Thursday, February 21, 2008

A Timeline of Events

May – June 2007: It becomes public that Sungenis was denied an imprimatur for the second volume in his Catholic Apologetics Study Bible series, on the Apocalypse, in the fall of 2006. Sungenis admits that "some people are probably curious as to why the Apocalypse of St. John was denied an imprimatur from Bishop Rhoades", and explains, "I will tell you that it only revolves around issues regarding my views on Judaism." ( See the following blog entries for more details: Entry 1, Entry 2.

29 June 2007: Sungenis receives an order via registered letter from his bishop to “immediately desist from commenting on the Jewish people and Judaism both online and in all other publications” (Thomas J. Herron, “Fear of the Jews in Harrisburg,” Culture Wars, Oct 2007, p. 9). From Herron’s description, His Excellency at this time also, “threatened to publicly denounce . . . Robert Sungenis . . . and deprive him of his right to use the word ‘Catholic’ on his website and written material” (ibid., p. 8). The bishop gave Sungenis, "a two week notice in this letter to pull down all comments concerning Jews, Judaism, Israel and Zionism from his web site" (ibid. , p. 9).

3 July 2007: Just four days after he had received the cease and desist order from his bishop, Sungenis posted his article “Jacob Michael, the Imprimatur and the Smear Campaign” The document is dated 1 July 2007 and was posted to the CAI website two days later on 3 July. In it, Sungenis smears Bishop Rhoades:

With all due respect to Bishop Rhoades, I believe I know what his theological viewpoint is, since he is a protégé of William Cardinal Keeler and very close to him personally and theologically, Keeler having come from the Harrisburg diocese and the ordinary who ordained Rhoades. If you remember, Cardinal Keeler was a co-author with several Jewish rabbis of the Reflections on Covenant and Missions document in 2003. I think you get the picture. I won't say anymore out of respect for Bishop Rhoades" (Jacob Michael, the Imprimatur and the Smear Campaign, p. 11).

At that time, we wrote on the RSATJ blog:

Sungenis opted to smear his own bishop with innuendo and guilt by association and then had the nerve to claim he was showing “respect” for him by so doing. The reader will notice that Sungenis provided no substantive documentation for his implied charges. He simply associated Bishop Rhoades with Jews, Cardinal Keeler and the RCM document and that was enough for him to conclude that the Bishop must subscribe to the dual salvific covenant position, or perhaps must be one of those bishops he previously described thusly:

"As long as [my critics]…refuse to condemn the USCCB and other hierarchy for their capitulation to the Jews, then they will never be my friends, they will be my enemies. God will be the judge of who of us has been right." (Article, page 23)

This attack on Bishop Rhoades is particularly outrageous and hypocritical as Sungenis and his associates have bitterly complained that Sungenis is a victim of guilt by association in regard to Jewish issues. They have argued that he is being called an anti-Semite simply because some of his sources are anti-Semitic. However, in Sungenis’ case, it is most certainly not a matter of guilt by association. It is not guilt by association when one actively and purposely promotes, uses and otherwise directly associates oneself with the “Jewish research” of anti-Semites.

In stark contrast, Sungenis provided no documentation at all that bishop Rhoades holds to or promotes the “two separate, salvific covenants” concept suggested by the RCM document. His mistreatment of Bishop Rhoades is therefore a classic example of guilt by association. . . . (link)

Apparently, relatively soon after Sungenis’ attempted defense was posted in multiple venues, he received complaints on the outrageousness of this smear against the bishop and removed it. However, characteristically, no public retraction or apology has been made by him at CAI.

6 July 2007: CAI associate Chris Campbell gathers Sungenis’ principle articles on Jewish issues and re-posts them to a separate blog, away from the CAI website (; this blog was subsequently deactivated after Ben Douglass found it.) The articles were thus at two independent locations.

17 July 2007: More than two weeks after Bishop Rhoades has given Sungenis "a two week notice in this letter to pull down all comments concerning Jews, Judaism, Israel and Zionism from his web site", the CAI website still features the following Jewish-related articles on the home page:

"Will Enoch and Elijah Return to Preach to the Jews?"

"Fourteen Problems with the Theology and Eschatology of Roy Schoeman"

News Item: "Israel and the USS Liberty Massacre, 1967"

Book Recommendation: "The Power of Israel in the United States"

"Disturbing Facts about Israel"

"Adventures in Blogland"

"Catholics Falling for Jewish Errors"

"Fr. Matthew Lamb of Ave Maria Responds Re Seder Meal"

"Ave Maria University Pushing Seder Service: Sorry, Not Kosher During Holy Week"

"Congressman Paul Findley Speaks Out Against Israel and AIPAC"

Video: "The World as Seen Through Jewish Eyes"

Video: "Forever Learning Institute and the Southern Poverty Law Center, an interview with E. Michael Jones and Thomas Herron (February 2007)"

"Devil Talk: Is the Gospel of John Anti-Semitic? by Mark P. Shea"

"Never Revoked By God by Jacob Michael"

QA: "Dealing with the Holocaust"

QA: "Judaizers and Jewish Pressure Groups"

"The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy

"Roy Schoeman, the Jews, and the Old Covenant"

"I'm Mad, And I'm Not Going To Take it Anymore"

"Jewish/Catholic Debate Over OT Messianic Prophecies"

"My Conversation with the USCCB about the Jews and the Old Covenant"

"Dialogue on the Old Covenant: Is it Revoked?"

"Pope Benedict XVI Says Jews Must Convert to Christianity in order to be Saved"

"Overlooked Millions: Non-Jewish Victims of the Holocaust"

"Neo-Cons and the Jewish Connection"

"The Zionists and the Neo-cons"

"Judaizers in the Catholic Church"

"An Analysis of the Ministries of David Moss and Roy Schoeman"

"Christian Zionism: A Contradiction in Terms"

Throughout July: In spite of his bishop’s order to “desist from commenting on the Jewish people and Judaism”, Sungenis posts several pieces on Jews/Israel. He posted a cartoon of a Jewish soldier with a machine-gun pointed at the head of a young Palestinian child. He posted a Q and A in which he went to great lengths to downplay the relationship of the Jewish people to God. He wrote “,Jacob Michael, As Ass in Sheep’s Clothing”. And he also posted a review of a book by James Petras in which he made the following statements, including his own personal prophecy of “judgment” and “punishment” for Israel:

"The Jews are godless and getting more ungodly with each passing day."

“There was such unbridled destruction of people and property that, like Jacob saw in his day, we have all the signs that the nation of Israel has made itself 'stink' among the nations. As Jacob predicted, it may not be too long before their neighbors 'shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.' St. John may have predicted the same when he stated that the 'Whore of Babylon' would one day be hated and burned by the Beast and the Ten Horns (the nations)."

"Peace in the Middle East can only come if Israel learns her place...”

“Israel is as ungodly today as they were in St. Paul’s day, and the world, especially the United States, must stop condoning and encouraging its sin...If the United States does not stop, it will also soon come under God’s judgment and it will be severely punished.”

27 July 2007: Sungenis is called in to meet with Fr. King, the vicar general of the Diocese of Harrisburg and Fr. Massa, a representative of the USCCB. In that meeting, Sungenis is confronted with the worst of the material he has posted concerning the Jews.

31 July 2007: Sungenis posts the article, “Catholic Apologetics International and its Teachings on the Jews”. Although this document has influenced some to conclude that Sungenis actually apologized for his anti-Semitic material, retracted it, and was finally obedient to his bishop, one must candidly acknowledge what this statement was and what it was not. Sungenis chose to lay a significant amount of blame for his problems upon the Church for being less “traditional” today and upon those who have a “partiality” for “Jews and their ideological causes.” And he opted to post “seven points” about the Jewish people that are at times dubious and certainly unnecessarily antagonistic, especially for an ostensible attempt at conciliation. But perhaps more importantly, while Bob acknowledged that his bishop and the USCCB objected to both his “tone and content”, “inappropriate language and accusations”, Sungenis again only directly acknowledges fault with his tone. He neither publicly apologizes for nor publicly retracts any of the content he has posted at his website. Many people were under the false impression that Bob had apologized for and retracted the problematic material about the Jewish people he posted back in 2002. The same was true of the “Open Letter” he wrote that appeared near the end of 2006. This latest statement appears to be of the same character (or lack thereof.) It is neither an apology, nor a retraction, nor an indication that Sungenis intends to obey his bishop. Subsequent statements from Sungenis documented below prove this assessment to be correct.

In this latest document, Sungenis admits that the diocese had problems with his tone and his content, his inappropriate language and his accusations. This is important because, as documented below, he later spins the exchange as if they only had problems with his tone. Note too that Sungenis told them at that time that he agreed with their assessment of his writings (which, presumably, would cover problems with content and accusations, as well tone and language):

[The] vicar general [of the diocese], the Very Reverend William J. King, JCD, along with the executive director for ecumenical and inter-religious affairs of the USCCB, the Reverend James Massa, the shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work have asked me to reconsider the tone and content with which I write about the Jewish people for CAI. They provided me various examples in which I have crossed the line into inappropriate language and accusations, and I communicated to them my agreement with their overall assessment.

Sungenis continues on to speak in glowing tones of the priests with whom he had met and lauded his own obedience in lofty terms:

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.

Sungenis goes on to state that his removal of material from the CAI website was instigated based on “my bishop’s directive”. This is important since, later, Sungenis portrayed this move as purely voluntary on his part. He also promises that whatever he puts up on the site will conform to his bishop’s sensibilities:

Accordingly, CAI is in the process of removing all the content on its website concerning the Jews in order to make the initial adjustments in complying with my bishop’s directive. . . . 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.

Along with this came seven points which, as was stated above, are at times dubious and at the very least are unnecessarily antagonistic and belligerent. And this in a piece that was ostensibly written to help “preserve the peace and tranquility . . . in the body of Christ” that Bishop Rhoades desired. Just a few examples will illustrate this strange dynamic:

“3) The Jews, as a race, are no longer the ‘chosen people’ of God . . .”

This unqualified position would seem to miss an available both/and. It also seems to run directly contrary to the stated position of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI (as documented here.) It is inappropriate for Sungenis to state this position categorically, without any qualification.

“5) The present occupation of the land of Palestine by Jews who migrated there from different parts of the world beginning in 1948 is not a fulfillment of positive divine prophecy from either the Old or the New Testaments. It is strictly a political movement engineered by the powers of the world. . . .”

This entire section is dubious. The Church has never staked out a definitive position on this. Therefore, it is inappropriate for Sungenis to present his opinion as fact and to state it in such a forceful manner.

“6) The major percentage of Jews in the world today, as well as those who existed for the 2000 years prior to Christ and those who lived for the 2000 after Christ, have been blinded to the Gospel of Jesus Christ by their own doing; and only a remnant of them have been saved at any given time” (emphasis added).

This is again stated as an established fact, including the assertion that it is “by their own doing” that the “major percentage of Jews” are blinded to the Gospel. Sungenis has no way of knowing this, much less stating this as the teaching of the Church.

“Moreover, it is our considered opinion that we are not to expect a massive conversion of Jews in the future nor are we to base the timing of the return of Christ on such a conversion. In the same vein we conclude that various biblical enthusiasts from Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish quarters who have interpreted certain scriptural passages as predicting both a divine re-establishment of the land of Palestine for the Jews and/or a large conversion of Jews to Christianity prior to the return of Christ, have categorically misunderstood the Scripture’s teaching on these subjects.”

Sungenis does not tell his reader that the Catholic “biblical enthusiasts” who uphold the position that sacred Scripture predicts a special future conversion of the Jews include at least twenty one of the most prominent patristic witnesses and an impressive line-up of medieval witnesses; the position is held by no less than fourteen Doctors of the Church, including CAI’s putative patron, St. Robert Bellarmine (see The Ongoing Role of the Jews in Salvation History).

Questions to the associates of CAI as to whether these seven points had in fact met with the approval of his bishop went unanswered.

Finally, at the end of the document Sungenis again expresses his gratitude to all of the clergy and the USCCB:

With the deepest appreciation to my bishop, the Very Reverend Kevin Rhoades, his vicar general, the Very Reverend William King, the Reverend James Massa and the USCCB. . .

Sungenis stated that this document would remain up at the CAI site in perpetuity:

These stipulations about the Jews will be a permanent fixture on the website of CAI so that everyone will know where we stand from here on out (Teachings, 2-3; emphasis added).

