Sungenis, the CASB (The Apocalypse of St. John) and the Imprimatur

A few days ago, an individual wrote to RSATJ claiming to have contacted the Diocese of Harrisburg, PA in order to determine whether or not Sungenis’s CASB2 (The Apocalypse of St. John) was expected to receive an imprimatur, before using it as a catechetical text. The individual claimed to have been informed by the diocese that Sungenis had already been denied the imprimatur. To establish the veracity of this claim, an inquiry was just made to the chancery office of the Diocese of Harrisburg, PA. The chancery has now confirmed that Sungenis had been denied the imprimatur on the CASB2, late in 2006.

Following are the relevant statements made by Sungenis over time in regard to this issue:

“And, of course, [Sungenis’s books] contain the Catholic Church's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, just as the CASB will contain.” (emphasis added) (CAI Link)

August 2006: Sungenis announced that his "CASB Vol 2, The Apocalypse of St. John, is now with Queenship and is being printed. It should be out in their next catalogue, and the book should be available in a month or so." (Q&A 18, August 2006)

September 2006: Sungenis informed an inquirer that CASB 2 is "presently at the Bishop's office in Harrisburg PA in the process of obtaining an imprimatur." (Q&A 38, September 2006)

November 2006: Sungenis indicated that "the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition" was used for "the text for CASB, vol 2, The Apocalypse of St. John," and announced that this volume "should be out before the end of the year." (Q&A 56, November, 2006)

February 2007: CASB 2 was still not yet published, and Sungenis explained that "there has been a delay in Queenship's publishing of The Apocalypse of St. John. They had trouble with the formatting and had to start from scratch." (Q&A 4, February, 2007)

March 2007: Sungenis indicates to a reader that CASB 2 "will be available this Spring." (Q&A 19, March, 2007)

May 2007: When challenged on the fact that his newly-published CASB 2 lacked an imprimatur from his Bishop, Sungenis claimed, "I had already decided to submit the manuscript for an Imprimatur after the book was published, which is in the works…Mr. Michael would know none of this because he doesn’t communicate with me. The only thing he does is gossip about me on Internet forums with fallacious imaginings of his own hateful and jealous mind.” (emphasis added)
("Jacob Michael: Incompetence and Immaturity", pp. 9-10)

The reader will note that Sungenis himself indicated back in September 2006 that the CASB 2 was "at the Bishop's office" being considered for an imprimatur – long before it was published. However, in May 2007, Sungenis indicated that he had "already decided to submit the manuscript for an Imprimatur after the book was published." Clearly, barring a tortured interpretation of these statements, they do not reconcile with one another.

Additionally, questions were raised about this issue at the Catholic Answers Forums:

“it doesn't make sense to me to be going for an imprimatur now after you publish and not before you publish a book and I still stick to it. I haven't heard any answer on that. Do you ask him about that one, too?” CAF

“Did Bob apply for an imprimatur for CASB 2 or didn't he? More importantly, when did he apply for it, if he applied at all? Was he rejected? Did the bishop's office just ignore the request? Was it approved pending further investigation?” CAF

Based on what they were told by Sungenis, Sungenis associates Mark Wyatt and Laurence Gonzaga posted the following answers to these concerns at the Envoy and Catholic Answers Forums:

Mark Wyatt:

“My understanding is that he is in the process of getting one. In the mean time he has a schedule, so he released the volume." CAF

“My understanding is that Robert did apply for both Vol. I and vol. II. He is still in the process of obtaining imprimatur for Vol. II…" CAF

“..my understanding is that he is trying to get the imprimatur.” (Envoy Forum)

CAI "media technician" Laurence Gonzaga:

“Well, it does have one [an Imprimatur], for the translation... The commentary itself is being sought..." CAF

“no it doesn’t seem wierd (sic) to seek it [an Imprimatur on CASB2] after it is published because the book can be published again." CAF

Clearly, Sungenis has always understood the value and importance of having an imprimatur on his books and has sought it for all of them. Indeed, whether a work has received the Church’s official acknowledgment of freedom from errors of faith and morals or has been denied the same is a legitimate issue of Catholic concern and inquiry. And from the beginning of the CASB project, Sungenis has certainly used the (anticipated) presence of a Catholic imprimatur as a marketing tool:

If you are familiar with my books (Not By Faith Alone; Not By Scripture Alone; Not By Bread Alone, et al) you know what kind of material to expect in the CASB. And, of course, they contain the Catholic Church's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, just as the CASB will contain (emphasis added) (CAI Donations Page; page contents as of 27 June 2007)

As a side note, Not By Bread Alone (NBBA) does not have an imprimatur. Sungenis explained in considerable detail the purported reasons for the missing imprimatur in the pages of NBBA itself. In contrast, no such explanation was given for the missing imprimatur in the pages of either CASB1 or CASB2.

