Not politics, but religion this time.
There is a local showing of a replica of the Shroud of Turin on display at St. Nicholas Ukrainian Catholic Church in Wilmington. (I will hold off giggling about the use of the phrase "Vatican-approved replica" of an item whose authenticity has never been proven.)
Many are queuing up to see the replica of the supposed shroud in which Jesus was buried, and they are in full (replica) religious ecstasy, apparently:
I DO have a major problem with the News Journal article that NEVER takes into account the many controversies surrounding the authenticity of the Shroud.
While neither I nor anyone else can call the case "closed" in either direction (though I definitely have my own opinions at variance with those of Mr. Dawson), it strikes me as the worst sort of journalistic malpractice NOT to at least mention the decades of scientific controversy over the Shroud's provenance.
Ironically, the Catholic Encyclopedia does a far better job of placing the controversies about the Shroud in context than does our New Journal reporter.
There is a local showing of a replica of the Shroud of Turin on display at St. Nicholas Ukrainian Catholic Church in Wilmington. (I will hold off giggling about the use of the phrase "Vatican-approved replica" of an item whose authenticity has never been proven.)
Many are queuing up to see the replica of the supposed shroud in which Jesus was buried, and they are in full (replica) religious ecstasy, apparently:
“The shroud itself is 14 feet long, in a glassed encasement that’s 3 feet wide and raised up at an angle,” says parishioner Jerry Dawson, who is also a member of the Knights of Columbus who are helping organize the event. “You are moved when you see it, but when you listen to the DVD that explains the history of the shroud and the science of the shroud, then you really do understand that it’s the garment that Jesus was buried in.”I don't have any particular problem with Mr. Dawson holding the belief that this IS the burial shroud of Jesus, based on the DVD he watched, but ...
I DO have a major problem with the News Journal article that NEVER takes into account the many controversies surrounding the authenticity of the Shroud.
While neither I nor anyone else can call the case "closed" in either direction (though I definitely have my own opinions at variance with those of Mr. Dawson), it strikes me as the worst sort of journalistic malpractice NOT to at least mention the decades of scientific controversy over the Shroud's provenance.
Ironically, the Catholic Encyclopedia does a far better job of placing the controversies about the Shroud in context than does our New Journal reporter.
Comments