As this controversy has unfolded, we have documented numerous instances in which Robert Sungenis holds to radical double-standards - indeed, with him, one can expect on a regular basis for there to be "one standard for me and another for thee." (see here for examples). When it comes to Sungenis' standards on obedience to ecclesiastical authority, the double-standard rule is also abundantly evident.
That Sungenis has radically flip-flopped with regard to obedience toward his bishop and has engaged in the most outrageous revisionism in the process is now public knowledge. Thanks to an article by Sungenis' new enthusiastic supporter Thomas Herron in Culture Wars (October, p. 9), we now know that Bishop Rhoades stepped in on June 29th to reprimand Sungenis for both the tone and content of his Jewish writings, giving him two weeks to cease writing on this subject and remove his writings from the Internet. Over a month later, on July 31st, Sungenis decided to try to salvage his public image by making a show of his alleged obedience to the bishop (July 31 "Catholic Apologetics International and its Teaching on the Jews). This self-aggrandizement was particularly hypocritical and deceitful considering the fact that he was given 2 weeks to comply with his bishop's directives. Yet during the next month, he not only retained all of his anti-Semitic material at CAI, he even posted more articles and "features" against Jews. Most outrageous was an article, posted a mere five days after reception of his bishop's cease and desist letter, in which he smeared bishop Rhoades himself! (Sungenis Smears Bishop, Continues to Mislead and Distort the Record)
Then, on July 31st, he had the brass to "pray thus with himself" (cf. Luke 18:11) in front of all of his readers:
Since I am a faithful son of the Catholic Church, I take their wisdom and counsel with the utmost seriousness and consider their direction as if it was from God himself. I consider it an honor not only to be a member of the Catholic Church but also to be under the vigilance of such wise and caring pastors.
If in the future we write any new material on the Jews, it will always be with the required due diligence, as if the bishop were present with us. Since he acts in God's stead, we will do our utmost to please him so as to preserve the peace and tranquility he so desires to maintain in the body of Christ. (FreeRepublic Archive of "CAI and its Teachings on the Jews")
He even wrote in private correspondence:
The bottom line is that my bishop has authority over me and I have to work things out with him. Catholicism is all about authority and obedience, otherwise we are Protestants. My apostolate is founded on the Catholic Church's authority, and nothing less (email to Edgar Suter, August 5, 2007; forwarded by Suter to a broad group of individuals.)
While Sungenis sought to position himself publicly as a "faithful son of the Church", his private correspondence made it very clear that he had simply decided to change tactics, making a simple, cynical calculation and playing along with the bishop as long as he felt he could still save enough face in the process:
Further on in his letter to Suter he wrote:
"For now, there is no reason to fight [the bishop's directive], because both parties are in a win-win situation."
For now.
A short time later he wrote to Jacob Michael that if this blog was not removed from the Internet, "I will begin reposting the material on my site, one article at a time, revised and expanded, and I'm going to pay particular attention to Roy Schoeman and you" (email of 27 Aug 2007).
To Michael Forrest he similarly stated: "If you don't take [www.sungenisandthejews.com] down, then you will force me to take the appropriate counter-action. For instance, I will resume putting up Jewish articles on my site and I will revise and expand each one of them, and I will start with Roy Schoeman specifically" (email of 27 Aug 2007).
Finally, to Ben Douglass he stated, "As for my 'Jewish' articles, let me set you straight there also. I will put up any 'Jewish' article I please, either now or in the future" (email of 2 Nov 2007).
Then, even after this letter of "humble obedience," Sungenis began "testing the waters" so to speak, dropping the word "Catholic" from the masthead of his website (likely to prevent the public relations blow of having it forced upon him by his bishop), posting anti-Jewish Q&As in his forum, posting anti-Jewish news alerts on the website. It did not take long, however, for this trial-balloon of subtle disobedience to break out into full-blown and open defiance. As of January 2008, Sungenis has publicly stated his intention to disobey his bishop's directives. As his sometime promoter and personal apologist Mark Wyatt wrote in the "Robert Sungenis" Wikipedia entry:
Sungenis wrote to the bishop and stated that he is not required to obey the bishop if the bishop issues orders that are in conflict with the faith and morals of the Catholic Church, and that if the bishop desired to contest Sungenis' stance, Sungenis would be willing to do so under the aegis of a canonical trial. The bishop did not respond to Sungenis's proposal. [See Culture Wars, January 2008, pages 12-39, for more information] (Wikipedia, s.v. "Robert Sungenis", Revision by Mark Wyatt, Feb. 1, 2008)
This view of matters has been echoed by Sungenis himself in a recent email:
. . . it was up to [Bishop Rhoades] to prove his case against me, since it now became a matter of faith and morals, for I am not required to obey the bishop if he is going against Catholic faith and morals. (email of Feb 20, 2008)
In a moment we will look in more detail at this rather interesting approach to "Catholic" obedience (i.e., "take me to court and prove me wrong first, then I'll obey") that Sungenis has adopted.
But first, let's take a look at what Bob Sungenis is currently doing, and how Bob himself must of necessity interpret these actions. In January, Bob Sungenis submitted a brand new article for publication in E. Michael Jones's Culture Wars, which he titled "The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked? A Review of the PBS Documentary: Jews and Christians: A Journey of Faith". There are several things about this article that must be highlighted.
First, Bob proudly admits that his ecclesiastical superiors - whom he so recently referred to as "wise and caring pastors" and "the shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work" - do not want him to be writing the very things he is writing in this article (the "Rhoades" he so flippantly refers to in the quote below is his own Bishop, The Most Reverend Kevin C. Rhoades, Successor of the Apostles in charge of shepherding the Harrisburg Diocese):
I later found out that Rhoades [sic] was in league with the USCCB on this issue, since a few months later he invited me to a meeting with Fr. James Massa, Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB, in an effort to dissuade me from pointing out some of the very things I am writing in this essay. ("Covenant", p. 9)
Second, Bob admits to his readers in this article that his own bishop has indeed "ordered" him to stop writing the very kinds of things he is writing in this present article - thus making the article itself an act of self-proclaimed disobedience:
[Bishop Rhoades] then took back his previous offer to allow me to change the 'tone' of my articles and forthwith ordered me to stop writing about the Jews and Judaism altogether. ("Covenant", p. 10)
At this point, we should remember what we read of Bob's own words above:
The bottom line is that my bishop has authority over me and I have to work things out with him. Catholicism is all about authority and obedience, otherwise we are Protestants. My apostolate is founded on the Catholic Church's authority, and nothing less (email to Suter, August 5, 2007).
The conclusion is inescapable: by Bob's own standards and measures, he has become a Protestant. He acknowledges that his bishop "has authority over me"; he acknowledges that his bishop "ordered me to stop writing about the Jews and Judaism altogether"; and yet he continues to write about the Jews and Judaism, in flagrant and public defiance of his bishop's orders - which, by his own judgment, makes Bob Sungenis a Protestant.
This turn of events recalls a warning issued by a contributor to the Robert Sungenis and the Jews website, Dr. Art Sippo:
I am concerned that [Bob] has started wandering into increasingly extreme and questionable areas that have taken him well out of the mainstream of Catholic thought and which may be leading him out of the Church.
Dr. Sippo took a fair amount of heat for expressing that concern from those who thought it extreme and uncalled for. However, his warning is appearing increasingly prophetic.
The disturbing thing about Bob's defiance is that he has apparently found a way to justify it. Mark Wyatt has already added a helpful update to Bob's Wikipedia entry, as we saw above, cluing the readers in to the fact that Bob has expressed to his bishop two reasons for his disobedience: "he is not required to obey the bishop if the bishop issues orders that are in conflict with the faith and morals of the Catholic Church", and also, "if the bishop desired to contest Sungenis's stance, Sungenis would do so only under the aegis of a canonical trial." Of course, as a result of Bob’s latest email, we know that Wyatt was merely repeating what he had been told by Bob.
This latter point is something Bob is also more-than-happy to elaborate upon in his most recent article. He tells his readers (with no small amount of bravado) that,
I ... wrote the bishop a letter saying that, if he wanted to reverse his position once again and censor me, he would have to do so under the aegis of a canonical trial, at which time I would appeal to the Vatican in order to have the matter fully adjudicated, and at which time I would be quite happy to expose the belief in Dual Covenant theology that he and USCCB were apparently promoting. After four months, there has been no response from the chancellery ("Covenant", pp. 11-12).
As a side note, Bob attempts to smear his bishop again by suggesting that his bishop "[wants] to reverse his position once again and censor me". The entry at Wikipedia further implies that Bob's refusal to be censored is based, in part, on the principle that Bob feels "he is not required to obey the bishop if the bishop issues orders that are in conflict with the faith and morals of the Catholic Church."
However, it should be noted immediately that it is Bob who has reversed his position, not the bishop. The bishop's own position, as quoted by Bob, was that Bob could continue writing on Jewish theological issues "provided that you take an approach quite different in tone and content from the one pursued in the past." ("Covenant", p. 11)
Bob has manifestly not adopted "an approach quite different in tone and content" from his previous writings, and thus, his bishop is fully justified in insisting that Bob simply "stop writing about the Jews and Judaism altogether." ("Covenant", p. 11) Bob is correct, in that one of the two parties has reversed their position; he is wrong in his identification of that party. If anyone has reversed their position, it is the man who said in August, when he felt on balance it was to his advantage, that it was a privilege to obey the ecclesiastical shepherds God has put over him, but who is now accusing those same shepherds of being wolves, and refusing to submit to their authority.
In August of 2007, when he was still feeling compliant and generous toward his bishop, he wrote, "Neither our obedience to our bishop nor our bishop's directives should in any way be interpreted as either of us compromising on the truth." ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2)
He further noted that, in his 2007 meeting with Fr. King and Fr. Massa, "the shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work" gave Bob "various examples in which I have crossed the line into inappropriate language and accusations" in his writings on the Jews - and most importantly, "I communicated to them my agreement with their overall assessment." ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2)
In other words, Bob has known since August that his bishop has problems with "the tone and content with which I write about the Jewish people", and when shown specific examples of this, Bob agreed with the "overall assessment" of these "shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work." He agreed to remove "all the content on [CAI's] website concerning the Jews in order to make the initial adjustments in complying with my bishop's directive", and insisted that neither his bishop's censorship of his work, nor his compliance with that censorship, should "in any way be interpreted as either of us compromising on the truth." ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2)
In no small part because of his expanding commiseration-collaboration with E. Michael Jones and Thomas Herron, Bob has now reversed his position, and apparently interprets his bishop's directive for Bob to be silent in this one area as somehow being "in conflict with the faith and morals of the Catholic Church", even though he at one time spoke of the "wisdom and counsel" of his shepherds and insisted that he viewed "their direction as if it was from God himself." ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2) Bob's Bishop, of whom Bob once said that "he acts in God's stead" ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2), is now merely "Rhoades", a man "in league with the USCCB" ("Covenant", p. 11), who is "attempting to propagate [erroneous theology] to unsuspecting Catholics" (ibid.), and whom Bob "would be quite happy to expose" (ibid.) in a Vatican-sponsored canonical trial.
In short, Bob Sungenis does not intend to obey his bishop until forced to do so by means of a canonical trial, which he already intends to "appeal to the Vatican" so that he can "expose" the bishop's allegedly (and dangerously!) erroneous theology. As we have already seen, Bob's bluster about his bishop's alleged heterodoxy amounts to nothing less than a case of slander against his shepherd.
Bob's insistence on withholding his obedience to what he has called "the shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work" ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2), until such time as a canonical trial can be held, is eerily reminiscent of the Protestant Reformation Father Martin Luther, who first promised to heed the commands of the Church's prelates only after a formal trial, then insisted that the commands had to come from the Pope himself, and then (when both of these demands were met) appealed to a future council.
Bob's position is also very reminiscent of the stance taken by a certain Archbishop in Switzerland during the 1970s - an Archbishop whose disobedience Bob has publicly denounced on more than one occasion. We are referring, of course, to the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, who similarly insisted on withholding obedience to the orders of his superiors, until the matter could be taken up in canonical court.
But Bob's previous writings leave him little room to make excuse. When the subject is Archbishop Lefebvre, Bob suddenly has great insight and perception: while admitting that "Lefebvre had 'legitimate' complaints about the pope that the pope thoroughly ignored", he also acknowledges that "insofar as legal legitimacy, yes, the pope had his rights". This is absolutely key, because Bob accuses the Pope in this matter: "as far as dealing with Lefebvre's concerns of a Church leaving her traditions and going down the wrong path, the pope totally missed the mark." Regardless of how Bob judges the Pope's theology in this case, however, he still insists that "Lefebvre will be judged for disobeying the direct disciplinary order of the pope", even if "the pope will be judged for bringing the Church to the edge of apostasy." (A Frank Discussion with Jim Likoudis about Vatican II, John Paul II and "The Great Facade")
Similarly, in a 2004 Q&A, Bob displayed remarkable clarity in his ability to distinguish between a prelate's juridical authority and personal theology: "If our obedience was based on whether the pope is always infallible, we would have no Catholic Church ... The problem with the SSPX is that they confuse the personal faith and practices of John Paul II with the papal office itself. As long as they continue to judge the papal office by the temporary occupant of its chair, they will continue to make problematic judgments that keep them in schism." (Q&A, July 2004, Question 24)
The words of wisdom spoken by Bob here concerning the Pope may arguably become the words of his own condemnation. Indeed, this last quote can be turned around and made to function like a mirror, reflecting Bob's own recent schismatic leanings.
"If our obedience to our bishops was based on whether the bishop is theologically correct, we would have no Catholic Church ... The problem with Bob Sungenis is that he confuses the personal faith and practices of Bishop Rhoades with the episcopal office itself. As long as he continues to judge the episcopal office by the temporary occupant of its chair, he will continue to make problematic judgments that keep him in schism."
Of course, Sungenis' disobedience is all the more grave because his bishop does not hold to the theological error with which Sungenis has seen fit to slander him. At least Archbishop Lefebvre had a plausible dilemma to sort through. The very suggestion that it would be a "moral evil" for Sungenis to remain silent on Jewish issues is risible, and is yet another indication of the extent to which he over-estimates his importance.
It seems appropriate to end here with Church teaching about our bishops:
“Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishop’s decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind.” #25
“The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them . . . by the authority and sacred power which indeed they exercise exclusively for the spiritual development of their flock. . . . This power, which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary and immediate. . . . In virtue of this power bishops have a sacred right and a duty for the Lord of legislating for and of passing judgment on their subjects. . .
The pastoral charge, that is, the permanent and daily care of their sheep, is entrusted to them fully . . . for they exercise the power which they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern.” #27
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium
