Ethics Complaint Against Bruno Barberis

google-site-verification: google85f4c6796d92a2dc.html

Affidavit

My current legal name is David Roemer, and I am retired. I am presently 72 years old.

1) I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (No. 93091561).

2) I believe the members of the IEEE named in this document are guilty of behaving unethically, and am asking the Ethics and Member Conduct Committee to investigate this allegation and take the appropriate action.

3) I submitted the enclosed paper to an IEEE conference that requested philosophical papers, and received the enclosed rejection letter. On July 17, 2014, I emailed these two documents to the Vice President of Publication Services and Products, Gianluca Setti, with an account of my attempts to persuade the Italy Section and the conference organizers to accept my paper:

Dear Dr. Setti,
The rejection notice is dated June 30, and I responded as follows on July 4:

Dear Dr. Barberis and Dr. Lattarulo,
I’d appreciate your reconsidering your decision. I find the review unintelligible. If you don’t reconsider, I’ll be sending copies of this review, along with my paper, to all the members of the ATSI committee.

I want to go to Bari, give my paper, and answer any questions you might have about my submission.

I also emailed Amir Sandler, a Committee Member from Israel, who said that the reviewer gave “sound reasons.” This was my response, which I also sent to Ermanno Cardelli, another Committee Member:

Dear Dr. Sandler,
I don’t think there is any “sound reason” in the reviewer’s comments about my submission. In fact, I consider the review so absurd that it raises ethical questions about the committee’s commitment to the integrity of science and the ethical code of the IEEE. I have these comments to make about the review:

“Let’s bring to the heart of the problem regarding the quality of the submitted paper: all aspects of the TS invariably calls into question the person of Jesus Christ. The fact that the TS has been conserved up to now could either imply that it is a fake that goes far back in time or it is the true linen in which the corpse of Jesus Christ was wrapped.”

My paper argues that the Holy Shroud was created by Gnostics in the 1st or 2nd century. Using the word “fake” to describe this theory of Robert Drews betrays an irrational emotional attachment to the theory that the Holy Shroud is authentic. Gnostics venerated Jesus as a wise man and created the cloth out of veneration and with a desire to tell the story of Jesus’ passion.

“Provided the second hypothesis, corroborated up to now by stockpiled evidence, is assumed, then the resurrection of Jesus Christ could tacitly be understood, because if it didn’t the TS would have been destroyed in the brief course of the corpse corruption.”

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is both an object of faith and an historical event. As an historical event, it refers to the renewed fellowship of the followers of Jesus after the crucifixion. As an act of faith, it refers to the belief that Jesus is alive in a new life with God. The “stockpiled evidence” supports the Gnostic theory as well as the authenticity theory. My paper explains why the idea that the Shroud is authentic is irrational.

“Of course, this is only an example of reasoning. Note that even the scientific thinking advances, as the case may be, involving educated guesses, with all due respect to those which turn off immediately with apodictic – paradoxically non-scientific – pose when the above-mentioned guesses apply, say, to the Shroud.”

It is hardly a guess to say that the Holy Shroud was created by human beings. All images are created by humans. It should be the foundation of any inquiry into how the Shroud was created.

“What exactly regards Jesus Christ as Son of God, namely His identification with the risen Lord, invariably needs to be referred to His incarnation. This applies to any investigation, irrespective of whether the investigator is a worshipper or not. Contrary to a stagnant gnosis, there is a general consensus on regarding incarnation even from some attainable, practical aspects. This is the case when attention is paid to the available attestations of personally or collectively tangible, palpable, detectable, intelligible experiences, as well as purely terrestrial events and circumstances. As a consequence, any sagacious investigator that deals with this sensitive topic prefers not to get the still unresolved, vague – to the point of boredom! -, misleading problem, say, of the Big Bang in place!”

An honest and rational review would attempt to understand the connection I tried to make between the Big Bang and the Holy Shroud.

“The resurrection and what revolves around this crucial event – this is the case for the Turin Shroud – has nothing to do, let’s say with different words, with the “Chief World Systems” and cannot give someone room to slightest hints, sterile and pointless appraisals, as well as pseudo-philosophical lucubration to any large extent. What is conclusively demanded is that the author might be prone to appropriately propose any starting conjecture, at will, before working out a self-consistent view of the matter; if not, the approach runs the risk to be a waste of time. Unfortunately, this is the case for the paper at hand.”

This is not a critique of my explanation of the difference between science, metaphysics, philosophy, theology, and history.

“Roughly but bluntly speaking again, what caused the Big Bang, as well as taking a philosophical hike on derived issues, is not concern of this forum unless the investigation is, hypothetically speaking, so revised as to resolutely point, here and now, toward substantial, mature, convincing arguments focused on tentatively proving whether the TS is a fake or not. Since this is not realistically happening with reference to the paper under examination, then it is to be rejected without a second thought.”

The author is not answering my explanation of why the Shroud is not authentic.

“Supportive of the above detrimental judgment are the following specific details: there is a broad and valuable consensus in supporting the existence of God exactly through the Big Bang theory! This should have been adequately considered in the submitted paper, whatever the author’s persuasion;- the author seems to get theology and religions history mixed up.”

My paper explains why the Big Bang is evidence that God does not exist. A reasoned review, and not an emotional tirade, would attempt to refute my explanation.

On July 7, I got this email from Ermanno Cardelli:

Dear Dr. Roemer,
I have turned your mail to the organizers of the Symposium. I am not in charge for the paper rejection issue, but I’m certain the Publication committee will properly address your complaints.

On July 9, I got this email from Dr. Barberis and Dr. Lattarulo:

Dear Dr. Roemer,
Your paper #1569970437 (‘Science, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Theology, History, and the Holy Shroud’) submitted to the IEEE 2014 Workshop on Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation has been rejected because of all the Reviewers provided us a negative assessment about the scientific content. Please note that, according to the IEEE rules, we are not able to reconsider your paper for presentation at the Workshop.

This was my response:

Dear Bruno and Francesco,
What rule is that? It may be inappropriate to overrule a review that is within the bounds of reason. However, in this case, the reviewer is rejecting my paper because it explains why the Holy Shroud is not authentic. If the reviewers for this workshop are emotionally attached to the authenticity of the Holy Shroud, all of the papers accepted are tainted. I consider it my Christian duty to advise the editor of the IEEE Xplore Digital Library of this shortcoming of ATSI 2014.

I explain in my paper that it is the job of scientists to explain the Big Bang and how humans created the image on the Holy Shroud. Your conduct is similar to the unethical behavior of Richard Sternberg, who edited a peer-reviewed article about evolutionary biology that was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Association of Washington (“The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories”). It was a review article about the Cambrian explosion, and at the end of the article the author plugged the theory of intelligent design (ID). The peer-reviewers thought this was a harmless philosophical addendum that did not detract from the scientific value of the paper. It became the first peer-reviewed science article arguing in favor of ID. Dr. Sternberg behaved unethically because he should have deleted the reference to ID, or consulted with another editor. He was publicly criticized for his behavior. He could not be fired because his 9 to 5 job was with the Smithsonian Institute.

What happened to him at the Smithsonian Institute shows how much scientists, at least in the United States, hate pro-religion pseudoscience. The title alone of a 26-page congressional report criticizing the Smithsonian Institute tells the whole story: “Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution” (December 2006).

On July 14, 2014, I got this email from Dario Petrie:

Dear Dr. Roemer,
I am very sorry that your paper couldn’t be accepted for presentation at the ATSI 2014 Workshop. This was because all the Reviewers provided a negative assessment about the scientific content of your submission.

However, because of your previous email, I asked a further independent assessment of your paper. This further Reviewer fully agrees with the previous ones.

As a consequence, according to the rules of peer review conferences, there is no way to reconsider your paper for presentation at the Workshop.

4) On July 21, 2014 I sent this email to Dr. Setti:

Dear Dr. Setti,
I tried calling you at +39 0532 974997 (Ferrara) +39 051 2095405 (Bologna), but could not get through. There is some additional information I’d like to give you about Bruno Barberis.

Dr. Barberis is a science advisor to the Papal Custodian of the Shroud and is scheduled to give a presentation about the Shroud at a conference in St. Louis, Missouri, from October 9 to October 14, 2014 (http://www.stlouisshroudconference.com/).

I submitted an abstract of a presentation, and it was rejected. No written reason was given, but one of the Committee Members of this conference (Mark Antonacci) told me over the phone that my presentation was rejected because I was not advocating the authenticity of the Shroud. I complained about this to Dr. Barberis in an email on May 7, 2014, and asked him to withdraw his participation in this conference.

I developed a slideshow about the Shroud three years ago (http://www.holyshroud.info). Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York and many other Catholics have suppressed my presentation because I don’t promote the authenticity of the Shroud. I filed a complaint against Cardinal Dolan with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in Rome and against Dr. Barberis with the Papal Custodian of the Shroud (Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia). All of this correspondence is at:

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

I consider the following quotation from an article Dr. Barberis wrote proof that he is not qualified to evaluate scientific papers about the Shroud of Turin:

“It appears to me that until now all the proposed theories, interesting ones in themselves, have always come up lacking either because they were not correlated by serious experimental verification or because such verifications have demonstrated the physical and chemical features on the obtained images to be very different from those present on the Shroud’s image.” (http://www.sindone.org/the_holy_shroud__english_/news_and_info/00024401_The_Shroud__Make_over___science_or_marketing.html.)

What Dr. Barberis is saying is that any theory about the origin of the Shroud must be supported by “experimental evidence.” This means is that he is excluding non-experimental evidence. Non-experimental evidence that the Shroud is the work of artists or craftsmen is that blood marks on the Shroud are not smeared. The blood coming from the thorns in Jesus’ head flows in narrow streams as blood tends to flow out of small wounds. The other bit of non-experimental evidence is the detailed nature of the image. It is a true image with shading, not an outline.

Saying the Shroud is authentic is like saying the sculptures on Mount Rushmore were created by wind erosion.

5) My accusation against the Italy Section and the conference leaders is that the conference was organized to generate peer-reviewed science articles supporting the authenticity of the Shroud. The motive behind this is to provide evidence supporting the New Testament stories that a prominent Jewish citizen provided a tomb for the crucified Jesus, a burial cloth covered the corpse of Jesus in the tomb, and the tomb was found empty on Easter morning. My paper argues that it is very unlikely that the Shroud touched Jesus, and this is why the conference rejected it. This implies that all the papers submitted have been judged on how much the paper supports the New Testament stories. In my opinion this makes the entire conference an exercise in pseudoscience. This conference undermines the integrity of science, and diminishes the value of conference papers published by the IEEE.

6) I am willing and able to attend any meeting where my allegations against the Italy Section are investigated

I hereby state that the information above is true, to the best of my knowledge. I also confirm that the information here is both accurate and complete, and relevant information has not been omitted.

Signature of the Individual                                                              Notary Public
Date: 7/22/14                                                                                  Mahmood Amer

Letters to Joseph Kalasky from David Roemer

July 29, 2014

My allegation against Gianluca Setti, Bruno Barberis, Francesco Lattarulo, Amir Sandler, Ermanno Cardelli, and Dario Petrie is that they are using the IEEE conference in Bari to promote the absurd idea that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. The enclosed article (Tristan Casabianca, “The Shroud of Turin: A Historiographical Approach,” The Heythrop Journal, 2013) is in favor of this pseudoscience and reveals the motives and reasoning behind it.

The article is based on a book titled, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” and I have enclosed a copy of my review of this poor exercise in Christian apologetics (http://www.newevangelization.info/licona.html).

I have also enclosed an article I wrote that was published in Spero News on January 18, 2008. This article explains why the Shroud is not authentic. I wrote it before I found out about the book I referred to in my IEEE submission which argues that Gnostics made the unusually shaped piece of linen to tell the story of the crucifixion of Jesus (http://www.newevangelization.info/shroud.html ).

August 1, 2014

I read Bylaw I-110 and Policy 7.10 and understand it to mean that the preliminary investigation should only involve determining whether there is a cause of action and whether the complaint can be proven.

The cause of action is that Bruno Barberis and Francesco Lattarulo are selecting papers submitted to an IEEE conference, not on their scientific merit, but on whether the paper supports the Biblical stories saying Jesus was buried in a separate tomb (not in a common grave for criminals) on Friday, his body was covered with a linen cloth, and the body was not in the tomb on Sunday morning.

I feel my affidavit and the documents I mailed on July 29, 2014, proves that this allegation can be proven and in fact proves it. I think your report of the preliminary investigation should be given to the president of the IEEE before the conference is over and the damage to the IEEE is done.

August 4, 2014

I think it might help to if I spelled out the relevance of “The Shroud of Turin: A Historiographical Approach” by Tristan Casabianca (Heythrop Journal LIV (2013), pp. 414–423) which follows the reasoning in the book, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” by Michael Licona.

The Resurrection of Jesus is both an historical event and an object of faith. As an object of faith, it means believing Jesus is alive in a new life with God and if you follow Jesus the same good thing can happen to you. As an historical event, it refers to the renewed fellowship of the disciples of Jesus after the crucifixion. This historical event is sometimes referred to as the Easter experience. These two works spell out the way many Christians relate to the Resurrection of Jesus.

Licona and Casabianca both understand that all historians agree that the Easter experience occurred within a few years of the crucifixion. Their response to this event is to ask what caused the Easter experience and to offer hypotheses. The explanation these apologists think is supported by the most evidence is what they call the “bodily resurrection of Jesus.” By this they mean that a video camera could have recorded the corpse of Jesus disappearing without humans relocating the body. They assign a high probability to this explanation and call the total certitude that Jesus is alive a “leap of faith.” Similar reasoning leads people to believe it is highly probable that the Shroud is authentic, and those who think it is a work of craftsmen or artists are being unscientific. This is why the reviewer of my submission was driven to refer to the Resurrection of Jesus and the doctrine called the Incarnation.

August 6, 2014

What follows is a link to an article written in Italy about the upcoming IEEE conference in Bari, Italy:

http://shroudstory.com/2014/08/06/scientific-conference-on-the-shroud-of-turin/

I think the article proves that the conference organizers are tricking the IEEE into publishing peer-reviewed articles that proselytize in favor of Christianity and against other religions.

August 11, 2014

I’v enclosed a printouts of the three emails I sent to Gordon MacPherson. “Springer.pdf” is an example of the kind of garbage the IEEE will be publishing if the IEEE does not withdraw its sponsorship of conference #32930.

August 18, 2014

I have asked Howard Michel and Dom DeMarco for an appointment so I can explain why I think the IEEE should withdraw its endorsement of the ATSI conference (Advances in Turin Shroud Investigations). I’v enclosed the email I sent Dr. Michel.

I’v also enclosed the screenshot of my LinkedIn message from Jose Roberto de Marca asking for information. According to Dom DeMarco, it would be “inappropriate for the President to comment or intervene in an on-going process.”

I’v enclosed screenshots of my correspondence with Chris Brantley on LinkedIn. There is a perfect analogy between the theory that the Shroud of Turin is authentic and the theory of intelligent design. They are both examples of pro-religion pseudoscience. The ATSI conference organizers and participants are trying to prove the Shroud is authentic and are using the IEEE’s reputation to bolster their religious enthusiasms.

August 18, 2014
On May 8, 2014, I filed a complaint (see enclosure) against Bruno Barberis, a general chair of the IEEE-ATSI-2014 and a science advisor to the Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin (Cesare Nosiglia), for participating in the St. Louis Shroud Conference to be held on October 9, 2014. Like the ASTI conference, the St. Louis conference rejected my submission because I argued that the Shroud was not authentic.

The abstracts of the papers presented in St. Louis have been posted and this will give you some idea about the papers that will be presented at ATSI-2014. I recommend that you read the following abstracts at

http://www.stlouisshroudconference.com/program/title-of-abstract. My comments are beneath the titles:

dating-the-shroud-of-turin-weighing-all-the-evidence
In 1988, a carbon dating procedure authorized by the Catholic Church indicated that the Shroud was created in the middle ages. This dating has been thoroughly discredited because of the choice of the sample tested and the historical evidence that the Shroud predates the middle ages. This paper will only remind people who think the Shroud is authentic of their great victory over the 1988 setback. What this paper does is create a straw man. People are being led to believe that the choice is between the authenticity of the Shroud or its middle age date. The papers of this conference completely ignore the theory of Robert Drews that Gnostics created the Shroud of Turin in the 1st or 2nd century using a crucified victim or volunteer and methods that have been lost to history. There are a number of other papers in this conference that have no purpose other than to refute the 1988 fiasco. They are:

spectroscopic-analyses-of-fibers-from-the-shroud-of-turin-what-do-they-mean

the-halo-around-the-head-in-the-image-of-the-man-on-the-shroud

study-of-shroud-feature-evidence-using-video-and-photogrammetric-analysis-methods

the-future-of-research-on-the-shroud

the-hypotheses-about-the-roman-flagrum-some-clarifications

the-shroud-and-the-iconography-of-christ

modern-scholarship-and-the-history-of-the-turin-shroud

the-full-length-history-of-the-turin-shroud

constantinople-documents-as-proof-of-the-shroud-in-edessa

the-enigma-of-the-apparent-age-of-the-shroud-of-turin-given-the-1988-radiocarbon-dating
This article reports evidence of spontaneous human combustion.

the-origin-of-rogers-raes-and-c14-samples
This article argues that there should be a new radiocarbon dating of the Shroud.

natural-manufactured-or-miracle
This paper give evidence for “Near Death Experiences.”

speculations-on-the-14th-century-origins-of-the-turin-shroud
I can’t comment because I found the abstract unintelligible.

earthquake-induced-piezonuclear-reactions-and-the-image-on-the-shroud-of-turin-critical-remarks

This abstract is based on the paper published by Springer (DOI 10.1007/s11012-013-9865-x) titled “Is the Shroud of Turin in relation to the Old Jerusalem historical earthquake.”

My opinion is that the editor of this article had a responsibility to make changes that the peer-reviewers and authors may have overlooked. This is the same mistake Richard Sternberg made, as I mentioned in the affidavit I sent to the IEEE (see “Sternberg peer-review controversy” in Wikipedia).

These are excerpts from the first and third paragraphs:

After the first photographs of the Shroud, taken by Mr. Secondo Pia during the Exposition of 1898 in Turin [1], a widespread interest has been generated among scientists and curious to explain the image formation and to evaluate its dating.

Starting from the first photographs of the Shroud, which highlighted a figure of a human body undraped with hands crossed (Fig. 1), a large debate on the mechanism that may have produced such an image has been conducted in the scientific community.

The paper does not address the question of how the image was formed. The paper only states that neutron radiation may have caused the discoloration of the shroud fibrils. This quote is from the second paragraph:

In this work, the authors consider that neutron emissions by earthquake—as for the conventional gadolinium-like neutron imaging technique— could have induced the image formation on Shroud linen fibres through thermal neutron capture on nitrogen nuclei…

The editor should have replaced the phrase “image formation” with the phrase “changing the color of the fibril from white to yellow at those points on the fibril where the image exists.”

The article says the source of the neutrons in an earthquake is the crushing of stones. The authors call the process “piezonuclear fission,” and there is a lot of controversy about it. See:

http://www.scienceonthenet.eu/content/article/embarrassing-piezonuclear-affair

biophotonic-hypothesis-of-the-turin-shroud
As with the article about earthquakes discussed above, this abstract refers to “image formation,” but in fact only discusses the discoloration of the linen fibrils. This means there are five the kinds of radiation that are used to explain the discoloration: photons from the transformation of the corpse of Jesus into a spiritual body, neutrons from an earthquake, corona discharge, alpha particles, and biophotons.

about-the-second-image-of-face-detected-on-the-turin-shroud
The “second-image-of-the-face” is really, I think, the third image. The first image is only on one side of the linen. The second image is on the other side, and is not visible to the naked eye. However, this faint image can be detected with computerized image enhancement. I personally could not see even this enhanced image, which is why I did not include it in my slideshow. Apparently a third image was detected in this way. The author of the article is skeptical about this third image, but not the second.

charge-separation-as-the-mechanism-for-image-formation-on-the-shroud-of-turin
This paper advances the theory that the discoloration of the fibrils, misleadingly referred to as the image, was caused by an electric field.

