It was not long ago that Robert Sungenis was loudly clamoring for Roy Schoeman to recall his book, Salvation is from the Jews, due to its alleged doctrinal errors:
If Mr. Schoeman can tell us one place where the Fathers interpreted Old Testament prophecy about the restoration of Israel as referring to a nation state of Israel in the future, then he has a case. If not, then he needs to burn his book... Schoeman needs to recall his book and fix the offending paragraphs, as well as fix a lot of other erroneous ideas in his book, including but not limited to his apparent Jewish racism. ("Catholics Falling for Jewish Errors," pp. 36, 41)
I hold that Mr. Schoeman should be called upon to retract these views and also that Ignatius Press should recall his book and insist that he revise it. ("Thirteen Problems with the Theology and Eschatology of Roy Schoeman," p. 1)
Schoeman has an obligation to his readers and to the whole Catholic world to retract, rephrase and resubmit his problematic paragraphs. ("David Palm Still Confused and Getting More Confused," p. 4)
This being the case, it will be interesting to see whether Sungenis will abide by his own standards if it is demonstrated that he has enunciated a grave doctrinal error in one of his own books, Not By Scripture Alone.
Sungenis enunciates his error while rebutting an argument of the Protestant apologist Norman Geisler. Geisler had faulted Catholics for supplying only probable arguments for the authority of the Magisterium, rather than absolute proof. Sungenis responds by pointing out that Norman Geisler himself believes many things on faith which escape rational proof, so he should not require that Catholics produce rational proof of their faith beliefs given that he is unable to provide such for his own.
While it is unclear whether Sungenis fully understands Geisler's argument, his response, thus far, is true as far as it goes. And if Sungenis used, as an example of Geisler's unprovable beliefs, his faith in the Trinity or the inspiration of Scripture, the argument would be entirely unproblematic. However, he instead cites a belief of Geisler's which in fact does admit of absolute, deductive, rational proof, namely, the existence of God.
We can all play the "proof" card in a faith-based religion such as Christianity and find cracks in each other's position. Engaging your opponent in "mutually self-destructive" apologetics is futile and irrelevant. From where this apologist has taken the argument, we can go even further. There is no "proof" that God exists because, as even John 1:18 says, no one has seen him at any time. We have only circumstantial evidence (cf. Rom. 1:20; Heb. 11:1-2). Hence, unless the apologist wants to become a Nihilist, it is pointless to argue his case as he has done. (Robert Sungenis, Not by Scripture Alone [Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1997] p. 289)
It is difficult to read Sungenis' argument any other way: the existence of God is not logically demonstrable; we must become Nihilists unless we believe He exists by faith.
This proposition is heretical. The Catholic Church teaches that we can know that God exists with certainty, by natural reason alone, without faith. There is, contra Sungenis, "proof." The First Vatican Council defines, in its third session, "If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema." St. Thomas, in Summa Theologica, par. I, q. 2, art. 2, demonstrates that the existence of God is demonstrable. In the following article he proceeds to demonstrate it five ways: from motion, from causation, from contingency, from the scale of perfection of created beings, and from the teleology of created beings.
So there is no need for Dr. Geisler to become a Nihilist. Even if he were to insist on believing nothing without proof, he might at the very least remain an Aristotelian natural theist.
As for Sungenis, will he recall, retract, and revise Not by Scripture Alone, with apologies to Dr. Geisler and all others to whom he has heretically misrepresented Catholic dogma? Will he subject his own work to the same standard to which he has subjected Schoeman's? Will he lay the same burden on himself which he has seen fit to lay on others? This would be ideal and we're prepared to be pleasantly surprised. Alternatively, can he defend his statement as being somehow not heretical? We're doubtful.
On a disparate subject, Sungenis recently posted a notice of an upcoming speaking engagement of his: Robert Sungenis in Southern California.
He supplies no more logistical detail than that he will be in Southern California on March 18-19, and says he will only publicly announce specifics a few days before the event. Why the secrecy? In light of Archbishop Burke stepping in to stop Sungenis’s speaking gig in St. Louis this past June, is Sungenis perhaps trying to prevent the local bishop in Southern California from hearing about this event until it is too late to stop it? If this is the case, Sungenis would do well to heed the admonition of a holy Father whom he has in the recent past seen fit to quote prominently on his site: "The one who does something secretly from the bishop serves the devil" (St. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Smyrneans, 9).
Ben Douglass
RSATJ note:
Sungenis has also come under strong criticism for denying that God exists outside of time and for insisting that God has real emotions and that He changes his mind. (See Dave Armstrong's blog here: Article 1 and Article 2). Unfortunately, Sungenis also opted to take another swipe at his bishop there as well.
The RSATJ blog has documented other erroneous theological opinions (which he often presents as “facts”) held by Sungenis as well. See, for example, The Theology of Prejudice.
