A Last Word

With our final defense of Bishop Rhoades completed (here), it is time to bring this blog to a close.

When we began publicly opposing Robert Sungenis’s Jewish writings and postings, we did so because Bob had rejected private correction (opting instead to intensify his rhetorical attacks on the Jewish people) and also because we possessed important, inside knowledge that no one else possessed about these matters. Additionally, we were deeply troubled by the fact that some Catholics (including two or three well-known traditionalist publications) seemed to be giving increasing credence and coverage to Sungenis’s anti-Jewish “research,” apparently not realizing that his writings were too often unattributed re-presentations of a few books and articles written by extremely problematic and negatively biased sources (white supremacists, Nazis, other anti-Semites and extremists) and that Sungenis himself had done little or no original research on these topics (link 1, link 2)

Before continuing, however, we want to state unequivocally that we do not hate Bob, as his most prominent supporter has falsely accused us. We have been baffled, saddened, shocked and/or deeply troubled by the things he has posted and continues to post about various Jewish issues under the Catholic mantle. Additionally, we have never intended to “destroy” him and certainly never stated that we wanted him brought down “to nothing”, as the same individual has falsely accused us. We have consistently stated that our intention is to defend those unjustly attacked, to help insure that innocent people do not adopt the inflammatory and scandalous views of the Jewish people that Bob has advocated, to make clear that Bob’s views of the Jewish people are not those of the Catholic Church and that Catholics care enough to speak out vigorously against such views. Along with those intentions we continue to hope and pray that Bob eventually abandons his continuing commitment to this unfortunate path and returns full-time to those areas in which he has much to offer. That being said, to whatever extent that our individual limitations and faults may have undermined those aims, we sincerely apologize.

We also want to reiterate that we have agreed with Bob on some important theological points regarding the Jewish people and Judaism. For instance, we agree that the dual covenant theory is erroneous and that it undermines the Great Commission given to the Church by Jesus Christ. In fact, some time ago we wrote an article about this issue in Lay Witness magazine (link). We also just recently read and recommend an article written about this issue by Fr. Harrison in Homiletic and Pastoral Review (June 2009). However, even in those areas in which Bob has made positive theological contributions involving Jewish issues, he seems unable to refrain from eventually adopting a hostile tone, using problematic sources and/or degenerating into inappropriate, offensive and false accusations. As such, he has caused harm even when he is correct or partially correct on Jewish issues.

An example of this is what occurred when Religion News Service and The Washington Post plastered Bob’s picture and name all over an article commenting upon the removal of a sentence on page 131 of the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults (USCCA) that tended to give the impression that Jews have their own path to salvation through the Mosaic covenant (link 1, link 2). While Bob made a legitimate criticism of this sentence in the USCCA, unfortunately, he also launched into a vitriolic campaign filled with scandalous (and unjustified) accusations against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and his own bishop in particular. According to Bob, they were “attempting to propagate” heresy to “unsuspecting Catholics,” his bishop had greater “allegiances” to Jewish causes than to the Catholic faith and His Excellency was having a “war…with Catholic doctrine.”

After the U.S. bishops made a very helpful change to the sentence on page 131 of the USCCA, Bob was still not satisfied, publicly airing additional suspicions and floating an erroneous conspiracy theory. On the opposite side, those who favor the dual covenant theory were also plainly unhappy with the change because the original version was more amenable to their views. And it seems evident that they made an effort to discredit the change in the USCCA by closely associating it with Bob and his anti-Jewish prejudice (his name appeared 11 times in the original RNS article). For his part, Bob jumped in to take the credit they wanted to give him, apparently unaware or unconcerned that he was likely being used to undermine the Church – and perhaps most ironically – the very issue he indicated that he was so deeply concerned about, in the process. Readers of this blog may remember that we warned Sungenis' supporters of precisely this danger in By Sungenis Alone:

