Sungenis and E. Michael Jones Attracting White Supremacists

In past years, Bob Sungenis has been caught propagating material taken from the white supremacists at National Vanguard:

Sungenis Source Shut Down By Commonwealth of Virginia

Sungenis Dishonesty and Hypocrisy Over Racist National Vanguard Continues

Eventually, after sustained public pressure, Bob quietly removed the material he had copy-pasted from these white supremacists – albeit without retraction or apology. To this day, the most he has managed to say against them is that they are “believed to be extremist.” Believed to be? (Article)

And now, white supremacist groups (including one that Bob copy-pasted material from) are repaying the compliment by using and recommending material obtained from Bob and his mentor, E. Michael Jones (please note that if you have Internet filtering software you may need to disable it, since these sites are usually blocked as hate groups):

Stormfront Forum

Vanguard News Network Forum

Stormfront is “a white supremacist Internet forum that has been described as one of the earliest and longest continually published websites of any kind and the Internet's first major hate site. Stormfront was founded by former Ku Klux Klan member and white nationalist activist Don Black with the intention of creating a community around the white power movement…The board began to become popular with the exponential growth of the Internet in 1994 and 1995, according to owner Don Black, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and a member of the American Nazi Party in the 1970s. Black founded the website Stormfront.org in April 1995 with the intention of providing a central meeting place for the white power movement.” (Wikipedia)

Vanguard News Network is “an antisemitic, white supremacist website launched in 2000. VNN is one of the most active white supremacist sites on the Internet…Its motto is "No Jews. Just Right." [Alex] Linder (the founder) echoes numerous Nazi sentiments, among them that "the thing to be done about [the Jews] is to kill them, exterminate them, get rid of them. You don't argue or reason with a cockroach; you step on it." (Wikipedia)

Recall, again, that Vanguard is the group that Bob contends is merely “believed to be extremist” with regard to the Jewish people. Now, interestingly, these white supremacists are finding Bob’s material at BTF useful for their own purposes. For example, they recently regurgitated the false quote of David Brooks that Bob posted at his Bellarmine Theological Forum (in his review of E. Michael Jones' latest book):

“In the wake of the new consensus, a new movement was born – Neo-conservatism, or as David Brooks candidly put it in the Wall Street Journal: ‘Neo means new and con means Jew’”

One can readily see why such a quote would be highly interesting to white supremacist groups. But click here for documentation that this “quote” is bogus.

In 2006, we wrote:

"[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." (Article)

In 2005, we wrote:

"We should reject either automatic, unequivocal approval or knee-jerk hostility and animosity toward the Jews and/or Israel. Unfortunately, I have seen both dressed up to appear as honest opinions formed by independent, objective scholarship and/or investigation when in reality it's just a matter of someone with a predisposition regurgitating back the work and opinion of a few others because those others are saying what that person already believes. In doing so, such individuals try to pass themselves off as authorities and experts. Then others pick up the same pseudo-research and scholarship and use it as well. Before long, a whole network of self-anointed "experts" and followers may find each other, really believing they have independently happened to reach the same conclusions." (Article)

Certainly, Bob has never advocated something so utterly revolting and evil as the murder of Jews. Nor has he called Jews “cockroaches.” However, he has referred to Jews as having "infected our Catholic Church" and has stated that they have been “excised” wherever they have gone because they “try to take over” and eventually “people get wise to it.” Recently he issued the ominous, provocative warning that "it's time for people to wake up and stop being corralled by the Jewish slave masters." (Article 1, Article 2)

As such, it is entirely unsurprising that white supremacists and other hate groups would find his anti-Jewish work (and the work of his mentor, E. Michael Jones) so attractive and useful. Does this anti-Jewish polemic, which has become the very core of Bob’s organization BTF, really advance the work of the Catholic Church to bring all men, both Jew and Gentile, to salvation in Christ? Hardly. One hopes and prays that Bob will genuinely and forthrightly retract and apologize for his anti-Jewish bigotry and submit to the wise and prudent direction of his bishop.

More Misquotes, More Misrepresentations

Recently, we discovered that in his review of E. Michael Jones’ latest book, Bob Sungenis published another false quote and misrepresented the clear intentions of conservative author, David Brooks, in the process. (To view some of Bob's previous false quotes click here, here, here and here.)

Bob’s eighteen page review of Jones’ latest book (which Bob proclaims is “like a sequel to the Bible” ), appears in Jones’ Culture Wars magazine, May 2008. Bob writes:

"In the wake of the new consensus, a new movement was born – Neo-conservatism, or as David Brooks candidly put it in the Wall Street Journal: “Neo means new and con means Jew” (p. 1007). (The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: a Review, page 10)

The problem is that David Brooks actually wrote: “con is short for ‘conservative’ and neo is short for ‘Jewish’” and he wrote it in the New York Times, not the Wall Street Journal (article).

Out of eleven words in the actual quote, the quote Bob published gets only three of them right: “and”, “neo” and “con”. And even those words are not in the proper order.

And unless Bob misquoted page 1007 of Jones’ book (which is certainly possible), it is E. Michael Jones who has actually misquoted David Brooks. If true, then Bob may want to rethink his comparison of Jones’ book to the Bible - if for no other reason than to protect the integrity of Biblical inerrancy.

Be that as it may, worse than this completely mangled quote is the fact that Bob (or Jones?) then draws the wrong conclusion from Brooks’ words, implying that David Brooks was "candidly" admitting that “neo-cons” are indeed a political cabal of Jews. If one takes the time to actually read Brooks’ article – which is readily available on the internet - it is clear that Brooks was mocking people who created this name and believe in the “neo-con conspiracy”. That was the point of his entire article: to mock such conspiracy theorists. Whether or not one agrees with Brooks is irrelevant. Bob (or Jones?) gives a false impression as to what Brooks meant. Here is the actual quote, in greater context:

In truth, the people labeled neocons (con is short for ''conservative'' and neo is short for ''Jewish'') travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another. The ones outside government have almost no contact with President Bush. There have been hundreds of references, for example, to Richard Perle's insidious power over administration policy, but I've been told by senior administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office. If he's shaping their decisions, he must be microwaving his ideas into their fillings.

It's true that both Bush and the people labeled neocons agree that Saddam Hussein represented a unique threat to world peace. But correlation does not mean causation. All evidence suggests that Bush formed his conclusions independently. Besides, if he wanted to follow the neocon line, Bush wouldn't know where to turn because while the neocons agree on Saddam, they disagree vituperatively on just about everything else. (If you ever read a sentence that starts with ''Neocons believe,'' there is a 99.44 percent chance everything else in that sentence will be untrue.)

Below we’ve reproduced a passage that follows immediately after the quote above. In light of the book Bob was reviewing, we find it particularly interesting and ironic:

There are apparently millions of people who cling to the notion that the world is controlled by well-organized and malevolent forces. And for a subset of these people, Jews are a handy explanation for everything.

There's something else going on, too. The proliferation of media outlets and the segmentation of society have meant that it's much easier for people to hive themselves off into like-minded cliques... You get to choose your own reality. You get to believe what makes you feel good. You can ignore inconvenient facts so rigorously that your picture of the world is one big distortion.

And if you can give your foes a collective name -- liberals, fundamentalists or neocons -- you can rob them of their individual humanity. All inhibitions are removed. You can say anything about them. You get to feed off their villainy and luxuriate in your own contrasting virtue. You will find books, blowhards and candidates playing to your delusions, and you can emigrate to your own version of Planet Chomsky. You can live there unburdened by ambiguity.
(Article)

Perhaps Bob (and Jones?) ought to have actually read David Brooks' article before writing his glowing review of Jones' book The Revolutionary Jewish Spirit. At least he would have gotten Brooks’ quote right, although we doubt that Bob (or Jones) would have appreciated what Brooks had to say about conspiracy theorists who "hive themselves off into like-minded cliques" and “books, blowhards…playing to your delusions.”

And of course, this is yet another example proving that Bishop Rhoades was right to tell Bob to stop writing about Jewish issues. Bob’s work in this area is far more representative of an anti-Jewish propagandist than a sober, responsible apologist.

Bishop Rhoades Sets The Record Straight

In an attempt to justify his public defiance of his bishop, the Most Reverend Kevin C. Rhoades, Robert Sungenis has publicly charged His Excellency with four offenses. These serious charges appeared in his recent article, The Old Covenant, Revoked or Not Revoked (OCRNR) and in a recent issue of Culture Wars magazine. The charges are as follows:

1) Sungenis claims that Bishop Rhoades holds to a false doctrine (which Sungenis also characterizes as a “heresy”). This false doctrine is commonly referred to as the “Dual Covenant” or “Dual Salvific Covenant” which posits that the Jewish people possess their own, independent, salvific covenant with God, apart from Jesus Christ. (pp. 11-12)

2) Sungenis claims that Bishop Rhoades is “attempting to propagate” this error to “unsuspecting Catholics”. (p. 11)

3) Sungenis claims that Bishop Rhoades possesses greater “allegiances” to Jewish interests than to the Catholic faith. (p. 12)

4) Sungenis claims that Bishop Rhoades is attempting to stop Sungenis from exposing and refuting this doctrinal error. (p. 12)

This essay will demonstrate not only that all of these charges are erroneous and slanderous, but that Sungenis' "evidence" amounted to no more than guilt by association and jumping to a rash, unwarranted conclusion. It will also demonstrate the real reason why Sungenis turned on Bishop Rhoades.

Since Robert Sungenis has, in the past, so entirely misrepresented events concerning me and many others who have confronted him regarding his treatment of Jewish issues, I decided to contact His Excellency, Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades, in order to give him an opportunity to respond to these serious charges. And as Sungenis and his followers have a history of attempting to overwhelm their “opponents” by the sheer volume and frequency of their “responses”, I made clear to His Excellency that I have no intention of pursuing a continuing dialogue about this matter. I am pleased to report that His Excellency decided to answer my inquiry.

Below is the text of what I wrote to His Excellency, Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades, bishop of the diocese of Harrisburg, PA:

Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades
Diocese of Harrisurg
4800 Union Deposit Road
Harrisburg, PA 17111

Your Excellency,

Although I am hesitant to do so for various reasons, I would like to bring to your attention a certain unfortunate matter. I’ll try to do so as briefly as possible as I’m sure you have a great deal to which you must attend.

I understand that there are elements of the situation involving Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International (now Bellarmine Theological Forum) and the diocese of Harrisburg that are of course private. However, Mr. Sungenis has now made public accusations about you based on selectively quoted private correspondence with you and other “evidence” that amounts to no more than innuendo and guilt by association. As such, I would like to pose four brief questions in a general way in order to give you an opportunity to clarify matters for the sake of all who may be confused or troubled by his accusations. Please rest assured that I do not intend to pursue a continuing series of questions and answers with you about this issue.

If this seems worthwhile to you, my questions are as follows:

1) Do you believe that the Jewish people have their own independent salvific covenant with God, apart from Jesus Christ, so that there are two independent saving covenants in effect today, one for Jews and one for Gentiles?

2) Do you believe that anyone reaches heaven without the mediation of Jesus Christ?

3) Do you understand anything on page 131 of the U.S. Catechism for Adults to mean that the Jewish people (or any group) have their own, independent saving path to God, outside of Jesus Christ?

4) Do you believe that the Church is called to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all peoples, including the Jewish people?


I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your time and consideration.

I also provided His Excellency with a copy of Sungenis’ article, The Old Covenant, Revoked or Not Revoked along with web address where it is presently located.

Below, one will find His Excellency’s response. The reader may click on each section to enlarge it, for easier viewing:

















(Bishop Rhoades' letter may also be viewed in pdf format here: Letter)

Sungenis’ bishop has thus entirely refuted Sungenis’ “slanderous and erroneous” charges.

I must candidly admit that even after personally witnessing the multiple occasions on which Sungenis has seriously misrepresented his interactions with me and so many others in order to exonerate or excuse himself, I still harbored at least some doubt that he would dare to engage in such deplorable behavior against a successor to the Apostles. My doubt proved to be unfounded.

It seems that in Sungenis’ mind, this is another debate to “win” and he is willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. Sungenis admits that from early on, “I fancied myself…a David, courageously defying the towering Catholic Goliath.” (Surprised by Truth, page 108) Sadly, it appears this perception of himself was never truly abandoned. His mindset still appears to be fundamentally Protestant, and has become even more so recently, by his own standards (Article). While the Protestant has “Scripture alone” as his rule, Sungenis has added magisterial texts and the writings of the Fathers of the Church (and most unfortunately, the writings of some very unsavory characters). Yet, ultimately, it is still Sungenis alone who determines the meaning of each text. And woe to you should you disagree with him…or if he even thinks you disagree with him, as Bishop Rhoades recently discovered.

Beating Himself Up?

It is worth reflecting on the extreme oddity of what has transpired. Who publicly exposed the fact that Bishop Rhoades had indicated he would publicly denounce Sungenis, if Sungenis refused to cease and desist from commenting on Jews and Judaism? Who exposed the fact that Bishop Rhoades had indicated he would enforce Canon 300, which prohibits organizations from appropriating the name “Catholic” without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority? Who exposed the fact that Bishop Rhoades had chastised Sungenis as evidencing a “lack of adherence to authoritative Church teaching on Judaism”?

