Part 2 Republic Decree

   It was 16 years after the Veneration of the Shroud in Montevergina the Ex-King petitioned the Church to coordinate an Ostension and to allow scientific research. The King's proposal was warmly accepted by the Church, however, Cardinal Fossati was already in his eighties, and he would have preferred to defer the King's request to his successor.
Just two years after King Umberto's proposal, Cardinal Fossati passed away in 1965. The task of an exhibition was now in the hands of the newly appointed Archbishop, Michele Pellegrino. Many responsibilities were assigned to a newly elected Archbishop, and Pellegrino needed to meet those obligations first. Finally, after seven years, the King's petition materialized.
Throughout the seven years, Father Rinaldi was amenable and offered Pellegrino much assistance in the coordination for the Ostensione. In return, the Archbishop personally invited the Holy Shroud Guild to be an active participant in the exhibition. An ecstatic Father Rinaldi wrote to Father Otterbein to share his excitement.
"He (Cardinal Pellegrino) particularly favors an expression of opinions by experts in various fields of Sindonology on the desirability and procedure of a thorough scientific examination of the relic which is considered during the forthcoming exposition. 
​(Uncovering the Paradox...2019, P55) 
  The Guild had two scientific members on their staff that they would rely heavily upon. A letter from the Archdiocese of New York, signed by Rt. Reverend Monsignor Terrence J Cooke, in 1967, lists the members of the Holy Shroud Guild at the following;  Fr. Otterbein; Fr. Filas; Fr. McGuire; Fr. Barry; Fr. Rinaldi; Fr. Sieradski; and Fr. Weyland. The laity party consists of two members, Dr. Anthony Sava, and Dr. Robert Bucklin. Dr. Bucklin became a member of 1957 as a replacement for Prof. Ceroni, who passed away that year, and Dr. Sava was a member almost from the inception in 1953.
(Uncovering the paradox within the archives of the Holy Shroud Guild)
   A Pro-Memoria dal Holy Shroud Guild of America was presented by Father Rinaldi to Archbishop Michele Pellegrino on October 3, 1966. The documents contained seven points advising the Archbishop that a committee of competent authorities composed of international members, in preparation for the exposition. In the end, the exposition would consist of two phases that were focused on devotion and scientific study. The final scientific results of the examination would then be released to competent officials.
   The Pro- Memoria was very much like the proposal first introduced by Prof. Ceroni in August 1955. The King entertained any ideas that would help him reclaim his lost possession now under the domain of the Republic. For the King to contest the Republic's seizer of the House of Savoy's property, he must exercise his rightful claim throughout the prescription period even not under litigation (Art 1165-1167 Civil Code). With the assistance of the Church by continuing their long-standing relationship with His Majesty prior to the Republic, King Umberto would at least be in a position to negotiate when or if the Republic allows the Savoy family to return to Italy. (Uncovering the Paradox...2019, P39) 
​   What was supposed to have been an open symposium during the Shroud's examination, instead was held privately. Some contributed the secrecy because of an obscure individual, Hans Naber. Naber was the self-proclaimed President of the International Foundation for the Holy Shroud of Jesus. He wrote to the press that the Commission secrecy was due to the fact the Shroud's forensic imprint, proofs that Jesus did not die on the cross. Naber was also supported by Dr. Primroses, an anesthetist at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. He backed Naber's allegation based on his practice as an anesthetist that Jesus was in a state of an overdose apneas.  As the dust settled, little was heard from Naber after 1971, except for the few direct correspondences to the English Sindonologists, Dr. Willis and Very Barclay. However, Naber did successfully tarnish the 1969 Commission because of its secrecy from the public. 
   Even Father Rinaldi admitted in a letter to Father Otterbein that he too was unable to get any information about the examination.48 Even worse, it was King Umberto II, who felt betrayed by the commission's secrecy. In 1972, Father Rinaldi paid a visit to the King at his home, Villa Italia, which was located in Cascais, Portugal. Rinaldi's visit with the King was documented in a letter to Father Otterbein, written on July 24, 1972:

While the Shroud was the main subject, the King came up with diverse topics; politics in the States and Italy, the situation in the Church and the Salesian Society, etc. You might know that a Salesian from the nearby Salesian house (at Estoril) is a bit of a Chaplin to the Villa. With regards to the Shroud, two things seemed to disturb him: The secret exposition of the relic in 1969 and the feeling he has (his words: I can't rid myself of the idea that…) that in Italy, with regards to the Shroud, someone is trying to pull the carpet from under my feet… He then explained, I asked repeatedly for a report from the 1969 commission. When it finally arrived, I was amazed to note that six of the participants had refused to sign the report. As for the second point, he said you must know by now that there is open talk the Italian Government might lay its hand on the Shroud just as it did on a number of properties belonging to the House of Savoy. What I'll do, I do not yet know. I have been advised to give the Shroud to the Holy See, but, then, will it become a bone of contention between the two States?
(Uncovering the Paradox...2019, P49) 

   The most obvious reason why the secrecy for the 1969 examination was due to the King's request. Documented in the Commission report, Luigi Gedda and Umberto Provana di Collegno who was the King's representative announced to Cardinal Michele Pellegrino during the commencement of the examination if the backing of the Shroud was removed, it would be returned to his majesty.
   The King's request was well known in advance of June 16, 1969. The Church has always shown great respect to King Umberto. However, the Church was not going to get too involved in the legalities between the State and the House of the Savoys. It is clear on these matters the Church position was neutral as seen by the two notable attendees; Professor Umberto Chierici, Ministry of Education, whose expertise was in cultural, and heritage restoration of Italian monuments; Nino Riccardo Toncelli, Ministry of Finance, whose responsibility was for the State's general accounting.
   Amongst all the attendees during the examination, Umberto Provana di Collegno was the only advocate for the King, Throughout Umberto Provana di Collegno's life, he was always a loyalist to the Monarch, and continued with his friendship with Vittorio Emanuele. As a personal advisor of the King throughout his exile, it is assumed Umberto Provana di Collegno was the informer who told what transpired during the 1969 Commission that worried the King. I can only assume why six participants refused to sign the report, but it is clear that the Commission was overseen by Government representation. As for Luigi Gedda, I am sure he was acting in good faith for both parties.
   The final entry explores the importance of the International regulation of cultural heritage pertaining to religious articles, and my investigation seeking firsthand account of the legal magnitude between the House of Savoy and the Italian State of ownership of the Holy Shroud.
​​