Clearing Roy Schoeman of Sungenis' Slander

Roy Schoeman, a faithful, orthodox Roman Catholic who came to the Church from Judaism, has long been targeted by Sungenis for multiple "critiques." Until now, Sungenis' most deplorable "critique" was the one in which he had not even read Schoeman's book before feeling justified in impugning his honesty.

But more recently, Sungenis stooped to a new low by jumping to publish a fraudulent quote and attributing it to Schoeman, without first making any effort to verify it. Yet, when Sungenis learned for certain that the quote was fraudulent, he promptly published a retraction and apology and sent a personal apology to Schoeman...right?

Not exactly.

Ben Douglass recounts the sorry story.

New and Old Postings by Ben Douglass

Ben Douglass has reposted his excellent materials on the Sungenis and the Jews controversy. Douglass' perspective is unique, having stayed at CAI well into the controversy.

Oy Vey! Or Benjamin Douglasstein Kvetches about Robert Sungenis

How does one reason with a man who, when he is told that someone rejects a belief which he has attributed to him, insists that that person must be lying, and that secretly he must still affirm that belief?...

See the whole article at http://www.pugiofidei.com/sungenis.htm


You maniac! You're blowing up! Ah, save you. God save you from hell!!!

I for one think that Judaizing is a serious problem in today's Church, and hope to be an effective opponent of it. The reason I don't want Sungenis writing about Jews and Judaism is not because I oppose any and all criticism of them, but because after such and so many egregious violations of justice and charity, Sungenis has disqualified himself from engaging these issues....

See the whole article at http://www.pugiofidei.com/sungenis2.htm


A Last Response from Douglasstein

Sungenis goes on to make the absurd claim that his critics have attacked his wife and children. Not surprisingly, no quotations are provided. This is because no one has ever attacked his wife and children. It was Sungenis who tried to bring his wife into this debacle by claiming her as an independent witness to the events surrounding Michael Forrest's departure from CAI. Even then, Sungenis' critics never attacked her, they simply asked him questions with a view to establishing whether she really was an independent witness, or whether she got her information second-hand from him. Not surprisingly, Sungenis was very cagey about answering their questions. As Jacob Michael discovered, this is because he [Sungenis] had already admitted that she was only a second-hand witness in his essay "Jacob Michael and the Jews"....

See the whole article at http://www.pugiofidei.com/sungenis3.htm


The Origin of the Schoeman Forgery Revealed, Sungenis up to Old Tricks

A young man named Steve Tolles sent this quote to Sungenis, and Sungenis promptly and without verification published it as sure evidence that Roy Schoeman is indeed a Judaizer. Soon after, Sungenis' own most devoted defender, Mark Wyatt, googled the quote and discovered that it was patched together from some of Schoeman's actual words . . . and other material of unknown origin. . . . Sungenis' reaction was truly reprehensible: he stated that he would assume the quote was genuine until proven otherwise, he requested a signed affidavit from Schoeman swearing that he did not write the words in question, and he suggested that perhaps Schoeman changed his original words at the Association of Hebrew Catholics conference before putting them on the AHC website...

See the whole article at http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm


The Orthodoxy of Roy Schoeman

Schoeman did in fact publicly repudiate all the heresies which Sungenis has attributed to him. Schoeman has not merely repudiated them in private correspondence. And what was Sungenis' reaction? He said that it was "disingenuous" of him to attempt to disavow them. On other occasions as well, Sungenis has insisted that Schoeman actually does hold these beliefs which he professes to repudiate. So, rather than admit that he has misrepresented Schoeman, Sungenis prefers to imply that he is a liar. This is no way to treat anyone, much less a Catholic brother in Christ....

See the whole article at http://www.pugiofidei.com/sungenis4.htm

Justice, not Fear

The best definition of anti-Semitism, I believe, is the one most commonly found in dictionaries: prejudice against Jews. And prejudice is best understood according to its etymology: to pre-judge. The anti-Semite will form hostile judgments about Jews prior to any dispassionate consideration of rational evidence. His treatment of Jews and Jewish issues will be, to put it mildly, heavily biased and tendentious. So will be his exegesis of texts by and about Jews. He will have an irrational predisposition to see the worst in Jews, and to see Jews in the worst. He will suspect his enemies to be secret Jews, even in the absence of evidence. He will habitually, uncritically swallow any spurious claim which disparages Jews (any stick good enough to beat the Jews with), and seek to undermine any statement which praises them. Lastly, when the issue is the Jews his faculty of reasoning will be manifestly impaired. Now, on to specific things that Robert Sungenis has said and done....

See the whole article at http://www.pugiofidei.com/sungenis5.htm

More Notable Quotes From Sungenis

There are many interesting quotes to be found in one of Sungenis’ latest “articles” Adventures in Blogland. Below you will find a small sampling:

1) Sungenis: “I am merely doing the same thing Jesus did when he confronted the sins of the Jews…Unfortunately, the Jews haven’t changed in our day. They are still the same godless racists they were in Jesus’ day. Few of them have repented of their sins.” (page 10)

2) Sungenis: “The nation of Israel has control of AMDOCS, the central telephone operation in the United States. It's one way the Mossad spies on American citizens, including you and those you talk to." (page 30)

3) Sungenis: “Do I need to say more? I have the whole history of Catholicism behind me, and these Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the God-Man himself said much worse things about the Jews than I ever have. What is really happening today folks is that we have been taken over by Jewish propaganda, and there are a few Catholic/Jewish ideologues…Many of them are paid handsomely by Zionist groups to say whatever they can to silence people like me. They are bent on promoting the godless state of Israel for some pie-in-the-sky dream they have, even against their own Catholic religion (at least that’s the religion they claim to have), and they will smear anyone who gets in their way. The Jews have done this for centuries against good people, and it continues today.” (page 19)

Of course, this “article” is also littered with the personal lies that have become the hallmark of Sungenis’s “work” in recent years as well. As mothers have been known to warn: if you lie, you had better have a good memory. Alas, Sungenis does not.

Sungenis claims he removed his articles from the racist organization National Vanguard after being contacted by his then-VP Ben Douglass and now he wonders, why all the hubbub? Well, aside from the obvious question as to why Sungenis used such an obviously racist source in the first place, even Cliff Notes would object to his severely (and conveniently) condensed version of events.

The reality is that Sungenis left the articles up by this racist organization for two weeks after being warned by his VP, Ben Douglass. It was only after Matthew Anger published an article exposing what Sungenis had done and Douglass once again vehemently objected to Sungenis about the blatantly racist nature of National Vanguard that Sungenis finally agreed to remove the material. Additionally, Sungenis neglected to inform his readers that he initially responded that he "could care less" whether National Vanguard was a racist group or not (read here).

Let us not forget the crystal clear warning Sungenis gave to Dave Armstrong who dared to put up material from a couple of conservative political commentators:

Sungenis: “If you have no political affiliation with these neo-cons, then I suggest you put a disclaimer on your site, otherwise people are going to get the wrong impression, and you can't blame them if they do. Any person with common sense who sees their names on your web site would assume that you support the political views of the aforementioned unless you say otherwise.”
(Sungenis, Q&A, January, 2005, Question 3).

Indeed. By Bob's own standard, we should naturally assume that his use of the racist National Vanguard is a sign of his personal support for their views. To date, the most he has managed to say about National Vanguard and similar sources is that they are "considered by some to be extreme". Sungenis hasn't yet told us whether he considers them to be unsavory and extreme.

Then we have the following:

Sungenis: “A few months ago I had made a quote about Michael Hoffman (Jewish critic) stating that, at this point...I would trust Michael Hoffman a lot more than I trust Michael Forrest… Obviously, Mr. Forrest is a conniving slanderer, just like Jacob Michael and Benjamin Douglass.”

It seems Sungenis can’t even remember what he himself writes any longer or be bothered to check before piling on more inaccuracies and slander. Here is the quote to which Sungenis actually referred (from March 27, 2007):

“Sungenis: Actually, as of now, I trust Michael Hoffman a lot more than I do Benjamin Douglass.”
(Page 12)

Someone might want to let Mr. Sungenis know that the “conniving slanderer” he meant to calumniate in his latest article is the man he very recently dubbed “like a brother” and showered with a great deal of praise for his scholarship and integrity: Ben Douglass, not Michael Forrest. Although, Sungenis' confusion is perhaps understandable in light of the similar stories of so many CAI VPs who are first touted by him as the best thing since sliced bread...only to later be ripped apart by him as connivers and opportunists once they've had enough of his anti-Semitic shenanigans and quit.

Of course, while we're at it, let us not forget one of the more blatant personal lies Sungenis has told about his dealings with Michael Forrest. He has been absolutely adamant that his wife was an “eyewitness” to his phone conversation with Forrest before Forrest quit:

Sungenis: “Mr. Forrest yelled to me on the phone that I was an anti-semite…My wife was a witness to the whole fiasco. No one else was an eyewitness…”
(Christopher Blosser and the Catholic ADL, page 3)

and in attempting to prove to David Palm that his wife actually heard his conversation with Forrest, Sungenis wrote:

Sungenis: "My conversations on the phone are often held on speaker-phone, and my wife, since she works for CAI as a secretary and bookkeeper, is often listening to my conversations, whether by happenstance or deliberately."
(e-mail of January 20, 2007)

Apparently, either his mother never warned him about telling lies and the need for a good memory or he forgot her advice. Read on from October 2006, when he at least told the truth about the source of his wife's account:

Sungenis: "Mr. Forrest never denied to me that he had a gig or a promoter for the gig around the beginning of 2005. He told me these things on the phone, and my wife remembers it because I told her about the whole conversation."
(JMATJ, p. 54, emphasis added)

Of course, this may be a simple matter of definitions. Perhaps Sungenis will tell us the “real” definition of “eyewitness” is someone who takes his side in an argument and that only the Zionists who want to kill him think it means something else.

Is Pope Benedict Guilty of a “perverse resurrection of Talmudic Judaism”?

…or is the Holy Father simply following the lead of St. Paul and Jesus?

In March, 2007, Bob Sungenis attacked Jewish convert, Roy Schoeman, for daring to use the Talmud in his book Salvation is from the Jews. For the sake of evangelizing fellow Jews, Schoeman had cited passages from the Talmud that clearly support the belief that Jesus was the Messiah of Israel.

Bob writes:

“Schoeman claims that we can look ‘to the Talmud to examine some of what it has to say about the Messiah’ (p. 111)…Schoeman’s appeal is nothing more than a perverse resurrection of Talmudic Judaism.” (Thirteen Problems with the Theology and Eschatology of Roy Schoeman, p. 2)

Then, later that same month, Bob further attacked Schoeman and Ben Douglass for defending Schoeman:

“The Talmud’s concept of a Messiah has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ, even by extraction. It doesn’t matter how close Schoeman makes the descriptions in the Talmud match Jesus Christ… Unfortunately, the young and impressionable Mr. Douglass is being sucked into all this erroneous thinking by his devotion to Mr. Schoeman.” (Catholics Falling for Jewish Errors, pp 49-50)

“Mr. Schoeman strains to show some positive prophecies because it is his express purpose to exonerate the Talmud as a Christian-accepted book when in fact it is a book of Christ-hating and Christianity-loathing Jewish scholars who hoped to see the Catholic Church destroyed. Unfortunately, Mr. Douglass, probably because of his pride in seeking to denigrate me, has allowed himself to fall for this bit of spiritual chicanery.” (Ibid, pp 49-50)

Incredibly, Bob is now defending Pope Benedict’s use of the Talmud, using arguments that almost precisely mirror those that Ben Douglass used to defend Roy Schoeman against Bob’s attacks:

“The pope is no more to be condemned for quoting the Talmud than St. Paul is for quoting a pagan Greek poet in Acts 17:28 to make his theological point to the Athenians gathered on Mars Hill…In no way can it be concluded that Paul was ‘rehabilitating an eternally condemned, anti-Christian text.’ Rather, he did what any good apologist would do -- use his opponents own arguments against himself. If it takes quoting from the opponent's true statements in his own literature, Paul will do so, for, as he says in 1 Cor 9, he becomes all things to all peoples so that he may win them to the Gospel.”

“Hence, when Pope Benedict said: ‘Does not the Talmud Yoma (85b) state: 'The Sabbath has been given to you, but you have not been given to the Sabbath?,’ he was using the same apologetic methodology as St. Paul. In fact, Pope Benedict is using the same apologetic that Jesus himself used when confronting the Pharisees. It is a classic case of using your opponent's strengths to defeat him. Granted, Jesus is not using the Talmud here, but the quote the pope cited from the Talmud is so close to what Jesus said of the Sabbath, that they are virtually the same.”

“Hence, the pope was quite correct in using the Talmud in his discussion with the Jews in France…If, in some sections of the Talmud, it can be shown that the statements therein agree with godly principles and Christian truth, it is certainly appropriate to quote them to the people who believe they are authoritative, for you show them that even their own authority agrees with you.”

“The Talmud itself, is an anti-Christian book…Christians have no basis elevating the Talmud as a divine book or even something authoritative. It is a Jewish book written for Jewish people and, in fact, in several places it repudiates Christ and Christianity. But this makes the quoting from the Talmud by the pope all the more note worthy, for if the Jews regard it as having any authority, then they must conclude that what the pope is saying about the Sabbath and its relation to Christianity must be true, for even the Talmud recognizes that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Once the Jews see this truth, then they might be able to appreciate all the other truths Christianity has to offer.”

(Pope Benedict’s Citing of the Talmud, pp 2-4)

(Ben Douglass' defenses of Roy Schoeman may be viewed here and here.)

Additionally, Douglass noted the following regarding Bob's unfair treatment of Schoeman:

Interestingly enough, Sungenis goes on to admit that Schoeman highlights some of the Talmud's blasphemies on pp. 132-134 of Salvation is from the Jews. Sungenis will later complain that, "There is hardly a negative word about the Talmud in Schoeman's book. Not once does he cite the very controversial passages in which the Talmud condemns Jesus Christ, Mary and Christianity." Yes he does, on pages 132-134. You already admitted it. (Article)

So, there you have it. If Jewish convert Roy Schoeman uses the Talmud to convince Jews of a Catholic truth, he is damned for a “perverse resurrection of Talmudic Judaism.” And Ben Douglass has been “sucked into all this erroneous thinking” and has “allowed himself to fall for…spiritual chicanery” by defending Schoeman’s perversion. But if Pope Benedict XVI does the same thing that Schoeman did, the Pope is merely doing something that St. Paul and even Jesus himself did.  And it is a “classic” and “completely appropriate” approach to evangelism.

Certainly, we are thankful that Bob has not launched another unjust attack on the Holy Father in this instance (although Bob has recently unjustly attacked the Holy Father in regard to another issue involving Jews - click here). But we wish that Bob could avoid the double standards that so often mar his work, especially when Jews are involved (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

We hope, therefore, that he will retract and apologize for his unjust attacks on Schoeman and Douglass, in light of his defense of Pope Benedict’s use of the Talmud. And we continue to hope that he will also publicly retract and apologize for the fraudulent quote he knows that he falsely attributed to Schoeman over a year and a half ago (see here.)

Sungenis Dishonesty and Hypocrisy Over Racist National Vanguard Continues

Recently, Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International wrote:

R. Sungenis: I have stated repeatedly that I did not know the philosophy of National Vanguard up until Ben Douglass did the research and verified it for CAI when he worked here. When Mr. Douglass alerted me to National Vanguard's white supremacism, I told our webmaster to take off their material from our website, and it was only one or two items, if I remember correctly. That is all there is to it. But leave it to the gossip-mongering racists to make it sound as if I endorse National Vanguard!
(Adventures in Blogland, p. 9)

See here for information on The National Vanguard:

So, is Sungenis telling the truth? Is that really "all there is to it" as Sungenis claims? Or is he continuing to be dishonest and hypocritical? Follow the date-line and facts, below:


March 16: Ben Douglass writes to Bob Sungenis and warns him about the National Vanguard (NV), saying they are racists and that CAI should shouldn't touch them "with a 10 foot pole."

Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:47:23 -0500

Robert and Jason,

One adjective ruins the latest feature article at CAI:

"The millions of honest White people who are members of such churches will be questioning the motivation, honesty and even genuine Christianity of
their leadership."

I really think we need to avoid posting the works of Anglo-Saxon
Israel supporters, White Nationalists, and the like. For
example, this National Vangaurd group praises
anti-miscegenation laws "to protect our precious [white]
blood, protect our national character, protect our unique
combination of beauty, intelligence, and creativity, and
protect our childrens future." We should be wary of touching
these kinds of groups with a ten foot pole. Besides
following the references they dig up for us, I don't think
we should use them at all, whether by posting their works
in their entirety or by directly quoting them.

JMJ,
Ben

April 10: The Latin Mass author, Matthew Anger, publishes an article exposing the racist nature of NV and Sungenis' use of NV.

April 12: Robert Sungenis writes to Matthew Anger and an email list of several other individuals, claiming that he doesn't know anything about National Vanguard. He then writes that he "could care less" as to whether they have a racist ideology or not, regardless. He threatens that he is going to post a response to Anger at CAI and additionally threatens to expose Anger's attempt to cover over the sins and errors of the Jews in his next article on Judaizers in the Church to the email group. Finally, Sungenis defends his use of the racist National Vangaurd with the same kind of diversionary tactics he has tried against nearly everyone else who has called him on his anti-Semitism:

From: SUNGENIS
To: MATTHEW ANGER
CC: BEN DOUGLASS (other names deleted)
Subject: My Reply to Mr. Anger -- R. Sungenis
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:10:01 EDT

"Mr. Anger judges who they [sources] are based whether they critique or don't critique bad Jewish people. It's like a vicious circle. Never mind that Jerry Falwell actually says that Jews don't need to convert. Never mind that Abe Foxman says the New Testament is anti-semitic. That's not important to Mr. Anger. What is important is that he give Jewish people a free pass and make them immune to criticism. Some Catholic faith Mr. Anger has. I suppose he now believes Jews don't have to convert, and that the New Testament is anti-semitic."

Aside from the fact that Falwell did not say that Jews don't need to convert and that Abe Foxman is not the issue, the fact is that Sungenis had no idea what Anger thought about Jews and their conversion when he wrote this. This was nothing more than typical Sungenis bravado and diversion designed to distract people from what he had done in using a blatantly racist source.

April 13: Ben Douglass chastises Robert Sungenis again, this time for saying that he doesn't know anything about National Vanguard. Douglass reminds Sungenis about his March 16th email (above). This is sent to the entire email list, shaming Bob for his untrue statement to the group:

"From: "BEN DOUGLASS"
To: "ROBERT SUNGENIS"
(Other recipients deleted)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:19:40 -0400 (EDT)

Robert,

I have to criticise this statement:

'I don't know anything about National Vanguard, and I could care less.'

Remember, I sent you an e-mail about them after you posted
the Falwell Article from their site at CAI. They advocate
anti-miscegenation laws to protect Our precious white blood
and our unique combination of beauty, creativity, and
intelligence."

April 17: Robert Sungenis finally agrees to remove the National Vanguard articles. But also note a very important admission from Sungenis, pointing to a continuing problem at "Cut and Paste" CAI:

From: ROBERT SUNGENIS
To: BEN DOUGLASS; MATTHEW ANGER
Subject: Re: your goodbye message
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:17:35 EDT


"I've already alerted Ben to the fact that no more article [sic] from National Vanguard will be run on our site, now that I know who they are. I have a bad habit of not checking the sources...which will not be the case in the future."

Also note the following at Robert Sungenis and the Jews:

"2) [Sungenis] has repeated verbatim or sometimes merely reformulated slightly writings he has obtained from others on Jewish issues. He has sometimes represented these as his own, without acknowledgment or attribution and has even defended these practices.

3) [Sungenis] continues to evidence a propensity to uncritically seek out and accept unsavory, dubious and/or negatively biased information in regard to Jews and has drawn others with similar proclivities to his website."

April 18: Articles removed

In Robert Sungenis and the Jews, we learn that it was approximately two weeks after Sungenis was notified before he removed the articles from the racist National Vanguard (an organization that has been shut down by the Commonwealth of Virginia). RSATJ was overly conservative. The record proves that it was actually over a month before Sungenis removed the articles and only after being chastised by his own V.P., an article published by a well-known Traditionalist author exposing what Sungenis had done, and another chastisement and shaming by his own V.P. in front of an email list.


It may also help to once again recall Sungenis' own stern (and hypocritical) warning to Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong:

Sungenis: “If you have no political affiliation with these neo-cons, then I suggest you put a disclaimer on your site, otherwise people are going to get the wrong impression, and you can't blame them if they do. Any person with common sense who sees their names on your web site would assume that you support the political views of the aforementioned unless you say otherwise.”
(Sungenis, Q&A, January, 2005, Question 3).

Indeed. And when someone repeatedly uses the kinds of sources Sungenis does, "people are going to get the wrong impression, and you can't blame them if they do."

As radio personality Paul Harvey is best known for saying: "that's the rest of the story."

More Sungenis Dishonesty and Plagiarism with Ben Douglass?

The following was sent in by Ben Douglass with his permission to reproduce it here at this blog:

[The following is] another instance of Sungenis being very dishonest with me, back when I was still VP of CAI. On September 21, 2006, he sent me a draft of "Michael Forrest and the Jews", asking me for suggestions for improvement. Two of my biggest problems with the article were his matter-of-fact, yet completely unsubstantiated, claims that (a) Talmudic Judaism regards Gentiles as sub-human and (b) the Talmud lessens the penalty for rape of young boys and girls as opposed to rape of adults. My objections, and his responses, are below.

(Douglass) 2) Back off from these charges against the Talmud, unless you can back them up with specific citations from the text itself and respected Jewish commentaries. Even then, you should be somewhat equivocal. Say that such and such a passage is in the Talmud, and even though it might be saying something else, it sounds like it's saying this. And in any case these passages have been used by modern Jews to justify sexual misconduct. In the article "On the Rabbi's Knee" by Robert Kolker, from May 22 issue of New York Magazine, we are informed that a revered orthodox rabbi named Pinchus Scheinberg told concerned Jewish parents that as a matter of Jewish law, their rabbi's fondling their children did not count as sexual abuse.

Sungenis: Understood. Acutally, my main objection against the Talmud is that it denies Jesus as the Son of God, and says he is a false prophet under God's judgment. I don't think there is much to argue about that.

(Douglass) 3) I think you can find many orthodox Jews who will deny that Gentiles are animals or less than animals. If you are going to stick by this charge against Orthodox Judaism, you should explicitly quote an Orthodox Jew saying this.

Sungenis: I'll try.

The following is from the version of the article which he then published at CAI, and which is still posted there:

Forrest: Jews who follow Judaism loathe non-Jews and consider them less than animals.

Sungenis: I hope it’s not true, but unfortunately, I haven’t found too many Orthodox Jews (who believe and follow what is stated in the Talmud), to deny that Gentiles do not have the same rights as Jews, and in some cases, have the same rights as animals. If a Jew wants to repudiate the Talmud and admit that the Talmud does not have the whole truth, then I will be willing to accept his statement that “non-Jews are less than animals.”

Forrest: Judaism teaches that it’s okay to rape young boys.

Sungenis: Another half truth. I said that there are statements in the Talmud (not Judaism, per se) that lessen the crime of sodomy and pedophilia against young boys as opposed to the crime against an adult. The Talmud does the same for the raping of young girls as opposed to the raping of mature women. That being the case, it is incumbent on Michael Forrest to admit and condemn this breach of justice taught by the Talmud instead of trying to make me look bad while making Judaism and the Talmud look good. In fact, passages have been used by modern Jews to justify sexual misconduct. In the article “On the Rabbi's Knee” by Robert Kolker, from May 22 issue of New York Magazine, we are informed that a revered orthodox rabbi, named Pinchus Scheinberg, told concerned Jewish parents that, as a matter of Jewish law, a rabbi's fondling their children did not count as sexual abuse.

As you can see, he did not make the changes which he indicated to me that he would make. The only thing he changed was that he plagiarized my statement about Pinchus Scheinberg. So, I sent him the following e-mail:

Robert,

Your response to me indicated that you would back off from your statements about the Talmud teaching that non-Jews had the same rights as animals, and that not too many Orthodox Jews would deny this, and that the Talmud lessens the crime of sodomy and pederasty against the young. But you haven't qualified them. Orthodox Jews do quite often deny teaching that Gentiles have the rights of animals. And you replied "understood" to my advice that you should be equivocal about the pedophilia charge, and instead of saying "the Talmud lessens..." say that such and such a passage is in the Talmud, and even though it might be saying something else, it sounds like it's saying this, and some Jews have used it like this. But instead, you are as unequivocal as ever and simply included my reference as backup. You haven't made the changes that I thought you were going to make based on what you just told me. As it stands, this piece is going to make the scandal continue.

JMJ,
Ben

Ben Douglass' Revealing Response to Sungenis

A Last Response from Douglasstein

Another important article from Ben Douglass

Ben Douglass Responds

Ex-VP of CAI Ben Douglass Weighs In

The former vice president of apologetics from Catholic Apologetics International, Ben Douglass, has weighed on the controversy:

Oy Vey! Or Benjamin Douglasstein Kvetches about Robert Sungenis

See also Mark Shea's latest comments at his blog:

markshea.blogspot.com

Ben Douglass Reviews Salvation is From the Jews

Ben Douglass has written the following review of Roy Schoeman's book, Salvation is From the Jews:

Thoughts on Salvation is From the Jews


David Palm and Michael Forrest offer their reactions to Ben's review, below:


David Palm:

My reaction on reading this review is that it is balanced and fair. Some of the same passages which Douglass praises as profound and helpful stood out to me as well. And it is nice to see Douglass catching certain nuances of Schoeman's presentation as when, for example, he notes that, “Schoeman indulges in a terminological novum, but not a substantial novum, when he says that the Old Covenant brings the New Covenant to fruition by this mass conversion.” This is a nice turn of phrase. And as I argued in my own defense of Schoeman, the key word is "fruition"--referring to future graces poured out on the Jews--and not "fulfillment", thus positing a kind of validity of the Old Covenant apart from the New as a more hostile critic would have it.

But Schoeman's book is not above criticism, as he will readily acknowledge. There are areas in which one may legitimately question the wording of the book. For example, like Douglass, I could not agree with Schoeman that the view of supersessionism that he laid out--namely, that the Church being constituted as the New Israel meant that there was no special place whatsoever for ethnic Jews in God's plans--actually dominated Christian theology for two thousand years. With Douglass, I thought that at the very least the Catholic understanding that there will be a future special conversion of the Jews to Christ runs counter to this. That there has been a marked shift in emphasis in official and unofficial Catholic statements is clear, but that's not quite the way it is phrased in the book.

I agree with Douglass, too, that the handling of certain prophesies, such as that of the "abomination of desolation" is potentially problematic. But for the record, let it be noted that the first person to point out an incongruity in Mr. Schoeman's interpretation of the "abomination of desolation" was not Ben Douglass, nor even Bob Sungenis, but Michael Forrest in "Robert Sungenis and the Jews":

That said, in fairness, again, I can at least see where one may legitimately ask for clarification from Schoeman on some of these points. One could conceivably even argue that certain things may eventually need to be modified. I have no issues with such possibilities and consider such discussions, when handled fairly and charitably, perfectly legitimate.

For instance, the Scriptural prophecy about the cessation of the sacrifice does seem to imply that God will be displeased about this development. One may question whether the Jewish Temple could ever potentially fulfill this prophecy because we know that sacrifices now offered in the Jewish Temple could never be pleasing and efficacious in God’s eyes. There is only one such sacrifice: that of Jesus Christ which is re-presented at each and every Mass (which Schoeman would not dispute) (http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/Converts_and_Conclusion.html).

I would probably not agree with the force of certain of Douglass' criticisms concerning individual prophetic interpretations, although I think that this is the weakest part of the book. But criticisms here should be tempered by Schoeman's explicit acknowledgement, in at least three places, that his views are speculative. And I don't think Ben gave Schoeman quite enough credit for this "disclaimer".


That being said, in general Douglass has offered a fine critique of a fine book.


++++++++++++++++++++++++



Michael Forrest:

I found Ben Douglass’s review of Salvation is From the Jews to be thoughtful, balanced and reasonable. I believe it is a positive contribution to an important discussion that is taking place within the Church at this time in history.

As Pope Benedict XVI indicated in the preface to his book, Many Religions, One Covenant, the topic of the relationships between God, Israel and the Church is one that calls for further exploration and discussion. The Church has not yet spoken with absolute clarity and finality about the full nature of these relationships. As such, and as is so often the case in such situations, there are two extremes of which we should be careful.

As we have witnessed in the aftermath of Vatican II, there is a danger that those with certain personal leanings or agendas may take undue liberties in their quest for compassion and openness by effectively usurping the role of the Magisterium: prematurely declaring and forcing new quasi-dogmas and quasi-doctrines upon the rest of the Catholic faithful and condemning all of those who resist or question them as mean-spirited, reactionary dinosaurs. In the context of this discussion, a prime candidate for this first error would seem to be the promulgation of the “dual covenant” theory that proposes two separate pathways to God, one for Jews, one for Christians.

Conversely, there is an opposing, reactionary extreme that ought to be resisted as well, an extreme perhaps rooted in fear. While one may easily sympathize with the desire for absolute stability in light of some of the upheaval Catholics have endured over the past 40 years, the proper response still cannot be to effectively usurp the role of the Magisterium: prematurely stifling legitimate discussion and exploration by recklessly branding others with whom one disagrees as nefarious heretics and the like.

The Magisterium does not operate as the Urim and Thummim of old, in something of a vacuum, with truths being revealed suddenly, fully formed. The truth is generally arrived at through a complex process involving a thorough examination and sifting of many sources of information under the guidance of the Holy Spirit: from the Scriptures, to the Councils of the Church to the sensus fidelium…the sense of the faithful.

I believe that Roy Schoeman has helped to further that legitimate, important discussion. I also believe that Ben Douglass has added his own positive contribution now and I welcome it.

I find myself in essential agreement with most of Ben’s points, both positive and negative (including the issue involving the Temple…as David Palm noted, I first mentioned this back in September 2006…and the symmetry involving the identity of the Antichrist). However, I do agree with David Palm that insufficient attention was perhaps paid to the disclaimers given by Schoeman as to the speculative nature of many observations. It is also important to remember that this book was written with an eye toward helping other Jews come to Christ.

My most substantial disagreement (if it can be called that) is not directly in regard to the book really. I tend to disagree with Ben’s comparisons between the Muslim Q’ran/Hadith and the Jewish Talmud/Zohar.

I am unaware of any place wherein the Talmud or Zohar teach Jews to forcefully convert non-Jews or use violence against them if they will not convert. Even in those places where the Talmud appears to have ugly things to say about Christianity, I see no evidence that modern Rabbis appeal to and teach these passages to their fellow Jews in order to further propagate such ideas. To the contrary, I have seen evidence that, if anything, such passages are downplayed or completely ignored by today’s Jews. This does not seem to be the case with Islam, in my opinion. There seems to be no such dearth of modern Muslims who very much teach and hold to the traditional, more violent interpretation of the Q’ran and Hadith (to be clear, I do not intend to suggest this observation applies to all or even most Muslims). And we have seen the practical results in the papers and television. We need not try to divine their motives or discern conspiracies. They say it openly. But again, this is a matter of opinion and I fully respect Ben’s right to a differing one and certainly do not at all consider it evidence of bad will. While I believe I am fairly well informed, I do not claim to be an expert on these issues.

In the end, let me reiterate: I find Ben’s review to be a welcome contribution to the discussion on the relationship between God, Israel and the Church.