Was it Bishop Rhoades?

No, it was Sungenis himself. All of these facts were divulged in articles written by Sungenis (“Catholic Apologetics International and its Teachings on the Jews”, henceforth CAITJ and “The Old Covenant, Revoked or Not Revoked”, henceforth OCRNR) and Sungenis’ new ally on Jewish issues, Thomas Herron (“Fear of the Jews in Harrisburg”, Culture Wars, Oct. 2007). And Sungenis has indicated that he personally approved Herron’s article.

How strange then to witness what has ensued. It is almost as if Sungenis was so clamoring for a fight that he grabbed the bishop’s hand and struck himself with it in order to justify his own aggression against His Excellency.

Forcing the Bishop’s Hand, Again?

So what, precisely, precipitated this deplorable turn of events? The answer is evident in Sungenis’ own articles if one can place oneself in the bishop’s position. In Sungenis’ article of July 31st, 2007 (CAI and Its Teaching on the Jews) he wrote:

Our bishop and his advisors are allowing us to express our views if they are stated in an inoffensive manner” (CAITJ, p. 2)

More recently, Sungenis has divulged the bishop’s directive more fully, stating that Bishop Rhoades

would “allow [me] to continue publishing and speaking on those matters of Catholic doctrine which pertain to the Jewish covenant and the role of Israel in salvation history, provided that you take an approach quite different in tone and content from the one pursued in the past.” (OCRNR, p. 11)

Continuing on in CAITJ (July 31st 2007), Sungenis then listed seven “theological positions” about Jews. A few things deserve mention in regard to these “seven points.”

It is evident that Sungenis believed his seven points were written in conformity with his bishop’s orders. In describing his July 31st article several months later in OCRNR, he wrote:

I subsequently wrote a new article whose ‘tone’ was proper…” (p. 11)

Notice that Sungenis failed to state that his bishop insisted that his writings needed to be “quite different” in both tone and content. It is equally evident that Sungenis never considered the propriety of engaging a lengthy, new criticism of Jews at the end of his supposed "apology" for attacking them - a criticism, by the way, that ran twice as long as this supposed "apology" (Article). Additionally, Sungenis never considered the possibility that after just having been called in by his bishop because of his offensive writing against Jews, it would be proper and prudent to submit these seven theological points to at least obtain his bishop’s reaction before publishing them. Unfortunately, Sungenis’ presumptuousness led to an entirely predictable reaction from Bishop Rhoades:

I was then told by the bishop that my opinions showed a lack of ‘charity and respect for the Jewish people and for Judaism itself.’ He then took back his previous offer to allow me to change the ‘tone’ of my articles and forthwith ordered me to stop writing about the Jews and Judaism altogether. (OCRNR, p.11)

We must again note that Bob chose to divulge his bishop’s intervention in the article CAITJ (July 31st). This is critical to understand, because in so doing, Sungenis had (no doubt unintentionally) likely heightened his bishop’s sensitivity to these new “theological points”. It could well appear now as though his bishop had approved the substance of those points for publication and as though he considered Bob’s tone and content to be proper. In fact, directly after his “seven points” Sungenis went on to thank Bishop Rhoades and the USCCB, thus implicitly linking them to this most current foray into Jewish issues.

Furthermore, it must be said that Sungenis’ “seven points” suffer at times from the same kind of error that I was once enlisted to edit while at CAI: a lack of distinction between Sungenis’ personal theological opinions and established facts. Additionally, a few of his points contain dubious, potentially problematic assertions (in particular, his statement in point #6 that appears to absolutely judge the moral culpability of all Jews - even those currently living - for not becoming Catholic, comes to mind as one that likely created an issue). And frankly, contrary to Sungenis’ assertion, even the tone of this section was too often unnecessarily contentious and polemical, especially as it was in the midst of an acknowledgment of error in regard to his Jewish writings.

We now know that, some time after reading CAITJ, Sungenis’ bishop concluded that Sungenis was simply incapable of handling even theological issues involving Jews responsibly and charitably. And therefore he understandably tightened the slack which he had permitted on the condition that Sungenis “take an approach quite different in tone and content from the one pursued in the past”. The fact is, this was a perfectly reasonable conclusion for the bishop to reach. If anything, Bishop Rhoades had been remarkably patient and kind with Sungenis, especially considering the fact that Sungenis had publicly smeared His Excellency a mere 5 days after receiving the “cease and desist” order (article), proceeded to post several more items attacking Jews, and left dozens of anti-Jewish items at the CAI website for a month after being given a two week timeframe in which to take them down. (see Article 1 and Article 2)

Apparently, Sungenis has never considered the possibility that his bishop may have become aware of this defiance and that this too may have played a role in his ultimate judgment that Sungenis is not capable of responsibly handling Jewish issues of any nature.