Aside from aiding internet and book-store sales, there are other reasons why this approbation would be important to have. The Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law states:

Can. 827 §4. Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.

This means that, for example, CAI would not be able to sell volumes which lack the approval of his bishop in a parish church in which talks on apologetics or other topics were given.

For all the assurances that each of the CASB volumes will bear ecclesiastical approbation, the promised imprimaturs for the CASB have failed to materialize. The first volume of the CASB, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (CASB1), was published without an imprimatur (the reasons for this lie beyond the scope of this entry.)

In regard to CASB2, the phrases used by Sungenis and his associates like "in the process of getting one", "is still in the process of obtaining", "being sought", "in the works", clearly assure the reader in May of 2007 that the reception of the Imprimatur was simply a matter of time, practically a foregone conclusion. Again, it has been confirmed that Sungenis was informed in late 2006—at least five months before CASB2 came out and almost six months before these misleading statements were made by Sungenis (both directly and by proxy)—that the imprimatur for The Apocalypse of St. John had been denied. Although an appeal of such a ruling either to the CDF or to the bishop of the diocese in which the volume is to be published is technically possible, the party making the appeal is to communicate to the CDF or the other bishop that the work has already been denied the imprimatur. To date, the diocese of Harrisburg has no record of any pending appeal. In any event, this would not explain the answers Sungenis and his associates have given to direct inquiries on this matter.

In contrast to the granting or denial of an imprimatur, the reasons for any rejection are not properly a matter of public conjecture and discourse. That is a matter most properly handled between an author and his bishop. Largely for this reason, the comment box has been turned off. Whether here or elsewhere, everyone is encouraged to avoid unnecessary and unhelpful speculation in that regard.

--------

NOTE: Important follow-up articles that shed a great deal of additional light on this situation may be found here, here, here, here and here.

Sungenis's Contradictions and Flip-flops on the Jews as Accursed

In regard to how the Fathers view the Jewish people, Robert Sungenis has made the following contradictory statements:

April 2004

" I would not say there was a consensus among the Fathers that the Jews were an accursed people. In fact, you hardly find the words "Jews" and "cursed" in the same sentence in the Fathers. There was certainly a consensus that the Jews, as a whole people, were judged by God for their sins, but there are very few Fathers who held that the Jews were cursed as a race. Of those Justin Martyr, Chrysostom and Augustine seem the most prominent, but even then, their words can be taken in more than one way." (emphasis added)
Question 30, April 2004

September 2006

"As I said earlier, the Fathers were in consensus (that is, there were no dissenting voices among them) that the Jewish people were...a cursed people" (emphasis added)

Michael Forrest and the Jews, page 43

Then Sungenis has also made the following statement, although it does not directly address the teaching of the Fathers:

December 2006:

“the fact that the Jew can be saved today is the proof that God has not rejected or cursed them” (emphasis added)

Q&A #57, December 2006

Clearly, the statements made by Sungenis in April 2004 and September 2006 about the views of the Fathers in regard to Jews are contradictory. And Sungenis’s statement in December 2006 seems reconcilable with his statement of September 2006 only if we take him to mean that he and the Church (in Nostra Aetate) both reject what Sungenis himself characterized as the unanimous consensus of the Fathers…a rather precarious position to take.

CAI (Kind of) Apologizes for Robin Williams Gaffe

Shortly after our previous post was published, exposing Bob Sungenis's error in claiming that Robin Williams is Jewish, CAI changed the headline of the news item to remove any reference to Williams's alleged Jewishness.

In addition, Sungenis posted this apology:

CAI apologizes for the original headline stating that Robin Williams is a "Jewish comedian." According to Williams, he is not Jewish, rather he is noted for speaking favorably about Judaism and grew up with Jews who referred to him as an "honorary Jew" (source)

It's nice to see Bob get closer to writing a real apology, but we all could have done without the rationalizations regarding Williams' purportedly good relations with Jews. It seems that if you are on good terms with Jews, you are automatically as suspicious and untrustworthy to Sungenis as those "out to rule the world" Jews. And the question still remains: why did he make the accusation in the first place? Why didn't he verify his information first? And what is the relevance of Williams' ethnicity, anyway? More interesting still, from where did he get this bogus information?

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Sungenis has expressed some resentment over the fact that he was called on the carpet at Sungenis and the Jews Blog:

... people like you [Jacob Michael] who, because we, like most people, assumed Robin Williams was either Jewish or wished he was, since he speaks very favorably of Judaism at the same time that he denigrates the Catholic Church, and also says that he considers himself an "honorary Jew" because of his friendship with fellow Jews, you then take it upon yourself to say that we are "creating Jews out of thin air" ... (Sungenis, email of 6/25/2007)

Whatever Bob's opinion may be, it is quite certain that "most people" do not "assume" that Robin Williams is Jewish. As noted earlier, even an anti-Semitic site like Jew Watch knew better.

The next time Bob has questions about which celebrities are Jewish and which ones are not, perhaps he could at least start by listening to Adam Sandler's Hanukkah Song.

Sungenis Inventing Jews? Robin Williams Singled Out as "Jewish"

Very recently, Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International added the following "News Alert" to his website:


Jewish Comedian, Robin Williams Mocks Catholic Church


(Such "News Alerts" are regularly cycled in and out from the CAI web site over time)

The article originally appeared at Life Site.

And what is the actual title of the original article?


Robin Williams Mocks Catholic Priests on Tonight Show


Notice that? Lifesite entitles the article: Robin Williams Mocks Catholic Priests on Tonight Show but Robert Sungenis feels the need to rename it Jewish Comedian, Robin Williams Mocks Catholic Church .


If you read the original article about William's hypocritical and bigoted remarks, you will find no mention at all of the ethnic or religious background of Robin Williams.

At first, the natural inclination may be to accept Sungenis's claim that Williams is indeed a Jew. But the question would remain: why is his Jewishness being singled out? Is Sungenis suggesting that his Jewish ethnicity was what drove Williams to mock Catholic priests? If so, then what are we to make of all the other people of various religions (including Catholics!) who have mocked the priesthood as a result of the scandals?

But the problem seems to be far worse. It seems clear that Williams isn't even Jewish! In fact, even the blatantly anti-Semitic website "Jew Watch" (a website that would certainly love to claim that Williams is Jewish) says the following about Robin Williams:

"Williams Robin - Actor...he is probably of Christian descent. According to Adherents, Williams gravitated to Jewish friends in school and attended 14 bar mitzvahs...His parents were descended from the English Welsh, and Irish (father) and French (mother). Robin Williams plays many Jewish
roles."

Of course, this anti-Semitic website has done everything possible to tie Williams to Jews as much as possible including the laughably twisted observation that he "plays many Jewish roles" in movies and has purportedly attended many bar-mitzvahs. But Robert Sungenis had to go them one better and claim that Williams is actually Jewish.


Wikipedia confirms William's gentile, Episcopalian background:

Wikipedia: Robin Williams

Of course, we can expect that Sungenis and CAI will quickly revise this News Alert to read "Gentile Comedian of Episcopalian Background, Robin Williams, Mocks Catholic Church!"


It's gotten to the point where Sungenis sees Jewish enemies everywhere. Every Catholic should reject this anti-Jewish obsession for the ugly bigotry that it is. There is no room for anti-Semitism in the Catholic Church.

One wonders exactly what it will take for Sungenis defenders like Mark Wyatt, Laurence Gonzaga and Chris Campbell to admit there is a serious problem and that they are only enabling an anti-Semite by their behavior.

Or is it that they don't care, and see Jews in the same way Sungenis sees them?

After everything that has gone on with Sungenis in the past 9 months concerning the Jewish controversy, what kind of man continues to throw himself headlong into verifiable blunders, continues to publish falsehoods without bothering to even execute the most rudimentary verifications?

As Sungenis said over a year ago to Catholic writer Matthew Anger in regard to his use of the racist source National Vanguard:

"I have a bad habit of not checking the sources...which will not be the case in the future."

Link

Over one year later, apparently Sungenis still makes these kinds of inadvertent and innocent mistakes...repeatedly...at least when it comes to Jews for some mysterious reason. And this happens in spite of all the serious, sustained effort Sungenis has exerted to be much more careful about his claims and "research" in regard to Jews.

More Confusion on Sungenis's Catholic Apologetics Study Bible?

Robert Sungenis's newest volume of his Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, The Apocalypse of St. John (CASB2), continues to be a source of confusion and concern. Sungenis had promised a new translation of the Scriptures based on the Douay Rheims, going back to the original languages to assure the most accurate translation available today. However, after his translation was refused an imprimatur by the USCCB (due to a technical difficulty, according to Sungenis), he decided to use the RSV-CE in all future volumes.

Yet, Amazon.com and All Catholic Books, the only sources that come up aside from CAI to purchase CASB2 on google, have the following to say about CASB2:

Product Description
Second Volume of the series using an updated Douay Rheims translation...extensive Scripture.

Amazon.com

"The CASB gives you an updated version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, the most accurate and authoritative Catholic translation available. The CASB replaces some archaic 16th century words with more precise words. The grammar and syntax of the original Greek and Hebrew are analyzed in conjunction with the Latin Vulgate for the most accurate translation."


All Catholic Books

Sungenis has known for months about the change in translation. So why is this misinformation still posted on the web? It's not as if there are hundreds of retailers selling his product.

If It's Against the Jews, That's STILL Good Enough for CAI and Sungenis

Recently Robert Sungenis posted a recommendation for James Petras’s new book, The Power of Israel in the United States.

Petras is a regular contributor to “Counterpunch”, an extremist website already written about at Robert Sungenis and The Jews.

Additional information about him may be viewed here.

Again, Sungenis took the review from Amazon.com rather than writing his own review (although, thankfully, at least this time he credited the source rather than plagiarizing it). Once again, apparently all that was necessary to receive a recommendation from Sungenis was that the book be critical of Jews. Sungenis apparently feels no responsibility to actually read the things he criticizes or recommends. In Sungenis’s world, it seems a book can indeed by judged by its cover.

Two interesting articles on Petras:

In contrast to Sungenis's review from Amazon.com, here’s a very different review from the same web site that also has a strikingly familiar ring to it:

"Petras' book makes many arguments, but with each argument comes with equally as many pitfalls which serve to discredit his otherwise thought-provoking and plausible claims. One of the main problems with his arguments, as already illustrated, concerns his lack of credible sources and, in some cases, any sources at all. While the book features many endnotes, citations crucial to his arguments remain omitted in such instances as the amounts of money donated to political parties and financial aid given to Israel by the United States. Petras also has the problem of continuously referring to sources as "sources" (74) or "former and present knowledgeable news reporters" (73). Claims such as "The US state has repeatedly violated all international conventions and laws related to torture of prisoners, mass killings of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, pillaging of natural resources, and the establishment of client colonial states and imperial-centered economies" (83) are presented with no citation or information to back-up the claim. Consequentially, many of his statements are read as being little more than assumption and opinion; he continuously fails to support the lofty and serious accusations he makes throughout the book with citations and references. If one is to make claims as insinuating and potentially offensive as the ones he makes, that person must have sound and solid references and citations that can bear the burden of lofty claims.

Another dent to Petras' credibility is his writing style. The book is written in an irritatingly slanted manner with far too much subjectivity interjected. Instead of presenting an objective argument, Petras litters his pages with sensationalism and blatant anti-Zionism verging on anti-Semitism. It is very hard to take a writer seriously when he makes the claim that "Kristalnacht, the 1939 Nazi assault on Jewish homes, stores and persons in `reprisal' for a Jew killing a German Embassy officer was a garden party compared to the Jewish State's ongoing destruction of Lebanon" (110). Irregardless of how bad the situation is in Lebanon, under no circumstances should Kristalnacht be referred to as a "garden party" and trivialized to the point where the events of that night are considered nothing more than "the killing of a few Jews and property damage" (110). Referring to some Israelis as "mad dogs" (115) in the form of juvenile name-calling doesn't help one's credibility either nor do black and white statements like "You are either for America or for AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]" (81). Other examples of immaturity in his writing include referring to Flemming Rose as "`Fleming Rose'/Mossad [Iraqi secret police]" (140). All of these instances are both annoying and discrediting. A more objective and moderate writing style and tone would have done wonders for his arguments in terms of not detracting from his credibility and keeping his book from reading like a radical conspiracy theory as opposed to an educated political commentary.

On an almost-tangential note, the book is poorly written and constructed. It is littered here and there with grammatical and typographical errors. Structural problems include the Index referring the reader to pages that don't exist as well as citations that don't appear in the endnotes (36). At one point, Petras sets out to "examine the fifteen erroneous theses of the highly respected Professor [Noam] Chomsky" (170). He then lists fourteen points. Glaring and easily correctable errors like these do not have a major effect on the content, but promote the idea that the book (and consequentially the author) is an amateur and unprofessional production which reflects poorly on Petras and his argument."

The next article is particularly interesting because it is written by a leftist organization obviously sympathetic to the point of view espoused by the leftist, Petras. Yet, among other strong criticisms, the author of the critique writes:

“What sets Petras’ work apart, first off, is his dropping or blurring of distinctions. The terms “Jewish lobby,” “Israel lobby” and “Zionist lobby” are used interchangeably. Others, at least on the Left, have worked to mark the important distinction between Jews, as Jews, regardless of their differing ideologies, and those supporters of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, who actively promote and support Israel’s racist and expansionist practices. Petras facilely drops that distinction. (In an apparent attempt to deflect criticism, he states that he is justified in using the term “Jewish lobby” since that is what the Israelis use when discussing political support in the United States — as if adopting the Zionist movement’s cynical appropriation of all things Jewish serves any progressive purpose.)
What makes the use of the term an issue is the fact that Petras then lapses into the well-worn dual-loyalty discourse, using such language as “Israel Firsters,” “colonizers” and “colon” to describe Israel’s multi-layered and well-situated support system in the United States. To talk about “the Jewish lobby” in one breath and to then speak of strategically-placed Israeli agents, operatives, and Zionist infiltration in another is to suggest that American Jews generally are to be viewed as disloyal, suspect, untrustworthy, not what they seem.
Elements of the far right have always done this kind of thing. Such sloppy use of language lumps makes it seem as if Jewish-American opinion is monolithic in support of Israel, which is precisely one of the falsehoods that the Left needs to demystify.”

The author goes on to write:

"At one point, in relation to a passage critical of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s failings in regard to Israel, Petras goes so far as to mention, in a note, that the man’s wife is Jewish!"

and

"Unfortunately, his current book will be taken up there and elsewhere as some seemingly worthwhile analysis of how and why the United States does what it does in the world. It may also be seized upon as documented “proof” of “the anti-Semitism of the Left.” It might conceivably be taken up by elements of the far right, already convinced and not needing to be told, but always receptive to more “proof” of Jewish machinations and conspiracies."

Perhaps it is little wonder that Sungenis jumped to recommend this book after all.

Sungenis Source Israel Shamir: Racist by Sungenis’s Own Standards?

WARNING: A quote from Sungenis source Israel Shamir at the bottom of this entry contains graphic, vulgar language.

(Click here for information on Israel Shamir).

As you read on, keep in mind Sungenis’s DEFINITION DIFFICULTIES.

Ben Douglass forwarded the following email to RSATJ:

[Israel] Shamir believes that certain races have innate flaws in their DNA which give them a propensity to evil. This is Sungenis' definition of racism (and therefore, anti-semitism) which he takes from E. Michael Jones.

"Thus, some of the British population have an inbuilt genetic memory of a successful evolutionary strategy connected with apartheid and with application of 'Judaic' principles."

Article

Also in this essay, Shamir goes beyond attacking Talmudic Judaism to attacking biblical Judaism/ the Old Testament as well. I think Moses Mendelssohn would have a field day with his position in this regard: Shamir thinks he can sit securely in the upper story (Christianity) while simultaneously demolishing the lower.

And on other occasions he can be just plain vulgar:

"Men do fight and die for fair women: Sir Lancelot over Queen Guinevere, Tristan over Isolde came to grief but satisfied their passion. Others died in the attempt, they were sung about or bewailed. But a guy who dies for [vulgar term for female genitalia] he is not going to get anyway - deserves derision."

Article
(End Email)

Yet, in his most recent 60 odd page tirade against Ben Douglass, this is what Robert Sungenis said about Israel Shamir:

"The Shamir article was posted for what it said about Israel and the Jews... And I will be posting a few more articles from Mr. Shamir in the near future."

Article, see page 14

In light of Sungenis's long history on such matters, there are three things of which we can be confident:

There will be no apology.

There will be no retraction.

Sungenis's obsession with Jews will continue unabated.

And any stick will do.