5 August 2007: In answer to a Dr. Edgar Suter’s inquiry as to why the material had been removed from the CAI website, Sungenis wrote:

The fact is that I was under an interdict from my bishop. I had no choice, unless I decided to directly disobey him. Since he did not insist on an outright censorship but only that I change the ‘tone’ of my articles, then the matter was handled fairly. I can still write about Jewish issues as long as my tone is respectable. I don't have a problem with that, because it goes without saying that the tone should be respectable” (this e-mail was inexplicably forwarded by Dr. Suter to a whole group of people, including two contributors to this blog.)

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that, "An interdict is a censure, or prohibition, excluding the faithful from participation in certain holy things. These holy things are all those pertaining to Christian worship, and are divided into three classes . . . the Liturgy . . . the sacraments . . . [and] ecclesiastical burial, including all funeral services." This admission tells strongly against Sungenis’ later claims that he acted “voluntarily” in pulling down the material from the website.

Sungenis insists to Suter that obedience to the bishop is essential to being a Catholic: “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 else” (e-mail to Suter, 5 August 2007).

6 August 2007: Sungenis contacts Michael Forrest, demanding that Forrest take down Sungenis states that his bishop was completely satisfied with his actions and that, therefore, Forrest is now standing “against the Church” by maintaining the website. A dialogue ensues, during which Sungenis threatens to repost all of his Jewish material, with expansions. He also states that he still holds to most all of the things he has written about Jews and that “no one” would ever change his mind about them:

Michael, I’ll be very frank with you. Much of the material that was on my site I still hold to. . . . I am not coming to you asking you to remove your website as if I have relinquished these beliefs about the Jewish people, in particular Roy Schoeman. I am coming to you saying that I am no longer advertising them, and you should reciprocate by taking down your website that rebuts them. If you don’t take it 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. . . . As to the retraction in 2002, yes, I did it for “peace,” because I still believed most of the things I wrote. I was being perfectly honest with my audience. And I am being perfectly honest with you, Michael. Neither you nor anyone else is going to get me to change my mind about the Jews, Israel, Judaism and even Roy Schoeman. What I’m telling you is, I will refrain from addressing it if you take down your website. I’ve said my piece and could easily move on. I’ve got bigger fish to fry (e-mail of 27 August).

Forrest states plainly that he does not believe that Sungenis’ bishop is satisfied with his actions to this point, but indicates his willingness to take down the website if Sungenis will 1) provide documentation from the diocese of Harrisburg stating that the actions he had taken to date had satisfied Sungenis’ bishop’s directives, 2) post an apology and retraction of the sort already agreed upon in principle between the two men for the most problematic statements Sungenis had made about the Jewish people, and 3) remove at least the section on various Jewish converts from a book review that remained on the CAI website (e-mail of 4 Sept 2007.) Sungenis states that Forrest’s conditions are “unreasonable, if not ludicrous” and that, “Everything I promised in my last letter to you, will happen” (e-mail of 4 Sept 2007). Forrest requested that Sungenis state specifically what he found unreasonable about the conditions; there was no further response from Sungenis.

9 August 2007: Michael Hoffman II, an anti-Semitic writer whom Sungenis has used multiple times as a source in the past, expresses his disgust with Sungenis' acquiescence to his bishop: "The one scholar the traditional Catholics have said is my peer has just this past July dutifully put his tail between his legs and self-censored the entire Judaism section of his website because his fag Novus Ordo bishop ordered him to lay off the rabbis. Incredibly, he complied, muttering something about the bishop being akin to God" ("Update on Hoffman's new book on Judaism, 'Judaism Discovered'")

9 August 2007: Sungenis writes to Jacob Michael about the new developments at CAI, insisting "you also have a responsibility to act on this new development." Since "the offending material about which you complain . . . has been removed from our website", he argues, "you now have an obligation to take down the material on your website or blog that relates to these matters."