the-alpha-particle-irradiation-hypothesis-part-i-entering-johns-gospel
John’s gospel is the most Christian and least Jewish of the four gospels. It supports the doctrine of the Incarnation. The author is saying we can understand the image by reading John’s gospel, not the Jewish gospels.

the-alpha-particle-irradiation-hypothesis-solving-the-mystery-of-the-shroud
This is part ii of the above paper. I can’t tell if the author is seriously supporting the theory that the discoloration was caused by alpha particles or making fun of this theory.

new-discoveries-on-the-sudarium-of-oviedo
The Sudarium of Oviedo supposedly covered the face of Jesus when he was being transferred from the cross to the tomb. The author considers the connection between the two to be evidence of the Shroud’s authenticity.

the-mandylion-or-the-story-of-a-man-made-relic
The author disputes the theory that the Shroud of Turin is the Image of Edessa, called also the Mandylion.

theology-of-the-shroud
The author states that the Shroud is almost certainly authentic. I am sure the author thinks it is almost certainly true that Jesus’ corpse transformed into a “spiritual body” on Sunday morning. In other words, he thinks it is highly probable that a video camera could have recorded Jesus’ appearances and the disappearance of the corpse. This means he is criticizing the historical judgment of people who do not agree the bodily resurrection of Jesus, which is how they think of the Resurrection, is highly probable. This is why he feels justified in criticizing the scientific judgment of people who think the Shroud is a work of human ingenuity.

It is not clear that Jesus was buried in a separate tomb. According to John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, Jesus’ body was put in a mass grave for criminals and devoured by dogs. This means there was no empty tomb on Sunday morning. A Catholic biblical scholar, Raymond Brown, argues that it is historically certain that Jesus had a separate tomb. However, Brown does not think it is an historical fact that the tomb was empty. But there is no disagreement between Brown and Crossan about the Resurrection of Jesus. They both agree that within a few years of the crucifixion, the disciples of Jesus renewed their fellowship and started Christianity. There is, however, a conflict between Crossan and Brown because Brown has the gift of faith and Crossan thinks Brown is irrational. I mention this because conflict produces anxiety and inhibition is a defense mechanism against anxiety. Religion inhibits people from thinking rationally and intelligently.

nazah-the-unveiling-of-a-hidden-purpose-for-the-shroud
The author says that the pollen on the Shroud proves it is authentic. It only proves the Shroud was made near Jerusalem in the 1st or 2nd century.

the-shekinah-glory-of-the-lord-and-the-shroud-of-turin
This paper implies that the image on the Shroud is miraculous.

a-galatian-sojourn-of-the-shroud-of-turin-pollen-paul-and-a-public-portrayal-of-christ
This paper will argue that early missionaries used the Shroud to prove Jesus rose from the dead. Atheists use this scenario to explain how the myth of the Resurrection got started.

science-and-semantics
This abstract states that there is evidence the Shroud image was created by “UV or particle radiation emanating from a stationary or disappearing human body.”

shroud-science-and-faith-dialogue-or-conflict-quot
The author of this is Bruno Barberis. He repeats the same misleading statement that permeates the papers being presented. He says scientists have been studying the image on the Shroud for years. They have not because every rational person knows craftsmen or artists create images. There is one exception. On April 21, 1902, Yves Delage, an internationally acclaimed zoologist, told the French Academy of Science in a lecture that ammonia vapors from the decaying body of Jesus created the image. Members of the audience shouted out “traitor” and shook their fists. For his safety, Delage had to make a quick exit from the auditorium. The scientific work Baberis is referring to is just about what caused the discoloration of the linen fibrils.

mcnp-analysis-of-neutrons-released-from-jesus-body-in-the-resurrection
This abstract says “that a very small fraction of neutrons in the body of Jesus were emitted from the body as it disappeared in the resurrection.”

hypothesis-that-explains-the-shroud-s-unique-blood-marks-and-several-critical-events-in-the-gospels
One of the reasons rational people think the Shroud is a work of craftsmen is that the blood marks are not smeared. The abstract said the blood marks were formed because the body appeared outside the cloth, but the blood remained in the cloth. I consider this disingenuous because no mention is made of the fact that the blood marks are not smeared. There are two other abstracts that repeat this misinformation:

a-critical-re-evaluation-of-the-shroud-of-turin-blood-data-strength-of-evidence-in-the-characterizat

joseph-m-gambescia-m-d-and-the-position-of-the-feet-on-the-shroud-of-turin-the-history-of-an-investi

an-artist-explores-the-facial-image-of-the-shroud-of-turin
I did not understand this abstract.

On October 14, 2014, the IEEE dismissed the complaint.

IEEE

IEEEsignatures

google-site-verification: google85f4c6796d92a2dc.html


The Truth About the Shroud of TurinS

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 August 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 August 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 Archbishop 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 November 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 11/19/12Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella,Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization, on November 19, 2012
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

Email from Under-Secretary for the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization on October 3, 2013
Dear Mr. Roemer,
We are in receipt of your recent fax, dated October 2, 2013, in which you inquire if Archbishop Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization, is in receipt of your letter of November 19, 2012. I can inform you that Archbishop Fisichella did indeed receive the letter in question. We have not replied to your letter thus far owing to the considerable volume of work in our Dicastery engendered by the onset of the Year of Faith, of which we hold the organizing secretariat, and to the subsequent attribution to us of the competency over Catechesis hitherto exercised by the Congregation for Clergy.

Given the subject matter of your letter, I would suggest that you write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Concerning your request as to whether Cardinal Schönborn has received your letter of August 15, 2013, we would have no way of knowing this and I can only suggest that you make inquiries of the Cardinal’s secretariat in Vienna.

With every good wish, Msgr. Graham Bell

Letter sent to Archbishop Stefan Soroka of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia on November 27, 2013
Your Excellency:
This is a follow-up of the conversations I had with your secretary and the emails I sent about the Shroud of Turin. I’m in a conflict with Timothy Cardinal Dolan about the authenticity of the Holy Shroud and an article published by the American Journal of Physics about evolutionary biology. I am writing to ask to see you in person about these matters.

The reasons for believing in Jesus can be grouped under these facts:

  1. Jesus was a Jewish prophet.
  2. The Resurrection of Jesus is an historical event.
  3. According to Robert Drews (In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins), the Shroud of Turin was created by Gnostics in the 1st or 2nd century with methods that have been lost to history, except that the body of a crucified victim or volunteer must have been used.

I consider the cosmological proof of God’s existence to be part of #1. People who feel strongly the Holy Shroud is authentic don’t fully understand the proof and why there are so many atheists and agnostics. You can’t effectively preach the gospel in this day and age without understanding the blind spots of non-believers.

Cardinal Dolan, with the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, is suppressing my slideshow/lecture (http://www.holyshroud.info) because I don’t promote the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. This replicates a common mistake made by historians and Christian apologists. They ask and attempt to answer these questions: What caused the Resurrection? Did Jesus really cure a lame person? I don’t consider these to be reasonable historical questions because there are no theories with any evidence to support them. Rational people ask whether Jesus is alive in a new life with God and consider out entire salvation history.

Concerning the AJP, Cardinal Dolan told me he did not have jurisdiction over the Jesuits whose integrity I was questioning. I’v brought the matter to the attention of the American Association of University Professors and was told that the Executive Director (Julie Schmidt) is investigating my allegations.

Very truly yours, David Roemer
faxed and mailed with a certificate of mailing
letter to AAUP enclosed

Letter sent to Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church on February 15, 2014
Your Beatitude,
I have the grounds and authorization to file a complaint against Timothy Cardinal Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York and Archbishop Stefan Soroka of the Metropolitan Archeparchy of Philadelphia with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for discouraging the veneration of the Shroud of Turin and inhibiting evangelization. My correspondence about this matter is at:

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

Archbishop Soroka is relying on Russ Breault (http://shroudencounter.com/) for his information about the Holy Shroud. In his lectures about the Holy Shroud, Mr. Breault fails to mention the theory that Gnostics created the Holy Shroud in the 1st or 2nd century using a crucified victim and methods that have been lost to history. In my opinion, Mr. Breault is misrepresenting our salvation history.

I have asked the Office of Evangelization and Catechesis of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for help in resolving this conflict to no avail. I am hoping you will use your influence to resolve this matter on American soil.

Asking Your Beatitude’s blessing, I am, yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer
registered letter, return receipt requested
Cc: Bishop David L. Ricken, Diocese of Green Bay, PO Box 23825, Green Bay, WI 54305, mailed with certificate of mailing

Letter sent to Gerhard Cardinal Müller of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on February 21, 2014
Your Eminence,
I was invited to present my slideshow/lecture (http://www.holyshroud.info) about Shroud of Turin at a Catholic church in New York, N.Y., on March 30, 2012. At the last minute, the pastor cancelled my presentation. He objected to my defense of the theory that Gnostics created the Holy Shroud in the 1st or 2nd century using a crucified victim and methods that have been lost to history (Robert Drews, In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on its History and Origins). Cardinal Dolan supported the pastor’s decision and stated that I was “debunking” this important relic in a letter dated September 5, 2012. I filed a complaint with the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization and was advised to bring the matter to your attention. I sent an email to cdf@cfaith.va on October 3, 2013. My correspondence about this matter and my attempt to explain to Cardinal Dolan why his conduct is harmful is at

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

In the meantime, I found out about books published in 2006 and 2012 that use the assumption of the Shroud’s authenticity to give an atheistic explanation of the Resurrection of Jesus. It gave me greater reasons to think Cardinal Dolan does not understand our salvation history and is weak in fundamental theology. I reviewed these books at

http://www.newevangelization.info/loken.html
http://www.newevangelization.info/wesselow.html

I’v had telephone conversations with the new Vicar General of the New York Archdiocese (Bishop Gerald Walsh) and his chief of staff. They are aware of my intention to ask you to correct Cardinal Dolan.

Asking the blessing of Your Eminence, I am, Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer

Sent by registered letter, return receipt requested
faxed to 3906698834809 and emailed

Email sent to Bruno Barberis (museo@sindone.org) on May 7, 2014
Dear Prof. Barberis,
I submitted an abstract promoting the theory that Gnostics created the Holy Shroud (http://www.holyshroud.info) in the 1st or 2nd century using a crucified victim and methods that have been lost to history. The administrators have rejected my offer without giving any explanation.

I asked another speaker, Bishop Michael Sheridan of the Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs, to boycott the conference. I think you have a moral duty to do the same because the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith is considering my request that they correct Cardinal Dolan of New York for suppressing my slideshow/lecture about this sacred artifact. My correspondence with the Pontifical Council on the New Evangelization and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is at

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

In my letter to Cardinal Mueller, I referred to two books written by atheists that assumed the Holy Shroud was authentic in order to give an historical explanation for the Resurrection. You should not preach the gospel by misrepresenting our salvation history.
Very truly your, David Roemer

Letter faxed to Very Rev. Michael Sheridan, Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs and Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia, Archdiocese of Turin, on May 8, 2014
Dear Bishop Sheridan,
I just spoke to Mark Antonacci (636-938-3708), who is on the committee of the St. Louis Shroud Conference (Oct. 9 to Oct. 12, 2014) that rejected my request to be a presenter. He very clearly stated that there is more evidence the Holy Shroud is authentic than the theory presented in my slideshow/lecture (http://www.holyshroud.info), which is that Gnostics created this official relic using methods that have been lost to history. He thought there was so little evidence Gnostics were involved that it did not deserve to be presented at the conference. This means the presenters at the conference will be misrepresenting our salvation history.

I have asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith to correct Cardinal Timothy Dolan for his handling of an incident that occurred on March 30, 2012, at a parish in Manhattan. See: http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/.

I arrived to present my slideshow, and the pastor cancelled it. When I complained to Bishop Walsh, the Vicar General, he said the matter did not concern him. Cardinal Dolan sent me a letter saying I was “debunking” the Holy Shroud.

I want to meet with the referees of the conference and explain to them why people who think the Holy Shroud is authentic should keep it to themselves. I am mailing this with a certificate of mailing in the event I decide that the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is not doing its duty. If this happens, I will file a complaint with the Holy Father against Cardinal Müeller. I am sending this to the Custodian of the Shroud because his advisor is a scheduled presenter.
Very truly yours, David Roemer

Letter faxed and emailed to Gerhard Cardinal Müller, mailed to Timothy Cardinal Dolan, emailed to Dr. Ermano Cardelli, and faxed to Bishop Michael Sheridan and Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia on July 7, 2014.
Your Eminence,
There are some new developments concerning my complaint against Cardinal Dolan of New York (mailed and faxed on February 21, 2014 and emailed on October 3, 2013) and Bishop Michael Sheridan of the Diocese of Colorado Springs (emailed and faxed on May 7, 2014) for suppressing my slideshow/lecture (http://www.holyshroud.info) about the Holy Shroud because it discusses the history and science of this important relic honestly. In the 20th century, pro-religion apologists argued that the Holy Shroud was authentic, but now atheists use the authenticity of the Holy Shroud to explain away the Resurrection of Jesus.

I have submitted the attached paper to the Italy section of the International Electronic and Electrical Engineers for a conference titled “2014 IEEE Workshop on Advances in the Shroud of Turin Investigations.” It supports and helps clarify my slideshow/lecture. If it is accepted, I will go to Bari, Italy, on September 4, 2014, and present the paper. This means my paper will be published in the IEEE Xplore Digital Library.

Unfortunately, Dr. Bruno Barberis, who is the scientific consultant to the Papal Custodian of the Shroud (Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia), rejected my submission. Fortunately, Dr. Ermanno Cardelli of the University of Perugia has agreed to ask the committee to reconsider its hasty decision.
Asking the blessing of Your Eminence, I am, Yours respectfully in Christ,  David Roemer

Letter sent to João Bráz de Aviz of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Life on August 20, 2014
Your Eminence,
To my dismay and shock, a number of Catholic clergy and laymen are suppressing my slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin (http://www.holyshroud.info). A presentation I was scheduled to make on March 30, 2012, was cancelled. I have asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to correct Timothy Cardinal Dolan for his handling of this incident.

My correspondence with the Archdiocese of New York, the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Francis Cardinal George, Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop Josè Gòmez, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Stefan Soroka, Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Bishop David Ricken, Archbishop Michael Sheridan, and Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia (Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin) is posted at

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

There has been a new development that has the potential of exposing the Catholic Church to criticism. I submitted a paper to a conference sponsored by the International Electrical and Electronic Engineers about the Shroud of Turin. This paper is posted at

https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/roemer.pdf

One of the science advisors to Archbishop Nosiglia (Bruno Barberis) rejected my submission, and I filed a complaint against him with the Ethics and Members Conduct Committee of the IEEE. My complaint against Cardinal Dolan and Dr. Barberis is that they are misrepresenting our salvation history and practicing pseudoscience by promoting the irrational theory that the Holy Shroud is authentic. Their motive for doing this may be to evangelize, but it will be viewed by the world as dishonest proselytizing.

If the IEEE rules against Dr. Barberis, it will in effect be ruling against Cardinal Dolan. It will be better for the Catholic Church if the Catholic Church corrects Cardinal Dolan rather than an organization whose dedication to scientific and historical truth is not questioned by any rational person.

On August 6, 2014, I requested an appointment with the Archbishop Viganò to explain why Cardinal Dolan and Dr. Barberis are behaving recklessly and irresponsibly in hope that he would facilitate a resolution of this conflict. I have not gotten a response to this request.

Asking the blessing of Your Eminence, I am, Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer
Faxed to 39.06.69884526, sent by registered mail, and emailed on August 19, 2014.
Enclosed: Flyer; letters from Bishop Sullivan, Cardinal Wuerl, Cardinal Dolan, IEEE, and Bishop Soroka; proof of mailings (Archbishop Sheridan, Archbishop Fisichella, Archbishop Shevchuk, Cardinal Müller, Bishop Ricken)

Letter mailed to Timothy Cardinal Dolan and Bishop Michael Sheridan on August 25, 2014
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Your Eminence,
I am writing to ask for an appointment to explain to you why you are quite mistaken in thinking there is evidence that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. I’v enclosed the letters I sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (2/21/14) and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Life (8/20/14) about this matter. As it stands, I think you and Bishop Michael Sheridan of the Diocese of Colorado Springs are guilty of violating Canon 279 §3, which concerns your duty to “acquire knowledge of other sciences, especially of those which are connected with the sacred sciences….” Bishop Sheridan is supporting the St. Louis Shroud Conference 2014, which, like the 2014 IEEE Workshop on Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation, accepts only presentations that promote the authenticity of the Holy Shroud.

If we can’t resolve this conflict between us, I’ll be filing a canonical complaint against you with the Holy Father. If you refuse this invitation for a meeting, I will consider it evidence of lack of sincerity and lack of respect for non-clerical members of the Catholic Church.

Asking the blessing of Your Eminence, I am, Yours respectfully in Christ,
David Roemer
Sent by registered letter, return receipt requested
cc Very Rev. Michael Sheridan
Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs
228 N. Cascade Ave
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Sent by registered letter, return receipt requested

Letter faxed to Rev. Msgr. Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Chancellor of The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on September 11, 2014
Dear Monsignor,
Some comments you made were quoted at

http://shroudstory.com/2014/09/11/a-reason-to-not-do-more-scientific-testing-on-the-shroud/.

I think you should know that the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers withdrew its sponsorship of a conference that took place last week in Bari, Italy, about the Shroud of Turin. I am a member of the IEEE and have pending before its Ethics and Members Conduct Committee a complaint against Bruno Barbaris, et. al., for rejecting the paper I submitted to the conference because it did not support certain stories in the gospels. This is the rejected paper:

https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/roemer.pdf

I am also planning to file a canonical complaint against Cardinal Dolan of New York with the Holy Father for suppressing my slideshow/lecture about the Holy Shroud. My correspondence with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Life is at

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

This essay tries to explain why Catholics without any training in fundamental theology think the Shroud is authentic:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Cognitive-Dissonance-and-the-Shroud-of-Turin&id=8716559

Very truly yours, David Roemer
Faxed to +39 06 698 85218, Cardinal Müller (+390669883409), and Cardinal (390669884526), and Archbishop Nosiglia (0115156338)

Letter to His Holiness Francis mailed on October 1, 2014
Your Holiness,
Enclosed is a canonical complaint against Cardinal Timothy Dolan for suppressing my slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin. Only one pastor in New York and Brooklyn invited me to speak, and that invitation was canceled. I’v enclosed the flyer advertising that talk, and Cardinal Dolan’s letter supporting the pastor’s decision. I asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Life to correct Cardinal Dolan in letters dated February 21, 2014 and August 20, 2014. Copies of the proof of delivery enclosed, as well as proof of delivery of letters to Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk and Bishop Michael Sheridan. My correspondence is at http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin.

Pseudoscience is misrepresenting science with the conscious or unconscious motive of promoting a religious sect or philosophy. The theory that the Shroud of Turin is authentic is an example of pseudoscience. Another example of pseudoscience that involves the Catholic Church is the error that biological evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the study of the temperature of things and has nothing to do with the evolution of stars or evolutionary biology. Nevertheless, the American Journal of Physics published an article with an absurd calculation proving that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The article disgraces every physicist in America and shows how irrational and dishonest people can be about biological evolution.

I’m sorry to say that Catholic universities in the United States are helping the American Journal of Physics cover up its mistake. This causes me to think there are many Catholic scientists who are more loyal to the science establishment in the U.S. than our Lord, Jesus Christ, who stands for truth in science and faith. I wrote to the Father General of the Jesuits about this matter on July 16, 2013, and to the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Life on September 23, 2013.

