[I]t is nonsense to maintain that somehow Judaism is right for Jews, and Christianity is right for Christians, and that the truth is dependent on what group one belongs to. (Roy Schoeman, Salvation is From the Jews, p. 10).
[E]ven if Christians look for the day when Israel will recognize Christ as the Son of God and the rift that separates them will be healed, they should also acknowledge God's providence, which has obviously given Israel a particular mission in this "time of the Gentiles" (Joseph Ratzinger, Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 104).
Introduction
If you have not yet read Part 1 of this essay, I heartily encourage you to do so for it contains an essential introduction to the specific controversy which I will address here. There I demonstrated that for well over four years Bob Sungenis has been caught again and again plagiarizing (see definitions here and here), attacking his opponents before checking his sources, citing ideological extremists in support of his conspiracy theories, and flagrantly contradicting himself. Nowhere is that more true than in his treatment of Jewish issues. Although the evidence against him is irrefutable, he has never forthrightly admitted to plagiarism, nor has he ever really apologized for the reckless disregard he has shown for the truth, nor for the damage he has caused to other mens' reputations.
Bob has replied at some length to Part 1 (see here). There is no need to give much response. As Jacob Michael has pointed out, Bob's "rebuttals" end up pretty much admitting everything that is charged about him. So in his response to me he admits to engaging repeatedly in an activity which all the dictionaries label as plagiarism, but that's such an ugly word so Bob dodges the charge by redefining it. He admits to attributing to men words they never said and actions they never did, but we're assured that they've said and done worse, so it's no transgression to fabricate. And the contradictions - oy vey! Bob claims that, "A lawyer would have a field day with Mr. Palm" ("My Response to David Palm...", p. 27). To cite just two examples - and brace yourself for Bob's inevitable boast that two was all I could find - imagine with me, if you will, what an attorney would do with these statements from Bob:
| I never said they wouldn't hire him. I said that Mr. Forrest was concerned that the organizer would be looking at our website. ("My Response to David Palm...", p. 29) | One day Michael’s concert promoter told Michael that he would not hire him to play in the concert because of his association with CAI and because of some of the "Jewish" articles on our website. ("Michael Forrest and the Jews", p. 7) |
| The facts are these: Mr. Forrest wanted me to take down Jewish material from our site because whoever he was going to speak for or play music for, might be looking at our CAI website. I refused to take it down, and Mr. Forrest proceeded to call me an anti-semite. ("My Response", p. 27) | Mr. Forrest has never accused me of anti-semitism, . . . Mr. Forrest does not have any evidence that I'm an anti-semite, since he never claims that I am one. ("My Response", p. 37) |
A lawyer's paradise. Does he even listen to himself anymore?
All that said, I ask the reader to please forgive the length of this piece and the previous one, although I think you will find them both rather interesting. These essays document matters of great injustice to good men - especially to Roy Schoeman - I believe that alone justifies a detailed presentation. There is no single example which highlights the recklessness of Bob Sungenis and his utter disregard for the reputations of good men better than his treatment of Roy Schoeman and his book Salvation is from the Jews.
So that there can be no misunderstanding let me state that I do not seek to prove that Roy Schoeman is infallible and he himself will readily admit that he is not. I also will not be addressing any other Jewish convert in this study, only Roy Schoeman. And I will not agree with everything that Mr. Schoeman says in his book - and certainly Schoeman does not expect any such agreement, especially with areas which even he admits are speculative. But I will prove conclusively that Bob's most serious charges - of heresy, of hyper-Judaizing, and utter subversion of the Catholic Faith - are absolutely baseless, that they amount to a usurpation of an authority which Bob does not possess and a public slander for which he owes public restitution. In short, I will prove that Roy Schoeman is completely innocent of the reckless charges flung at him by Bob Sungenis.
Now in case Bob or anybody else does not care to read any further and wants to run with that, let's cut out this business of Bob Sungenis, putative bishop of the Internet, arrogating to himself authority which he does not possess. If he really thinks that I am explicitly or implicitly involved in some heresy then let's have no more of this Internet vigilantism. Let him be man (and Catholic) enough to bring the charges directly to my bishop. Here is his address:
His Excellency Jerome Listecki
Holy Cross Diocesan Center
3710 East Avenue South
La Crosse, WI 54601
And Bob, when you submit your charges against me, please let His Excellency know that he is more than welcome to borrow my copy of Salvation is From the Jews.
Answering Bob Sungenis on any topic is a tricky business. If one says nothing about his errors, Bob crows that he has silenced his "critics". If one tries to keep things concise, picking just a few of the most egregious examples, then Bob puffs that those few examples only show how small his problem really is. So then if you conclude that a more full treatment is in order and spend the time and verbiage needed to document numerous errors, he accuses you of being obsessed with him to the point of insanity (as he accused me in an e-mail of 5 Feb 2007.) Of course, this is all just one more example of Bob's blatant double standards - he doesn't like others to play the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" game, but it's perfectly okay for him to do so.
So this is going to be a rather full response to the tens of thousands of words that Bob had written about Roy Schoeman specifically and many central points on Jews and Judaism more generally. We will be releasing this in sections, to help the reader digest the work in manageable pieces. I'll start off with a brief history which will highlight the way in which Bob has relentlessly criticized this man and his book. In this section I will demonstrate that Bob Sungenis has not conducted his campaign against Schoeman and his work with the objectivity of a sober critic, but rather with the fundamental negative bias and even animus of a propagandist.
Section 1: Sungenis' Fundamental Negative Bias Toward Roy Schoeman and His Book
Sungenis Critiqued Schoeman's Work Without First Reading It
Much to his great discredit, Bob's first public assault on Salvation is From the Jews came in the form of a 1500 word letter to the editor of Culture Wars magazine, severely criticizing Roy Schoeman and his book. He wrote this letter before he had even read Schoeman's book. Bob vehemently denied this charge in his reply, "Michael Forrest and the Jews: Let's Separate Fact from Fiction" (henceforth MFATJ):
[H]ow could Forrest possibly know whether I read Schoeman's book before I started to critique it? I never told him such a thing and he can't read my mind. This just shows that Forrest makes conclusions based on his own presumptions, and he's apparently foolish enough to admit this fault in public. (MFATJ, 64).
This and many other of his statements demonstrate that Bob had not carefully read Forrest's material before responding to it. This habit of responding before he has read carefully is a pattern with him that is well documented in Part 1 of this essay and will reappear here. The fact is, we know that Bob had not read Schoeman's book before his initial volley of criticism from an e-mail correspondence he had with Michael Forrest, who, on 1 Feb 2004 asked him whether he had read the work before critiquing it. Bob replied that he had not:
In a message dated 4/1/2004 4:14:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, [Michael Forrest] writes:
Hi Bob,
Did you read (Schoeman's) book?
Mike
No. Does it say something different than what I quoted?
Bob
Sungenis Asserts that Schoeman is Dishonest Before Reading Schoeman's Work
So Sungenis admits that he hadn't read Schoeman's book before issuing his 1500 word critique to Culture Wars. What's more, in that critique Sungenis says that, "If we really want to be honest about what Catholic tradition and Scripture say about Schoeman's predictions, the evidence is, at best, divided" (source). It is at least implied here that Schoeman is being deliberately dishonest in his handling of the sources and Forrest wrote to Bob asking him to clarify this point and even trying to help him tone down his accusatory rhetoric. Sungenis wrote back to emphasize that he did indeed mean to say that anybody who does not come to his conclusions on this topic is not honest (the emphasis below is mine here and throughout, unless otherwise noted):
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sungenis
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:32 AM
To: Michael Forrest
Subject: Re: Letter to the Editor
>> If we really want to be honest about what Catholic tradition and Scripture say about Schoeman's predictions, the evidence is, at best, divided. >>
MF: 1) I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but by saying "we" and "honest", this sentence appears to question the honesty and integrity of those who see things differently than you on this subject. I'm not sure if you intended to convey either a) that if YOU (Bob Sungenis) really want to be honest, you believe the evidence is, at best, divided, or perhaps, b) You believe the record is clear, when viewed fully, that the evidence is at best divided....and so, perhaps those who hold the common view today just haven't researched enough......if this is what you intended, "rigorous" would be a better word than "honest."
RS: No, I do mean "honest." Of the people I have dealt with on this subject, they form a deliberate animosity when someone like myself is trying to give the other side of the story.
Without having read Schoeman's book or spoken to him, Sungenis already knows that Schoeman is dealing dishonestly with the evidence. In his mind, any opposition to his conclusions stems from a "deliberate animosity". Bob has subsequently tried to fluff off this detail as of no account:
Here's another one of Mr. Michael's twisted anachronisms. The above conversation was made before I wrote my critique of Schoeman for Latin Mass Magazine and Culture Wars! The conversation occurred when I just got introduced to Schoeman's audacious claims. Until I ordered the book for myself, I was quoting Chris Ferrara's article on Schoeman. So unless Forrest and Mr. Michael want to impugn Mr. Ferrara's citation of Mr. Schoeman, then they don't have a leg to stand upon. Once I received Mr. Schoeman's book, I read it from cover to cover, and then Mr. Ferrara and I began to notice even more erroneous ideas. Suffice it to say, Mr. Michael doesn't know what he is talking about because he is dependent solely on the biased report of Mr. Forrest. ("Mr. Michael and the Jews", henceforth MMATJ, p. 67)
No one has disputed that Bob eventually got around to reading Schoeman's book. Rather, what we have established, with his own words, is that he began issuing criticisms of the book and denouncing the honesty of the author before he had read it.
Strangely, Bob's letter to Culture Wars does not cite Chris Ferrara at all, but repeatedly references the review of Schoeman's book written by E. Michael Jones (review). I am not aware of any work about Schoeman by Chris Ferrara published around this time, so I suspect that once again Bob has botched this detail, yet another strike against his credibility. That aside, the reputation of Chris Ferrara (or E. Michael Jones) is not the issue here; the scholarly comportment of Bob Sungenis is. Based on this highly irregular foray into polemics against Schoeman, Michael Forrest has rightly concluded that,
it is clear that Bob approached Schoeman's book with a strongly negative predisposition, searching for things to condemn rather than reading the book with any semblance of fairness and objectivity ("Robert Sungenis and the Jews", Section 4; henceforth RSATJ:4).
Bob's Obsession with Schoeman
From 2005 to the present, Bob has issued a stream of criticism about Schoeman's book and Schoeman himself. In addition to the letter to the editor of Culture Wars, Bob also published the following works focusing either in whole or in part on Schoeman and his book:
1) Book Review of Roy Schoeman's Salvation is From the Jews in The Latin Mass (Fall 2005)
2) 700-800 word letter to the editor of Latin Mass (Winter 2006)
3) Book Review of Roy Schoeman's Salvation is From the Jews in Culture Wars (November 2005). This article is available as "Judaizers in the Catholic Church"
4) "The theology [sic] of Jewish Converts Roy Schoeman and David Moss"
5) "Christopher Blosser and the Catholic ADL"
6) "Michael Forrest and the Jews"
7) "Mr. Michael and the Jews"
8) "Genesis and the Jewish Connection"
9) "Response to Cardinal Avery Dulles on the Covenant of the Jews"
10) Book Review of EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong (also published in Culture Wars magazine)
11) The Theological Underpinnings of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" Why Did Jesus Have to Undergo Such an Excruciating Death? (also published in The Remnant magazine)
12) Pope Benedict XVI Says Jews Must Convert to Christianity in order to be Saved
13) Review of Jacob Michael's Never Revoked by God
14) "Politics, Israel and the Seduction of the Catholic Voter"
15) Q and A #80, September 2005
16) Q and A #88, September 2005
17) Q and A #26, January 2006
18) Q and A #18, March 2006
19) Q and A #56, March 2006
20) Q and A #79, August 2006
21) Q and A #60, October 2006
22) Q and A #16, November 2006
23) Q and A #30, November 2006
24) Q and A #44, January 2007
25) Q and A #45, January 2007
26) Q and A #50, January 2007
So over the course of the past two years Sungenis has written almost thirty pieces which, either in whole or in part, critique Schoeman and his book. As if all that isn't enough, Bob has promised to write still more on Schoeman: "Mr. Schoeman's book, Salvation is from the Jews, is little more than a special pleading of divine favoritism toward the Jews, and I will be writing another major critique of his book in the coming weeks." (source). So I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Bob Sungenis is obsessed with Roy Schoeman. This is verified if we simply apply Bob's own standards to himself. He said this to Jacob Michael:
It is amazing to see someone get so incensed and spend hours at his computer typing thousands of words trying to discredit me. This has become a sick obsession of his. It is no exaggeration to say that Jacob Michael has made a cottage industry out of trying to destroy me. What I ever did to Mr. Michael to deserve this treatment I'll never know. ("My PhD", p. 4)
A few word substitutions and we would get this enlightening sentence that once again reveals Bob's double-standard (he never thinks of applying his own criticisms to himself to see if the shoe fits):
It is amazing to see someone get so incensed and spend hours at his computer typing thousands of words trying to discredit Roy Schoeman. This has become a sick obsession of Bob's. It is no exaggeration to say that Bob Sungenis has made a cottage industry out of trying to destroy Roy Schoeman. What Roy ever did to Bob to deserve this treatment we'll never know.
The Charges Against Schoeman
Here are some of the most serious charges thrown by Bob during this time period. He has repeatedly charged Schoeman with spreading a heresy, at one point calling Schoeman's heresy "one of the most pernicious and nefarious heresies the Church has ever faced":
We even have Jewish converts to Catholicism today, like Roy Schoeman and David Moss, who propagate these same sentiments by claiming that the Old Covenant is still in force, and that the Jews are going to take over Palestine under divine mandate and offer sacrifices in Jerusalem again, and all this in fulfillment, they claim, by the words of Jesus Christ. This is total nonsense, and it is one of the most pernicious and nefarious heresies the Church has ever faced. (Q&A Question 16, March 2006).
It is Schoeman’s belief that, on various issues, the Catholic Church has been wrong for "two-thousand years," since her teaching that the New Covenant superseded the Old Covenant is in error, with Schoeman’s "alternative" theology holding that the Old Covenant will be used to fulfill the New Covenant (pp. 352-353). He also believes that the Jewish occupation of Israel is the result of God’s promised favor upon the Jews; that their entrance into Palestine in 1948 and their six-day war in 1967 against the Arabs was specifically predicted and sanctioned by Old Testament prophecy (pp. 306-313); that the Temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem under God’s direction for the purposes of practicing Judaism (pp. 314-315); and that anyone who opposes these events is part of a "diabolical attempt to prevent the Second Coming" (p. 316), and all despite the fact that there are less Christians in Israel today, per capita, then [sic] in the time of Jesus. ("Genesis and the Jewish Connection, Part 1")
[T]he Cardinal should also be aware that Roy Schoeman has his own errors in the opposite vein, since he believes that supersessionism is a heretical teaching; that it was a mistaken theology held by the Catholic Church for nearly 2000 years until the advent of Nostra Aetatae [sic]; and the Roy Schoeman thinks he has been blessed with an "alternative" that is much better than what the tradition has given us (See his book Salvation is from the Jews, pages: 352-353). Roy Schoeman also believes many other things that are quite contrary to Catholic teaching, including the idea that God predestined the Jews to take over present day Palestine in order to initiate Judaistic ceremonies that were once practiced in the Old Testament, and that anyone who tries to stop this is in league with the Antichrist (pages 306-316; 350-356). In short, the evidence shows that Roy Schoeman is Zionist in his newfound Catholicism . . . . ("Response to Cardinal Avery Dulles on the Covenant of the Jews")
Bob has labeled Schoeman a "judaizer"; indeed he singles out Schoeman for promoting, not just a judaizing, but a "hyper-judaizing theology":
But not only do I contend that Moss and Schoeman are reintroducing a modern-day Judaizing theology, I would go so far as to say that it is a hyper-Judaizing theology. This is especially the case with Roy Schoeman, as he has outlined his case in his book, Salvation is from the Jews. . . . it is not merely "Judaizing," it is "hyper-Judaizing." Even the Judaizers of St. Paul's day didn't attempt to do what Mr. Schoeman is doing. ("Theology").
And Bob lumps him in with the supporters of the Reflections on Covenant and Mission (RCM) document which contends that the Old Covenant and New Covenant are both still in effect and that the Old Covenant remains salvific for the Jews. This despite the fact that Schoeman explicitly contradicts the RCM thesis on pages 10, 68, 317, 352-3, 354, and 355-6 (see these passages quoted in full in section 2 of this essay):
As we would expect for a message that disagrees with the current consensus among 2002 'Covenant and Missions' authors (e.g., Cardinal Keeler and Jewish rabbis) and various Jewish converts (e.g., Roy Schoeman and David Moss), the only place this address was publicized was L'Osservatore Romano. ("Pope Benedict XVI Says Jews Must Convert to Christianity")
More Double Standards
The release of Michael Forrest's study "Robert Sungenis and the Jews" on www.sungenisandthejews.com did not dampen Bob's criticisms of Roy Schoeman's work. But it highlighted the double standard which Bob holds with regard to how his own work is criticized. Witness Bob's appeal to fairness and authority when a criticism is being leveled at him, versus his attitude when he levels criticisms at others. After "Robert Sungenis and the Jews" was posted, he blustered at Forrest:
The least you could have done with something this serious is allow me to give the other side of the story along side of yours so that the viewing public could judge for themselves. . . . You have absolutely no authority in the Church, yet you take it upon yourself to make these very serious charges in full view of the world. (Sungenis, e-mail of 09/15/2006)
And in his attempted rebuttal of Forrest posted on his Web site he says:
Fortunately, there are some fair and caring people left in this world. One such organization is Catholics United for the Faith. CUF was carrying Forrest's web site on their web site for a day. Michael Sullivan and Leon Suprenant soon realized that Mr. Forrest really had no authority to make such serious charges in public, and that CUF had not offered me any chance to answer his charges. Down it came. CUF is waiting to see my rebuttal, and out of this we have struck up a cordial relationship and plan to enhance it in the future. (MFATJ, p. 16).
Note well the authority that Bob Sungenis arrogates to himself. If somebody really was involved in spreading such heinous heresies, don't you think the Catholic thing to do would be to bring this to the attention of somebody with real authority in the hierarchy? But Bob usurps that authority for himself - while denying it to anybody else.
It should be noted too that Bob's allegation about his "cordial relationship" with CUF is a pure fabrication. And as soon as CUF found Bob's "rebuttal" seriously lacking and sided definitively with Forrest, Bob turned on CUF, throwing out wild allegations of Zionist conspiracies which even he had to admit later were not based on any evidence (see items 29 and 30 in Part 1 of this essay). But the central question here is: Just what opportunity for presenting the other side of the story, alongside of his, did Bob give to Roy Schoeman? It is a fact that he only sought clarification from Schoeman after the publication of Forrest's piece - which is to say after his letter to the editor of Culture Wars, his article in The Latin Mass magazine, his full-length article in Culture Wars, and several articles and Q&As on his Web site, all severely critical of Schoeman.
On 11 Sept 2006 (by some strange coincidence, just a couple of days after Michael Forrest posted "Robert Sungenis and the Jews") CAI's vice president Ben Douglass contacted Roy Schoeman to get clarification on whether Schoeman believed that the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem was a positive eschatological development. Schoeman wrote back the next day to clarify the issue, stating categorically that he certainly did not see this as a part of God's positive will (the text of the e-mail is found below in the section on the rebuilding of the Temple). A few e-mails went back and forth between Ben and Roy to clarify various points (and Bob admits that he saw these e-mails in MFATJ, p. 50) after which Ben declared:
I apologize for misrepresenting your position. I still have some serious disagreements with you (e.g. your application of certain prophecies to national Israel instead of the Church), but if you do not uphold the restoration of Israel or the Jerusalem Temple as a positive good in the eyes of God, my most serious misgivings about you are gone. (email of 09/12/2006).
So Mr. Schoeman was able to clear up Douglass's most serious misgivings easily enough. Next, Sungenis himself wrote, ostensibly to strike up a "dialogue" with Schoeman:
I wrote to Roy asking him for clarification, and if he would help square that belief with some of the other things he wrote in his book. I asked Roy if he would like to have a dialogue about these things that we could make public on our website. I was very kind to him, seeking to clear up any misunderstanding, if, indeed, there was one. So far, it’s been almost two weeks and I haven't heard back from Schoeman, and neither has Mr. Douglass. I hope he responds. (MFATJ, p. 50).
But after two years of attacks without any attempt to contact him for clarification, perhaps Schoeman decided that Sungenis was not exactly the kind of man he wanted to deal with. He chose, rightly I think, not to respond. The duplicity of Sungenis is shown in the very next paragraph where he, apparently forgetting all that he had said about Schoeman for the past two years, tried to play Forrest and Schoeman off one another:
Be that as it may, the point remains that Forrest is dead wrong in characterizing my motives against Schoeman as malicious. I only want the truth, and I hope Schoeman and I can get to it, with or without Mr. Forrest. I think I know this about Schoeman: he would not have written the screed against me that Forrest has. Schoeman appears to be much more of a gentlemen [sic] that desires to keep things like this in private. (MFATJ, p. 50).
Roy Schoeman does indeed seem to be more the sort of gentleman who desires to keep things like this private. But Bob Sungenis apparently is not, given that he waged a two year public campaign of denigration and accusations against Schoeman without once trying to contact him privately.
Not surprisingly, the attacks from Bob continued - same charges, same harsh rhetoric:
Roy Schoeman can teach the heresy that the New Covenant did not replace the Old Covenant; and mix politics and religion to the point of saying that anyone who is opposed to the national policies of Israel is "of the antichrist," but we won't hear a word of criticism from either Mr. Michael or Mr. Forrest. (MMATJ, p. 1)
Despite the fact that Schoeman had quickly cleared up Ben Douglass's concerns about whether the rebuilding of the Temple and continuation of sacrifices there was a positive eschatological development - an exchange which Bob read - Bob insists that Schoeman has done "nothing" to address his concerns:
I'm sorry, but Mr. Schoeman holds some of the most wild speculations about the future and the Jews that I have ever seen, and Mr. Schoeman has said nothing to me to alleviate this problem. I even offered to have a dialogue with Schoeman to clear up any misunderstanding that I may have of his views, and it is now almost three weeks and Mr. Schoeman has not responded. (MMATJ, p. 25).
And he keeps charging again and again that Schoeman is teaching and even "preaching" a heresy:
Let me say it again: CAI will not be intimidated by anyone. Moreover, as Forrest and his cohorts refuse to condemn the heretical ideas of Roy Schoeman and David Moss (e.g., that the New Covenant did not replace the Old Covenant, and other such erroneous beliefs), then I will be here to condemn both Forrest, Michael and anyone else who supports such heresy. (Q&A Question 16, Nov 2006).
What's even more bizarre is they continue to allow Roy Schoeman and David Moss to spout their erroneous views on the Catholic Church without so much as a word of criticism. (Q&A Question 30, Nov 2006).
Roy Schoeman can teach the heresy that the New Covenant did not replace the Old Covenant, but neither Mr. Forrest nor Mr. Michael have even spoken about that error in public, much less condemned it." (MMATJ, p. 1).
I repeat, Forrest has not written one word of criticism against anything Jewish. He hasn't even called Roy Schoeman's stance that the New Covenant didn't replace the Old Covenant an error! As such, Mr. Forrest is culpable for holding the same error, and since he does, then he also holds a heretical view. I will never stop preaching that fact to the rest of the world, and I don't care if Mr. Michael and Mr. Forrest get all their comrades to join them. They are all a bunch of cowards if they won't stand up to the errors of Schoeman, and I want nothing to do with them. (MMATJ, p. 73)
It's quite ironic to see these men get so fixated on me when, in fact, they give people like Roy Schoeman a free pass to say just about any heretical thing he wants, including such things as "the New Covenant didn't replace the Old Covenant," and the "Catholic Church has erred for 2000 years" and many other ridiculous things about Catholicism and the Jews. ("Christopher Blosser and the Catholic ADL", p. 3; notice the quotation marks around the two phrases attributed to Schoeman.)
Obviously this is an obsession for Bob. And the bottom line is that Schoeman's work is read and perceived by Bob with the same conspiratorial mind-set that colors so much of what he writes:
Suffice it to say, Mr. Schoeman is on a mission. . . . This is not about "ethnic" acceptance of Jews, but about Schoeman's attempt to revise Catholic theology for the sake of the Jews. ("Theology").
After reading Mr. Schoeman’s book, Salvation is from the Jews," I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Schoeman’s so-called seeking for a "Jewish corporate identity" is nothing but a smoke screen for a much larger agenda he has in mind. ("Theology")
Roy Schoeman, for example, although he comes across as a sincere Catholic convert, his book, Salvation is from the Jews: The Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming (Ignatius Press, 2003) is one of the most audacious attempts at promoting the Zionist agenda ever written. ("Genesis and the Jewish Connection, Part 1")
With all these charges thrown against Schoeman, I think that Michael Forrest's conclusion is justified:
Bob seems fully convinced that Schoeman is a subversive, untrustworthy Jew who is more worried about "the sake of the Jews" than the Catholic faith. He is apparently a Jew first and a Catholic second in Bob's eyes. (RSATJ:4).
Not surprisingly, Bob flatly denied this charge:
He says that I believe Schoeman is a "subversive, untrustworthy Jew." Where do I say that? Forrest says that I think Schoeman is a Jew first and Catholic second. Where do I say that? Have I ever said any of these things Forrest accuses me of? No, not a one. (MFATJ, p. 58)
So in September of 2006, Bob denied that he thinks Schoeman is subversive and untrustworthy, a Jew first and a Catholic second. On the face of it that is a questionable claim, given his incessant attacks on Schoeman. But in January of 2007 he cleared up any possible doubt:
And, once and for all, I suggest my critics start listening to what I am saying about the anti-Christ, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian influence that various Jewish organizations are having on us, including but not limited to . . . the Association of Hebrew Catholics (e.g., David Moss, Roy Schoeman, etc.), and any other such organization that puts Jewish political, religious and social interests above those of the Catholic faith and the rest of the world. ("Christopher Blosser and the Catholic ADL", p. 5).
Since he states explicitly in January 2007 what he vehemently denied thinking in September 2006, what are we to believe? In light of his track record with Schoeman since 2004, is it more likely that Bob had a 180 degree change of mind in those four months? Or is it more likely that Michael Forrest was correct all along about Bob and his fundamental animus toward Jewish converts like Schoeman?
In the next part of this series, I will examine the specific charges Bob has leveled against Roy Schoeman.