But Sungenis apparently could not (or perhaps did not want to) conceive of any legitimate reason why his bishop would do such a thing. So he jumped to the conclusion that Bishop Rhoades must hold to the dual salvific covenant error and promptly set about mentally compiling the “evidence”.

Examining Sungenis’ “Evidence”

We now have irrefutable evidence that Sungenis was completely wrong about Bishop Rhoades. But it is still worth examining exactly what “evidence” Sungenis believed he had that enabled him to feel justified in leveling such serious charges. The reader should keep in mind that the man making these charges is a long-time professional apologist and debater who claims to have earned a research doctorate in theology.

However, before going any further, it must be emphasized that Bishop Rhoades obviously never told Sungenis he believes the dual salvific covenant theory. Sungenis never cites any conversations, writings, or other words of Bishop Rhoades to back up his charges. In fact, it appears that Sungenis has never actually even spoken to the bishop. Yet, Sungenis felt perfectly free to jump to convenient conclusions and calumniate him for the second time (the first is documented here).

Now, in place of actual evidence in the form of Bishop Rhoades’ own words that he holds to the doctrinal error of which he is accused, what does Sungenis offer as “evidence”?

“Evidence” #1

First, Sungenis jumped to the worst possible conclusions based on the fact that Bishop Rhoades refused his application for an imprimatur on CASB2 (although this occurred back in December, 2006). His Excellency had referred to a section of the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults that contained a potentially problematic sentence about the Jewish people’s covenant with God (for a fuller treatment of why Sungenis was likely rejected for this imprimatur, click here).

The relevance of the USCCB’s liberal stance on the Jews was brought home to me loud and clear when the bishop of my diocese, Kevin C. Rhoades, denied an imprimatur to my book The Apocalypse of St. John and cited page 131 as one of his proofs that my book, amazingly enough, because it called for the conversion of the Jews and held them responsible for their historic disbelief in Christ, had a “lack of adherence to authoritative Church teaching on Judaism.” (OCRNR, p. 11)

The most obvious problem with Sungenis’ conclusion is that this section of the USCCA contains six sentences, not one, and the rest of those sentences focus on the special relationship the Jewish people still possess with God, the fact that we share a common heritage with the Jewish people, and an affirmation that the Church “deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of antisemitism leveled at any time or from any source against Jews.” And Sungenis’ CASB most certainly does run afoul of those sentences (see article). Additionally, the one controversial passage on which Sungenis fixated is ambiguous and not everyone interprets it in the same way that he has. This includes Bishop Rhoades and others at the USCCB (see article). It was thus inappropriate and unjustified for him to jump to the conclusion that the bishop holds the most problematic interpretation.

“Evidence” #2

Second, just as he had back in early July 2007, Sungenis once again tried to impugn Bishop Rhoades by associating him with Cardinal Keeler:

Rhoades’ allegiances are not difficult to discern. His lifelong mentor is William Cardinal Keeler who was the previous bishop of Harrisburg and who ordained Rhoades to that position in 2004. It appears that he and Keeler are on the same wavelength when it comes to reinterpreting Catholic doctrine to accommodate the Jews. Keeler was the lone representative for the USCCB who signed the Reflections on Covenant and Missions document with Jewish rabbis in 2002…

Of course, this tactic of “guilt by association” is completely inappropriate and irresponsible on its face. But his claim crumbles even further when the facts are examined:

a) Sungenis provided absolutely no evidence that Cardinal Keeler was Bishop Rhoades’ “lifelong mentor.” This invalid tactic is known as an “ipse dixit”, or more colloquially, "it is so because I say so".

b) Sungenis provided absolutely no evidence that Cardinal Keeler and Bishop Rhoades have ever even discussed something like the dual covenant theory.

c) Sungenis claimed that Cardinal Keeler ordained Bishop Rhoades. But as so often in the past, Sungenis was being deceptive by selectively presenting the facts. Indeed, Cardinal Keeler was present at Bishop Rhoades’ ordination. However, as anyone can discover with just a little effort, there were three bishops present, not one, and Cardinal Keeler wasn’t the principal consecrator (see Catholic-Hierarchy.org). That honor belonged to Cardinal Rigali. Additionally, Bishop Olmstead was present as a co-consecrator. Would Sungenis care to smear Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Olmstead as well? And what of the many other bishops that Cardinal Keeler has consecrated? Are they all automatically guilty of the doctrinal error with which Sungenis charges Bishop Rhoades?

d) Even if Cardinal Keeler and Bishop Rhoades were close friends—and, again, Sungenis has provided no evidence to support that assertion—this in no way proves that Bishop Rhoades and Cardinal Keeler must therefore agree on this issue. And, of course, now we know for certain that they do not agree on this issue.

“Evidence” #3

Third and finally, Sungenis tried to associate Bishop Rhoades with a comment allegedly made by the Vicar General, Fr. King:

During the meeting, the vicar general, Fr. William King, JCD, made a remark to the effect that, as Catholics, “we don’t believe in supersessionism any longer.” Although I did not make a response at that time, I knew upon leaving the building the erroneous theology he, Rhoades and the USCCB were attempting to propagate to unsuspecting Catholics. (p. 11, OCRNR)

There are four primary observations that may be made.

a) As is clear from both Sungenis’ account and Thomas Herron’s account, Bishop Rhoades himself was not even present at this meeting. Sungenis met with Fr. King and Fr. Massa. Therefore, he took the convenient liberty of attributing the import of Fr. King’s alleged statement to Bishop Rhoades. This is completely inappropriate and invalid argumentation.

b) Sungenis has a long history of being less than accurate when using quotation marks (see here). So, one may be excused for being particularly skeptical when Sungenis sees fit to discount the accuracy of this alleged quotation with the words “to the effect that.”

c) If Fr. King did indeed say exactly what Sungenis claims, we still would need to know what he means by “supersessionism”. If he understands it in the way that Sungenis appears to—namely, that there is no special place whatsoever for ethnic Israel in salvation history after the coming of Jesus Christ—then it is perfectly acceptable to say that we, as Catholics, do not believe that. [Note: click here and here for a discussion of the term "supersessionism" and Bobs' continued misuse of it.]

d) One will note that Sungenis is now claiming that at his July 27th, 2007 meeting at the Diocese of Harrisburg, he “knew upon leaving the building the erroneous theology [Fr. King], Rhoades and the USCCB were attempting to propagate to unsuspecting Catholics." (OCRNR, p. 11: January, 2008). So, according to Sungenis himself, he knew right then and there at this meeting that these men were intent upon spreading their dangerous heresy to innocent Catholics.

This point is a very serious charge, indeed. And as such, one can understand why a man like Sungenis could absolutely never allow such evil to continue unabated without immediately making every effort to expose the perpetrators for the frauds and subversives that they truly are.

Except that he did precisely that, and much more.

Refer back to his article of July 31st, 2007 (CAITJ), the “permanent” statement about the Jewish people that mysteriously disappeared just a while before Sungenis recommenced attacking Bishop Rhoades. What did Sungenis have to say about Bishop Rhoades, Fr. King and Fr. Massa just four days after this meeting in which he now claims he “knew upon leaving the building the erroneous theology [Fr. King], Rhoades and the USCCB were attempting to propagate to unsuspecting Catholics”? Did Sungenis utter a single negative word about Bishop Rhoades, Fr. King, or Fr. Massa and their doctrinal beliefs at that time? No. To the contrary, he praised these men to the high heavens, pledged filial loyalty and submission to them and assured his followers that His Excellency's teaching in regard to Jewish issues was trustworthy.

I take their wisdom and counsel with the utmost seriousness and consider their direction as if it was from God himself. I consider it an honor not only to be a member of the Catholic Church but also to be under the vigilance of such wise and caring pastors. In short, I consider it a privilege to obey them.

If in the future we write any new material on the Jews, it will always be with the required due diligence, as if the bishop were present with us. Since he acts in God’s stead, we will do our utmost to please him so as to preserve the peace and tranquility he so desires to maintain in the body of Christ.

With the deepest appreciation to my bishop, the Very Reverend Kevin Rhoades, his vicar general, the Very Reverend William King, the Reverend James Massa and the USCCB…

Neither our obedience to our bishop nor our bishop's directives [about Bob's handling of Jewish issues] should in any way be interpreted as either of us compromising on the truth, but only that the truth be communicated with....a 'human and Christian spirit'...both in its content and in its tone. (Article)

And so, how is one to explain Bob's utterly contradictory stories about what happened at his meeting at the Diocese of Harrisburg? The answer may be found, again, in the letter he wrote shortly after his meeting at the Diocese of Harrisburg to his friend Edgar Suter:

The bishop allowed me to work out a compromise with him…We both win, because I, according to him, represent the Catholic Church with the name of Catholic in the title "Catholic Apologetics International."…If I have read them wrong and their intention is to censor me wholesale, then I will demand a trial and I will bring it as far up the hierarchial [sic] ladder as possible in order to fight it. For now, there is no reason to fight it, because both parties are in a win-win situation.” (Sungenis email of August 5th, 2007, forwarded by Sungenis supporter Edgar Suter to a wide audience).

Thus are Sungenis’ true motivations exposed. And it does not comport well at all with the portrait Sungenis has painted of himself as a warrior righteously battling the pernicious errors that “Rhoades” was “attempting to propagate to unsuspecting Catholics.” The truth is that Sungenis engaged in a simple, self-serving calculation. He first portrayed himself as a meek, faithful, obedient "son of the Church" and then he praised Bishop Rhoades, the USCCB, and the bishop's representatives in the most glowing terms when they permitted him to use the name "Catholic" to market himself and his work. But as soon as Bishop Rhoades revoked that privilege because of Bob's persistent inability to restrain his anti-Jewish extremism and hostility, Bob changed tactics, went on the attack against these men, charged them with heresy, and attempted to portray himself as a victimized righteous crusader for orthodoxy.

This is obviously very strongly-worded criticism. However, I believe it is not only justified, but necessary in order to clearly convey the ugliness and dishonesty of what Sungenis has chosen to do.

Not by Tone Alone…

Sungenis has also recently attempted to engage in some revisionist history. On page 11 of OCRNR, he states:

Although I did decide to calm some of the storm by removing Jewish articles from my website so that, as the bishop requested, they could be edited for “tone,” when I subsequently wrote a new article whose “tone” was proper... (emphasis added) .

And

He then took back his previous offer to allow me to change the “tone” of my articles and forthwith ordered me to stop writing about the Jews and Judaism altogether (emphasis added).

But was he admonished for his tone alone? No. As we have already seen, Sungenis went on to provide the evidence in this very same article when he quoted Bishop Rhoades’ actual words:

[Bishop Rhoades] told me, (quoting his own words), that he would "allow [me] to continue publishing and speaking on those matters of Catholic doctrine which pertain to the Jewish covenant and the role of Israel in salvation history, provided that you take an approach quite different in tone and content from the one pursued in the past" (emphasis added.)

Furthermore, in Sungenis’ July 31st, 2007 letter, CAITJ, he was completely clear:

the shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work have asked me to reconsider the tone and content with which I write about the Jewish people for CAI. They provided me various examples in which I have crossed the line into inappropriate language and accusations, and I communicated to them my agreement with their overall assessment.

So Sungenis has known all along that the problem was not just with his tone, but with his “content” and “accusations”. The reason this is significant is that Sungenis has subsequently resisted admitting anything beyond a fault with his style. He has consistently refused to admit that he has made errors of substance or content. But it is clear that Bishop Rhoades and the USCCB have corrected him not only for his style, but for his substance in regard to Jewish issues. For his part, before he went on the offense, Sungenis acknowledged that “I communicated to them my agreement...” It is disingenuous to circle back around now and claim that Bishop Rhoades changed the terms of the discussion.

Fear of Robert Sungenis in Harrisburg?

Sungenis has made much of the fact that his letter to the bishop went unanswered. We have seen that Sungenis has a tendency to reach unwarranted conclusions. And it is clear that he has done so again in regard to the reason for Bishop Rhoades' recent “silence”. Sungenis wrote:

I subsequently wrote the bishop a letter saying that… I would be quite happy to expose the belief in Dual Covenant theology that he and the USCCB were apparently promoting. After four months, there has been no response from the chancellery. (OCRNR, pp 11-12)

In a more recent e-mail, he raised the issue again. However, he also amplified the fact that he wrote his bishop a fifteen page letter, not to seek clarification of His Excellency’s views, but to openly accuse him of holding to a false doctrine and to press his bishop for a defense of it:

When, in a 15-page letter I then sent him, I asked him to show me from Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium where he could support his anti-supersessionism, he didn’t reply. (e-mail of 20 Feb 2008)

It seems evident that Sungenis believes he has cowed and silenced Bishop Rhoades by the sheer force of his arguments and the threat of being "exposed" as a Judaizing heretic to the Vatican. No doubt, the bishop was reduced to silence, but for a very different reason. Can there be any real doubt that the extreme rashness and impudence exhibited in Sungenis' letter would merely have served to confirm in Bishop Rhoades' mind that he was correct in ordering Sungenis to completely cease and desist from commenting on anything involving the Jewish people? Is it difficult to imagine that Bishop Rhoades would have come to the conclusion that it was not possible to have a reasonable, constructive discussion with a person possessed of such an arrogant, judgmental and contentious mindset?