Sungenis has made some good points about the dual covenant error. But as much as Sungenis supporters might try, it is simply impossible to divorce him from all of his ugly baggage...These serious problems...make it extremely imprudent to publicly enlist Sungenis' aid in this legitimate cause. His presence only serves to discredit and undermine it. (By Sungenis Alone, March 29, 2008)

Unfortunately, Bob has used the respect and credibility he legitimately earned in other areas of scholarship and inquiry for the purpose of promoting his personal, anti-Jewish views. In the process he improperly appropriated the name “Catholic” and enlisted “Catholic” theology in the cause (here). By stating this, our intention here is not to inflame or insult, rather, it is to explain why we felt we had a moral obligation to vigorously defend the Church and those who have been confused, attacked, maligned or otherwise harmed by his writings and postings over the last 7 years. It is not a matter of any one statement or posting but rather, a long-standing pattern. There are certainly others on the internet who have written and posted worse things about Jews than Bob, but these individuals are not Catholics who have earned people's respect and trust in other areas. And so, it is not as likely that average Catholics will uncritically accept what they have to say.

It is our sincere hope and prayer that the information at this blog continues to help those who have been confused, attacked, maligned or otherwise harmed by Bob’s Jewish writings and postings. But it is time to bring it to a close. By now, with all the documentation we and others have provided at other blogs and websites, we believe it should be amply clear to any objective observer that his negative views of the Jewish people are solely his own and do not reflect the views of the Catholic Church or the general Catholic populace. And those who have been unjustly attacked have been adequately defended.

We have been touched by the many expressions of appreciation we have received (for example – scroll to the bottom of Breaking the Silence, here). We have been particularly gratified by the many individuals who have found and used information posted at this blog while researching similar errors made by others – we’ve found that there is a great deal of “cross-pollination” among those with such negative views of the Jewish people. For instance: the fraudulent quote of Einstein about anti-Semitism that we documented (see a link to our work here); the misquote of David Brooks regarding Jews and “neo-cons”; the ethnicity of Robin Williams (he’s not Jewish - see here and here); the cause of the Titanic disaster (yes, some people really believe the Jews were behind that one, too); the Holy Father’s statements about the six million Jews killed in the Shoah; the Patristic, Magisterial and Scriptural evidence for the “conversion of the Jews" and other topics.

Unfortunately, Bob has maintained his course on Jewish issues despite promises to cease addressing anything of a non-theological nature involving Jews. For example, he recently decided to provide “evidence” that only a few hundred thousand Jews were killed in the Shoah and that the Jews themselves were largely to blame for what they suffered. In so doing, he cited evidence that has even been debunked and denounced by one of his colleagues – Christopher Ferrara (here). Ferrara has described views such as those espoused by Sungenis as “nonsense,” further stating that those who make such claims evidence “what appears to be a lack of even cursory research” and that “anyone with even a superficial knowledge” of the facts should know better. He then went on to make the following impassioned plea and statement:

Not only this newspaper, but every journal of traditional Catholic opinion, and above all the Society itself, must clearly and unequivocally declare—as I do here and now—that Holocaust revisionism, wacky conspiracy theories, and other such nonsense will have no part in the traditionalist movement.

We must also implore Bishop Williamson to reconsider and personally repudiate the outrageous statements he has published to the world despite the many entreaties that he cease and desist. This is not a question of the Bishop’s freedom of opinion, but rather of the consequences to countless innocent bystanders from a heedless exercise of that freedom. Yes, the Bishop has spoken only for himself; but others, however unjustly, will be made to pay the price for what he has said, and they will go on paying it for a long time to come. The Bishop should have foreseen this, but now it is too late to prevent the damage. All he can do is make amends. If he cares about the Church and the traditionalist faithful, as he surely does, then he will not allow himself to become a stumbling block on the road ahead.

(Some information about the number of Jews living in Europe before and after the Holocaust and a rebuttal of alleged "proof" from Red Cross records about a relatively small number of Jews being killed in the Shoah may be found here, here, here, here and here. Bob also strongly suspects there was a conspiracy hatched to propagate the figure of “six million” Jews killed in the Shoah, before WWII had even ended, based on supposed “evidence” in a 1943 issue of Reader’s Digest. Based on history [read here], it seems safe to assume that he did not track down an actual copy of this magazine, read it and come to his conclusion independently. If one does a simple Google search on terms like “Reader’s Digest 1943 Holocaust Hoax Hecht”, one will find many of the kinds of extremely problematic sources upon which Sungenis has previously relied [note: you may have to turn off your internet filter in order to view all the results]. It seems most likely that Bob once again sought out sources that would confirm his pre-existing opinions and repeated them publicly rather than attempting any real search of the evidence. An easily accessible article by Andrew E. Mathis at Holocaust Controversies that convincingly rebuts the claim Bob publicly repeated about the Reader's Digest article may be found here.)

In his most recent statement on "the Jews", Bob quotes extensively from Benjamin Freedman. In doing so, it seems Bob has sought out “cover” for his views by noting that Freedman was a Jew, thus presumably giving him greater credibility as a witness against "the Jews". He has attempted to find such cover in the past by “quoting” Jews like Albert Einstein and David Brooks. Unfortunately, in those instances, the “quotes” he reproduced (and the implications he subsequently drew from them) were fraudulent. (link1 and link2).

Of course, on its own, Freedman's status as a Jew (or, more accurately, an ex-Jew) does not automatically establish him as a trustworthy critic of Jews and Judaism, any more than Bart Brewer's status as an ex-priest established him as a trustworthy critic of Catholicism; indeed, many ex-Catholics are the most vociferous and venomous anti-Catholics. And it certainly appears that Freedman came to deeply disdain and reject his Jewish heritage.

For instance, Sungenis seems unaware that Freedman was a proponent of the extremist belief that Jesus Christ was not even a Jew. Freedman also subscribed to the same kinds of discredited, extremist views (for example: modern Jews are not actually Jews at all, they are mere ethnic imposters: see here and here) that another Sungenis source subscribes to: Holocaust “revisionist,” Michael Hoffman. Perhaps unsurprisingly, certain extremely “problematic” groups are big fans of Freedman (here and here), just as they are of some of Bob's anti-Jewish work (here). However, more directly to the issue of Sungenis' extensive quotation of Freedman, is the issue of Freedman's fundamental credibility. The following easily accessible article contains pointed rebuttal to the Freedman speech that Sungenis quoted at length: here. It makes a cogent case that Freedman made numerous errors of fact in the course of that speech. Has Sungenis read it? Did he make any effort to find counter-arguments against Freedman? Apparently not.

Following a long-standing pattern, it seems that Sungenis has once again reflexively believed and publicly propagated negatively prejudiced and/or inflammatory material about Jews without making any real effort to ascertain its credibility and veracity. Unfortunately, Bob has also recently recommenced making false accusations against his bishop. Other examples of Bob’s continuing anti-Jewish course may be found here, here and here. We have documented these problematic patterns at great length. And therefore, we have concluded that it is unnecessary for us to continue; we believe that what we have documented is sufficient for any person of good will.

While we reject the notion that Bob would ever have sanctioned anything like the Shoah, we believe it is a grave mistake to think that such an atrocity could never occur again. The German people were not intrinsically monstrous. Even Hitler did not start out with the repulsive views and ideas that he later developed about the Jewish people. We have stated that “we certainly agree…that Bob Sungenis is not the kind of person who desecrates Jewish graves, massacres Jews and bombs Israel. He is, however, the kind of person who often foments paranoia about and hatred against Jews" (here). The language that Sungenis often employs and the accusations he levels are often dangerous and irresponsible. His bishop has described his postings on Jews and Judaism as “hostile, uncharitable and un-christian.” In fact, Sungenis himself recently acknowledged that the fears expressed by Roy Schoeman in this regard are legitimate:

“Schoeman balks at the suggestion that the Jews are to blame for the world’s troubles. Simply put, if the world believes the Jews are the cause of the trouble, the world will react by turning against the Jews (as they have done in the past); and since the Jews are outnumbered by 500 to 1, it doesn’t bode well for them. This is a legitimate fear…” (Is the SSPX Anti-Semitic? by R. Sungenis)

Considering that Bob acknowledges this serious concern, we are baffled that he so often stokes the flames of paranoia about and animus against the Jewish people with his rhetoric and various postings. Does he understand that when he publicly accuses Jews of being slave masters, of trying to take over the Church, of being morally degenerate, of being godless racists, of controlling and listening in on our phone lines, of sending in secret agents to seduce and bring down a president they disliked, of assassinating another president, of believing that Gentiles are not created in the image and likeness of God, that Gentiles were put on the earth to serve Jews because Gentiles are “akin to animals” and that “goyim,” the word Jews use for Gentiles, is actually the Hebrew word for “cattle,” (see Bob’s recent article here) – that he is actively fomenting resentment against, contempt for and paranoia about the Jewish people?

According to multiple reports around the world, including a statement by the Pope himself, anti-Semitic incidents and sentiments are on the rise (for example: here, here and here). A financial collapse here, a terrorist bombing in retaliation against support for the “Zionist State” there, and Jews can rather quickly become a convenient scapegoat again. And of course, this does not even contemplate the obvious damage such statements do to evangelistic outreach. What Jew would want to join a Church that views the Jewish people in such contemptuous ways?

We have seen first-hand how Catholics have been attacked – sometimes unfairly – for doing too little to stand against what happened to the Jewish people in Nazi Germany. Should another such tragedy unfold in our day, how could we legitimately defend ourselves against similar charges if we refuse to stand against the kind of inflammatory and hostile rhetoric and material that one of our own brothers has often published against Jews?

In closing, we hope that our decision to bring this blog to a close may help Bob in some way to reflect on matters and to eventually reconsider his course in regard to the Jewish people. We would also like to affirm our esteem and appreciation for the commendable work he has produced in other areas and reiterate our strong preference to remove the material currently at this blog, for the sake of the Church and everyone else involved – including Bob himself. To that end we will repeat the offer we have previously made to him:

If Bob will simply and forthrightly retract and apologize for the statements we have listed here (without then stating that he still personally maintains that they are true, as he did previously: here) – including his accusations against Bishop Rhoades (our new – and final – defense of Bishop Rhoades may be found here), adhere to his promises to refrain from posting such statements and articles in the future (including removing the similarly problematic material currently at his website) – then we will gladly remove everything currently at this blog and at the RSATJ website. If Bob takes this step, then it will no longer be necessary (or helpful) to leave up our articles. In fact, we would even go so far as to write to the Diocese of Harrisburg on his behalf to inform them of such a positive development.

Additionally, while we have made every effort to be accurate in our documentation, we remain open to correction - retracting and apologizing for any errors we may have made. Irrespective of our offer to remove the material on this blog, we invite Bob to provide documentation of any such possible errors. However, to date, neither Bob nor his supporters have provided us with any specific examples of inaccurate quotes, etc.

We sincerely hope and pray that God gives Bob the grace to understand the harmfulness of his statements and actions in regard to the Jewish people and to alter his course - for the sake of the Church, all those who have been harmed and for his own sake.

Michael Forrest, David Palm and Jacob Michael

Ferrara Repudiates Holocaust views of Bishop Williamson and Sungenis - 2009

In February, 2007, Christopher Ferrara wrote an article entitled Christophobes at the Gate, that heavily criticized a 2006 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on “radical traditionalists” who preach “anti-Semitic hatred” (see: The Dirty Dozen) The SPLC article listed Robert Sungenis as its first example and singled him out as “one of the most rabid and open anti-Semites in the entire radical traditionalist movement.”

While Ferrara voiced some valid criticisms of the SPLC report (as did Karl Keating), he failed to defend Sungenis by name and also made a statement that raised a few eye-brows: “virtually everyone SPLC accuses [of anti-Semitism] is innocent of the charge…”. Virtually everyone.

Eventually, in July, 2007, Ferrara publicly defended Sungenis against the specific charge of anti-Semitism, asserting that “Bob is no anti-Semite.”1 To our knowledge, Ferrara has never publicly criticized Sungenis in regard to his persistently offensive treatment of Jewish issues. And, with the exception of the narrow defense noted above, neither has he publicly defended him.

However, after Bishop Williamson of the SSPX recently created a firestorm of controversy for the Church (and the traditionalist movement in particular) by making statements very similar to those previously made by Sungenis about Jews, Ferrara apparently felt compelled to publicly criticize Williamson and to repudiate his ignorant and offensive views in January of 2009 (see: Triumph and Tribulation).

Below the reader will find statements made by Sungenis on the Holocaust that are very similar to those made by Bishop Williamson:

R. Sungenis (2002): "the figure of six million Jews dying under Hitler's regime is even admitted by informed Jews to be mere propaganda." (link)

R. Sungenis (2005): “I have my doubts that it was 6 million [Jews killed in the Holocaust]… Hitler hated the Jews, not only for what he saw as a youth, but because the Jews had a stranglehold on European finance and banking for many years. 
There are some stories, however, that suggest these Jewish banking familes actually helped Hitler in his quest, since their objective was to ellicit [sic] world-wide sympathy so as to migrate European and Russian Jews to Palestine, their long-sought goal which they have, indeed, accomplished.” (link)

R. Sungenis (2009): "it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that six million Jews were killed in Nazi internment camps." (link)

R. Sungenis (2009): "I suggest you stop blaming it on the nation who excised [the Jews] and start looking at what the Jewish people do to get themselves excised." (link)

R. Sungenis (2009): "As for Germany's relationship with the Jews, well, the Germans treated the Jews very nicely when the Jews were excised out of Russia and migrated to Germany. Then the Jews turned on the Germans because they got a better deal from someone else." (link ; a very similar statement was repeated in Ask Your Questions About the Jews)

R. Sungenis (2009): “I suggest you read the unsanitized accounts of what really happened [in the Holocaust]. When the Jews and Jewish sympathizers start showing proof that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews by gassing them, instead of jailing people for even bringing up the question, then you can talk about the Nazis and I’ll listen.” (link)

On February 19th, 2009, Sungenis even had the gall to imply that the Pope may actually be in agreement with him when it comes to the Holocaust:

R. Sungenis: "The pope made no mention of the '6 million' figure that has become such a hot issue in the Williamson affair. The pope did the right thing. In reality, it doesn’t make any difference whether it’s 600,000 (according to a recent report by Meyer) or 6,000,000." (link)

(Please click here for more on what the Pope has said about denial and minimization of the Holocaust. Click here for proof that the Pope is not at all in agreement with Sungenis in regard to the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. More problematic quotes and background about Sungenis’s views on the Jewish people may be viewed here and here. )

As “evidence” for his assertion that the figure of six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust is “mere propaganda”, Sungenis cited thoroughly debunked “statistics” that purport to “prove” that “there was no large difference between the number of Jews living [in Europe] in 1939 as there were living in 1948.”

In Triumph and Tribulation, Ferrara debunked these claims, critically noting that those who make such claims evidence “what appears to be a lack of even cursory research” and that “anyone with even a superficial knowledge” of the facts should know better. (More information about the number of Jews living in Europe before and after the Holocaust may be found here.)

Ferrara then went on to make these strong statements:

traditionalists have not refrained from critical observations concerning certain statements and actions of the conciliar popes. That criticism is in keeping with the due liberty of the members of the Mystical Body, and indeed their duty to speak out when they believe in conscience that the common good of the Church is being harmed, even should that harm involve acts or omissions of the Supreme Pontiff himself. It would a fortiori be a dereliction of duty for traditionalists not to exercise that same liberty with respect to statements from within our ‘movement’ merely because they come from a fellow traditionalist, even if he were a bishop. For to remain silent in the face of what Bishop Williamson has said would be to endanger the entire cause to which we have dedicated ourselves by allowing it to be attached to his errors.

Bishop Williamson has eliminated himself —and for no good reason—as a credible public spokesman for the Society in the Catholic or secular communications media, or in any other significant public forums open to other traditional clergy.

Not only this newspaper, but every journal of traditional Catholic opinion, and above all the Society itself, must clearly and unequivocally declare—as I do here and now—that Holocaust revisionism, wacky conspiracy theories, and other such nonsense will have no part in the traditionalist movement. (Note: Some of Sungenis’s “wacky conspiracy theories” may be viewed here. "Other such nonsense" from Sungenis may be viewed here and here.) We must also implore Bishop Williamson to reconsider and personally repudiate the outrageous statements he has published to the world despite the many entreaties that he cease and desist. This is not a question of the Bishop’s freedom of opinion, but rather of the consequences to countless innocent bystanders from a heedless exercise of that freedom. Yes, the Bishop has spoken only for himself; but others, however unjustly, will be made to pay the price for what he has said, and they will go on paying it for a long time to come. The Bishop should have foreseen this, but now it is too late to prevent the damage. All he can do is make amends. If he cares about the Church and the traditionalist faithful, as he surely does, then he will not allow himself to become a stumbling block on the road ahead.

Ferrara is to be commended for his unequivocal, public repudiation of the ignorant and offensive views propagated by Bishop Williamson. We would also note that one could very easily substitute “Robert Sungenis” for “Bishop Williamson” in most all of the quotes above and they would stand equally well. In fact, Sungenis has publicly propagated more ignorant, dishonest and offensive material about Jews than Bishop Williamson has (see here and here). And we are unaware of any occasion on which Williamson has slandered even those Jews who enter the Catholic Church (see here, for one example where Sungenis has done so).

In closing, it is worth noting that the Vatican has rejected Bishop Williamson’s apologies to date as insufficient (article). He has thus far refused to forthrightly retract and apologize for his ignorant and offensive statements. Sadly, the same is true of Robert Sungenis. In fact, unlike Bishop Williamson, Sungenis has even gone so far as to state that “no one” will change his views of the Jewish people - even if he withdraws some of them from public view “for the sake of peace.” (See Saying "Peace" When There Is No Peace.)

______________________________

1 It should be acknowledged that Ferrara somewhat distanced himself from Sungenis in this letter to the editor. However, in the process, he understated how much association there has been between them: “[Sungenis] contributed exactly one answer to one question about the Catholic Faith on my organization’s Web site.” In 2005, Sungenis actually contributed two answers to Ferrara’s web site that are still there (click here) and there have been other areas of collaboration between Sungenis and Ferrara as well. See: Are Ferrara and Sungenis a Team?

Sungenis and the New Good Friday Prayer

Some Traditionalists like Kenneth Wolfe of the Remnant view the new Good Friday prayer just approved by the Pope as "having their cage rattled." The change is also perceived as making a reconciliation with SSPX more difficult. To his credit, Sungenis has at least defended the Pope's changes, saying:

"Pope Benedict XVI has once again acted as a faithful Pontiff of the Catholic Church…All the previous descriptions contained in the old Latin Mass prayer of Pope John XXIII that have been eliminated by Pope Benedict XVI (e.g., reference to the “blindness” of the Jews or their living in “darkness”) can be considered superfluous…"

However, he has also again illustrated why his bishop has directed him to stop addressing Jewish issues. Once again, Bob has chosen to exaggerate and make use of counterproductive, contentious language when dealing with the Jewish people. He writes:

"The most important dimension of the traditional Latin Mass prayer was the demand for the Jews to recognize Jesus Christ and become saved by Him. This demand was preserved by Pope Benedict XVI." (emphasis added)

The word "demand" appears twice in this short span and is oddly out of place. Unfortunately, while this is not as bad as some of what we have seen and heard, it is still representative of the kind of unnecessarily provocative, contentious rhetoric that Bob continues to employ when addressing Jewish issues (including those of a theological nature). Recall, this is after he has again assured everyone that he will go to extra lengths to restrain himself and be as charitable as possible, “as if the bishop were present with us” (Catholic Apologetics International and its Teaching on the Jews, p. 2, July 31, 2007).

The fact is, there is no place in the new prayer (or even the old) where the Pope "demands" that Jews recognize Jesus Christ. There is, however, a sincere appeal to God that He may illuminate the hearts of Jewish people so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ as the "savior of all men”:

Let us pray also for the Jews. May our God and Lord illuminate their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, savior of all men. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise.

Of course, the Holy Father affirmed Church teaching in this prayer. No one is saved apart from Jesus Christ. But notice the contrast between the gentle, yet clear language chosen by the Holy Father and the provocative, contentious language chosen by Sungenis.

In the balance of his article about the new Good Friday prayer, Sungenis chose to focus on the issue of the "conversion of the Jews." He has gone on something of a crusade over the past several years to belittle and discount the belief that Jews as a people will one day have their relationship with God fully restored, having been grafted back on to the tree alongside the gentiles.

Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 8, Article 9, Article 10

It should be noted however, that there is nothing in the new prayer that actually supports his personal position. It simply does not conclusively contradict it, and, if anything, is more easily seen as supporting the common Catholic view of a future, unusual Jewish conversion to Christ:

Almighty and everlasting God, who desires that all men be saved
and come to the knowledge of truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into your church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

It is worth noting that even Sungenis' friend and colleague, Christopher Ferrara, who has previously teamed up with Sungenis over Jewish issues and who has previously offered his own dubious criticisms of Jews, also wrote an article about the new Good Friday prayer, but sans any claim that it "demands" Jews convert. And Ferrara makes clear that he holds to the common Catholic understanding of the ultimate conversion of the Jewish people to Christ:

(Ferrara): Foxman understands exactly what has happened. His press release for the ADL barely conceals his rage over the new prayer’s call for the enlightenment of the Jewish people, their acknowledgment of Christ, and the newly added element of the ultimate conversion of the entire nation of Israel in keeping with the prophecy of Saint Paul, the most renowned Jewish convert in salvation history.

(Ferrara): His Holiness responded with a revised Good Friday prayer that not only retains the Church’s call for Jewish conversion, but adds to that call the Pauline element of the final conversion of the entire Jewish nation.

Article

Ferrara is undoubtedly aware of Sungenis' unique arguments. Yet even he remains unpersuaded by him.

At least Sungenis did not choose to misinform the public again about the weight of the patristic and other Catholic witness on this issue that is contrary to his view. And he has not made additional erroneous statements about the supposed complete dearth of Catholic exegetes who have dealt in detail with this issue as it pertains to Romans 11. (See Article)

To be clear, RSATJ has never claimed that Sungenis cannot hold a personal opinion contrary to the vast majority of the Catholic witness. Rather, we have always objected to the erroneous, judgmental stances he has taken (based almost exclusively on his own personal exegesis of Romans 11) that portray those who are actually in a strong majority position as being almost entirely without support when he has provided little or no support for his own position aside from his unique, personal exegesis of Romans 11. And we have objected to the double standards he employs: reflexively accepting, defending and propagating negative theological views of Jews while reflexively rejecting and attacking positive theological views about Jews.

Fortunately, Sungenis did not find reason in the new Good Friday prayer to renew his previous, heterodox and oxymoronic claim that the Catholic Church has "unofficially declared" that the Antichrist will be a Jew.

This latest attempt by Sungenis to address Jewish issues is yet more evidence of bishop Rhoades' wisdom in directing him to refrain from writing about Judaism or the Jewish people. Sadly, Sungenis is a like the proverbial bull in a china shop. And this bull sees red everywhere he wanders. The most charitable explanation is that he doesn’t understand the kind of damage he causes. Whether the matter is political, cultural or theological, he has regularly proven that he is not able to maintain balance, objectivity and charity when Jews are involved. Yet he seems to truly believe he is an indispensable prophet of some sort in regard to Jewish matters.

Unfortunately, Sungenis attracts extremists who have helped to confirm his anti-Jewish animus. Most recently there has been a marked increase in collaboration and commiseration between Sungenis, Thomas Herron, E. Michael Jones and one or two others. When such like-minded individuals get together, there is a strong tendency to confirm one another’s suspicions and beliefs about Jews and form a bond in the process. It’s a self-selecting, vicious cycle.

One of the most virulent examples is a man by the name of Edgar Suter. An extended screed that is representative of Suter's writing can be found in the January issue of Culture Wars (pp 2-4). Ben Douglass has also confirmed that Suter was a source of anti-Semitic material posted CAI/BTF, such as that from the white-supremacist National Vanguard. Suter can also be seen on BTF’s current Q and A board (here and here) referencing the “pedagogy of deceit of the Rabbis” and putting scare quotes around the word “Jews.” This is one way anti-Semites convey their belief in a thoroughly debunked extremist theory that the Jewish people of today are not actually Jewish at all, they are ethnic pretenders. Thankfully, at least Sungenis has not indicated his agreement with that particular Jewish conspiracy theory. (See article)

More to the case at hand, Suter just recently wrote the following in reaction to the Holy Father’s alteration of the Good Friday prayer:

Thank you for the sad news.

Certainly the synagogue of Satan is quite experienced in the combined arts of shadow play and managed opposition. Of course Foxman will not be truly happy unless the Noachide Laws can be enforced so that we "idolators" who worship "that man" will be liable for execution. I find no satisfaction that Foxman is not yet in a position to ensure that "the best of the Gentiles should all be killed."...

As for those impostors "who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie," Jesus was quite clear about their parentage at John 8:44, was He not? Abraham and Moses, but not the sons of the devil, are my elder brothers.

Edgar
(email of February 7, 2008)

The virulent hatred of Jews that Suter expresses should make any Catholic recoil. Yet, he is a well-respected friend and patron of Robert Sungenis and CAI/BTF, even a source of “Jewish information” for Sungenis.

The fact is that many good people and organizations have brought and continue to bring their concerns about the Jewish “covenant issue” to the Church, such as Karl Keating, The Association of Hebrew Catholics, Scott Hahn and Roy Schoeman, but they have done so in a less accusatory, more filial manner. While this more humble approach may not attract as much attention, it is a truly Catholic approach. The Church is aware of these matters and is fully capable of preserving the faith without the kind of contributions Sungenis, Herron, Jones and Suter too often offer. Certainly, the faithful could do without such poor example, as well.

Sungenis has made much of the response he received from the CDF about the covenant issue, apparently in an effort to prove that he is accomplishing something important. However, as even Wikipedia has noted, the response he received appears to be a simple "postcard-sized form letter" acknowledging receipt of his letter with two brief sentences and a "stamped signature." The reader will note that Sungenis is not even addressed by name and the topic of the letter is not mentioned either, in this “reply from the Vatican.”

Of course, it is also true that there has been a certain amount of illegitimate complaint in the Jewish community. Such people believe the changes made by the Pope to the Good Friday prayer have not gone far enough. Perhaps due to the liberal excesses of some in the Church, their hopes for what "dialogue" could accomplish has led them to believe the Church might actually change Her teaching. Such people will likely never be satisfied. There is little one can do about that. But some people do understand and appreciate the changes made by the Holy Father. Others may in time. And anything that lowers unnecessary obstacles is obviously a good thing.

The reassuring fact is that the Church will never contradict Her teachings, even in the pursuit of dialogue, ecumenism and peace. Sungenis' bishop is well aware of that reality as is the successor to St. Peter. Thankfully, God has given us such good men with genuine authority who know how to speak the truth in charity.