10 August 2007: A person by the name of Steve Tolles contacts former CAI associate Ben Douglas, confessing that he was the source of a damaging, bogus quote which Sungenis had publicly attributed to Roy Schoeman. Just after Sungenis’ publication of the forged quote, Tolles was unsettled and went silent upon receiving a series of increasingly bizarre and threatening e-mails from Sungenis. Eventually, as the details of the Church’s intervention into Sungenis’ anti-Jewish polemic became public, Tolles went to Douglass with his admission. Douglass confronted Sungenis on the situation. After seeking unsuccessfully to extract a public apology and retraction from Sungenis for the false attribution of a forged quote to Schoeman, Douglass posted the full (and sordid) details about the Tolles situation here on 8 Sept. No apology, public or private, has been forthcoming from Sungenis to Schoeman or Tolles.

26 August 2007: Jacob Michael contacts Sungenis to discuss the possibility of removing the material from RSATJ blog. Jacob explains his concern that Sungenis has not publicly apologized or retracted his most outrageous statements about the Jews.

27 August 2007: Sungenis responds to Jacob Michael, stating "If you don't remove your blog and do so immediately, then, as the saying goes, all hell will break loose, and you will only have yourself to blame for it." Specifically, Sungenis promises, "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. Also, I will start a daily blog which does nothing but examine your writings and his writings, and I will critique them with the same vigor that I critique everything else." He further promises, "I will initiate a civil libel suit against you, as I warned you of before, and this time I will follow through with it, and I have already talked to a lawyer about it. . . . You're not dealing with a puppy, Jacob. I mean what I say, and I am just angry enough to make it all happen rather quickly."

28 August 2007: Sungenis removes the word “Catholic” from the name of his apostolate (at least on his home page), changinges the title of his website from “Catholic Apologetics International” to “Bellarmine Theological Forum”. Shortly thereafter, he moves the Q&A section of the CAI site to a separate site, the “” blog site.

5 September 2007: Sungenis posts a 12 page letter to William Cardinal Levada, challenging a sentence in the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, published by the USCCB. He includes his bishop and Fr. Massa in the distribution list.

19 September 2007: Sungenis comments on Pope Benedict XVI’s statement in Summorum Pontificum, in reference to the Jewish people as God’s “chosen”:

When Pope Paul VI issued the Missale Romanum of 1969, the only prayer for the Jewish people in the Roman liturgy was completely revised for Good Friday to reflect a renewed understanding of the Jews as God’s chosen people, “first to hear the word of God.” (Summorum Pontificum §14).

In order to avoid the idea that the Jews are still God’s chosen people, Sungenis offers this “analysis” of the Pope’s words:

Notice that “God’s chosen people” is defined as those “first to hear the word of God,” which applies to Jews of the Old Covenant, not today.

Also, he does not say “the Jews ARE God’s chosen people.” By using the particle “as,” the reference is completely to the past (link). See our comments here.

20 September 2007: Sungenis posts a Q&A in which he radically distorts an answer given by Cardinal Ratzinger in response to a questioner. The questioner asks Cardinal Ratzinger, “God has not, then, retracted his word that Israel is the Chosen People?” The Cardinal answers,

No, because he is faithful. Of course, we can see that Israel still has some way to go. As Christians, we believe that they will in the end be together with us in Christ. But they are not simply done with and left out of God’s plans; rather, they still stand within the faithful covenant of God” (God and the World, 150).

No, says Cardinal Ratzinger, God has not retracted His word that Israel the Chosen People, because He is faithful. Ergo, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, Israel remains God’s Chosen People. But Sungenis denies that this answer means that Cardinal Ratzinger holds the Jews to be the Chosen People. His “reasoning” is thus:

The Cardinal doesn’t say that the Jews are still the Chosen People. The questioner asked about the Chosen People issue, but the cardinal did not use the phrase “chosen people” in his answer (link). See further analysis here.

In this same Q&A, Sungenis gives his “suggestion” to the Holy Father that perhaps Sungenis might be able to help him interpret sacred Scripture more accurately concerning a future conversion of the Jews.

20 – 22 September 2007: On 20 Sept Sungenis posts a Q&A from Edgar Suter, in which Suter attributes the opposition he is receiving in an Internet forum to a major tenet of the Christian faith to the "pedagogy of deceit of the rabbis"

On 22 Sept Sungenis posts another Q&A from Suter, asking, “Why do Catholics and ‘Jews’ number the Psalms differently?” The quotation marks around “Jews” is telling, indicating that Suter subscribes to the thesis advanced by such anti-Semitic writers as Michael Hoffman II, viz. that modern-day Jews aren’t really Jews at all (link). These Q&A postings illustrates all too clearly the company Sungenis chooses to keep and cater to, even after being disciplined by his bishop.

27 September 2007: Jacob Michael writes a new entry for the RSATJ blog which was ultimately not posted. In it, he writes:

One point of interest in this open letter to Cardinal Levada about the USCCB catechism is the fact that Sungenis sent a carbon copy of the letter to Bishop Rhoades. It is unclear at first glance why Sungenis felt the need to copy his bishop on this letter, until it is recalled what Sungenis wrote in his original public letter concerning his meeting with Bishop Rhoades: he implied that Bishop Rhoades is in agreement with the two-covenant theory. . . .

It is not difficult to see where Sungenis is headed, with the change-of-name for his apostolate, and the subsequent posting of this open letter to Cardinal Levada which was also sent to Bishop Rhoades. Matters seem to be deteriorating with the diocese. . . .

In all probability, Sungenis will next attempt to publicly discredit his own bishop by portraying him as a liberal supporter of the idea of two separate and salvific covenants, one for Jews, one for everyone else. . . .

Incredible as it may sound, Sungenis certainly appears to be positioning himself to go head-to-head with the Apostolic Successor whom God has put over him. We may soon find out just how ready Sungenis is to cling to his ideas about the Jews, and whether his freedom to write on those issues will trump his fidelity to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Early-mid October 2007: Sungenis pulls his “permanent” article “Catholic Apologetics International and its Teachings on the Jews” from the CAI-BTF website.

Early-mid October 2007: Tom Herron’s article “Fear of the Jews in Harrisburg” appears in Culture Wars magazine. In a 2 Nov 2007 e-mail to former CAI associate Ben Douglass, Sungenis states that this is “an article which I approved for CW’s publication.” Herron’s article is long, rambling, and sprinkled with conspiratorial non sequiturs, such as: “[Fr. Massa] was catching a train that afternoon to NYC. This is of course where a lot of the Judaizing/recent convert bloggers who are out for Sungenis live…”, “It was most interesting that the two most prominent Catholic web writers who have been loudly calling for an official condemnation of Robert Sungenis ... share an interesting point with Father James Massa: they have all been published in Deal Hudson's Crisis magazine”, and the most shocking revelation of all, “The [Harrisburg] diocese is also home to the most famous Jew in Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell...”

Amidst thousands of words of essentially unrelated material, Herron does manage to convey hitherto unknown information about Sungenis’ meeting with Church officials.

Mid-October 2007: Sungenis puts up several Jewish-related “News Alerts” on the CAI-BTF website: one saying that the Jews are going to cause Armageddon, one singling out Abigail Van Buren (“Dear Abbey” columnist) for criticism (having previously identified her as a bad “Jewish influence”), and another about the “End of Israel”.

19 October 2007: In a private correspondence, RSATJ blog writer Jacob Michael predicts that Sungenis is planning on defying his bishop: "He's gearing up to take on the Bishop, and Herron's article is the first shot across the bow."

2 November 2007: Sungenis tells former CAI associate Ben Douglass that, “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.”

ca. 20 January 2008: Bob’s latest article, “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked? A Review of the PBS Documentary: Jews and Christians: A Journey of Faith”. In addition to theological/doctrinal commentary, Sungenis openly challenges his bishop, disrespectfully referring to him only as “Rhoades” and accusing him of having greater allegiance to Jewish causes than to the Catholic Church. He once again asserts, without any evidence, that Bishop Rhoades subscribes to the dual salvific covenant theory. Apparently, presumably as a result of his “seven points” and other anti-Jewish writings after the meeting at the diocese, Bishop Rhoades once again told Sungenis to stop writing about Jewish issues. Expressing a certain incredulity, Sungenis mentions only three of his original seven points and restates them in a truncated way, avoiding all of the polemical language of the original. In the end, Sungenis refuses obedience and states that his bishop will need to instigate a canonical trial against him if he is to be silent.

Jacob Michael is proved absolutely correct when he said on 19 Oct 2007: “He's gearing up to take on the Bishop...” More than that, Sungenis slandered the bishop with false charges of heresy.