OK, Pope Benedict’s opinion aside, what is the SCIENTIFIC verdict on the shroud today ?
The scientific verdict is that, if anyone says/posts one word doubting the authenticity of the Shroud (such as saying that Jesus must have glowed in the dark after his death), it proves they're an anti-Catholic.
But on the other hand, icons, by faith (of the writer and the viewer), acquire something more than mere representation. The traditional Orthodox view is that they are windows into the Eternal.
As usual, BXVI is apparently simple but actually profound.
My impression, from reading all the FR posts, is that the science is debatable and will be for some time.
It’s like a court case there there are “your experts” and “their experts”. The jury of lay people has to decide whose experts are more relevant and credible.
The jury also has to decide how much science matters for the shroud’s usefulness. (It might also have some value, though not as much, as a non-scientific, yet compelling, invitation to contemplate the spiritual truth of Christ’s death and resurrection.)
The Shroud, if it is indeed authentic, would have been witness to an event which is unprecedented in the annals of science and human history; the resurrection of a dead body. What happens in such a circumstance? Is light given out? Heat? Other forms of radiation? We have no conclusive answers to any of these questions.
Science, in order to be effective, depends on the existence of the normal laws of nature. The Resurrection, is by definition, an event which is outside the normal laws of nature. Carbon dating, for example, depends on the normal processes of isotopic decay to be operative. Throw a completely scientifically uncharacterized event into the process and dogmatic conclusions become very tenuous, IMHO.
In the end, this will continue to come down to a question of faith.