Actually, that isn't what it is at all. I'm Catholic. I'd like to believe the shroud is genuine. However, I'm also rational enough to relize there may be other explanations to account for the image. I don't just toss out scientific explanations because they happen to interfere with my belief, and that's what I'm seeing with the skeptics here. We can't just say, "this is the image of Jesus Christ. Case closed" because there is strong evidence (not overwhelming, mind you, but very strong) that this is actually a more recent portrayal. Following those lines of evidence is not an indication the followers are trying to debunk the shroud -- they might merely want to discount that particular line of reasoning.
Think of how the Catholic Church investigates the purported miracles of saints, or purported demonic possessions. All efforts are made to research the situation thoroughly before rendering a yay or nay.
I don't think anybody reasonable is saying that. It has been more the skeptical position, of late, to say the Shroud is not real by ignoring proper investigation of the evidence.
I for one started out believing it was not real. I was certain it was not. Some of that doubting came out of a strong educated-into-me-belief that any relic with a footprint in medieval Europe must be false. I also don't deny that I had a certain amount of Protestant prejudice against anything that was a Roman Catholic icon. It took me a long time to change my mind.
It is interesting that acceptance of the Shroud's authenticity is strong among not only Catholics but also among many in Orthodox, Anglican and Evangelical traditions. The strongest resistence seems now to come from two sides: 1)liberal Protestant scholarship as found in the Jesus Seminar and 2)extreme biblical sola-scriptura literalists. That is not to say that all criticism comes from those two groupings.
My position is quite clear on my website Shroud Story. I am quite convinced that it is a burial cloth of a first century Roman-style crucifixion victim. Science supports this. I also believe that from history and the gospels we can reasonably infer that the images and the bloodstains are those of Jesus. I doubt that can be proved. Science can only go so far. History can make a good case but as with all ancient history, it will always be a bit fuzzy.
Junior. I'll take an open mind anytime. I am troubled by anyone who says "case closed." Christian faith can never be afraid of truth, no matter where it leads. Take some time to study my site. Understand too, that my faith does not depend on the Shroud; not in the least. My interest in the Shroud stems from my faith.
I believe the Shroud is authentic. I love to discuss it with anyone who advances informed positions on either side of the issue.
Shroudie