A Last Word

With our final defense of Bishop Rhoades completed (here), it is time to bring this blog to a close.

When we began publicly opposing Robert Sungenis’s Jewish writings and postings, we did so because Bob had rejected private correction (opting instead to intensify his rhetorical attacks on the Jewish people) and also because we possessed important, inside knowledge that no one else possessed about these matters. Additionally, we were deeply troubled by the fact that some Catholics (including two or three well-known traditionalist publications) seemed to be giving increasing credence and coverage to Sungenis’s anti-Jewish “research,” apparently not realizing that his writings were too often unattributed re-presentations of a few books and articles written by extremely problematic and negatively biased sources and that Sungenis himself had done little or no original research on these topics (link 1, link 2)

Before continuing, however, we want to state unequivocally that we do not hate Bob, as his most prominent supporter has falsely accused us. We have been baffled, saddened, shocked and/or deeply troubled by the things he has posted and continues to post about various Jewish issues under the Catholic mantle. Additionally, we have never intended to “destroy” him and certainly never stated that we wanted him brought down “to nothing”, as the same individual has falsely accused us. We have consistently stated that our intention is to defend those unjustly attacked, to help insure that innocent people do not adopt the inflammatory and scandalous views of the Jewish people that Bob has advocated, to make clear that Bob’s views of the Jewish people are not those of the Catholic Church and that Catholics care enough to speak out vigorously against such views. Along with those intentions we continue to hope and pray that Bob eventually abandons his continuing commitment to this unfortunate path and returns full-time to those areas in which he has much to offer. That being said, to whatever extent that our individual limitations and faults may have undermined those aims, we sincerely apologize.

We also want to reiterate that we have agreed with Bob on some important theological points regarding the Jewish people and Judaism. For instance, we agree that the dual covenant theory is erroneous and that it undermines the Great Commission given to the Church by Jesus Christ. In fact, some time ago we wrote an article about this issue in Lay Witness magazine (link). We also just recently read and recommend an article written about this issue by Fr. Harrison in Homiletic and Pastoral Review (June 2009). However, even in those areas in which Bob has made positive theological contributions involving Jewish issues, he seems unable to refrain from eventually adopting a hostile tone, using problematic sources and/or degenerating into inappropriate, offensive and false accusations. As such, he has caused harm even when he is correct or partially correct on Jewish issues.

An example of this is what occurred when Religion News Service and The Washington Post plastered Bob’s picture and name all over an article commenting upon the removal of a sentence on page 131 of the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults (USCCA) that tended to give the impression that Jews have their own path to salvation through the Mosaic covenant (link 1, link 2). While Bob made a legitimate criticism of this sentence in the USCCA, unfortunately, he also launched into a vitriolic campaign filled with scandalous (and unjustified) accusations against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and his own bishop in particular. According to Bob, they were “attempting to propagate” heresy to “unsuspecting Catholics,” his bishop had greater “allegiances” to Jewish causes than to the Catholic faith and His Excellency was having a “war…with Catholic doctrine.”

After the U.S. bishops made a very helpful change to the sentence on page 131 of the USCCA, Bob was still not satisfied, publicly airing additional suspicions and floating an erroneous conspiracy theory. On the opposite side, those who favor the dual covenant theory were also plainly unhappy with the change because the original version was more amenable to their views. And it seems evident that they made an effort to discredit the change in the USCCA by closely associating it with Bob and his anti-Jewish prejudice (his name appeared 11 times in the original RNS article). For his part, Bob jumped in to take the credit they wanted to give him, apparently unaware or unconcerned that he was likely being used to undermine the Church – and perhaps most ironically – the very issue he indicated that he was so deeply concerned about, in the process. Readers of this blog may remember that we warned Sungenis' supporters of precisely this danger in By Sungenis Alone:

Sungenis has made some good points about the dual covenant error. But as much as Sungenis supporters might try, it is simply impossible to divorce him from all of his ugly baggage...These serious problems...make it extremely imprudent to publicly enlist Sungenis' aid in this legitimate cause. His presence only serves to discredit and undermine it. (By Sungenis Alone, March 29, 2008)

Unfortunately, Bob has used the respect and credibility he legitimately earned in other areas of scholarship and inquiry for the purpose of promoting his personal, anti-Jewish views. In the process he improperly appropriated the name “Catholic” and enlisted “Catholic” theology in the cause (here). By stating this, our intention here is not to inflame or insult, rather, it is to explain why we felt we had a moral obligation to vigorously defend the Church and those who have been confused, attacked, maligned or otherwise harmed by his writings and postings over the last 7 years. It is not a matter of any one statement or posting but rather, a long-standing pattern. There are certainly others on the internet who have written and posted worse things about Jews than Bob, but these individuals are not Catholics who have earned people's respect and trust in other areas. And so, it is not as likely that average Catholics will uncritically accept what they have to say.

It is our sincere hope and prayer that the information at this blog continues to help those who have been confused, attacked, maligned or otherwise harmed by Bob’s Jewish writings and postings. But it is time to for us to move on. By now, with all the documentation we and others have provided at other blogs and websites, we believe it should be amply clear to any objective observer that his negative views of the Jewish people are solely his own and do not reflect the views of the Catholic Church or the general Catholic populace. And those who have been unjustly attacked have been adequately defended.

We have been touched by the many expressions of appreciation we have received (for example – scroll to the bottom of Breaking the Silence, here). We have been particularly gratified by the many individuals who have found and used information posted at this blog while researching similar errors made by others – we’ve found that there is a great deal of “cross-pollination” among those with such negative views of the Jewish people. For instance: the fraudulent quote of Einstein about anti-Semitism that we documented (see a link to our work here); the misquote of David Brooks regarding Jews and “neo-cons”; the ethnicity of Robin Williams (he’s not Jewish - see here and here); the cause of the Titanic disaster (yes, some people really believe the Jews were behind that one, too); the Holy Father’s statements about the six million Jews killed in the Shoah; the Patristic, Magisterial and Scriptural evidence for the “conversion of the Jews" and other topics.

Unfortunately, Bob has maintained his course on Jewish issues despite promises to cease addressing anything of a non-theological nature involving Jews. For example, he recently decided to provide “evidence” that only a few hundred thousand Jews were killed in the Shoah and that the Jews themselves were largely to blame for what they suffered. In so doing, he cited evidence that has even been debunked and denounced by one of his colleagues – Christopher Ferrara (here). Ferrara has described views such as those espoused by Sungenis as “nonsense,” further stating that those who make such claims evidence “what appears to be a lack of even cursory research” and that “anyone with even a superficial knowledge” of the facts should know better. He then went on to make the following impassioned plea and statement:

Not only this newspaper, but every journal of traditional Catholic opinion, and above all the Society itself, must clearly and unequivocally declare—as I do here and now—that Holocaust revisionism, wacky conspiracy theories, and other such nonsense will have no part in the traditionalist movement.

We must also implore Bishop Williamson to reconsider and personally repudiate the outrageous statements he has published to the world despite the many entreaties that he cease and desist. This is not a question of the Bishop’s freedom of opinion, but rather of the consequences to countless innocent bystanders from a heedless exercise of that freedom. Yes, the Bishop has spoken only for himself; but others, however unjustly, will be made to pay the price for what he has said, and they will go on paying it for a long time to come. The Bishop should have foreseen this, but now it is too late to prevent the damage. All he can do is make amends. If he cares about the Church and the traditionalist faithful, as he surely does, then he will not allow himself to become a stumbling block on the road ahead.

(Some information about the number of Jews living in Europe before and after the Holocaust and a rebuttal of alleged "proof" from Red Cross records about a relatively small number of Jews being killed in the Shoah may be found here, here, here, here and here. Bob also strongly suspects there was a conspiracy hatched to propagate the figure of “six million” Jews killed in the Shoah, before WWII had even ended, based on supposed “evidence” in a 1943 issue of Reader’s Digest. Based on history [read here], it seems safe to assume that he did not track down an actual copy of this magazine, read it and come to his conclusion independently. If one does a simple Google search on terms like “Reader’s Digest 1943 Holocaust Hoax Hecht”, one will find many of the kinds of extremely problematic sources upon which Sungenis has previously relied [note: you may have to turn off your internet filter in order to view all the results]. It seems most likely that Bob once again sought out sources that would confirm his pre-existing opinions and repeated them publicly rather than attempting any real search of the evidence. An easily accessible article by Andrew E. Mathis at Holocaust Controversies that convincingly rebuts the claim Bob publicly repeated about the Reader's Digest article may be found here.)

In his most recent statement on "the Jews", Bob quotes extensively from Benjamin Freedman. In doing so, it seems Bob has sought out “cover” for his views by noting that Freedman was a Jew, thus presumably giving him greater credibility as a witness against "the Jews". He has attempted to find such cover in the past by “quoting” Jews like Albert Einstein and David Brooks. Unfortunately, in those instances, the “quotes” he reproduced (and the implications he subsequently drew from them) were fraudulent. (link1 and link2).

Of course, on its own, Freedman's status as a Jew (or, more accurately, an ex-Jew) does not automatically establish him as a trustworthy critic of Jews and Judaism, any more than Bart Brewer's status as an ex-priest established him as a trustworthy critic of Catholicism; indeed, many ex-Catholics are the most vociferous and venomous anti-Catholics. And it certainly appears that Freedman came to deeply disdain and reject his Jewish heritage.

For instance, Sungenis seems unaware that Freedman was a proponent of the extremist belief that Jesus Christ was not even a Jew (at least in the modern sense). Freedman also subscribed to the same kinds of discredited, extremist views (for example: modern Jews are not actually Jews at all, they are mere ethnic imposters: see here and here) that another Sungenis source subscribes to: Holocaust “revisionist,” Michael Hoffman. Perhaps unsurprisingly, certain extremely “problematic” groups are big fans of Freedman (here and here), just as they are of some of Bob's anti-Jewish work (here). However, more directly to the issue of Sungenis' extensive quotation of Freedman, is the issue of Freedman's fundamental credibility. The following easily accessible article contains pointed rebuttal to the Freedman speech that Sungenis quoted at length: here. It makes a cogent case that Freedman made numerous errors of fact in the course of that speech. Has Sungenis read it? Did he make any effort to find counter-arguments against Freedman? Apparently not.

Following a long-standing pattern, it seems that Sungenis has once again reflexively believed and publicly propagated negatively prejudiced and/or inflammatory material about Jews without making any real effort to ascertain its credibility and veracity. Unfortunately, Bob has also recently recommenced making false accusations against his bishop. Other examples of Bob’s continuing anti-Jewish course may be found here, here and here. We have documented these problematic patterns at great length. And therefore, we have concluded that it is unnecessary for us to continue writing about it; we believe that what we have documented is sufficient for any person of good will.

While we reject the notion that Bob would ever have sanctioned anything like the Shoah, we believe it is a grave mistake to think that such an atrocity could never occur again. The German people were not intrinsically monstrous. Even Hitler did not start out with the repulsive views and ideas that he later developed about the Jewish people. We have stated that “we certainly agree…that Bob Sungenis is not the kind of person who desecrates Jewish graves, massacres Jews and bombs Israel. He is, however, the kind of person who often foments paranoia about and hatred against Jews" (here). The language that Sungenis often employs and the accusations he levels are often dangerous and irresponsible. His bishop has described his postings on Jews and Judaism as “hostile, uncharitable and un-christian.” In fact, Sungenis himself recently acknowledged that the fears expressed by Roy Schoeman in this regard are legitimate:

“Schoeman balks at the suggestion that the Jews are to blame for the world’s troubles. Simply put, if the world believes the Jews are the cause of the trouble, the world will react by turning against the Jews (as they have done in the past); and since the Jews are outnumbered by 500 to 1, it doesn’t bode well for them. This is a legitimate fear…” (Is the SSPX Anti-Semitic? by R. Sungenis)

Considering that Bob acknowledges this serious concern, we are baffled that he so often stokes the flames of paranoia about and animus against the Jewish people with his rhetoric and various postings. Does he understand that when he publicly accuses Jews of being slave masters, of trying to take over the Church, of being morally degenerate, of being godless racists, of controlling and listening in on our phone lines, of sending in secret agents to seduce and bring down a president they disliked, of assassinating another president, of believing that Gentiles are not created in the image and likeness of God, that Gentiles were put on the earth to serve Jews because Gentiles are “akin to animals” and that “goyim,” the word Jews use for Gentiles, is actually the Hebrew word for “cattle,” (see Bob’s recent article here) – that he is actively fomenting resentment against, contempt for and paranoia about the Jewish people?

According to multiple reports around the world, including a statement by the Pope himself, anti-Semitic incidents and sentiments are on the rise (for example: here, here and here). A financial collapse here, a terrorist bombing in retaliation against support for the “Zionist State” there, and Jews can rather quickly become a convenient scapegoat again. And of course, this does not even contemplate the obvious damage such statements do to evangelistic outreach. What Jew would want to join a Church that views the Jewish people in such contemptuous ways?

We have seen first-hand how Catholics have been attacked – sometimes unfairly – for doing too little to stand against what happened to the Jewish people in Nazi Germany. Should another such tragedy unfold in our day, how could we legitimately defend ourselves against similar charges if we refuse to stand against the kind of inflammatory and hostile rhetoric and material that one of our own brothers has often published against Jews?

In closing, we hope that our decision to bring this blog to a close may help Bob in some way to reflect on matters and to eventually reconsider his course in regard to the Jewish people. We would also like to affirm our esteem and appreciation for the commendable work he has produced in other areas and reiterate our strong preference to remove the material currently at this blog, for the sake of the Church and everyone else involved – including Bob himself. To that end we will repeat the offer we have previously made to him:

If Bob will simply and forthrightly retract and apologize for the statements we have listed here (without then stating that he still personally maintains that they are true, as he did previously: here) – including his accusations against Bishop Rhoades (our new – and final – defense of Bishop Rhoades may be found here), adhere to his promises to refrain from posting such statements and articles in the future (including removing the similarly problematic material currently at his website) – then we will gladly remove everything currently at this blog and at the RSATJ website. If Bob takes this step, then it will no longer be necessary (or helpful) to leave up our articles. In fact, we would even go so far as to write to the Diocese of Harrisburg on his behalf to inform them of such a positive development.

Additionally, while we have made every effort to be accurate in our documentation, we remain open to correction - retracting and apologizing for any errors we may have made. Irrespective of our offer to remove the material on this blog, we invite Bob to provide documentation of any such possible errors. However, to date, neither Bob nor his supporters have provided us with any specific examples of inaccurate quotes, etc.

We sincerely hope and pray that God gives Bob the grace to understand the harmfulness of his statements and actions in regard to the Jewish people and to alter his course - for the sake of the Church, all those who have been harmed and for his own sake.

Michael Forrest, David Palm and Jacob Michael

Bishop Rhoades and the Dual Covenant Theory

While it is our intention to bring this blog to a close now, we believe it is important to end by removing any possible remaining confusion caused by the false accusations Robert Sungenis has been leveling against his bishop, the Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades, in regard to the dual covenant error. We also sincerely hope that the information we are about to convey will allay Bob’s remaining suspicions about his bishop’s beliefs and teaching and subsequently help him to mend their relationship.

At the beginning of July, 2009, Lay Witness magazine published an article written by us (Michael Forrest and David Palm, specifically) entitled, “All in the Family: Christians, Jews and God,” (available on-line here).

In this article, we made the following statements directly rejecting the dual covenant error:

“The New Covenant in Christ has superseded the Mosaic (or “Old”) covenant. The term ‘supersession,’ which was first used by an Anglican minister, has subsequently been used by some Catholics to describe this truth. It appears in no magisterial texts; yet, as originally used, it does accurately describe Catholic teaching.”

“While the Church continues to grapple with certain nuances in the relationship among Jews, Christians, and God, she has never taught the dual covenant theory…”

“the dual covenant theory…fundamentally compromises the Church’s Great Commission, given by Christ (cf. Mt. 28:18–20). Additionally, the public advocacy of this theory has created an unwarranted expectation among our Jewish brethren that in turn leads to their understandable frustration each time the Church reaffirms that the Gospel and the Church are for all men.”

“the dual covenant theory holds…that [the Jewish people] have their own path to salvation through Judaism and therefore do not need to be—and should not be—presented with the Gospel and invited to expressly enter the Church (which is false).”

“The Scriptures, the Fathers, and the Magisterium consistently testify that the Good News of Jesus Christ and His Church is for all men—Jew and Gentile alike.”

“God has given man one sure path to salvation, and that path is through the definitive and universal covenant in Jesus Christ by means of His Church. It is a serious error to direct anyone away from that sure path, regardless of the intention.”

In response to our article, Bishop Rhoades wrote the following letter – which was subsequently published in the September/October issue of Lay Witness (also available on-line here) :

Dear Michael and David,

Thank you very much for your article All in the Family: Christians, Jews and God. I appreciate your good scholarship and your fidelity to the teachings of the Church. Your reflections bring much needed clarity to a complex topic. I believe your critique of both the dual covenant theory and extreme supersessionism is right on the mark.

I was also happy to support the Note on Ambiguities in "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" recently issued by the Committee on Doctrine and the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The conclusion of that Note states: "With Saint Paul, we acknowledge that God does not regret, repent of, or change his mind about the "gifts and the call" that he has given to the Jewish people (Romans 11:29). At the same time, we also believe that the fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all God's promises to Israel, is found only in Jesus Christ. By God's grace, the right to hear this Good News belongs to every generation. Fulfilling the mandate given her by the Lord, the Church, respecting human freedom, proclaims the truths of the Gospel in love."

Thank you for proclaiming the truths of the Gospel in love!

Gratefully yours in Christ,

+Kevin C. Rhoades

Bishop of Harrisburg

While we have previously provided more than ample evidence of the orthodoxy of Bishop Rhoades’ beliefs and teaching in regard to the covenant issue and have illustrated that Bob’s proposed evidence wasn’t the evidence he thought it to be (here, here, here and here), this letter makes completely clear that – contrary to Bob’s public accusations – His Excellency:

1) is not a proponent of the problematic Reflections on Covenant and Mission document,

2) is not a proponent of the dual covenant error,

3) is not promoting a "hybrid" wherein the Old Covenant is salvific as long as it is "not apart from Christ."

4) is not attempting to propagate “heresy” to “unsuspecting Catholics.”

5) is not trying to convince or force anyone to adhere to the dual covenant error, and

6) is not trying to silence anyone for merely criticizing the dual covenant error – in fact, His Excellency appreciates charitable and responsible efforts to address it.

As such, Bob’s public accusations are false and defamatory, as Bishop Rhoades himself stated in February, 2008 (here).

Unfortunately, Bob continues to publicly level false accusations of heresy against his bishop and seems unwilling to acknowledge that he has jumped to unwarranted conclusions based upon evidence that doesn’t begin to meet his own previously stated standards and criteria. Below are the standards and criteria Sungenis himself established while publicly defending the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#121) against the charge of heresy – specifically in regard to its teaching that “the Old Covenant has never been revoked” (here):

It's ambiguous, but it's not heresy. . . . I'll grant you that your reasoning COULD be a possible interpretation, but the point is that you don't know it IS the interpretation, at least not well enough to levy the charge of heresy. Heresy does not deal with ambiguities. It sanctions direct and provable statements of error. . . . I really don't have to prove anything. George is the one who has to prove something, since he is the one charging the CCC with heresy. . . . Heresy is a deliberate, calculated and unequivocal statement to circumvent established dogma. . . . I simply would not use the word "heresy" at all, . . . "Proximate to heresy" is a juridical term, and when you get into canonical jurisprudence, then you're required to give substantial evidence for the accusation and conviction. If you can't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't have a case. ~ R. Sungenis

These are reasonable and charitable standards, but to date, Bob has not applied them to his own bishop. He has brought forth no real evidence to justify his public accusations of heresy against Bishop Rhoades. He hasn’t provided any statement made by the bishop that is heterodox. He has never even spoken to the bishop about his views on the Old Covenant. The evidence for his accusations is speculative, requiring one to draw inferences from circumstantial evidence that are unwarranted and unjustified. Therefore, by his own stated standards (noted above), his accusations are groundless and they should not have been made.

Bob’s speculative case rests on two pieces of “evidence”:

1) Perfectly orthodox answers His Excellency provided to a series of questions posed by Michael Forrest that Bob personally found to be suspicious or evasive. Bob completely ignored the fact that the bishop unequivocally and explicitly affirmed the Church’s missionary mandate to the Jewish people – something that is flatly rejected by adherents to the dual covenant theory. He also completely ignored the language that Bishop Rhoades employed from Dominus Iesus that affirms there is one economy of salvation – not two – and that economy of salvation is through Jesus Christ by means of His Church (here). Bob also seems unaware that Bishop Rhoades fully supported and voted for the change to the problematic sentence on page 131 of the USCCA – although we reported this over a year ago (here).

2) Two alleged statements made by Fr. King, the Vicar General – not Bishop Rhoades – that were negative in regard to “supersessionism.” Previously at this blog (here) and also in All in the Family (here), we pointed out that the term “supersessionism” is not even of Catholic origin. While used by some Catholics, it appears in no Catholic magisterial texts and has no precise, Catholic definition. Not unlike the term “proselytism,” it can and does carry very different connotations, implications and nuances (here). As such, it is inappropriate to utilize this word as a sort of absolute litmus test for orthodoxy.

As we also stated in a previous piece at this blog, if Fr. King understands the term “supersessionism” in one of the “extreme” or “crude” senses (as Avery Cardinal Dulles phrased it and as Bob himself uses it), then he has a perfectly legitimate reason for not accepting it. It is therefore unjustifiable to level a public charge of heresy against Fr. King based on his alleged rejection this informal term – let alone to publicly charge Bishop Rhoades with heresy because his vicar general rejects the word.

Additionally, we have documented that Bob has been more than satisfied with – and has even highly praised – far less explicit statements made by John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the USCCB, Cardinal Kasper and Leon Suprenant as proof that these men had rejected the dual covenant error (here). Yet, he has adopted a drastically different standard with his own bishop. Bob has even gone to the absurd extreme of requiring Bishop Rhoades to sign off on three statements that he personally composed in order to be acquitted of his charges (here and here).

Be that as it may, Bishop Rhoades’ letter (above) proves conclusively that there is no legitimate basis on which to even question His Excellency’s beliefs and teachings in regard to the dual covenant error at all, let alone to publicly charge him with having a "war...with Catholic doctrine" and “attempting to propagate” heresy to “unsuspecting Catholics” because he has greater “allegiances” to Jewish causes than to the Catholic faith (as Bob has done).

We hope that Bob does not choose to change the field of play again by altering his original accusations and finding new reasons to level public accusations against Bishop Rhoades. However, based on Bob’s previous articles about the Jewish people and God, we anticipate that he may object to the assertion that the Jewish people retain a special (although non-salvific) relationship with God. But we invite Bob and his supporters to review the following evidence we previously provided that his own theology already implicitly acknowledges that the Jewish people retain a special relationship with God:

By Sungenis Alone

The Theology of Prejudice

Regardless, even if Bob rejects the evidence that the Jewish people still retain a special relationship with God (something even the Holy Father believes), this disagreement is of a completely different essence and magnitude than whether or not the Jewish people need Christ and the Church like everyone else in the world.

It seems perfectly plain that Bishop Rhoades did not direct Bob to cease writing about Jews and Judaism because of Bob’s opposition to the dual covenant error (here). Rather, His Excellency directed him to cease for the reasons stated by His Excellency – Bob’s writings and postings on Jewish issues have been and too often continue to be “hostile, uncharitable and unchristian,” including even those that are largely theological in nature.

We continue to sincerely hope and pray that Bob moves toward mending his relationship with Bishop Rhoades by retracting and apologizing for his false accusations and by following His Excellency’s sound and reasonable direction in regard to Jewish issues.

Michael Forrest, David Palm and Jacob Michael

Lies, Plagiarism, and Anti-Semites: Sungenis Comes Full Circle

Despite an explicit directive from his ordinary, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, to cease writing about Jews and Jewish issues (see here) and despite his own numerous promises to stop doing so (his promises are documented here), Sungenis has repeatedly returned to the topic, each time with the same blatant disregard for truth, Catholic morals, and scholarly standards. As a direct result of Sungenis’ embarrassing and vile extremism, he has now had presentations halted by Archbishop Raymond Burke (St. Louis) and the Diocese of San Bernardino (in concert with the Knights of Columbus).

Well, the dog has once again returned to his vomit. His latest salvo, however, is of particular interest because of what agitated Bob this time - a document that was promulgated by the USCCB precisely to correct the problematic positions taken by the Reflections on Covenant and Mission document in regard to the dual covenant theory and the evangelization of Jews. Incredibly, Sungenis chose to respond by re-posting (link) the scandalous 2002 “Conversion of the Jews Not Necessary?” essay that originally got him into such hot water and caused an exodus of supporters — albeit with a majority of the most egregious Nazi and white supremacist material that he plagiarized edited out (see the original version here.  A side by side comparison of the remaining, plagiarized material is presented below). If anybody truly needed further evidence that Sungenis has not mended his ways, this is surely it. He is still grinding the same, anti-Jewish axe, desperately trying to prove that he was “right” all along about “the Jews.”

In this forum we have amply demonstrated that Bob Sungenis is an irresponsible and dishonest commentator on Jews and Judaism. Any good work he has done concerning the dual covenant error or any other doctrinal issue concerning Jews has been fatally compromised by his manifest bigotry and has been done better and more responsibly by others (our own contribution to the doctrinal issue may be found here.) This piece will focus on Bob’s most recent shoddy scholarship, double standards, plagiarism, and outright bigotry in regard to Jews and Judaism.

Bob begins his revised essay with a standard conspiratorial boilerplate:

Hence, as we are reading what the RCM states in this document, let no one be fooled that the Vatican fully endorses [sic] what the RCM is teaching, from the Pope to the Cardinals he has put in place to implement these changes. It would be utterly naive to think that Cardinal Keeler has not already received his marching orders directly from the Vatican. The Vatican has been at work on these changes for the last 50 or so years, and they are beginning to move forward with a vengeance. Documents such as the RCM are merely the trial balloons to gauge how the public is going to react to such monumental change in Catholic teaching ("Conversion", 7).

Incredibly, in the face of a very welcome and rather uncharacteristic clarification by the USCCB, Bob chooses to “double down” and insist that it really is part of an ongoing Jewish conspiracy, which involves everybody in the hierarchy, from the Pope on down

Coupled with the standard serving of conspiracy mongering comes the now equally standard plagiarism. Sungenis has rejected the charge in the past, based on his personal re-definition of “plagiarize”. But by the standard definition used by everyone else (including his alma mater) he has habitually plagiarized over the years (see the main examples cited in these entries.) Remarkably, Sungenis retained a significant amount of plagiarized material even in his new edited version of the “Conversion” article.

The reader is referred to our piece Sungenis’ Definition Difficulties for several overlapping definitions of plagiarism. Here is the definition from Bob’s undergraduate alma mater, George Washington University:

Plagiarism - intentionally representing the words, ideas, or sequence of ideas of another as one's own in any academic exercise; failure to attribute any of the following: quotations, paraphrases, or borrowed information. (http://www.gwu.edu/~ntegrity/code.html)

Let’s look at some examples from the present article. On page 7 of "Conversion" Bob has a long section of some 243 words concerning the Popes and Judaism:

For example, Pope Leo XIII in the 1900 encyclical Tametsi, and Pope Pius XI in the 1925 encyclical Quas Primas and the 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno are quite clear concerning these dangers. Prior to that, Pope Benedict the XIV in the 1751 encyclical A Quo Primum, cites a whole line of popes previous to him who forbade Catholics from associating with the Jewish religion. He cited Alexander II [sic] as stating: “Our ways of life and those of the Jews are utterly different, and Jews will easily pervert the souls of simple fold to their superstition and unbelief” (Decretal, Ad Haec). Innocent II, in the Decretal Etsi Judaeos, states: “On the contrary, the Jews, as servants rejected by that Saviour whose death they wickedly contrived, should recognize themselves, in fact and in deed, the servant of those whom the death of Christ has set free. Benedict XIV continues: “If any should ask what is forbidden by the Apostolic See to Jews dwelling in the same towns as Christians...he has only to read the Constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, Nicholas IV, Paul IV, Saint Pius V, Gregory XIII, and Clement VIII, which are readily available, as they are to be found in the Bullarium Romanum.”6 The Dictionnaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique, in the article “Juifs et Chretiens” (cols 1691-1694) gives a long list of Papal Decrees condemning the Talmud and the Talmudic formation, since the Talmud became known to Catholics about 1238-1240.

The only footnote (6) is on the quote from Benedict XIV; the rest Sungenis presents as if it was his own work. But in fact, the entire section is lifted from Fr. Denis Fahey’s The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, pages 80-81 and 89 (source). It should be noted too that Bob used this material in a talk he gave on the same topic, which is currently for sale on the BTF web site (his tape set RCM.001), directly contradicting even Bob’s gratuitous and self-serving claim that it’s only plagiarism if you are distributing someone else’s material “for personal gain” (see here).

I brought this example of plagiarism to Bob’s attention in my article “Sources, Schoeman, and Sungenis” (see point #8), an article which he purported to read, since he responded to it. All he had to do was add footnotes to make clear that the entire section came from Fahey, but he left the plagiarism intact in his most current version of “Conversion.”

In the original version of “Conversion”, Sungenis had plagiarized a section of more than an incredible 1500 (yes, that’s one thousand five hundred) words from white supremacist author Gordon “Jack” Mohr (a self-admitted member of the Kingdom Identity Movement. On the Identity Movement, see here. See the discussion on Bob's literary theft here.) In the present version, Sungenis has removed most, but not all, of this material. Here are Bob’s words from page 60 of the latest version of "Conversion" on the left, versus Mohr's material from The Talmudic Effect on Judeo-Christianity! Part 8 of 11 on the right:

Sungenis: For example, Resh Lakish (d. 278) said, “A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves death.” (Sanhedrin 58b). This refers to a Gentile who accepted the seven laws of the Noachide, since the Jews thought of the Sabbath as a sign between God and Israel alone. Rabbina, who lived about 150 years after the Church had changed the day of rest to Sunday, could not quite understand the principle underlying Resh Lakish's law, and, commenting upon it, added: "not even on Mondays [is the Gentile allowed to rest]."

Mohr: Resh Lakish (d. 278) said, "A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves death." (Sanh. 58b). This refers to a Gentile who accepted the seven laws of the Noachidae, in as much as "the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel alone" and it was probably directed against the Christian Jews, who disregarded the Mosaic laws and yet at that time kept up the observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Rabbina, who lived about 150 years after the Christians had changed the day of rest to Sunday, could not quite understand the principle underlying Resh Lakish's law, and, commenting upon it, added: ". . . not even on Mondays [is the Gentile allowed to rest]."

Here’s another example of material plagiarized from the same section of Mohr's work, from page 65 of "Conversion":

Sungenis: Talmudic laws discriminate against the non-Jew, ranking them as human animals. The Jewish Encyclopedia specifies that the command of Sanhedrin 59a threatens death to any Jew who reveals the Talmudic Law to a goy (Gentile). ). This order follows a discussion on cheating and getting the best of a Gentile in business dealings.

Mohr: All Talmudic laws discriminate against the non-Jew, ranking them as human animals. This thinking, of course, can become dangerous to the Jew. The Jewish Encyclopedia mentions SANHEDRIN 59a which threatens death to any Jew who reveals the Talmudic Law to a goy. This order follows a discussion on cheating and getting the best of a Gentile in business dealings.

There is also this shorter section from page 65 of Bob’s latest essay and Part 11 of 11 of Mohr's work from which he took it:

Sungenis: The Talmud declares that even the best of the goyim should be destroyed

Mohr: The Talmud says: "Even the best of the goyim should be destroyed."

Here's another example from page 65, plagiarized from The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Nazi sympathizer and Hitler admirer, Elizabeth Dilling:

Sungenis: The Talmud is divided into six main divisions called "Sedarim" (orders).The Talmud is an assortment of every subject imaginable. Unfortunately, it is filled with obscenities and blasphemies of the highest order. It seeks to reverse many biblical moral teachings on theft, murder, sodomy, perjury, treatment of children and parents. It has an unrelenting and virtually insane hatred of Christ, Christians and every aspect of Christianity.

Dilling: The Talmud is divided into six main divisions called "Sedarim" (orders), but each division and each volume is a hodge-podge of every subject imaginable. The main and overall characteristics of the Talmud are: pomp, silliness, obscenity and more obscenity, a setting up of laws seemingly for the purpose of inventing circumventions, and evasions; delight in sadistic cruelty; reversal of all Biblical moral teachings on theft, murder, sodomy, perjury, treatment of children and parents; insane hatred of Christ, Christians and every phase of Christianity.

And from yet another source, lifted without attribution from The Truth About the Talmud by notorious Holocaust revisionist Michael Hoffman and Alan Critchley, Bob gives us this on page 65:

Sungenis: According to Jewish businessman Samuel Roth in the book, “Jews Must Live, “one of the first things he was taught as an European Jew was to spit when he passed a Christian church, or when the name of Jesus Christ was even mentioned. The second lesson was that it was accepted for a Jew to cheat the Gentile goyim as long as you weren’t caught at it because that would bring shame upon Judaism.

Hoffman/Critchley: According to the book, "Jews Must Live". authored by the Jewish businessman Samuel Roth, one of the first things he was taught as an European Jew was to spit when he passed a Christian church, or when the name of Jesus Christ was even mentioned. The second lesson was that it was accepted for a Jew to cheat the detested goyim as long as you weren't caught at it because that would bring shame upon Judaism.

It is interesting to note that their source for this allegation, Samuel Roth, was himself a Jew and a convicted pornographer (see here). And so one is left wondering why anti-Semites like Hoffman, Critchley, and Sungenis take his word for anything, given their view that Jews are so morally degenerate and utterly untrustworthy. Apparently any source that can be used to bash Jews is a trustworthy source – even another Jew.

Obviously, serial plagiarism is a serious problem for Sungenis (see many other examples documented here), but there are numerous additional examples of shoddy scholarship in the edited version of “Conversion”.

Bob consistently treats the Talmud in a decidedly tendentious way. Although there is material that is genuinely offensive in the Talmud, Bob seems incapable of seeing any good there whatsoever; this, I would contend, is the very definition of prejudice, namely, to pre-judge someone or something. For example on page 63 Bob states that, "Unlike the Old Testament, which commanded the Jews to show mercy to Gentiles dwelling in their midst, there is no such message in the Talmud." This is a remarkable claim since just one page later he acknowledges the Talmudic statement that, “One must provide for the needs of the gentile poor with the Jewish poor. One must visit the gentile sick as one visits the Jewish sick. One must care for the burial of a gentile, just as one must care for the burial of a Jew. [These obligations are universal] because these are the ways of peace.” But rather than simply admitting that the Talmud says, at least here, the very thing he claimed it never says, Bob launches into an extended rant plagiarized from Mohr, Dilling, and Hoffman as documented above. (For more examples of Bob's duplicity when it comes to the Talmud see Is Pope Benedict Guilty of a “perverse resurrection of Talmudic Judaism”? and More Sungenis Dishonesty and Plagiarism with Ben Douglass?

On page 40 of "Conversion", Bob cites an example of Pope John Paul II’s “cordial relations with the Jews”:

One example occurred on January 17, 1998. John Paul II organized the first ever Judaism Day in a Warsaw synagogue, where he stated: “Whoever encounters Christ, encounters Judaism.”

But a little fact checking proves this address was actually given on November 17, 1980, not January 17, 1998. It was not given in Warsaw, but in Mainz, Germany. It was not given in a synagogue. And it was not the occasion for the establishment of Judaism Day; that was done by the Italian bishops sometime around 1988 (see here, here, and here.) Four errors in a single sentence is a rather high error density, but not uncommon in Sungenis’ anti-Semitic writings.

And there is additional sloppy scholarship. Bob repeats his claim that the Antichrist will be of Jewish descent and that this is the teaching of “many” of the Fathers ("Conversion", 51.) At the same time, he again grossly mischaracterizes the patristic support for a future en masse conversion of the Jews, stating that, “Some of the Fathers took this view (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr), but not many” ("Conversion", 22; my emphasis). The problem is that he has his facts exactly backwards – something to which he has been alerted many times. The patristic witness for a future, significant conversion of the Jews to Christ is extremely strong, being supported by at least 21 witnesses of whom nine are Doctors of the Church. This is buttressed by the testimony of numerous prominent medieval and post-medieval witnesses, including several Popes and at least five more Doctors of the Church (see documentation of this here).

Even Fr. Denis Fahey, whom I think nobody will mistake for a shining example of a philosemite - especially in his later writings - after surveying the weight of the witnesses for this belief down through Church history speaks of a significant future conversion of the Jewish people as a certainty: “The conversion of the Jewish people to the true Supernatural Messias is, therefore, certain . . .” (from The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, page 109; my emphasis.) But even after having been presented repeatedly with copious evidence to the contrary, Sungenis continues to push his personal agenda, claiming that “not many” Fathers supported this view.

On the other hand, in support of the claim that the Antichrist will be of Jewish ethnicity and that Jews will play a central role in the reign of Antichrist - which he claims is supported by “many” patristics - Bob cites exactly two Fathers: Sts. Irenaeus and Hippolytus. He includes many additional citations—four pages worth, in fact—but if one takes the time actually to read them, there is no mention of a Jewish Antichrist. Bob follows his quote from St. Hippolytus with an alleged “prophecy” from St. Nilus. But elsewhere, in a context not involving Jews, he has indicated that he knows that this source is untrustworthy (see here.) And in fact, the prophecy says absolutely nothing about Jews. Then follow twelve additional citations from Sts. Anselm, Hildegard, Bridget, Vincent Ferrer, Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, Pius X, and the Catechism. Only one of these, St. Anselm, actually mentions Jews, but not in support of Bob’s claim that the Antichrist will be of Jewish ancestry. From the rest, there is not a single mention of anything to do with Jews or Judaism. Yet, in another article, Bob had the audacity to make the silly (and oxymoronic) claim that “Catholic tradition… has unofficially declared that the future Antichrist will be of Jewish extraction” (see here). In keeping with Bob’s completely fabricated claim that Robin Williams is Jewish (a claim he made after Williams said some bigoted things about the Church), Bob continues the bizarre pattern of “finding” evidence against Jews wherever he looks.

Similarly, Bob seeks to bolster his criticism of the RCM document by making the extravagant claim that "all popes prior to the Vatican II have made very strong statements against fraternizing with the Jewish religion." Back in 2007 I called this “a manifest falsehood and wild exaggeration” (see here) and it remains so today. Yes, a few of the popes did make strong statements against excessive fraternizing with Jews and Judaism, but it’s proposterous to say that all 261 of the popes prior to Vatican II did so.

In addition, Bob repeats the claim that “Pope Leo XIII in the 1900 encyclical Tametsi, and Pope Pius XI in the 1925 encyclical Quas Primas and the 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno are quite clear concerning these dangers”, namely, of “fraternizing with the Jewish religion” ("Conversion", 7). Here we recall that Bill Cork was the first, back in 2002, to point out to Bob that those three papal encyclicals say absolutely nothing about Jews or Judaism:

none of these documents say a thing about such "dangers."

Tametsi futura prospicientibus, the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Jesus Christ the Redeemer (1900) . . . never uses the word Jew, or Jewish, or Judaism, or any cognate thereof. So he couldn't have been too worried by "fraternizing with the Jewish religion."

Quas primas, encyclical of Pope Pius XI on the Feast of Christ the King (1925), only refers to "the Jews" twice, in reference to specific Biblical passages: "the Jews accused him of breaking the Sabbath," and "the Jews and even the Apostles wrongly supposed that the Messiah would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel." Again, he couldn't have been worried by the concerns which trouble Sungenis.

Quadragesimo Anno, encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Reconstruction of the Social Order (1931), does not use the words "Jew," "Judaism," or any cognates. (link)

Bob claims to have read Cork’s critique back in 2002, so he has no excuse for continuing to make these flatly false claims. And, as I pointed out in 2007:

Bob's source for his assertion is the book The Kingship of Christ and Conversion of the Jews, by Fr. Denis Fahey. The section which Bob is drawing from in Fr. Fahey's work actually says this: "The combat against naturalism in general and, therefore, against the organised naturalism of the Jewish nation, is urged upon us, for example, by Pope Leo XIII (Tametsi, 1900) and Pope Pius XI (Quas Primas, 1925, and Quadragesimo Anno, 1931) ." . . .

Note that the extension of "naturalism in general" to "the organised naturalism of the Jewish nation" is Fr. Fahey's and is not reflected in the papal texts. Much less do these documents contain "very strong statements against fraternizing with the Jewish religion" as Bob asserts. He has paraphrased Fr. Fahey in such a way to materially misrepresent these three papal documents. (link)

So, even after being presented with two opportunities to correct himself, Sungenis ignored the facts and republished this serious misrepresentation of papal documents. Sadly, Bob Sungenis continues to devolve into a rank propagandist when Jews are involved.

And lest anyone think that assessment is too harsh, let’s look at Bob’s assertion, made twice in the edited "Conversion" essay, that the meaning of the Hebrew goyim is “cattle”:

Actually, the word “goyim” is the Hebrew word for “animal” or “cattle,” since that is what Jews have traditionally understood Gentiles to be next to ("Conversion", 35)

According to the Talmud, the Gentiles are not created in the image and likeness of God, but are akin to animals. That is why Jews refer to Gentiles as “goyim,” which is the Hebrew word for “cattle.” The Talmud states that Gentiles were placed on the earth to serve the Jews, just as animals serve them (Ibid., 49).

This assertion is right out of the white supremacist playbook (just Google “goyim” and “cattle” and see what you come up with. Be sure to turn off your Internet filter if it filters out material from anti-Semitic groups, because that’s what you’re going to find.)

Sungenis has, on occasion, claimed to have studied the Hebrew language but his repeated assertion concerning the meaning of goyim at the very least calls into question how much he could have absorbed in class. Certainly he did not glean this from any standard Hebrew lexicon. There, consistently, one finds that the meaning is "nation(s)" or "people(s)". Out of over 550 references in the Hebrew Old Testament, goy/goyim is used once with a figurative sense of a swarm of locusts (Jo 1:6) and once “of all species of beasts Zp 2:14” according to the scholarly Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon (p. 156). Holladay’s Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament does not even list this meaning as a possibility. But even in the two instances in which it is used in the context of animals the word goy/goyim means something like "swarm" or "herds" (or perhaps even "nation", in the case of Joel 1:6); it does not itself mean "beast". The translators of the Septuagint consistently translate the Hebrew goyim as ethne in Greek which, again, is the word for "nation", not "animal" or “cattle”.

This gratuitous assertion from Bob again confirms the gravity of his “source problem.” It bears repeating that Bob has done no original work in the field of Judaism. He has done no significant reading in the primary sources of Jewish thought. And he has never seriously interacted with any significant, scholarly secondary works on Judaism.

In regard to Jews and Judaism Bob is merely a “Google scholar” and propagandist of the worst sort. Not only does he simply Google to try to find his information, he consistently and indiscriminately picks material from white supremacist and neo-Nazi sites to present in his articles without any consideration for the welfare of the innocent people upon whom he is foisting such refuse. Although he has excised a majority of the most offensive material from his original 2002 verison of “Conversion of the Jews” the pattern remains. He relies on the likes of anti-Jewish propagandists like Mohr, Dilling, Hoffman and convicted pornographer Roth to provide information on Jews and Judaism.

Sungenis’ latest anti-Semitic rant comes as no great surprise to anyone who has followed his antics since 2002. But if anyone has not been following and comes to this controversy late in the game, we hope that this latest illumination of Sungenis’ “Jew problem” will convince him that Sungenis is absolutely unreliable and dishonest in dealing with Jewish issues. He wishes to be seen as a scholar, but he is, in fact, a mere plagiarist and propagandist. In the end, as we have repeated numerous times, this provides more proof (if more was needed) that Bishop Rhoades was absolutely right to tell Robert Sungenis to cease and desist from commenting on Jews and Judaism. Bob needs to obey his bishop, for the good of the Church and for the salvation of his soul.

David Palm

Pope Continues to Repudiate Holocaust Revisionism Promoted by Sungenis

UPDATED May 28,2009

On February 19th, 2009, Bob Sungenis had the unmitigated gall to imply that Pope Benedict XVI has avoided mentioning the number of Jews killed by the Nazis because His Holiness agrees with him that perhaps only a few hundred thousand Jews perished. Bob also took yet another opportunity to promote Holocaust revisionism (a "report by Meyer"):

R. Sungenis: "The pope made no mention of the '6 million' figure that has become such a hot issue in the Williamson affair. The pope did the right thing. In reality, it doesn’t make any difference whether it’s 600,000 (according to a recent report by Meyer) or 6,000,000." (link)

Does the Pope really agree with Sungenis that perhaps only a few hundred thousand Jews were killed in the Holocaust? Is the Holy Father avoiding mention of the number "six million"? For the sake of any individuals who may have any doubts on that score, the following are two recent statements made by Pope Benedict XVI:

It is right and fitting that, during my stay in Israel, I will have the opportunity to honor the memory of the six million Jewish vicitims of the Shoah, and to pray that humanity will never again witness a crime of such magnitude.

(Ben Gurion Airport, May 11, 2009. The full text of the speech may be viewed here)

I have come to stand in silence before this monument, erected to honor the memory of the millions of Jews killed in the horrific tragedy of the Shoah. They lost their lives, but they will never lose their names: these are indelibly etched in the hearts of their loved ones, their surviving fellow prisoners, and all those determined never to allow such an atrocity to disgrace mankind again. Most of all, their names are forever fixed in the memory of Almighty God...May their suffering never be denied, belittled or forgotten!

(Yad Vashem, May 11, 2009. The full text of the speech may be viewed here)

While the Holy Father assures us that the names of the millions of Jews killed in the Holocaust are fixed in the memory of Almighty God, Bob Sungenis would have us forget most of them and believe that perhaps the Jewish people themselves were largely to blame for their terrible fate. Again, below are a few other ignorant and offensive statements made by Bob about the Holocaust:

Robert Sungenis (2002): The figure of six million Jews dying under Hitler's regime is even admitted by informed Jews to be mere propaganda. (link)

Robert Sungenis (2005): I have my doubts that it was 6 million [Jews killed in the Holocaust]...Hitler hated the Jews, not only for what he saw as a youth, but because the Jews had a stranglehold on European finance and banking for many years. There are some stories, however, that suggest these Jewish banking families actually helped Hitler in his quest, since their objective was to ellicit [sic] world-wide sympathy so as to migrate European and Russian Jews to Palestine, their long-sought goal which they have, indeed, accomplished." (link)

Robert Sungenis (2009): "it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that six million Jews were killed in Nazi internment camps." (link)

Robert Sungenis (2009): “I suggest you read the unsanitized accounts of what really happened [in the Holocaust]. When the Jews and Jewish sympathizers start showing proof that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews by gassing them, instead of jailing people for even bringing up the question, then you can talk about the Nazis and I’ll listen.” (link)

Robert Sungenis (2009): "One example of this evidence is the fact that the worldwide Jewish population from 1940 to 1948 did not decrease by even a half million, much less six million....But the international population records show that the numbers of Jews after World War II were virtually the same as before the war." (link) (Click here to see a refutation of this claim often made by Holocaust deniers and "revisionists".)

Robert Sungenis (2009): "The documented records of the International Red Cross show that there were less than a few hundred thousand Jews who died in Nazi camps, and that most of those were from disease." (link) (Click here to see a refutation of this claim often made by Holocaust deniers and "revisionists". According to the International Committee of the Red Cross itself, this is not what these records "show.")

No, the Holy Father most certainly does not agree with Bob Sungenis that the Nazis may only have killed a few hundred thousand Jews and that the figure of six million is “mere propaganda”. To the contrary, His Holiness has denounced the kind of ugly Holocaust “minimization” and revisionism that Bob and SSPX Bishop Williamson peddle as “intolerable and unacceptable.” (Article)

Ferrara Repudiates Holocaust views of Bishop Williamson and Sungenis - 2009

In February, 2007, Christopher Ferrara wrote an article entitled Christophobes at the Gate, that heavily criticized a 2006 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on “radical traditionalists” who preach “anti-Semitic hatred” (see: The Dirty Dozen) The SPLC article listed Robert Sungenis as its first example and singled him out as “one of the most rabid and open anti-Semites in the entire radical traditionalist movement.”

While Ferrara voiced some valid criticisms of the SPLC report (as did Karl Keating), he failed to defend Sungenis by name and also made a statement that raised a few eye-brows: “virtually everyone SPLC accuses [of anti-Semitism] is innocent of the charge…”. Virtually everyone.

Eventually, in July, 2007, Ferrara publicly defended Sungenis against the specific charge of anti-Semitism, asserting that “Bob is no anti-Semite.”1 To our knowledge, Ferrara has never publicly criticized Sungenis in regard to his persistently offensive treatment of Jewish issues. And, with the exception of the narrow defense noted above, neither has he publicly defended him.

However, after Bishop Williamson of the SSPX recently created a firestorm of controversy for the Church (and the traditionalist movement in particular) by making statements very similar to those previously made by Sungenis about Jews, Ferrara apparently felt compelled to publicly criticize Williamson and to repudiate his ignorant and offensive views in January of 2009 (see: Triumph and Tribulation).

Below the reader will find statements made by Sungenis on the Holocaust that are very similar to those made by Bishop Williamson:

R. Sungenis (2002): "the figure of six million Jews dying under Hitler's regime is even admitted by informed Jews to be mere propaganda." (link)

R. Sungenis (2005): “I have my doubts that it was 6 million [Jews killed in the Holocaust]… Hitler hated the Jews, not only for what he saw as a youth, but because the Jews had a stranglehold on European finance and banking for many years. 
There are some stories, however, that suggest these Jewish banking familes actually helped Hitler in his quest, since their objective was to ellicit [sic] world-wide sympathy so as to migrate European and Russian Jews to Palestine, their long-sought goal which they have, indeed, accomplished.” (link)

R. Sungenis (2009): "it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that six million Jews were killed in Nazi internment camps." (link)

R. Sungenis (2009): “I suggest you read the unsanitized accounts of what really happened [in the Holocaust]. When the Jews and Jewish sympathizers start showing proof that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews by gassing them, instead of jailing people for even bringing up the question, then you can talk about the Nazis and I’ll listen.” (link)

On February 19th, 2009, Sungenis even had the gall to imply that the Pope may actually be in agreement with him when it comes to the Holocaust:

R. Sungenis: "The pope made no mention of the '6 million' figure that has become such a hot issue in the Williamson affair. The pope did the right thing. In reality, it doesn’t make any difference whether it’s 600,000 (according to a recent report by Meyer) or 6,000,000." (link)

(Please click here for more on what the Pope has said about denial and minimization of the Holocaust. Click here for proof that the Pope is not at all in agreement with Sungenis in regard to the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. More problematic quotes and background about Sungenis’s views on the Jewish people may be viewed here and here. )

As “evidence” for his assertion that the figure of six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust is “mere propaganda”, Sungenis cited thoroughly debunked “statistics” that purport to “prove” that “there was no large difference between the number of Jews living [in Europe] in 1939 as there were living in 1948.”

In Triumph and Tribulation, Ferrara debunked these claims, critically noting that those who make such claims evidence “what appears to be a lack of even cursory research” and that “anyone with even a superficial knowledge” of the facts should know better. (More information about the number of Jews living in Europe before and after the Holocaust may be found here.)

Ferrara then went on to make these strong statements:

traditionalists have not refrained from critical observations concerning certain statements and actions of the conciliar popes. That criticism is in keeping with the due liberty of the members of the Mystical Body, and indeed their duty to speak out when they believe in conscience that the common good of the Church is being harmed, even should that harm involve acts or omissions of the Supreme Pontiff himself. It would a fortiori be a dereliction of duty for traditionalists not to exercise that same liberty with respect to statements from within our ‘movement’ merely because they come from a fellow traditionalist, even if he were a bishop. For to remain silent in the face of what Bishop Williamson has said would be to endanger the entire cause to which we have dedicated ourselves by allowing it to be attached to his errors.

Bishop Williamson has eliminated himself —and for no good reason—as a credible public spokesman for the Society in the Catholic or secular communications media, or in any other significant public forums open to other traditional clergy.

Not only this newspaper, but every journal of traditional Catholic opinion, and above all the Society itself, must clearly and unequivocally declare—as I do here and now—that Holocaust revisionism, wacky conspiracy theories, and other such nonsense will have no part in the traditionalist movement. (Note: Some of Sungenis’s “wacky conspiracy theories” may be viewed here. "Other such nonsense" from Sungenis may be viewed here and here.) We must also implore Bishop Williamson to reconsider and personally repudiate the outrageous statements he has published to the world despite the many entreaties that he cease and desist. This is not a question of the Bishop’s freedom of opinion, but rather of the consequences to countless innocent bystanders from a heedless exercise of that freedom. Yes, the Bishop has spoken only for himself; but others, however unjustly, will be made to pay the price for what he has said, and they will go on paying it for a long time to come. The Bishop should have foreseen this, but now it is too late to prevent the damage. All he can do is make amends. If he cares about the Church and the traditionalist faithful, as he surely does, then he will not allow himself to become a stumbling block on the road ahead.

Ferrara is to be commended for his unequivocal, public repudiation of the ignorant and offensive views propagated by Bishop Williamson. We would also note that one could very easily substitute “Robert Sungenis” for “Bishop Williamson” in most all of the quotes above and they would stand equally well. In fact, Sungenis has publicly propagated more ignorant, dishonest and offensive material about Jews than Bishop Williamson has (see here and here). And we are unaware of any occasion on which Williamson has slandered even those Jews who enter the Catholic Church (see here, for one example where Sungenis has done so).

In closing, it is worth noting that the Vatican has rejected Bishop Williamson’s apologies to date as insufficient (article). He has thus far refused to forthrightly retract and apologize for his ignorant and offensive statements. Sadly, the same is true of Robert Sungenis. In fact, unlike Bishop Williamson, Sungenis has even gone so far as to state that “no one” will change his views of the Jewish people - even if he withdraws some of them from public view “for the sake of peace.” (See Saying "Peace" When There Is No Peace.)

______________________________

1 It should be acknowledged that Ferrara somewhat distanced himself from Sungenis in this letter to the editor. However, in the process, he understated how much association there has been between them: “[Sungenis] contributed exactly one answer to one question about the Catholic Faith on my organization’s Web site.” In 2005, Sungenis actually contributed two answers to Ferrara’s web site that are still there (click here) and there have been other areas of collaboration between Sungenis and Ferrara as well. See: Are Ferrara and Sungenis a Team?

More Anti-Jewish Bigotry at BTF

In response to a Q and A at BTF entitled “What do you think of the pope’s speech on the Jews”, a BTF patron using the name “daaharper” made the following comments (question 121) and even invited Sungenis to remove his posts if Sungenis found them offensive.  His comments are the only ones currently published in response to Sungenis’s article.  Apparently, Sungenis finds nothing offensive in them.  For four weeks and counting now, Sungenis has published the following comments from his patron at BTF:

“Enough is enough.
At what point do we start calling a thing for what it is? Do words and actions actually mean anything anymore?
The Shoah has become the chief ontological event in the New World Order, and a potent political tool used to justify and facilitate all manner of political evil.”

 

“If Rome still had courage it would force the issue, many scholars are willing to support Bishop Williamson.”

 

“The Pope is teaching heresy, there is only one reading of Holy Scripture…Rabbinical Judaism…is satanic, or more precisely, 'The Synagogue of Satan'.” 

“Rightly, has Archbishop Theodosius of Sebaste told the Pope he is not welcome.”

“The term Anti-Semite has nothing to do with racism, if it did, the Jewish nation would be the most Anti-Semitic nation on earth.”

 

“Robert…anybody who supports Zionism – including the Pope – is evil.  Period.  If the Pope kowtows to Rabbinical Judaism, he is worshipping Satan.”

 

"Major Premise:  The Talmud is satanic

Minor Premise:  The Pope praises it 

Conclusion:  The Pope is praising Satanism."

After these extreme and offensive comments, Sungenis’s patron then returned to make another comment,  apologizing for being “so passionate” and to assure Sungenis that his diatribe was not directed at Sungenis himself but at “the Catholic World” - “particularly the hierarchy.” 

After somewhat equivocating on his charge of heresy against the Holy Father, Sungenis’s patron then offered this remarkable caveat:  “If somebody supported Nazism out of good will nowadays, we’d certainly think unfavorably of them.”  The idea of supporting Nazism out of good will certainly seems odd enough in an of itself.  But it is also telling that Sungenis's patron would merely  “think unfavorably” of someone who supported Nazism.

 

The next day, perhaps after realizing that he had revealed his thoughts a little too fully, Sungenis’s patron offered something akin to the “I have Jewish friends” defense…“I have known many fine Jewish people”.   He then went on to convey that he didn't really mean to slander all Jewish people.

And so, the pattern that we noted back in 2006 continues unabated:  “[Sungenis] continues to evidence a propensity to uncritically seek out and accept unsavory, dubious and/or negatively biased information in regard to Jews and has drawn others with similar proclivities to his website.”  (emphasis added, see: Sungenis and the Jews) 

Debunking Another Conspiracy Theory

In the spring of 2008, the bishops of the United States voted to change the wording of a problematic statement on page 131 of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (see our write-up here). As the Catholic News Service (CNS) reports:

The proposed change -- which would replace one sentence in the catechism -- was discussed by the bishops in executive session at their June meeting in Orlando, Fla., but did not receive the needed two-thirds majority of all members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at that time. After mail balloting, the final vote of 231-14, with one abstention, was announced Aug. 5 in a letter to bishops from Msgr. David Malloy, USCCB general secretary. (LINK)

Robert Sungenis noted this fact by putting an erroneous spin on events and by floating a baseless conspiracy theory:

This tells us, of course, that the decision to excise the erroneous statement was not a slam dunk. If in June 2008 two-thirds (or 66%) of the USCCB’s bishops were not on board, it means that less than 162 bishops were in favor of excising the statement on page 131. What made the vote suddenly climb from less than 162 to 231 (or 93% [sic]) of bishops in favor of excising the statement is anyone’s guess. Perhaps there were not enough of the bishops present during the executive session. Or, perhaps in the privacy of a mail-in ballot the bishops could not only think more clearly about the issue but could voice their opinion without any peer-pressure from fellow bishops giving them a jaundice [sic] eye in a public meeting. (LINK)

One will notice that Sungenis made a few unsupported assertions in this statement. He read the CNS statement that the motion, “did not receive the needed two-thirds majority of all the members” to mean that there was sufficient opposition to the measure that it could not garner the needed votes at that meeting and that something caused the allegedly flagging support for the measure to "suddenly climb." This conclusion is not warranted by what the CNS reported, nor is it in line with the facts. In the next sentence, Sungenis touched on the truth: “Perhaps there were not enough of the bishops present during the executive session.” This was correct. But then, unfortunately, Sungenis went on to add a gratuitous surmise that perhaps some number of the bishops were just afraid to vote for the change publicly. Ultimately, this is another troubling pattern found in Sungenis' writings over the past several years. Rather than doing the kind of basic, sound research that could provide firm answers, he is content to present rash theories if they align with his preconceptions and agenda.

As will soon become evident, contrary to Sungenis’s assertion, when one considers the actual facts – including the 94% (not 93%) approval - this vote does indeed look like a “slam dunk.”

More recently, a Sungenis supporter at a Catholic forum ratcheted up the rhetoric, claiming, "That vote had to be done by a secret ballot" and "considering that only 14 bishops voted to keep the heresy in our Catechism, we can see that a number of them flip-flopped when they got back home and voted in secret" (at his request, we have removed his username from this blog post). Now, with these additional unsubstantiated assertions we’ve degenerated into full-blown conspiracy mode.

In light of this development, it seems appropriate to help set the record straight. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, these conspiracy theories can take on a life of their own and degenerate over time. And as we also have learned from experience, very few people have the inclination to confront and refute the committed conspiracy theorists who tirelessly propagate such stories. All too often, when the conspiracy theorist is confronted with his errors, he simply moves on to new accusations and "proof". Conspiracy theorists tend to be "true believers" and nothing - including facts - seems to get in the way of their dark suspicions.

But for those who are interested in facts, the following is the relevant information we accumulated on this matter:

1) According to the USCCB website, there were 268 active bishops as of January 2008 and 260 active bishops as of March, 2009 (2008, 2009). If these are all voting bishops, then depending upon the exact number of bishops who were active as of the vote in Orlando, between 173 and 179 (two-thirds) were necessary for passage.

2) The Orlando meetings were held over three days, from June 12-14, 2008 (link). Agenda: link.

3) The number of bishops present varied from session to session and from day to day. The record illustrates that on the 12th and 13th, as as many as 192, but as few as 141 bishops were present to vote on any particular item (link). The 141 recorded for a vote during one session was well short of the number needed for a two thirds majority of the whole conference. There may well have been even fewer bishops than 141 present on Saturday, June 14th.

4) According to a USCCB official who attended the Orlando meeting:

a. The vote on the U.S. Catechism took place on Saturday morning (June 14th) at the end of the meetings and after many of the bishops had left because of various commitments. Even Archbishop Wuerl, who headed the committee in charge of the U.S. Catechism, had to leave for ordinations scheduled that same Saturday. Public evidence of this fact may be found here: link.

b. The use of mail ballots around the June meeting is common because fewer bishops typically attend it. Several items required a mail-ballot (not a more sinister-sounding “secret ballot”), not just the vote on the U.S. Catechism for Adults (USCCA). Even the simple, uncontroversial National Directory for Catechesis required a mail ballot.

c. Those bishops who voted in Orlando were not sent mail-ballots. Only those bishops who missed the initial vote in Orlando were sent mail-ballots. Therefore, the theory that some bishops changed their votes ("flip-flopped") in favor of the change once they were safely out of the public eye is baseless.

d. After the initial presentation was made on the need to change the sentence on page 131 of the USCCA, there was relatively little discussion and no one stood up to oppose it.

The bottom line is that the sentence on page 131 of the USCCA needed to be changed, the bishops voted overwhelmingly in favor of that change, and there is no ground upon which to weave these conspiracy theories.

We do acknowledge that Sungenis also wrote, “perhaps there were not enough of the bishops present during the executive session”, which happened to be the truth. But he should have left it at that. The fact that he even publicly floated his baseless conspiracy theory is irresponsible. For obvious reasons, it would be to his advantage were his conspiracy theory to stick in people’s minds. And perhaps in the case of his supporter at the previously mentioned Catholic forum, he was successful in accomplishing just that outcome. We hope that this information helps to set the record straight.

Sadly, Sungenis’s multiple conspiracy theories – whether about his own bishop (link 1 and link 2), the Jewish people, or a number of other things – continue to bear bad fruit. To review some of the many other conspiracy theories espoused and propagated by Sungenis, read Sowing Confusion, Distrust and Conspiracy Theories.

Note: Subsequent to the publication of this posting, Adoremus Bulletin printed the following in its September, 2009 issue, which provides further corroboration of the facts:

Majority Vote at USCCB June Meeting?

On all liturgical action items, 2/3 positive vote of all the eligible bishops is required, not merely a majority (or 2/3) of those present and voting. Thus, because none of the action items presented at the June meeting received the required 2/3 of the total number of active Latin-rite bishops, even though a majority of those present approved them, an absentee ballot was required.