When we talk about the Shroud (1), it is hard not to enter contentious arguments. Everything becomes difficult, even writing a report on an event like the last spring exposition, which we lived and that kept us busy for many months.
The Shroud itself is a problematic object, and it is not easy to mediate it to others. Many times I talked with people who were against a devotional attitude toward the Shroud or against the idea of pilgrimage in relation to the Shroud. After all these discussions I find myself wondering: what is the Shroud ultimately? Why does it attract so many people and needs money and work?
I feel bad when I think about all the people who came from far away to see the Shroud and were allowed in front of it only for 3 minutes. On the contrary, I had all the time I needed to contemplate it from every point of view. I experienced feelings of deep commotion, aware of the inexplicability of the mystery before me. What is the Shroud then? It is not the Lord himself, for sure, so why does it keep awaking an interest which is almost fetishistic in such a large number of people? It is a very unusual image, it is not even possible to see it clearly, because its lines tend to fade at variations of light. It is hard to believe that it is much easier to perceive its details in a picture than observing the real linen.
And troubles multiply when we try to give an interpretation of what we are seeing. What we perceive is a whole message of grief and it does not give any gratifications. We do not know where it comes from, what its origin was or what its meaning for us could be. Many men and women lived for centuries not knowing anything about the Shroud. Many people nowadays live their usual lives just ignoring it. Others have heard of it but they do not care about it because they think that figure does not have anything to say to the man of today. They think it might be something irrelevant or perhaps just an obstacle for a possible conversion. At this point the issue becomes a radical one, and goes beyond everything we know about the Shroud. Should we say that the linen is unmeaning or that it prevents us from a real journey in the faith? If the answer is yes, then nothing was worth, neither people’s feelings toward that object nor the pastoral programs elaborated for it.
How can we orient among these difficulties? Certainly we can not rely on a definitive answer about the origins of the linen and its image. In fact nobody could give such an answer today, and the Church does not have proper instruments to formulate it. Lately, many times we heard voices that urged the Church to "define" the "authenticity" of the Shroud.  (2)  Such a request is senseless since it ignores the meaning of the word "definition". Nonetheless it was and it is still asked with such a strong attitude that makes the dialog precarious. (3).
In the past, influential people of the Church gave used words like "authenticity" or "moral certainty", sometimes even "relic". The results of the radiocarbon dating tests run on samples of the sheet induced the Church to undertake a hard but providential meditation on the subject. The Pope gave an example of this respectful and equilibrate attitude in his speeches, on May 24 1998, when he came to the exposition.

It is known that he recognized the relevance of the hints that date the Shroud back to the Roman Era, attesting it as the linen that wrapped the body of Christ. In some occasions the Pope seemed to have shown a favourable attitude toward this hypothesis. Nonetheless he teaches that "since the subject is not a matter of faith, the Church does not have the specific competence to make statements on this subject". The church does not even know if it will be ever possible for us to be able to talk about the Shroud in terms of certainty. We might have to wait for the moment in which every mystery will be solved and we will see the truth, our God, face to face. But then all our questions about the Shroud will lose their importance.

The Pope does not mean to teach science a method for its specific disciplines, but he reminds scientists the deontological code of their procedures: " that every research may be undertaken in freedom, leaving out prejudices that will take results for granted. This is valid either for results attesting the authenticity of the Shroud or for the opposite case."