Church’s condemning Galileo. Atheistic propaganda causes even devout Catholics to think the Church made a mistake. In fact, the Church showed a better understanding of science than Galileo. Galileo was insisting that the Copernican theory was a fact. The Church said it was just a theory. The Church was right. It was only 100 years later that telescopes proved the Earth moved around the Sun. If I have to condemn Pope Francis, atheists will jump on this and argue that religious people are irrational. I advise you all to search your consciences.

    December 16, 2014 at 4:53 am
    • Athanasius

      David Roemer

      It is clear that it is you who have difficulty in grasping the seriousness of the situation. I have named four heresies that you subscribe to and yet you bypass the evidence and start accusing Cardinal Dolan as the one at fault. Cardinals of the Catholic Church do not, as a rule, take lessons in orthodoxy from heretic laymen. It is you, then, who needs to search his conscience. I will say no more than this because you are beginning to look ridiculous.

      December 16, 2014 at 11:36 am
  • editor


    Canon 279 # 1 also says clerics are to avoid profane novelties – where to start!

    Your confusion is breath-taking. Even if your interpretation of Canon Law were correct, you clearly do not understand that no-one on earth has the authority to sack a pope – certainly not in the scenario you paint. You simply do not understand the nature and purpose of the Church, as opposed to the personal opinions of Catholics, including clerics, on secondary matters such as the Turin Shroud.

    You also bypass that part of Canon 279 # 1 which applies to Fr Raymond Brown and other heretics: “clerics are to hold to that solid doctrine based on sacred Scripture which has been handed down by our forebears and which is generally received in the Church, as set out especially in the documents and Councils and of the Roman Pontiffs.” Brown flouts that canon with bells on, yet you defend him. Your thinking exhibits confusion into chaos, David.

    Note: Canon Law rests on the assumption that we are living in normal times. If the pontiff departs from “what has been handed down by our forebears” (by, e.g. promoting ecumenism) then we may (and must) ignore his directives in favour of Catholic Tradition. We don’t have the authority to sack him however. If only! And since the Church has no authority to pronounce definitively on scientific matters, your worries are built on sand. No pronouncement has been made by the Church on the Shroud, and the most that could ever be said is that – as with approved private apparitions – it is worthy of belief/veneration. Not mandatory. So why are you wasting your time making the issue of the Shroud into something it’s not?. Cardinal Dolan doesn’t HAVE to “lie” about the Shroud – he’s free to think whatever he likes about it. Just like the rest of us.

    December 16, 2014 at 8:58 am
    • David Roemer

      The entire sentence in the Code of Canon Law on the Vatican website is “They are to avoid profane novelties and pseudo-science.” The Pope is the person the Catholic Church regards as Pope. Since the Catholic Church is infallible, it will stop recognizing as Pope someone who is in error. Saying the Holy Shroud is authentic is lying about science. It is like saying saying God caused the Big Bang, advocating the theory of intelligent design, or advocating creationism. It is pseudoscience.

      My slideshow says the Holy Shroud should be venerated and explains why it is a reason to believe in Jesus. Yet Cardinal Dolan, in writing, said I was “debunking” the Holy Shroud. If you read my complaint, you would know that atheists are now saying the Holy Shroud is authentic.

      December 16, 2014 at 12:12 pm
      • editor

        Wrong, David – the pope can be as much in error about science as he likes, it makes no difference to his status as pontiff nor does it change the indefectibility of the Church. You simply do not understand the nature of the Church and the papacy any more than the daft editors of the Catholic papers here who keep insisting that the Holy Spirit picked the pope. That’s NOT what the Church claims – the cardinals in conclave pick the pope and the Holy Spirit may or may not make His presence felt. Seems He was very busy elsewhere at the time of the last conclave!

        December 16, 2014 at 12:31 pm
      • David Roemer

        What concerns me is that saying the Holy Shroud is authentic makes the Catholic Church look ridiculous. Jerry Coyne is a militant atheists who has a blog. He wrote the blog below because of an absurd paper promoting the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. His argument is based on the carbon dating fiasco. My argument is based on the non-smeared blood stains. This is the link:

        December 16, 2014 at 1:32 pm
      • editor


        Whatever individuals say about the Shroud does not make the Church “look ridiculous” any more than the numpties (including the likes of Cardinal Schonborn) who support the hoax non-shrine of Medjugorje makes the Church look ridiculous, They make themselves look ridiculous and gullible but not “the Church”.

        I cannot impress on you sufficiently that whether or not the Shroud is authentic is a matter of only secondary (at best) importance in the great scheme of things.

        December 16, 2014 at 1:55 pm
      • David Roemer

        In defense of my sanity, I’d like to point out that I persuaded the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers to withdraw its sponsorship of a conference about the Shroud of Turin by filing an ethics complaint against Bruno Barberis, who is an advisor to the Custodian of the Shroud and an organizer of the conference. The Italy section of the IEEE tricked the IEEE into sponsoring its conference on the Holy Shroud. Who is insane? Me or Bruno Barberis?

        December 16, 2014 at 2:18 pm
      • Athanasius

        David Roemer

        Have you ever heard the saying: “You strain on a gnat and swallow a camel”?

        The authenticity of the shroud is the gnat. The adoption of multiple heresies is the camel. This is my final word to you.

        December 16, 2014 at 3:05 pm
      • Athanasius

        David Roemer

        Forget your slideshow. What about your heresies? These are much more important issues for your soul than the shroud of Turin. What is wrong with you? It is you who are proposing profane novelties and pseudoscience, can you not see this? Your most recent comment is now casting doubt on Creationism. I am seriously beginning to question your sanity.

        December 16, 2014 at 1:25 pm
      • David Roemer

        My last comment is about the IEEE and the Holy Shroud.

        December 16, 2014 at 4:15 pm
  • luis

    If cardinal Dolan refused the request, it was for a very good reason. Cardinal Dolan is a very good traditional catholic and is not in the mood to see relativism being spread around. The Shroud is real, Jesus already revealed it to some seers, even Jesus true face was reveled, so we do not need scientists messing with what they should. Period !!! As catholics, we are to obey the hierarchy, period !! I am sure Cardinal Dolan knows best

    December 21, 2014 at 2:39 am
    • David Roemer

      .I am accusing Cardinal Dolan of violating the section in Canon 279 against pseudoscience. Jerry Coyne, who is a militant atheist, wrote a blog titled “the-shroud-of-turin-why-religion-is-a-pseudoscience” when someone came up with the absurd theory that radiation caused by an earthquake produced the image on the Shroud. Saying the Shroud is authentic is pseudoscience and misrepresents our salvation history.

      Many devout Catholics, because of the power of atheistic propaganda, think the Catholic Church practiced pseudoscience when it condemned Galileo. It was only 100 years after Galileo that telescopes became powerful enough to see the Copernican theory was true. Cardinal Bellarmine was a better scientist than Galileo.

      Jerry Coyne thinks the Holy Shroud is a fake because he accepts the carbon-dating fiasco the Catholic Church supervised. The Holy Shroud is a reason to believe in Jesus because we don’t know how Gnostics created it in the 1st or 2nd century. It is a sign, as my slideshow explains. Some atheists, not Jerry Coyne and his like, use the authenticity of the Holy Shroud to give an historical explanation for the Resurrection of Jesus.

      December 21, 2014 at 12:39 pm
    • Athanasius


      What you say about the shroud is correct, but you’ll never convince David Roemer of the fact. If you’ve been following the exchanges on this thread you’ll realise that, whatever else he may be, David Roemer is not a Catholic. He is a poor souls lost in senseless arguments and Eastern mysticism, worthy more of our prayers than our debating time.

      I have to take issue with your assertion, however, that “Cardinal Dolan is a very good traditional Catholic.” With respect, that claim is almost as nutty as David Roemer’s.

      Cardinal Dolan is a Modernist who says the New Mass, approves ecumenism, permits Communion in the hand, etc., all of which things are solemnly condemned by the Church and the Popes pre-Vatican II. If you read St. Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis, for example, available online, you’ll soon discover that Modernism is exactly the same thing as relativism. For some, it’s moral relativism. For others, theological and liturgical. Cardinal Dolan, like most of the Catholic hierarchy today, falls into the second category.

      Upholding the perennial moral teaching of the Church is not sufficient to make one a traditional Catholic. One must also uphold the traditional faith and liturgical practices as well. Cardinal Dolan manifestly fails the latter test.

      December 21, 2014 at 3:53 pm
      • David Roemer

        All Luis did was restate his belief that the Shroud is authentic. This is all that you are saying too. Let me repeat: The Holy Shroud is obviously a fake because of the detailed image and unsmeared blood stains. It is also a sign or reason to believe in Jesus because no one can figure out how the Gnostics did it. You are robbing people of a reason to believe, and your are making Catholics look stupid.

        December 21, 2014 at 6:37 pm
  • Athanasius

    David Roemer

    Maybe the Gnostics didn’t know how it was done either. Ever thought about that!

    Anyway, we’re not going down this daft road again. You believe what you like and the rest of us will believe the evidence.

    December 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: