Near the beginning of September, 2006, Michael Forrest, a former associate of Catholic Apologetics International (hereafter, "CAI"), published a lengthy essay (or rather, a series of essays) on a web site entitled Robert Sungenis and the Jews. In this work, Forrest compiled and presented mountains of evidence pointing to the fact that Robert Sungenis, president and founder of CAI, has been steadily and increasingly directing the work of his apostolate towards "exposing" the Jews. Forrest documents thoroughly the fact that Sungenis relies on less-than savory sources for his information about the Jews, that Sungenis relaxes his own standards of scholarship when it comes to writing about the Jews, and in sum, that Robert Sungenis cannot and should not be considered a reliable source of information about the Jews.
On September 19, 2006, Sungenis posted a 72-page rebuttal to Michael Forrest's work. In that rebuttal, he makes some seriously inaccurate claims about his relationship with Forrest, and his interactions with other former CAI associates, myself included. Addressing these inaccuracies will be the task of the rest of this essay, and it will be necessary to make use of some private email correspondences in order to substantiate the claims; it should be said up front that this is an exception to the policy of LumenGentleman Apologetics, but a necessary one. Sungenis has made this necessary by spending the first 20+ pages of his rebuttal attacking Michael Forrest personally, and making certain claims about Forrest that amount to little more than character assassination. Therefore, it is only logical that these claims must be demonstrated to be false, using the black-and-white evidence at hand. While Forrest himself has chosen to refrain from publicly engaging Sungenis's personal attack, I requested any additional evidence he could provide to more fully document Sungenis' falsehoods. He provided it and gave me permission to use it with care.
Nearly two months before Michael Forrest posted his work on his web site, he was in contact with several people whom he asked to read his work, offer criticisms, and consider contributing a few paragraphs of approbation that could be attached to the work itself. I was one of those people, and I submitted my own statement to Michael for publication, after having read his work several times, through several iterations, offering my own criticisms and advice. More importantly, when I was with CAI (2002-2003), I worked closely with Michael Forrest and Robert Sungenis directly; I have often used Michael as a "filter" for my own essays, as has Robert, because both of us recognized that Michael has a special strength in the area of editing; his genuinely peaceful disposition enables him to identify, within written articles and essays, those areas that generate more heat than light; he has proven himself over and over again to be able to re-craft words and phrases in such a way that their truth remains, while trimming away the stylistic overtones that tend to be too inflammatory.
In fact, shortly after Robert posted his September 2002 essay concerning the USCCB "Reflections" document - the essay which earned him stiff rebukes from several of his colleagues, and cost him his association with EWTN - Robert put Michael Forrest in charge of editing all future essays that would appear at CAI. Robert instructed me, as he instructed other staff writers, to send all of our work to Michael for approval before submitting it to the web site, because as Robert told us, Michael has a special gift in this area. In his own words:
Since it seems that God has blessed Mike Forrest with a unique ability to communicate ideas in a non-offensive way, I am going to designate him our official screener for anything that is put up on our website, including things written by me ... Hence, whether we are dealing with Protestants of Catholics, we can be assured of not only quality control but "tonal control" with Mike doing the job. (Sungenis, email of February 5, 2003)
This situation, it should be noted, did not last too long. Forrest's site bio at CAI from April of 2003 includes the note that "Mike is responsible for reviewing articles that appear on our site." Sungenis stuck with the new arrangement for a few months, but gradually stopped filtering his articles through Forrest; thus, for example, the "Mr. X" affair (discussed in more detail below) became a huge source of embarrassment for CAI precisely because it was not screened by Forrest. Sungenis wrote to Forrest, after the affair, "I think I owe you an apology for not bringing the [Mr. X] issue to your attention when [Jacob] asked me to post his interview. If you had seen it, perhaps none of this might have happened. My action was not intentional." (Sungenis, email of April 30, 2003)
In the beginning of December, 2003, when it became clear that Forrest's editing responsibilities were "on paper" more than they were a reality, Forrest asked the current webmaster of CAI to simply change his site bio; in his email to Patrick Morris, Forrest wrote, "Could you please ... change ... the staff page? ... With occasional exceptions, I won't be reviewing/approving Bob's articles anymore, so this will clarify what I am doing and what I am not doing." Forrest changed the bio so that it now read, "Mike is responsible for reviewing many of the articles written by staff apologists that appear on our site." (CAI website, April, 2004) More will be said later about Forrest's editing responsibilities at CAI, and Sungenis' claims concerning the same.
My years-long relationship with Michael Forrest, as well as my interactions and work with Robert Sungenis, put me in a special situation with regard to this current controversy. I know Michael; I know Robert; I know what has been going on behind the scenes since 2002, and I have private correspondence on file. My unique position here obliges me to say a few words in response to Robert's rebuttal against Michael, and to defend Michael against some of the gross inaccuracies which Robert has posted on his web site concerning his relationship with Michael. Additionally, since Robert has chosen to make certain private, historical interactions a matter of public consumption, I am obliged to address his inaccuracies in these areas as well.
The errors begin with the very first paragraph of Sungenis' rebuttal. After mentioning the charges brought against him in 2002, he writes:
It was a smear campaign if I ever saw one. They [Mark Shea, Sandra Miesel, Bill Cork] neither offered me opportunity to answer the charges nor contacted me to get my side of the story, but I wrote a lengthy rebuttal showing that their charges were false. If anyone wants to see it, I still have it. ("Michael Forrest and the Jews", p. 1, source)
This is false. Mark Shea and Bill Cork, along with several other of Sungenis' colleagues, did indeed contact him privately with their concerns, via an email discussion in which I was included, and urged him to pull his essay from the site and issue an apology. Sungenis defended himself against them, and refused to accept their admonitions. Whether he was right or wrong here is not the question; I am merely stating the historical facts, which Sungenis misrepresents here. He did not write a rebuttal and prove their charges false; rather, let me write a defense for him, while he revised his original essay several times over the next few weeks, clipping out the parts that most offended his opponents, but without ever apologizing for the inaccuracies. He later posted an "apology," which, as Michael Forrest has documented, was no kind of apology at all. Here is what Sungenis said:
The only reason [the 2002 essay] went through some "revisions" is that when this whole thing first started I was trying to be accommodating to those who were levying their charges. I took off some material that some people found offensive, even though I still stood by the material (and no one has proven it wrong). (quoted in Forrest, "Sungenis and the Jews", source)
Sungenis admitted, in this statement, that he "still stood by the material," and that he revised and removed portions of it "to be accommodating to those who were levying their charges." This does not qualify as an apology in any sense of the word. This must also be kept in mind while considering the "apologies" contained in Sungenis' most recent rebuttal, as well as in his Open Letter to CAI Patrons on the web site. The close reader will notice a certain "schizophrenia" in the collection of various things being said at CAI, a set of self-contradictory statements. For example, Ben Douglass wrote a defense of Sungenis just weeks ago in which he defended Sungenis' use of White Supremacist sources:
... since it's mostly unsavory characters whose writings on the subject are easily available today, naturally one who wants to do some research himself may use some unsavory sources as a starting point. Of course, he does not take their word for it. Rather, he follows their references and looks in the Talmud to see if what they claim is there is there in reality. And, in some cases, indeed they are. I have no problem with this approach. (Douglass, "A Brief, Sad Response to Michael Forrest", source)
As the reader will see later, despite Douglass' defense of Sungenis here, Sungenis himself admits in his rebuttal that he shouldn't have used these sources, that he didn't check them out first, that it was poor scholarship on his part, and so forth. This is the "schizophrenia" of which I speak, and which I can say I have observed first-hand during my time with CAI. Sungenis' apologies usually amount to something like, "We stand behind everything we've said, but we're also sorry for all of it, and we promise not to do this kind of thing again, ever, at least until things cool down a bit, even though we were right to do it in the first place and we retract none of it, and we further wish it to be known that those who called us on the carpet on this issue are pawns of the Devil and brothers of Judas, even if we were wrong, and make no apology for it - but we are sorry."
Carrying on with the rebuttal, Sungenis says:
Although I'm not on EWTN any longer (and don't wish to be) CAI is stronger now ... you'll not be surprised why I'm not overly concerned about the present attack. (Sungenis, "Michael Forrest and the Jews", p. 1)
Given the fact that Sungenis felt the need to write a 72-page rebuttal of Forrest, and given that he later admits he "complained to Forrest of the possible damage he is causing me personally" (ibid., p. 2), his claim not to be "overly concerned" seems rather dubious. When one is not "overly concerned," one does not write 72 pages in defense of oneself, nor does one complain about personal damages.
Sungenis continues:
Ironic as it is, in regards to the 2002 attack by Cork, et al., Michael Forrest was also convinced that I should be acquitted of the charges, since he came to work for me sometime after Cork posted his attack. (ibid., p. 2)
This is also false. Michael Forrest was working for CAI before Bill Cork accused Robert of plagiarism and anti-Semitism in September of 2002; Forrest's work at CAI can be seen on the June 2002 Q&A section of CAI's site. Sungenis continues to botch the historical facts surrounding these events; his "spin" above makes it sound as though Forrest came to CAI specifically in support of Sungenis after Cork attacked CAI, and indeed, Sungenis uses this as proof that "Michael ... was also convinced that I should be acquitted ... since he came to work for me ... after Cork posted his attack." Not only does Sungenis fumble the facts, he draws an erroneous conclusion from his fumble.
Sungenis goes on:
I've written Forrest an email this week to find out just what his true objections are. (ibid., p. 2)
This statement is misleading at best. During the weeks following the posting of www.sungenisandthejews.com, Sungenis made it clear from his very first email to Forrest that he was certain of Forrest's objections and true intentions - there was no question on Sungenis' part. According to Sungenis, Forrest's true intentions were to bring down CAI because of some personal obsession:
I truly believe that your obsession to attack this apostolate and exonerate Zionist Jews who continually sin against the Church is seriously wrong and dangerous. (Sungenis, email of September 13, 2006)
This reality is, admittedly, a long way from the way Sungenis presents the facts; he says he contacted Forrest "to find out just what his true objections are," thus giving the impression of someone truly concerned for truth; the facts show, however, that Sungenis did no such thing, that he immediately lashed out at Forrest. He only inquired into Forrest's "true objections" when Forrest made an offer to remove the critique of Sungenis, if certain negotiations could be reached. Then and only then did Sungenis exhibit any interest in being objective and fair, which, quite frankly, is par for the course for Sungenis. He has repeatedly been criticized by others for precisely this kind of "ready, fire, aim" approach to apologetics.
Sungenis continues his rebuttal:
... if Forrest is only concerned about the WAY I speak about Jewish issues, then my ears are open to him, and anyone else who wants to offer a critique of the manner in which I communicate my ideas. I admit it. I can sometimes be uncharitable, or say things that may appear as arrogant (even if I am not trying to be arrogant). If that is the case, I apologize profusely to my audience, and I want you to keep an eye on me. If I cross the line into personal denigration or create an unnecessary animus against my opponent that is not Christ-like, I want to know about it. (ibid., pp. 2-3)
Sungenis admits that he can "sometimes be uncharitable" and even "arrogant," thus basically corroborating what Forrest wrote about him to begin with; Forrest demonstrated in his work that Sungenis has also said things about the Jews that are untrue, and therefore uncharitable - and although Sungenis admits his occasional arrogance, this whole affair has little to do with arrogance at all. It has to do with setting the record straight and calling Sungenis to account for his unfairness and inaccuracies. His protestations that he wishes his "audience" to "keep an eye on me" and alert him when he crosses the line "into personal denigration" ring rather hollow; the fact is, Forrest did precisely this shortly before he left CAI, and he was promptly denounced by Sungenis as a traitor who was only interested in personal material gain. Sungenis repeats these charges later in the rebuttal, and they will be dealt with further below; suffice it to say, however, that this is how Sungenis has consistently responded to those who have warned him that he has crossed the line with regard to the Jews. If Sungenis had been as open to criticism as he makes himself out to be in the above quote, Forrest would never have needed to post his work.
Further, Sungenis says, "If I cross the line into personal denigration or create an unnecessary animus against my opponent that is not Christ-like, I want to know about it"; might I suggest that he has done this very thing in his handling of Michael Forrest, crossing the line into personal denigration for some 20+ pages, in the very same rebuttal in which he makes this plea for fraternal correction (more schizophrenia), thus creating the animus which has made this present response necessary.
After a brief exchange of emails (which I prompted in order to test Forrest's real motives), Forrest wrote back and told me that he not only wanted me to take down the articles and apologize for them, but that I also:
a) refrain from writing articles that "single out" Jewish people;
b) that I refrain, at least a year, from critiquing any views from Jewish converts, and, preferably, to refrain from any such critiques indefinitely;
c) not revise old articles (by taking out any uncharitable remarks) but that, if I intend to write on Jewish issues, that I write new articles. (ibid., p. 3)
These are further inaccuracies. Sungenis only quotes one part of Forrest's request: that Sungenis should cease to "single out" Jewish people. What Forrest asked was that Sungenis "Refrain from posting and writing articles involving conspiracy theories, social commentaries and other issues that single out, stereotype or broad-brush Jews." (Forrest, email of September 16, 2006, emphasis added). That Sungenis left out the part about stereotyping and broad-brushing the Jews is revealing in itself. Sungenis says that he "prompted" an "exchange of emails" with Forrest, "in order to test Forrest's real motives." In fact, it was Forrest who initiated the exchange, by sending Sungenis an email alerting him of the presence of www.sungenisandthejews.com; Forrest expressed his regret at having to go public with these things:
I wanted to inform you of the following website: www.sungenisandthejews.com rather than having you find out some other way.
I know how you will feel and for that I am truly sorry. I honestly felt that I had no choice but to go forward with this. I hope some day you can forgive me and understand that this was the last thing I wanted to do. (Forrest, email of September 9, 2006)
Please note the dates of these emails, as they establish a certain chronology. After this initiating email from Forrest, Sungenis responded - not as he says, "to test Forrest's real motives" - but to say that he appreciated what Forrest had done, and not because it constituted a necessary and charitable rebuke, but because it would give Sungenis an excuse to pull out all the stops and write a bomb-shell of a rebuttal against Forrest:
... your essay is a gift. It will give me the chance I've been waiting for to even out the playing field and show just how shallow your arguments really are ... I will be responding to you with a full blown dissection of your remarks. On this one I'm pulling out all the stops. Your essay is child's play compared to what I'm going to write about you and your falsehoods, your slander, your distortions and your half truths. (Sungenis, email of September 13, 2006)
So much for "[testing] Forrest's real motives." So much for Sungenis' claim that he "prompted" this exchange. Sungenis' response here is a bizarre example of bravado and chest-thumping - a situation made even weirder by the fact that Sungenis is a man in his 50s, and the behavior he displays here is something one would expect from a hot-headed 20-year-old; he never once expresses in this email any desire to understand Forrest's "real motives." Somehow, though, the reality that Forrest initiated an exchange of emails has become just the opposite, according to Sungenis' rebuttal.
Two days later, Sungenis wrote to Forrest again, and once again, it was not with the intention of ascertaining true motives or testing Forrest; rather, it was more of the same bravado and strutting, and Sungenis again asserts that he already knows Forrest's true motives and intention:
I just completed a read of your essay. Let me tell you that I have never seen such a bunch of distorted and biased facts in all my life. James White [a Protestant and anti-Catholic apologist] isn't even as good as you in twisting and contorting facts to your own designs.
...
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. Obviously, your intent was to bring me and this apostolate down.
...
You are the lowest of the low. I have never in my life seen such collusion ... 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. ... obviously, your intent was to blindside me, get your essay out in full view of the world knowing that it would take me days, perhaps weeks to mount a defense, knowing that my family depends on my income from this apostolate.
...
As I said, I will be answering your charges in a lengthy paper, and it will be spread all over the Internet. (Sungenis, email of September 15, 2006)
We are still a long, long way from Sungenis' claim that he initiated contact with Forrest in order to test him and ascertain his true motives! And what of Sungenis' complaint, "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"? The question here is this: how many times, precisely, has Sungenis done this for others? Did he do this for Roy Schoeman and David Moss before he blasted them for promoting what he called pernicious heresies? No, in fact, as he admits in his rebuttal, it's only been a recent development that Sungenis is talking with Schoeman, trying to reach some level of understanding; why didn't Sungenis do this first, before blasting Schoeman both in print and on the Internet? Why the double-standard?
Contrary to Sungenis' claims, it was actually Forrest who extended the olive branch of peace and tried to reach a compromise with Sungenis, thus revealing what his true motives really are; the next correspondence in the sequence is from Forrest, not Sungenis, and the tone is markedly different:
I'm sincerely saddened about your situation ... and of course I am concerned about what happens to your family ...
But I also care deeply about all of the other men and women harmed by what you have written and posted at CAI. My intention and motivation was not to "bring CAI down."
... I ask you to consider the very real impact your public attacks have had on other men and women, by branding them with very serious and damaging labels and charges. I also ask you to consider the impact on all Jewish people who are confronted with the many other things written and posted by you, some of whom are in that delicate place of considering the acceptance of Christ and becoming Catholic ...
I truly disdain all of this and would like nothing better than for it all to be resolved. And so I would like make an offer of good will for your consideration. (Forrest, email of September 16, 2006)
At this point, Forrest outlines a few points of negotiation, namely, that he wanted Sungenis to "Take down all things on Jewish issues currently posted at CAI," to "Leave the topics of Jewish politics, conspiracy theories, etc. at CAI and elsewhere entirely and post an apology along the lines of the one you made re: JPII," and to approach any future essays on "certain Jewish theological issues" with "the same care and consideration you have asked." (Forrest, email of September 16, 2006)
In exchange, Forrest offered to take down the material at his own website, www.sungenisandthejews.com, and put up instead "a new statement to the effect that a) we have come to an agreement on this issue, that you have taken down and are abandoning the material in question and b) I consider the matter resolved, closed and respectfully ask that everyone else do so as well."
According to Sungenis, these three points of negotiation prove that "Forrest's goal is one of censorship," and he adds, "now that I know his main goal is censorship, there can be no compromise, since it is obvious that Forrest wants to control what I say about Jewish interests." (ibid., p. 3) What part of the above three conditions constitutes a goal of censorship? Forrest asked Sungenis to stop singling out the Jews for criticism; he asked Sungenis to back off on Jewish issues for at least a year, to let things cool down, and to let damages heal; he asked that Sungenis not merely revise the old articles, but approach the subjects from a fresh angle, eliminating unnecessary heat (again, this is Forrest's specialty as an editor, which Sungenis has readily acknowledged in the past). In other words, Forrest explicitly conceded that Sungenis could write on Jewish theological issues in the future, provided that he do what any Catholic should: be charitable, be fair, be considerate, and do unto others what you would have them do unto you. What Forrest asked Sungenis to do, as quoted in Forrest's email above, was to stay away from "articles involving conspiracy theories, social commentaries and other issues that single out, stereotype or broad-brush Jews," because, as his web site demonstrates, Sungenis is not an authority on Judaism, Jewish society or politics, and most importantly, he has not shown himself to be either fair or careful when writing on these issues.
That Sungenis perceives these requests as amounting to an attempt at "censorship" only demonstrates that Sungenis really is a trader in conspiracy theories; this is apparently the way his mind works, so much so that he sees what Forrest is doing as a grand conspiracy against himself, a plot to censor CAI. The true irony here, as will be discussed momentarily, is that Sungenis concedes to all of Forrest's points in his "Open Letter," wherein he promises to back away from the Jewish issues and focus on what is his area of expertise: Scriptural theology. This leaves us with one of two conclusions: either Sungenis is blowing a lot of smoke with his accusations of "censorship," and thus he owes Forrest an apology, or else we must conclude that his "Open Letter" is nothing less than an act of Sungenis censoring himself - in which case, he still owes Forrest an apology for getting bent out of shape about a "censorship" he was obviously willing to impose on himself.
Sungenis goes on to accuse Forrest:
Mr. Forrest, although he is smart enough not to use the word "anti-semitism," is no exception to this new set of rules. We can be critical of Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, Democrats and even the National Rifle Association, but we can't be critical of Jewish interests. Even if the criticism has been shown to be true (e.g., the Jewish dominated media; the domination of Jewish interests in our government from AIPAC and the ADL, etc), we can't reveal this to the public without getting the reprisal or suspicion of "anti-semitism." (ibid., p. 4)
This is a total distortion of what Forrest said in his own work; he himself states in his piece that he thinks the Jews are not untouchable, that Zionism is not beyond criticism, but he does take exception to Sungenis' constant trading in conspiracy theories - such as that FDR's supposedly partial Jewish heritage caused him to conspire against America in the bombing of Pearl Harbor; he takes exception to the fact that Sungenis uncritically uses White Supremacist and neo-Nazi sources for his information about the Jews' level of involvement in some global conspiracy to take over the world; he takes exception to Sungenis issuing critiques of books written by Jewish converts to Catholicism which he hasn't even read. Sungenis conveniently avoids interacting with any of Forrest's actual criticisms, and prefers instead to make it an issue of politics, accusing Forrest of being pro-Zionist (cf. p. 26, where Sungenis asserts that "Forrest condones Zionist activities").
Beginning with page 7, and continuing for 15-20 more pages, Sungenis launches into a personal attack against Michael Forrest. This is where his apparently bad memory, lack of attention to detail, and desire to justify himself lead him to state some of his most egregious factual errors.
He begins:
Ironically, when Michael worked with me for three years (2002-2005) he did not consider me as having any animus toward the Jewish people or as an "anti-semite," even though he was thoroughly familiar with the accusations of Cork, Miesel and Shea. (ibid., p. 7)
This is wrong. Forrest left CAI precisely because he had slowly, and over a period of time, started to recognize that Sungenis had been gradually developing a tangible bias toward the Jewish people in his writings; when he expressed his concerns to Sungenis, he was called a traitor and accused of having ulterior motives. When Sungenis proved himself unwilling to accept the criticisms, Forrest did what any man with a conscience would do: he left CAI. Sungenis here pretends as though Forrest never had a problem, never expressed his concerns. The email correspondence between Forrest and Sungenis in 2005 (right before Forrest left), proves just the opposite, as we will see in just a moment.
Incredibly, Sungenis claims:
Although he has not admitted this to anyone, Michael did not leave CAI of his own accord. I terminated his stay with us. I have the letter I wrote to him to prove it. I terminated his stay because of the underhanded activity he was doing at CAI. (ibid., p. 7)
This statement is an outright falsehood. I was personally involved with Michael during his period of transitioning out of CAI. He was expressing doubts about Sungenis' treatment of both Pope John Paul II and the Jews, and was considering whether he should remain affiliated with CAI, long before Sungenis ever supposedly "terminated" him. I had several phone conversations with Forrest during this time, and I lend my own witness to the fact that Michael had already made his decision to leave CAI (if Sungenis wouldn't change his approach to the Jewish issues), long before he approached Sungenis in what proved to be their final parting of ways. The email correspondence between Sungenis and Forrest during this time fully bears this out; Forrest explained the reasons why he could no longer stay with CAI, and Sungenis responded with extremely harsh words, likening Forrest to Judas1, telling Forrest that his prayers would not be heard by God, prohibiting Forrest from writing to Sungenis again, because the very sight of Forrest's name made Sungenis sick to his stomach.
1 This would, of necessity, put Sungenis in the role of Jesus; that he apparently views himself as some kind of Messiah is not only evidenced by this labeling of Forrest as "Judas" (which would logically make Sungenis "Jesus"), but also by the facts that 1) the picture he has allowed to be posted on his web site next to his rebuttal is a picture of Jesus (see here), and 2) the opening line of his rebuttal is "The bulls of Bashan are after me again", a reference to the prophetic words of David in the Passion Psalm (Ps. 22:12), spoken in the person of the Messiah.
In late February or early March of 2005, Forrest had a personal phone call with Sungenis in order to address two issues that were bothering Forrest: 1) Sungenis' treatment of the Pope, and 2) Sungenis' treatment of the Jews. Sungenis agreed to back off on the papal criticisms and issue a public apology for having gone overboard (an apology that took a year and a half to finally appear at CAI), but would not budge on the Jewish issue; the conversation ended with Sungenis hanging up on Forrest. In a later email, Sungenis defended his position, and addressed Forrest's issue of whether to leave CAI or stay. Sungenis wrote:
If for any reason you do not feel comfortable with these positions any longer, you are free to leave CAI. Please do not feel that you are obligated to me or CAI in any way ... It would be better for you to depart with some measure of congeniality rather than trying to overturn the philosophy of CAI and depart with animosity ... If, despite these differences, you would like to remain with CAI, I would welcome you with open arms ... In order to determine your future with us, you need to know who we are and what is our purpose. (Sungenis, email of March 4, 2005)
Here, Sungenis neither retains nor terminates Forrest's position; Forrest had already explained that he could not stay with CAI if Sungenis was going to continue being hyper-critical of the Pope and the Jews, and Sungenis responds here by saying that CAI is not changing it's stance: Forrest is free to either stay or go. The choice, as Sungenis framed it, remained with Forrest; this is far removed from Sungenis' recent claim that he "terminated" Forrest, much less for some supposed "underhanded activity he was doing at CAI" (and nothing of this sort ever appears in any of these emails).
In his response, Forrest outlines more clearly the reasons he could not remain with CAI if Sungenis refused to alter his position, specifically stating that on Jewish issues, "I do not believe you are sufficiently knowledgeable to take such controversial public stands (here I refer to conspiracy theories, Holocaust revisionism, etc.)." (Forrest, email of March 18, 2005) Here, Forrest exhibits a remarkable consistency; this was his complaint with Sungenis early in 2005, and this is the same complaint he makes the centerpiece of his published critique of Sungenis at the end of 2006.
Forrest continues, "I do not agree that the onus is on others to find your errors and to prove them. The onus is on you to do serious, sound research first." This, too, is later taken up by Forrest in his published critique. He goes on: "Also, after reviewing your apologies from 2002 and talking to you on the phone about the Jewish conspiracy theories and the Holocaust you relayed back in 2002, it is now clear to me that you never retracted or apologized for the accusations you leveled, nor did you ever intend to." Again, Forrest is entirely consistent from 2005 to 2006, and the reasons why he left CAI (as opposed to being terminated) become perfectly clear.
Forrest offers Sungenis an extremely insightful rebuke here, saying that "your anger and frustration stops you from reliably maintaining the required respect and perspective." Anyone who has read Sungenis' most recent rebuttal, and compared it with the facts laid out here so far, would have to agree with Forrest. Sungenis' temper clouds his judgment, and leads him to make rash decisions for which he ultimately ends up having to apologize. Forrest continues by saying that "I also believe wisdom would dictate that you refrain from it entirely (papal criticism, and possibly even criticism of Jews) until you master this difficulty," and here again, Forrest demonstrates a real consistency. He was asking Sungenis to refrain from taking on Jewish criticism back in 2005; his negotiations with Sungenis in 2006 are nothing new. Finally, he suggests in this email that Sungenis should find a spiritual director "to help you safely engage the inherently treacherous nature of the battle you have chosen to fight," adding that "An authentic prophet of God is sure and true. He does not make serious mistakes of fact and suffer frequent lapses in judgment, especially without an apology." This became a critical remark, to which we will return; for the moment, it suffices to note the fact. Forrest ended the email by saying, "If we cannot reach definitive agreement on these central points, I cannot in good conscience continue my public support of and association with CAI." (Forrest, email of March 18, 2005) Please take note: Sungenis left the option open for Forrest to either leave CAI or stay with CAI; Forrest here makes the decision that he cannot continue to be associated with CAI, if Sungenis will not alter his stances.
Again, how close to reality are Sungenis' assertions that he "terminated" Forrest's position because of underhanded activity? On the contrary, the evidence shows that Forrest first approached Sungenis, tried to reason with him, and voluntarily left CAI when Sungenis refused to alter his positions. For Sungenis to now spin this history and claim to have "terminated" Forrest, and "because of underhanded activity" at that, is absolutely incredible.
In response to Forrest's email of resignation, Sungenis responded with an email of an entirely different tone; in it, he takes issue with Forrest's statement that "An authentic prophet of God is sure and true. He does not make serious mistakes of fact and suffer frequent lapses in judgment, especially without an apology." Sungenis answers this by saying:
Is this one of your subtle way of saying I'm not an "authentic prophet"? For the last three years you and I have seen eye-to-eye on virtually every issue, from the SSPX to NFP to Assisi. If not, then you were merely pretending for three years. Moreover, every time you have come to me with a theological or personal concern I have accommodated your wishes ... Your 180 degree turn-around wouldn't be so bad, except for the fact that it shows just how hypocritical you are being ... please don't come to me now and tell me I'm not an "authentic" prophet based on your arbitrary measuring stick that seems to move to the left or right depending on how you feel that day. (Sungenis, email of March 22, 2005)
Apparently, Sungenis believes himself to be an authentic prophet of God. At the very least, he feels he has a mandate from God to protect the Church in this period of crisis, and so he writes to Forrest, "I have a job to do and that is to protect our Catholic Church from any charlatans or erroneous doctrine, whether it happens to be John Paul II ... or anyone else." (Sungenis, email of March 22, 2005) With great confidence he asserts, "That is our call and it will remain so, and if it causes controversy, then so be it. God has given me the grace to handle it." (ibid.) Regarding Forrest's resignation, he says, "I'm sorry it has to end this way ... But if being a prophet of God means saying goodbye to human friendships, I'll chose the former every time, and this time is no exception. CAI will continue pointing out the errors and apostasy of this modern generation, with or without you." (ibid.) He concludes by saying, "I feel totally betrayed by you," and "Unless you have an unconditional apology to give me, please don't call or write to me any longer." (ibid.)
Still hoping to salvage whatever might have remained of good-will, Forrest responded with an email saying, "We will continue to pray for the baby and your family as always. Please keep us in yours, if you would" (Forrest, email of March 23, 2005), to which, incredibly, Sungenis responded by claiming, "Without an apology, your prayers will not reach heaven, so don't bother." (Sungenis, email of March 23, 2005)
With one more request, Forrest emailed Sungenis and asked that all of his material be removed from the CAI site, asking Sungenis to "Please simply remove everything in a timely fashion," to which Sungenis responded, "Sure, Judas, I'll make sure I take it off in time for your next gig ... Please don't write to me any longer. When I see your name on my email list I want to throw up with disgust." (Sungenis, email of March 23, 2005)
At this point, the reader must consider the facts of this ugly exchange; Forrest initiated it by seeking to reason with Sungenis; Sungenis stood firm in his stance, and so Forrest resigned; in response, Sungenis claimed to be some kind of genuine prophet with a Divine mandate to "protect our Catholic Church", pronounced Forrest's prayers to be unacceptable to God, and labeled Forrest as a "Judas." Sungenis eventually said, in one of his emails to Forrest, that he would not be expecting Forrest to continue his duties at CAI; perhaps this is what Sungenis is interpreting as "terminating" Forrest, but the chronology shows that Forrest tendered his resignation first, and thus Sungenis' remark is a little like the boss who receives an employee's resignation and then says, "you can't quit - you're fired!"
The purpose in bringing all of this to light is two-fold: first, it completely puts the lie to Sungenis' claims that he fired Forrest for underhanded activity, and second, it establishes precisely how Sungenis responds to those who approach him in private to discuss their disagreements with him on Jewish issues. This is a critical point to remember when Sungenis claims, in his rebuttal, that he wants his reading audience to keep him accountable and let him know when he crosses the line; it is a critical point to remember when Sungenis complains that Forrest broad-sided him by posting his critique at www.sungenisandthejews.com without first approaching him privately. Forrest did approach Sungenis privately, over a year ago, and it is apparent just how futile that attempt really was. Incredibly, Sungenis spins this ugly chain of events, so that in his rebuttal the factual history becomes completely inverted: he terminated Forrest because of Forrest's underhanded activity at CAI.
What was this "underhanded activity" that Forrest was engaged in? Sungenis explains:
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. To rectify this situation, Michael rearranged our website, without telling me, so that the "offending" material no longer appeared, since he knew that his concert promoter was going to be checking our website. Obviously, Michael didn't have any problem with the articles on Jewish issues prior to the investigation by the promoter, but now that a music gig was on the line, Michael didn't want him to see certain articles. (ibid., p. 7)
Those who were involved as Michael's confidants and advisors during this period of time cannot help but laugh at this claim. First, at the time that Michael left CAI, he had not been involved in any sort of musical ventures for nearly a year. He explained this to Sungenis at the time he left CAI, but apparently Sungenis has forgotten this fact. Even if he had forgotten it, he remains without excuse here, because Forrest explained the situation leading up to his departure at www.sungenisandthejews.com in footnote #3 of the "Background" section. Perhaps Sungenis skipped this part of Forrest's critique. Additionally, in an email to the band's new bass guitarist, Forrest writes, "I just wanted to give you a heads up in order to help you with planning the CD. I'm leaving the band, and I wish you guys the best." This email is dated April 10, 2004, nearly a full year before Forrest's March, 2005, conversation with Sungenis about leaving CAI.
Second, to claim that "Michael rearranged our website without telling me" is just as laughable, because Michael has no idea how to do web development. That is why he was the site editor, while I was the web master; I posted all of the articles that were written by Forrest, Sungenis, or myself while I was with CAI, because no one else really knew how. When I left, Patrick Morris took over the duties of web master, and when he left, John Novotny was in charge of posting articles. Patrick and John will both testify to the truth when I say that Michael could not have rearranged the web site, because he does not have the necessary technical knowledge - which is precisely why, as shown above, he asked Patrick Morris to change the site bio information. Why wouldn't Forrest simply change it himself, if he knew how, and if that was his tendency?
Patrick Morris, in an email to Michael Forrest intended as a public statement, writes:
When I was working as webmaster for CAI, Michael [Forrest] NEVER personally posted or removed ANYTHING from the website. This was solely the responsibility of either Jacob Michael or me. If it were possible for Michael to add or remove articles then I really don't know why Robert had a webmaster in the first place since Robert himself knew how to upload articles and often did so at his discretion. In short, I cannot remember a single instance when Michael posted or removed any articles himself - I, Jake Michael and John Novotny were always the only ones requested to do that work. To my knowledge, Michael never even had access or the password and both John Novotny and I have recollection of many times when Michael would urge us to post something or correct a simple error more quickly. Obviously, if he could have made such changes, he would have. (Morris, email on file)
Even if he did have the technical savvy, as Patrick Morris notes, the CAI site is password-protected, and after I left, only Patrick, John, and Robert had the codes. Michael never had them. Sungenis' accusation above is pure slander, serving as a lovely companion to his badly mistaken claim that Michael left CAI because he was pursuing material gain through a musical career.
Incidentally, Sungenis makes a rather tacit admission in his next statement, when he adds, parenthetically, that "previously ... Michael edited my articles, at my request, before they were put up, so that it would be clear that CAI gave no semblance of 'anti-semitism.'" (ibid., pp. 7-8, emphasis added) In other words, Sungenis admits that he was aware just how close his articles were coming to "anti-semitism," and therefore he asked Michael to edit his essays in order to keep them toned down (as was shown in the email quoted above). That admission says everything. At the very least, it raises the question of how seriously we can take Sungenis' accusations against Forrest today - if Sungenis trusted Forrest then to be an accurate detector of anti-semitism in his work, why has he suddenly changed his mind today, and opted to not listen to Forrest's most recent warnings? This is only one example of the sustained "schizophrenia" present in Sungenis' rebuttal.
Other examples would be when he admits that "I seem to have a tendency to cite sources that are from what are believed to be extremist viewpoints," that "I've been informed of this a couple of times, even by my own vice president, Ben Douglass," and that "I can only say that I will be much more careful in the future." (ibid., p. 10) He goes on to say that "I don't know who is a 'white supremicist [sic]' and who is not," and "that is sloppy scholarship" (ibid., p. 10), yet the next paragraph of his rebuttal is nothing less than a defense of himself on precisely these points. Why not simply admit that Forrest was right, apologize without qualification, and pull the material from his site, while giving serious consideration to whether he should be writing on this subject at all in the future (since he admits his scholarship on the matter is sloppy)? Between Douglass' defense of Sungenis, the "Open Letter" to CAI patrons, and Sungenis' own defense of himself, what are we supposed to believe? On the one hand, Sungenis defends himself and counter-attacks Forrest, but on the other hand, he admits he has been wrong about using dubious sources, that he has been careless in his scholarship, and that he ought to be concentrating on his other areas of expertise; so is he apologizing or not? If not, why is he conceding Forrest's points, albeit tacitly, in his "Open Letter"?
As another example, Douglass wrote, in defense of Sungenis:
... one of the more odd portions of [Forrest's] website is footnote 7, which makes something out of the sheer volume of articles, news stories, and Q&A at CAI dealing with Judaism. Never mind that 1) questions concerning Judaism constitute a small fraction of the material at CAI’s Q&A board, 2) we answer the questions that people ask us; we don't exactly control how many people ask us about Judaism ... (Douglass, "Sad Response", source)
Note the line of defense: CAI cannot help the fact that the Q&A is so slanted towards Jewish issues, because CAI does not "control how many people ask us about Judaism." But Douglass here only concedes one of Forrest's main points that he listed as reasons why he critiqued Sungenis in the first place:
3) He 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. (Forrest, Robert Sungenis and the Jews)
To make it plain: Forrest is concerned that Sungenis' tendency to single out the Jews has "drawn others with similar proclivities to his website," and Douglass admits that this very thing has taken place, because the Q&A is heavily slanted towards Jewish issues, and this cannot be helped because "we don't exactly control how many people ask us about Judaism."
Sungenis then goes on to criticize the involvement of his former associates in lending their support to Forrest's work. He says "I can't help but see the organization of Forrest's posse as just a little bit too suspicious, since, of all those Forrest recruits as witnesses against me, not one who left CAI told me it was due to my critique of Jewish issues!" (ibid., p. 11) Only a few of the people who contributed to Michael's piece even claimed to have left CAI over the Jewish issues; the rest of us simply acknowledged our involvement with Sungenis at some point in time, and expressed our concern over his treatment of Jewish issues. The others who did state that they left CAI over Jewish issues also stated that this was not the only issue involved. There is no dishonesty here.
Letting just a bit of paranoia show through, Sungenis then accuses Forrest of having somehow brainwashed all of us into contributing to his work: "Michael is an insurance agent by profession, and he knows how to convince people of what he wants to sell them. I believe that same unfortunate experience happened to each of the persons Forrest lists below. It's not unlike the way polling questions are secretly designed in order to get the desired answer from the person polled." (ibid., p. 11) Sungenis, frankly, has no idea of what sorts of conversations Forrest had with David Palm, John Novotny, Art Sippo, myself, or anyone else during this process. Here again, I can give personal testimony to the fact that Forrest did absolutely nothing to attempt to sway me to his side; on the contrary, he showed me his work and asked me to criticize it, to shoot it full of holes, to prove to him that he was wrong. Of course, Sungenis will reply that this was merely evidence of Forrest's mastery of the technique of reverse psychology! I would expect nothing less from a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist.
About my own reasons for leaving CAI, Sungenis writes:
Jacob Michael was also recruited by Michael Forrest. I find this very puzzling, since it was just about two months ago that Jacob contacted me by email saying he wanted to do an interview of me (as he had done about two years ago), about my new book Galileo Was Wrong. I agreed to do an interview and I suggested that Jacob first read the book in order to know what questions to ask me. He agreed, so I sent him the book. There was no animosity against me, and no mention of Jewish issues to sever our friendship or prohibit Jacob from discussing this other controversial issue. (ibid., p. 14)
I was "recruited" by no one. Again, Michael presented me with the work he had written, and asked me to poke it full of holes. He wanted to know that he was doing the right thing, and that is why he not only contacted me, but also the others who eventually gave their approbation to the project publicly.
Sungenis at least gets this part right: I did contact him about doing an interview regarding his new book, and he did send me a copy to peruse. This was all a matter of days before I found out, well before Michael Forrest contacted me, that Sungenis' doctorate (which he earned in connection with writing this very same book) is from Calamus International University (see Sungenis' bio) - a institution not accredited in the United States, which has all the appearances of a "degree mill." Anyone with an Internet browser and some spare time can research this for himself. I chose to drop the matter of the interview, because I suspected that eventually someone would call Sungenis' doctorate into question, and I did not want to have an entire interview posted on my site that centered on the "dissertation" which earned Sungenis his degree.
As I said, Michael puts a lot of pressure on people to see things his way, and apparently Jacob fell for it. As I said, Jacob never mentioned any "Jewish" concerns he had with me before he did the previous Galileo interview two years ago, or prior to the new one he wanted to do with me two months ago. In fact, Jacob has never expressed ANY concern about the Jewish issues while he was under my employ or afterwards. (ibid., p. 13)
So, according to Sungenis, Forrest put "pressure" on me, and I was gullible enough that I "fell for it." That's just how persuasive Michael Forrest is! As Sungenis pointed out in his rebuttal, Forrest is an insurance salesman by trade (actually, Forrest is a partner/manager of an agency, not a salesman), so obviously he has a real gift for persuading people to do things he wants them to do. Come to think of it ... perhaps Sungenis is right. I don't remember much of what happened after my initial conversation with Forrest, when he first asked me to read his critique of Sungenis - all I remember is waking up the next day in a fog, and discovering that I had purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars in car insurance on vehicles I don't even own; I should have known something wasn't quite right when Forrest offered me those Hebrew National hot dogs with the Kosher pickles on the side! Give me a break.
Did I mention any of my concerns vis-a-vis the Jewish issues to Robert? No, I did not. Like Forrest, I had noticed one occasion here or there in the past few years where Sungenis had written something a bit "off" concerning the Jews (his attack on Schoeman and Moss comes to mind), but the incidents seemed to be isolated; frankly, since I left CAI, I haven't been following the activities of the web site that closely. A few incidents, taken in isolation, are not enough to raise any alarms, and since I am no longer affiliated with CAI, I have never felt the need to go out of my way and express any concerns to Sungenis (especially after having watched him berate Forrest as a "Judas" back in 2005); when all of the incidents are taken together, however, and are compiled and presented as a whole, in the way that Forrest has done, the matter becomes much clearer. Thus, it was only after considering the mountain of evidence that Forrest has compiled that I felt something needed to be said, and I was glad that Forrest had taken the time to say it. That is why I added my own written approbation to his piece.
Obviously, unless he was lying to me, Jacob's departure from CAI had nothing to do with Jewish issues. The truth is that Jacob left voluntarily because, by his own honorable admission, he had more or less besmirched CAI's reputation by pursuing the Mr. X matter with the Webster/White crew of Protestants (details of which I cannot divulge here). He was gracious enough to admit that he put CAI in a precarious position and that the honorable thing to do would be for him to leave. (ibid., pp. 13-14)
Sungenis is correct: my departure from CAI had nothing to do with Jewish issues. I have never claimed otherwise. Keep in mind, however, that I left CAI in 2003, and at that time, the only thing Sungenis had written about the Jews was his 2002 essay that got him in so much trouble, and he eventually pulled the article from the site (although he apparently continues to refer people to it today, as Forrest has documented). The Jewish issue was simply not a prominent part of CAI's work when I left; as Forrest has shown, however, since I have left CAI, and even more since Forrest has left CAI, Sungenis has done quite a bit of writing about Jewish issues, and apparently intends to continue to do so (depending on whether you believe his "Open Letter" or his rebuttal against Forrest).
Sungenis, however, has put his own "spin" on why I left CAI. Yes, it was over my involvement in slandering David King and William Webster, when I publicly posted an interview I conducted with an "anonymous" source who claimed to have insider information on King and Webster's Sola Scriptura series. When it became clear that my source was telling lies, I phoned both King and Webster and apologized to them personally for having charged them publicly with accusations that were false. This upset Sungenis, because he wanted to do a fair bit more "damage control" than I felt was appropriate on such an occasion; in sum, I felt that CAI should have apologized unconditionally, whereas Sungenis intended to issue an apology that also contained a justification, along with a promise to thoroughly refute Webster and King's work at a theological level in the near future.
The first draft of Sungenis' "apology" to King and Webster admits that "CAI cannot substantiate many of the claims made ... and thus I am forced to judge them as false." Forced. He then says, "since I cannot substantiate any of this, I consider it false, and thus we owe Mr. King, Mr. Webster, Mr. Pierce, and Mr. Smith an apology, and I am forthwith making that apology to them now on behalf of all of us at CAI." (Sungenis, email of April 29, 2003) Following this formal "apology," however, Sungenis goes on to say "since I had already confirmed to my own satisfaction [Mr. X's] initial information about King and Webster's mishandling of patristics quotes, he seemed to be a credible witness." In other words, Sungenis justifies his mistake by claiming to have confirmed at least part of the false evidence; yes, we posted false accusations, but King and Webster are still guilty of "mishandling ... patristics quotes" - this is the force of Sungenis' "apology." He concludes by adding, "If anything, [Mr. X] has caused us to refocus our attention on the claims that Mr. King and Mr. Webster have put in their three volume work on sola scriptura. Mr. Michael and I will be addressing those issues in the next few months." The "apology," then, contained a pot-shot and a promise to engage in further confrontation.
Sungenis and I disagreed fiercely about how he was handling the matter, since I don't think an apology is an apology if it continues making accusations and threats, and since CAI is Sungenis' apostolate, I resigned in order to have the freedom of dealing with Webster and King in the way my conscience told me I should.
I mention this because it illustrates something about the way Sungenis reacts when he is proven to be in the wrong. Here, in the Webster/King issue, as also in the Jewish issue of 2002, his apologies have been mixed with self-justification. Unfortunately, such apologies never appear sincere, and this is something Sungenis does not seem to understand. Even in his rebuttal to Forrest, he comes close to admitting wrong-doing, but those admissions are made conditional, and quickly paired with self-defense: if I have done anything wrong, or if certain people have been offended, then I apologize; the apology on page 10 of the rebuttal is a classic example:
In any case, if I have sometimes crossed the line from critiquing Jewish interests to attacking Jewish people personally, I apologize profusely. That is simply not my intention at all, and my critics need to realize that it is not often easy for an author to police his reader to make sure that the reader does the proper job of separating intellectual criticisms from personal feelings.
First, the apology is conditional: "if I have sometimes crossed the line"; second, the apology immediately turns into a thinly-veiled accusation that places the fault upon the reader: "is not often easy for an author to police his reader to make sure that the reader does the proper job of separating intellectual criticisms from personal feelings."
The same can be said of the apology offered by Sungenis in his most recent Open Letter to CAI Patrons, in which Sungenis says, "let me offer my sincerest apologies to all the people or groups that I have offended by the manner in which I have sometimes communicated my ideas in the past four years. Whether Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim or whatever, I know that some of the words I chose and some of the sources I used tended to incite offense. I can assure you that such will be the case no longer. Whenever we write about any group or individual it will be with much care and consideration." The language is very telling; normally, a person who is sorry for using scandalous words and utilizing questionable sources would say "I have been careless in my words, and have used dubious sources - I should never have done that." Sungenis, however, says that "some of the words I chose and some of the sources I used tended to incite offense." Who is at fault, then? The one who used the scandalous sources, or the one who allowed himself to be incited to offense?
The irony here, of course, is that what Sungenis admits in this statement, and promises to do in the future, is precisely the thing for which Forrest criticized him. Sungenis says in his Open Letter:
We began to focus on politics, culture and other peripheral issues that were not the frame and substance of our former work, which started in 1993. Although those areas certainly have their merit, they have detracted from the expertise we offered to the public in the area of biblical studies. Hence, we are retreating from those more controversial areas for the foreseeable future so that we can concentrate on our areas of strength. (Sungenis, Open Letter)
This is exactly what Forrest said: Sungenis is not an expert on Jewish issues, and should stop presenting himself as such; he should back away from those topics and focus on the areas he knows, such as biblical theology. If Sungenis was willing to do this, then why does he accuse Forrest of merely wanting to censor him, when Forrest asked for nothing more than what Sungenis here promises to do? Conversely, if Sungenis' rebuttal against Forrest holds true, and he stands behind what he wrote, then why is he backing away from Jewish issues? If he truly thinks he is right about the Jews (and if he really thinks he is a prophet of God with a Divine mandate), why back down? Further, why does he not acknowledge in this Open Letter what is plain for all to see: namely, that this "epiphany" concerning CAI's orientation was prompted by Forrest's piece? In fact, however, Sungenis never even mentions Forrest in this Open Letter; he gives the impression that this new direction in which he wants to take CAI has just dawned upon him, recently, coincidentally, at exactly the same time Forrest published his critique. The schizophrenia is evident here, when one places the Open Letter side-by-side with the rebuttal against Forrest. If the Open Letter is genuine, then Forrest's criticisms are admitted by Sungenis as legitimate and necessary, and the rebuttal should be sent to the trash bin; if the rebuttal, however, is genuine, then the Open Letter makes no sense, and appears to be a compromise of Sungenis' convictions. Which piece represents the "real Sungenis"? Are we to believe that he is truly sorry for using questionable sources, as he says in the Open Letter? Or should we believe what he says in his rebuttal, when he insists that his critics "need to address and rebut the factual material that these alternate sources bring to the discussion rather than dismissing it all with a wave of their 'anti-semitic' wand"? ("Michael Forrest and the Jews", p. 21)
Some of Sungenis' interactions with Forrest in this rebuttal are simply confusing. Forrest asserts that Sungenis has said that 99% of Jews hate Christ. Sungenis responds, "I never used the figure 99%. That is his exaggeration." (ibid., p. 21) However, Forrest provides a link to CAI where Sungenis does, in fact, say, "95% of the Jews today still despise Jesus Christ." (source) So Forrest used the figure of 99%, while Sungenis used the figure of 95%; the "exaggeration" that Sungenis hides behind, then, is an "exaggeration" of precisely 4% - if that can even qualify as an "exaggeration." A few pages later, however, Sungenis writes:
In Romans 11:5 God tells Elijah that only 7000 Jews had not bowed the knee to the false god, Baal. This statement was made in the 8th century BC when Israel had about 5-10 million people ... Now, if there were 7000 out of a nation of 5 million, what percentage is that? It comes out to be less than 0.14%. Why is this important? Because St. Paul tells us that "at this present time" it is still the case (Romans 11:5). That is, we should expect the same percentages now as Elijah did in his day. By that estimation, my "95%" figure is a little too high. (ibid., p. 24)
Follow that one, if you can. Sungenis accuses Forrest of "exaggeration" over a measly 4%, then promptly turns around and says his 95% figure should have been closer to less than half of a percent. Which is the greater exaggeration? To go from 95% to 99%, or to go from 0.14% to 95%? In any case, Sungenis is wrong from the start; he says, "I never used the figure 99%. That is his exaggeration." But in an email to Forrest, Sungenis writes:
Just look at the headlines, Mike. Almost all you see coming out of Israel is Judaism and hatred for Christ ... Go to Israel today, Mike, and ask the typical Jew on the street about Jesus and I'll bet you that 99% of them don't have nice things to say about him. (Sungenis, email of April 6, 2004)
Once again, Sungenis is just plain wrong about the facts; he did make this claim, using the "99%" figure; it is no "exaggeration" on Forrest's part at all, and as these inaccuracies continue to pile up, it becomes clear just which of these two men is more prone to exaggeration and mishandling of the facts.
Sungenis quotes Forrest, who said, "Unfortunately, as I have documented below, Bob began criticizing Schoeman's work before he had even read any of it," and then Sungenis responds by saying, "If Forrest had paid attention to what I wrote, then he would see very clearly that I did, indeed, give Schoeman's book the fairness and objectivity it deserved." (ibid., p. 48) Notice that he does not deny Forrest's claim; indeed, he cannot, because Forrest has published the email correspondence involved:
Did you read (Schoeman's) book? (Forrest, email of April, 2004)
No. Does it say something different than what I quoted? (Sungenis, email of April, 2004) [source]
Incidentally, this same exact pattern was displayed when Sungenis publicly accused John Paul II, in an article, of "standing with the voodoo chieftan before a snake in the center of town" and offering "cucumber peelings" as an offering. Forrest wrote to Sungenis, "Are you SURE about this? This is an amazing and scandalous thing, if true. Have you verified it with more than one source?" (Forrest, email of May 10, 2003) Sungenis responded with this astounding admission: "Don't remember. I've had it in my notes for a while. Can you do some checking for me?" (Sungenis, email of May 10, 2003)
Now, perhaps the reader is familiar with this papal incident, and even has proof that it took place; this is completely beside the point. The point is that Sungenis regularly makes claims which he has not substantiated or verified, and sees no problem with this approach. In an article on EWTN and Assisi, Sungenis quoted the Pope as saying "The one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church is present, in all its essential elements, in non-Catholic sects....The Catholic Church is in communion with non-Catholic sects." No source was supplied for this quote, and when David Palm challenged him to either document the quote or remove it, Sungenis defended himself, saying "your attempt to make me look like some kind of pope-basher (due to the quote) is totally lopsided and unfair, considering the fact that John Paul II has said dozens of statements that are very similar and often worse than the quote in question" - in other words, since the Pope has allegedly said dozens of other things like this, a little inaccuracy here and there shouldn't be a big deal. He continues, telling Mr. Palm, "If you want me to apologize for a possible misquote of him, perhaps you can tell the pope to apologize for the dozens of other ludicrous theological statements he has made in the last 26 years." (Sungenis, email of March 30, 2005) If Sungenis isn't going to be fair in his accusations of the Pope, why on earth should we expect him to be fair in his presentation of mere laymen like Schoeman? Incidentally, this unattributed quote remains on Sungenis' web site at the time of this writing, even after all of Sungenis' apologies and promises of reform regarding such methods.
Later in the rebuttal, when addressing the same accusation concerning Schoeman's book, Sungenis makes the incredible claim, "how 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." (ibid., p. 64) Apparently, Sungenis forgot to read the footnotes in Forrest's piece, and has also forgotten the email he sent to Forrest, admitting he had not read the book before critiquing it; stranger still, he has apparently forgotten the reality of the fact itself, and proceeds to insult Forrest as "foolish," stating that he "makes conclusions based on his own presumptions." In light of the plain, black-and-white evidence that Forrest has supplied to the contrary, sharing Sungenis' own words of admission, it is certainly not Forrest who comes off as looking "foolish" here.
Forrest quoted Sungenis as accusing Roy Schoeman of "confiscating" Hosea 3:5 for the cause of Zionism: "Hosea 3:5 is one of the passages Church tradition has understood as fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, but Schoeman is trying to confiscate it for Zionism." (source) Forrest then shows how Fr. Leo Haydock, compiler and editor of the Haydock Bible, interprets Hosea 3:5 precisely the way Schoeman does, and then says, "I don't believe Bob would seriously want to accuse acclaimed scripture scholar Fr. George Leo Haydock (writing in the mid 1800's) of being a Zionist conspirator, impugn his exegetical skills and declare him to be in violation of 'Church tradition' as he did Schoeman." (ibid) Sungenis responds:
No, Leo Haydock is not a Zionist conspirator. But I didn't speak about Leo Haydock. I said that nothing in HOSEA 3:5 speaks about the Second Coming of Christ, not whether Leo Haydock said it referred to the Second Coming. ("Michael Forrest and the Jews", p. 54)
Sungenis cleverly evades the point, once again. No one accused him of thinking Fr. Haydock to be a Zionist conspirator; however, he did accuse Schoeman of such, and did so based on the evidence of Schoeman's interpretation of Hosea 3:5, an interpretation with which Fr. Haydock agrees. Sungenis apparently fails to see the problem here: if Schoeman can be accused of Zionism precisely for interpreting Hosea 3:5 in this way, then logically, the same accusation must hold true of Fr. Haydock. Sungenis must either be consistent and accuse Fr. Haydock of Zionism, or he must retract his accusation against Schoeman. He cleverly avoids having to make such a choice, and simply focuses on the Hosea passage itself, thereby missing Forrest's point entirely - this is only one example of several to be found in the rebuttal, wherein Sungenis does this exact same thing, dodging Forrest's actual criticisms by dealing with closely-related issues.
Sungenis' rebuttal, as was said, is 72 pages long. I have no intention of interacting with all of it. What I have accomplished here is simply to demonstrate that Sungenis is not dealing with reality; he makes several false claims in his personal attack against Forrest; he repeats inaccuracies concerning his relationship with Forrest and other former CAI associates; he puts his own clever spin on things, such as when he says that "CUF was carrying Forrest's website on their website for a day," but that later, "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." (ibid., p. 16) Given all of the ways in which we have seen, up close, how Sungenis misrepresents reality and fumbles the facts on a regular basis, are we really to believe that CUF stopped linking to Forrest's piece because they are now siding with Sungenis? How likely is that?
Sungenis also puts his own spin on Forrest's motives and intentions, telling outright lies in the process (whether this was intentional or just a case of incredibly bad memory is another issue); he puts his own spin on why his former associates chose to put their names to Forrest's work, once again distorting the facts; Sungenis is simply not interacting with reality at this point. It was one thing for him to ignore Bill Cork's criticisms in 2002, because unfortunately, Cork's own liberal tendencies somewhat hampered his ability to speak as an unprejudiced witness, and his message got lost in his reputation; but when a large group of Sungenis' own friends and former associates, whose orthodoxy is beyond question, bring those same criticisms to light, there is no excuse for him to behave as he has. In Forrest's case, he cannot dodge the criticisms by attacking Forrest's theological liberalism, because such liberalism does not exist; instead, he attacks Forrest personally, imputing evil motives to Forrest, and inventing a past history with Forrest out of whole cloth.
We had all hoped Sungenis might give Forrest's critique a long and hard look, since the criticisms were coming from those closest to him; it appears as though he intends to do exactly that, as evidenced by his Open Letter, but unfortunately, his track record shows that these sudden changes of heart are remarkably coincidental with the times when Sungenis gets called on the carpet for not playing by the rules. His readers may certainly feel justified in being a bit skeptical of his promises and apologies; history shows that when the crisis blows over, Sungenis usually returns to his old habits before too long. Even presuming that his resolutions are indeed sincere this time around, the fact still remains that, as he has been prone to do in the past, Sungenis has once again mixed his apologies with vinegar, and left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. At the very least, however, after presenting all of the factual information contained here, we can say that the record has been set straight; perhaps now that Sungenis has been shown to be an untrustworthy source of information about such personal matters as his own conversations with Forrest, we can ask all the more insistently: is Sungenis really to be trusted as an accurate source of information about the Jews and Jewish converts, with whom he has had no personal interaction? The facts should speak for themselves.
Now if only I could figure out what to do with all of this useless car insurance ...