Humbly yours in Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,
David Roemer
Tracking number: EZ 016752379 US

TO HIS HOLINESS FRANCIS
CANONICAL COMPLAINT
in the cause of

DAVID ROEMER
-against-
CARDINAL TIMOTHY DOLAN

under canons 279, 766, 779, 781, and 1188 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law

Most Holy Father:

This document serves as my formal complaint and request for penal sanctions against Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

Cancellation of Shroud of Turin Slideshow

On March 30, 2012, I arrived at the Church of St. Paul in the Archdiocese of New York with a slide projector and slides to present my slideshow/lecture about the Holy Shroud (Appendix I) to a group of parishioners who were assembling to attend a religious retreat. To my dismay and chagrin, I found out that the pastor cancelled my presentation. In doing this, the pastor deprived his parishioners of the blessings that come when a certain prayer is said before the Holy Shroud or a picture of it. I am accusing the pastor of violated Can. 1188 (“The practice of displaying sacred images in churches for the reverence of the faithful is to remain in effect.”) and Can. 766 (“Lay persons can be permitted to preach in a church or oratory, if necessity requires it in certain circumstances or it seems advantageous in particular cases… ”).

The pastor apologized for withdrawing the invitation, and explained he thought I supported the authenticity of the Holy Shroud because I am on the Shroud Speaker Directory of the Shroud of Turin Website (www.shroud.com/speakers.htm). The pastor said the Resurrection of Jesus involved the production of radiation and that this same radiation discolored the blood-stained long and narrow piece of linen that is the Holy Shroud. In short, the pastor cancelled my slideshow because I was giving evidence that the Holy Shroud is not authentic. In doing this, the pastor violated Can. 279 §1 (“They are to avoid profane novelties and pseudo-science.”).

Historical and Scientific Background

In the 19th century, it was generally understood that the Holy Shroud was the work of a medieval artist, as can be seen from the entry on the Shroud of Turin in the 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm). The following quote explains why it is injudicious to express the belief that the Shroud is authentic to someone who does not have the gift of faith. Mueller, Marvin, “The Shroud of Turin: A Critical Appraisal,” The Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 1982, p. 27:

There are only three classes of possibilities for the image formation: by human artifice, through natural processes transferring the image to the linen from a real crucified corpse, or by supernatural means. Of the third, not much can be said, because then all scientific discussion and all rational discourse must perforce cease…But a lot can be said about natural processes. In terse summary, they can be ruled out definitely by the quality and beauty of the shroud image.

In the 20th century, scientific and historical investigations support the theory of Robert Drews (In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins, 1984) that Gnostics created the Shroud of Turin in the 1st or 2nd century using a crucified victim or volunteer and methods that have been lost to history.

In the 21st century, Thomas De Wesselow (The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection, 2012) and John Loken (The Shroud Was the Resurrection: The Body Theft, the Shroud in the Tomb, and the Image that Inspired a Myth, 2006) argue that the Shroud of Turin is authentic in order to prove that Christianity is a myth.

Refusal to Review Slideshow

On April 12, 2012, I wrote to Bishop Dennis Sullivan, Vicar General of the Archdiocese of New York, and accused the pastor of the Church of St. Paul of desecrating the Holy Shroud. I also criticized three other officials of the archdiocese for giving me a runaround about my slideshow/lecture. Bishop Sullivan ignored my request to give my presentation to Catholics knowledgeable in fundamental theology. On September 5, 2012, Cardinal Dolan wrote to me saying, “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.”

On November 19, 2012, I wrote a letter to the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization criticizing Cardinal Dolan, Bishop David Ricken, Chairman of the Committee of Evangelization and Catechesis of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop José Gomez of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Cardinal Francis George, and Cardinal Donald Wuerl, and Archbishop Vignanò, papal nuncio to the United States, for suppressing my slideshow. On October 3, 2013, the Under-Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization, Msgn. Graham Bell, advised me to file the complaint with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

By failing to correct the pastor of the Church of St. Paul, I think Cardinal Dolan is guilty of violating the same canons violated by the pastor. By refusing even to consider supporting my slideshow, Cardinal Dolan is violating Can. 279, §3 (“They are also to acquire knowledge of other sciences, especially of those which are connected with the sacred sciences, particularly insofar as such knowledge contributes to the exercise of pastoral ministry.”) and Can. 779 (“Catechetical instruction is to be given by using all helps, teaching aids, and instruments of social communication which seem more effective so that the faithful, in a manner adapted to their character, capabilities and age, and conditions of life, are able to learn Catholic doctrine more fully and put it into practice more suitably.”)

Unethical Conduct of Bruno Barberis

The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers was persuaded by the Italy Section of the IEEE to sponsor a conference titled “Workshop of Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation” that was held at Bari, Italy, on September 4, 2014. In May 2014, I submitted a paper (Appendix II) to the organizers of the conference titled, “Science, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Theology, History, and the Holy Shroud.”

On June 30, 2014, I got an email rejecting my submission with many references to Catholic doctrine but no mention of the difference between faith and reason. The email was sent by Bruno Barberis, who is a science advisor to the Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin.

I filed a complaint against the conference organizers with the Ethics and Members Conduct Committee of the IEEE on July 22, 2014. My pending allegation is that the conference rejected my paper, not because of its scientific merit, but because it presented scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin is not authentic and that the organizers of the conference were engaging in pseudoscience (Appendix III). The IEEE has not yet made a decision, however, shortly before the beginning of the conference, the IEEE withdrew its sponsorship. Had the IEEE not discovered that it was being deceived, the papers that were accepted and presented would have been published in the IEEE Xplore Digital Library and had the status of being peer-reviewed.

My complaint against Cardinal Dolan with Your Holiness is the same as my complaint against Bruno Barberis, et. al., with the IEEE. Both are rejecting my analysis of the history and science of the Holy Shroud without rational justification with the goal of causing people to think the Holy Shroud is authentic. Prof. Barberis is guilty of pseudoscience and Cardinal Dolan is guilty of misrepresenting our salvation history. Our salvation history includes an historical event (Resurrection of Jesus) and a miraculous artifact (Shroud of Turin). Cardinal Dolan is conflating the two signs and thereby distorting and misrepresenting the reasons and signs God has given us to believe in Jesus.

It is well known that most members of the IEEE do not have the gift of faith, however, no educated person questions this organization’s dedication to truth in science and history. Because of Prof. Barberis’s association with the Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin, his repudiation by the IEEE is a scandal that harms the Catholic Church. Cardinal Dolan’s statements and actions concerning my slideshow are scandalous for the same reason. Cardinal Dolan is violating Can. 781 (“Since the whole Church is by its nature missionary and the work of evangelization must be held as a fundamental duty of the people of God, all the Christian faithful, conscious of their responsibility, are to assume their part in missionary work.”)

Cognitive Dissonance and the Shroud of Turin

The author of the review of the paper I submitted to the conference is clearly a believing Christian, just as Thomas De Wesselow and John Loken are sincere about Christianity being a myth. They both think, to quote Cardinal Dolan, that there are “more pros than cons” supporting the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. The reality is that there is very little evidence for the authenticity of the Holy Shroud and very much evidence it is the work of craftsmen or artists. My review of a book about cognitive dissonance attempts to explain why some Christians think the Holy Shroud is authentic (Appendix IV). In the case of members of the Catholic clergy, there is added scandalous possibility that they don’t care whether or not the Holy Shroud is authentic. This is the impression I get from the behavior of members of the clergy in the Metropolitan Archeparchy of Philadelphia, Archdiocese of Colorado Springs, Archdiocese of Brooklyn, and Archdiocese of New York.

Metropolitan Archeparchy of Philadelphia

On December 2, 2013, the Director for Evangelization for the Ukrainian Church in Philadelphia sent me a letter stating:

I have received your letter and email regarding the Shroud of Turin slide show which you have offered to present. We appreciate your offer but have already profited from the expertise of Russ Breault, of Atlanta Georgia, whose expertise provided us with an excellent and inspiring presentation for those pilgrims who have visited with us. We view the Shroud of Turin with the same sentiments as the late Pope John Paul II had shared in his visit to Turin: “The Shroud is an image of God’s love as well as human sin… the imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attest to the tremendous capacity for causing pain and death to one’s fellow man, and stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age” Pope John II

On February 15, 2014, I sent a registered letter, return receipt requested, to Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuck in Kiev about Bishop Stefan Soroka’s lack of interest in the Holy Shroud and lack of understanding of our salvation history owing to his reliance on Russ Breault. There has been no response from Archbishop Shevchuck.

Catholic Archdiocese of Colorado Springs

Bishop Michael Sheridan is the keynote speaker at the St. Louis Shroud Conference to be held on October 9 to October 12, 2014. The conference committee rejected my request to make a presentation. In a telephone conversation with one of the committee members, I was told that my presentation was rejected because there is more evidence that the Shroud is authentic than there is that Gnostics created it. This is the abstract I submitted to the conference:

According to Robert Drews (In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on its History and Origins), Gnostics in the 1st or 2nd century created the Holy Shroud using a crucified victim and methods that have been lost to history. Saying or implying that the Holy Shroud is authentic misrepresents our salvation history and shows a lack of understanding of the cosmological argument for God’s existence.

The Holy Shroud is a scientific sign or reason to believe in Jesus analogous to the discovery of microwave background radiation in the 1960s. In the 1920s, it was discovered that the universe was expanding and a Catholic priest invented the theory of the Big Bang. According to this theory, the universe began to exist 14 billion years ago as a particle smaller than a grain of salt. Within seconds, electrons and protons were formed. After 500,000 years, hydrogen atoms were formed and photons of a particular wavelength were emitted. Relativistic effects cause these photons to appear as microwave radiation.

The cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas, as explained by Etienne Gilson, is based on the existence of finite beings and the assumption or hope that the universe is intelligible. I consider the Big Bang evidence that the universe is not intelligible. However, the Big Bang is a reason to believe in Jesus because Jesus was a Jewish prophet and the Bible is filled with the idea of the pre-existence of God.

I wrote the following letter to Bishop Sheridan on May 8, 2014: [see above]

I wrote this letter to Cardinal Dolan and Bishop Sheridan on August 25, 2014: [see above]

Appendix I

http://www.holyshroud.info

Appendix II

https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/roemer.pdf

Appendix III

http://newevangelist.me/2014/10/01/ethics-complaint-against-bruno-barberis/

Appendix IV

http://ezinearticles.com/?Cognitive-Dissonance-and-the-Shroud-of-Turin&id=8716559
Letter mailed to Reverend Monsignor Pietro Milite, Promoter of Justice of the Roman Rota, on November 18, 2014
Dear Monsignor Milite,
On November 13, 2014, in a conference call with an interpreter, I asked the employee who answered the phone to connect me with Msgr. Pinto. Msgr. Pinto’s line was busy, and I was told to contact you about my request for a list of canonists authorized to represent me in my canonical complaint against Timothy Cardinal Dolan. Two prominent canonists in the United States advised me that you are obligated to give me such a list. This is my fifth request. The complaint and my letter to the Holy Father is at

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

My complaint against Cardinal Dolan is essentially the same as the ethics complaint I filed with the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers against Prof. Bruno Barberis, et. al., who is an advisor to the Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin. The IEEE Ethics and Member Conduct Committee (EMCC Case # 14-07-23) dismissed my complaint on October 14, 2014, and my canonical complaint should be updated.

The Italy section of the IEEE tricked the IEEE into sponsoring a conference on the Shroud of Turin. Had this scam succeeded, the papers accepted by the conference organizers and presented in person at the conference would have been published in the IEEE Xplore Digital Library and have the status of being peer-reviewed. Shortly before the conference began on September 4, 2014, the IEEE protected its reputation for integrity by withdrawing its endorsement of the conference. My theory is that the IEEE did not punish its members because no harm was done to the IEEE and because the organizers of the conference sincerely believe the authenticity of the Holy Shroud is a reasonable scientific hypothesis and not pseudo-science (to use the spelling in Can. 279 §1).

Very truly yours, David Roemer
Faxed to +39 06 698 87554
Sent by registered mail with copies to Cardinals João Bráz de Aviz and Gerhard Müller

Letter sent Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco on November 20, 2014
Your Eminence,
On November 19, 2014, I submitted http://www.holyshroud.info to the Italian Episcopal Conference in order to “contribute to the growth of the service ‘Recommended Sites.’” John Paul II said, “The Shroud is thus truly a unique sign that points to Jesus…”. Everyone should know the history, science, and theology of the Holy Shroud. If you have any comments or criticisms of my slideshow, I am humbly requesting that you tell me.

I am in the process of providing the site with an Italian translation with the goal of promoting knowledge about this precious relic in Italy. If you can recommend a translator, I’ll be grateful.

On October 1, 2014, I filed a canonical complaint against Timothy Cardinal Dolan with the Holy Father for suppressing my slideshow. My complaint and correspondence with the Roman Rota is at http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/.

Respectfully yours in Christ, David Roemer
Sent by registered letter, return receipt requested
Faxed to the Holy Father, Rev. Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto, Gerhard Cardinal Müller, João Cardinal de Aviz, Rev. Msgr. Cesare Nosiglia

Letter sent to Very Rev. David Ciancimino, Provincial for New York Province, on November 24, 2014
Dear Fr. Ciancimino,
On October 1, 2014, I filed a canonical complaint against Timothy Cardinal Dolan with the Holy Father for suppressing my slideshow about the Shroud of Turin (http://www.holyshroud.info). My complaint and correspondence with the Roman Rota is here:

http:// http://www.newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/.
I noticed that you are on the Board of Trustees of the Loyola Retreat House in Morristown, New Jersey. I was told there was an opening for me to give my presentation in January or February of 2015. I think it would be helpful to the Holy Father and the Roman Rota if I was invited to explain the history, science, and theology of the Holy Shroud.

I have asked Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco to review my slideshow to see if it is suitable to be placed in the list of recommended sites published by the Italian Episcopal Conference.

Very truly yours, David Roemer
mailed with a certificate of mailing and faxed