Unfortunately, Robert Sungenis' new friend Thomas Herron has again subtlely goaded him to do the wrong thing. (Mark Shea Attacks Review of Jones’ Book, hereafter MSARJB).
Among other things, in his drive to excuse himself and deflect attention by pointing the finger at others, Sungenis has created another fraudulent quote and leveled more false accusations, one of which is as hypocritical as his accusation that Einstein was a plagiarist. (Documentation of Sungenis' plagiarism may be found here, here and here.)
I forgot, [Mark Shea] deliberately disobeyed Pope John Paul II's and Pope Benedict XVI's express statement that the war in Iraq is immoral and those who are engaging in it are in sin. (MSARJB, p. 10)
Shea, being a Catholic neo-con who flicked his finger into the air at two popes who told him the war is immoral... (MSARJB, p. 11)
Perhaps Sungenis can provide this "express statement" from Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI that all those engaged in the Iraq war are "in sin." This would, of course, involve an absolute judgment of culpability upon all coalition soldiers currently in Iraq, among others.
And anyone who has even a passing familiarity with Mark Shea’s blog knows that he has raised many hackles precisely because of his long-standing, strong opposition to the war in Iraq. Below are links to many articles and they could be multiplied:
Shea did tentatively support the second Gulf War initally, based upon the pervasive, erroneous intelligence reports that Iraq had significant WMD. But very soon after the second Gulf War had commenced (long before Cardinal Ratzinger even became pope), he rapidly changed his view as further evidence came forth. Additionally, as several Catholic apologists have noted, then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself stated that Catholics could legitimately disagree on this prudential matter and remain in good standing with the Church (see #3). As such, it is erroneous and slanderous to make the accusation that Shea "deliberately disobeyed" or "flicked his finger into the air at two popes."
Whether the erroneous and slanderous accusations are against men like Leon Suprenant, Mike Sullivan and others for supposedly being pro-war Zionists, or against Christopher Blosser, Roy Schoeman, his former vice-presidents, Michael Forrest and Ben Douglass, or John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, or even his own bishop for being a judaizing heretic who is intent upon propagating his pro-Jewish errors to “unsuspecting Catholics”, Sungenis has repeatedly proven that he’s willing to say anything to deflect attention from his own seriously objectionable behavior and errors.
And then, in another remarkable display of hypocrisy, Sungenis writes:
The first glaring stupidity that Shea foists upon us is his unmitigated gall to write a critique of a book and its message that he hasn’t even read yet (ibid., p. 1).
Those who have followed all the troubles at CAI-BTF will remember that it was none other than Robert Sungenis who had the “unmitigated gall” to write a 1,500 word critique of Roy Schoeman’s book, Salvation is From the Jews, for Jones’ Culture Wars magazine before having read a word of it. And Sungenis has admitted that he intentionally impugned Schoeman’s honesty in this critique; again, after never even having read a word of the book.
In a message dated 4/1/2004 4:14:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,[Michael Forrest] writes:
Did you read (Schoeman's) book?
No. Does it say something
different than what I quoted?
From: Robert Sungenis
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:32 AM
To: Michael Forrest
Subject: Re: Letter to the Editor
[Quote from Sungenis' Letter to the Editor of Culture Wars about Roy Schoeman's book, Salvation is From the Jews]: >>If we really want to be honest about what Catholic tradition and Scripture say about Schoeman's predictions, the evidence is, at best, divided. >>
Forrest: 1) I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but by saying "we" and "honest", this sentence [in your criticism of Roy Schoeman] appears to question the honesty and integrity of those who see things differently than you on this subject...perhaps..."rigorous" would be a better word than "honest."
Sungenis: No, I do mean "honest."
Second, while Sungenis’ article was indeed an actual critique of Schoeman’s book, which Sungenis had not read, Shea’s blog posting was a brief critique of Sungenis’ review, a review which Shea most certainly had read. And, ironically, the very title of Sungenis’ article at BTF proves that Sungenis himself understood this basic distinction. Did Sungenis entitle his article “Mark Shea Attacks Jones’ Book”? No. He entitled it “Mark Shea Attacks Review of Jones’ Book” (emphasis added).
Third, Shea’s “critique” of Sungenis’ review of Jones’ book amounted to a mere 150 words. On the other hand, Sungenis’ extensive critique of a book he had never read was ten times that long at roughly 1,500 words. As such, even had Shea written an actual critique of Jones’ book itself (which he did not), Sungenis’ flaming criticism of Shea on this point would have been akin to a thief lecturing a jay-walker on the law.
Fourth, we are treated to yet another fraudulent "quote" by Sungenis that echoes his fraudulent quotes of Albert Einstein and Roy Schoeman. Sungenis writes:
With that, let’s look at some of the sound bites that the illustrious Mr. Shea extracts from my review in his typical demagogic fashion to draw on your sympathies and create a monster out of me and Dr. Jones for merely telling the truth of history. Shea writes:
“In the Revolutionary Jew…we discover (I am not making this up) that Milton Berle and Irving Berlin were part of the Vast Conspiracy.”
But is this what Shea wrote? No. This is the actual quote:
First, a glowing review ("one of the greatest [books] of all time") of Jones' _The Revolutionary Jew_ in which we discover (I am not making this up) that Milton Berle and Irving Berlin were part of the Vast Conspiracy.
In the actual quote, Shea is plainly referencing Sungenis' review of Jones' book. In Sungenis' manipulated quote of Shea, Shea is plainly writing about Jones' book itself, not Sungenis' review. In yet another echo of Sungenis' fraudulent quote of Albert Einstein, Sungenis has manipulated Shea's actual statement by abusing ellipses and inserting verbiage that does not actually exist. Even with ellipses, there is no way in which Shea can be accurately quoted as writing "In the Revolutionary Jew...we discover." And this is precisely what Sungenis needed Shea to write in order to attack him for critiquing a book he had never read. It is increasingly difficult to chalk such errors up to incompetence rather than deceit. (Recall, this is the man who is now dishonestly claiming that he is certain Fr. King made a verbatim statement about "supersessionism": link1 and link2)
Sungenis’ disturbing pattern of slander, double-standards and fraudulent quotes continues unabated.