Turin Press Conference on the Radiocarbon Results
Official Communication and Press Exchange
Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (with responses from Luigi Gonella and Joaquín Navarro-Valls)
Turin, October 13, 1988
Prepared statement and reconstructed Q and A in English.
Based on the statement read at the press conference and on contemporary reporting of the exchange; not a full verbatim transcript.
Prepared Statement
Before I begin, I want to address the atmosphere around this announcement. I understand impatience and heated talk are part of your work, and I can forgive that, even if it has cost time. But I regret that it has encouraged an insinuation that is neither calm nor fair, that the Church is afraid of science, or that we have tried to conceal results. The Church is not dismayed. The Church respects the truths of science.
I have convened this press conference to communicate publicly what has been communicated to us regarding the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud cloth. The results were transmitted through the coordinator of the work, on the basis of the measurements carried out by the three laboratories.
The calibrated calendar age range assigned to the Shroud cloth, with a 95 percent confidence level, is from AD 1260 to AD 1390.
More precise and detailed information will be published by the laboratories and by the coordinator in the scientific publication that will present the full data and the method.
In addition, an independent review of the summary information has confirmed the compatibility of the results obtained by the three laboratories, and that the stated certainty falls within the limits expected for the method used.
In leaving to science the evaluation of these results, the Church reaffirms its respect and its veneration for the Shroud as a venerable icon of Christ.
At the same time, the problems of the origin of the image and of its conservation remain, to a large extent, unresolved, and they will require further research and study.
It is a regrettable fact that many items of news relating to this scientific research were anticipated in the press, because that anticipation again encouraged the insinuation that the Church was afraid of science and tried to conceal the results. That insinuation is not true.
Q and A (Reconstructed Exchange)
Reporter Eminence, do you accept the result as it stands, or will you challenge it.
Ballestrero I see no reason for the Church to cast doubt on these results. We asked for a serious scientific program and we received a scientific answer. If people expected a different answer, that does not justify attacking the scientists.
Reporter So are you saying it is medieval and therefore not from the time of Jesus.
Ballestrero The result places the tested linen in a particular historical range. I am communicating that result. The detailed scientific report will be published by those responsible for the measurements. This press conference is not the place to debate every technical detail, it is to communicate what has been communicated to us.
Reporter Many people will hear "medieval" and immediately say "forgery." Is that your conclusion.
Gonella That word is not careful. A forgery implies an intention to deceive. It could be possible in the abstract, but there is no proof of intention. Another possibility is that it is a medieval icon, an object made for devotion. And in any case, even if the linen is medieval, that does not explain how the image was formed.
Reporter Are you saying the image question remains open even after the dating.
Gonella Yes. Dating addresses the age of the linen sample. It does not provide a mechanism for the image. People are collapsing different questions into one slogan. The date is one kind of answer. The physics and chemistry of the image are another set of questions.
Reporter Eminence, does this change what the Shroud means for believers.
Ballestrero The Church's faith is not built on laboratory tests, and it is not destroyed by laboratory tests. The Church venerates the Shroud as an icon of Christ, as an image that invites reflection on the Passion. That is a pastoral and devotional reality. It is not the same thing as using an object as scientific proof.
Reporter But many believers treated it as proof that it wrapped Jesus.
Ballestrero People may attach hopes to objects, that is human. But it is not right to demand that science confirm our hopes, and it is not right to accuse science when it does not. The Church respects science. We do not fear it. We do not ask it to do theology.
Reporter Why did this get so messy with leaks, and was the Church trying to manage or delay the message.
Ballestrero The leaks are precisely what created suspicion and insinuations. That is why I am speaking openly. The anticipation in the press encouraged the false idea that the Church was hiding something. We are not hiding the result, we are stating it.
Reporter Why not release the full numbers and all the lab details today.
Navarro-Valls Because the full technical presentation belongs in the scientific publication prepared by the laboratories and the coordinator. This setting is for an official communication and for addressing the pastoral confusion that has been created, not for conducting a full technical seminar.
Reporter Professor Gonella, if it isn't a painting, how could it be medieval.
Gonella Again, different questions. The date does not automatically imply a particular technique. People jump straight to a simple story, but you need an actual mechanism. There have long been claims that the image does not behave like ordinary paint and that traditional pigments are not evident in the image itself. Whatever one thinks of those claims, the important point is that a date range does not magically supply an image-formation mechanism.
Reporter Are you disputing the laboratories.
Gonella No. I am separating what the laboratories did from what people are trying to conclude beyond the laboratories' task. The laboratories dated what they were given. Interpretation and the image question remain separate discussions.
Reporter What about fires, handling, patches, cleaning, contamination, could those have skewed it.
Gonella Those are legitimate technical questions, and the way to address them is with the details of sampling, pretreatment, controls, and statistics. That will be in the scientific report and in subsequent scientific debate. You cannot answer those questions properly with emotions or headlines.
Reporter Eminence, are you personally disappointed.
Ballestrero No. The Church is not dismayed. People may feel disappointment, but disappointment is not an argument. It is not appropriate to turn on scientists because their findings do not match what someone wanted.
Reporter Will there be further tests.
Ballestrero The Shroud must be protected. It is fragile. But we have said clearly that the problems of the image and conservation remain largely unresolved. If serious proposals are made, especially those tied to conservation and understanding the image, we will consider them with prudence and responsibility.
Reporter What do you want the public to take away from today.
Ballestrero The radiocarbon test has produced a calibrated calendar age range for the tested linen sample, AD 1260 to 1390 at 95 percent confidence, and we communicate it transparently. The Church respects science and does not fear it. The Church continues to venerate the Shroud as an icon of Christ. And the questions about the image and its preservation remain open for further study.