And yet, remarkably, Sungenis now even attempts to justify his flagrant disobedience by appealing to this slanderous charge he has leveled against Bishop Rhoades:

it was up to him to prove his case against me, since it now became a matter of faith and morals, for I am not required to obey the bishop if he is going against Catholic faith and morals. Anti-supersessionism is against Catholic faith and morals (ibid.).

Sungenis' continuing extreme double-standards are further exposed when we consider the following complaint just registered against his former vice-president, Ben Douglass:

Mr. Douglass will be the judge, jury and executioner to determine when someone has crossed the line into 'too soon, too much and too eagerly'; beyond what is merited. Mr. Douglass, a person with no ecclesiastical or canonical authority, nevertheless, decides that he will set the 'too much' bar for how the rest of the Catholic world will be allowed to judge...Amazing. (email of Feb 20, 2008)

Clearly, it is Sungenis, who has elevated himself to the position of "judge, jury and executioner" of his own bishop even though he has "no ecclesiastical or canonical authority." Amazing, indeed.

A Prayer for Better Things

Again, it appears clear from Sungenis’ rhetoric that he truly believes he has “slain Goliath” and emerged "victorious". But reports of the good bishop’s demise are premature—he has now been completely vindicated from Sungenis’ false charges. Furthermore, the severe lack of wisdom, prudence and discernment evident in Sungenis' actions has also served to confirm the wisdom of Bishop Rhoades' orders.

Clearly, Bishop Rhoades intended to help Sungenis. But he also intended to protect the Church and the Jewish people by making it clear that Sungenis’ views of the Jewish people are solely his own and not the Church’s. At least his second objective has been accomplished. And as such, one tends to doubt that Bishop Rhoades is inclined to provide Sungenis with the platform he evidently desires (a canonical trial) from which to cause further harm to the Church and others.

It is truly lamentable that Sungenis has chosen to view and approach matters with his bishop in this contentious way, because I sense in Bishop Rhoades - whose episcopal motto is “Veritatem in caritate” - a man of great patience and mercy. Instead, Sungenis has chosen to follow the counsel of "friends" like E. Michael Jones, Thomas Herron and Edgar Suter, who readily tickle his ears and encourage his worst impulses and suspicions.

At this point, all one can do is pray that Robert comes to his senses, repents of his slanderous charges, and realizes that the “Goliath” he tried to slay is in fact the very man God mercifully placed over him as his shepherd and father in the faith.

Subsequent articles further refuting Sungenis' false and slanderous accusations against Bishop Rhoades:

A Defense of Bishop Rhoades from More False Accusations by Robert Sungenis

Bishop Rhoades and the Dual Covenant Theory

By Sungenis Alone

Sungenis vs. Sungenis vs. Jones

Lumen Gentium, Vatican II:

"Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishop’s decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind.” #25

“The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them…by the authority and sacred power which indeed they exercise exclusively for the spiritual development of their flock…This power, which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary and immediate…In virtue of this power bishops have a sacred right and a duty for the Lord of legislating for and of passing judgment on their subjects…

The pastoral charge, that is, the permanent and daily care of their sheep, is entrusted to them fully…for they exercise the power which they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern.” #27

The Clinton Connection

While watching the controversies surrounding Bob Sungenis unfold, I have repeatedly been struck by the parallels between his behavior and that of former President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary. This comparison, of course, is hardly flattering to Bob. How serious, then, to find a self-proclaimed Catholic apologist behaving in ways that so closely parallel the behavior of such individuals. And yet, it is precisely for that reason that this essay is important, I think, for character is truly the issue. As there appear to be at least a few who sincerely do not understand the nature and seriousness of the problem in this regard, it seemed to me that the use of this analogy might help to make matters clearer for them.

I do not broach this topic lightly or flippantly. But the Catholic apologetics community and the public at large really does need to know who it is dealing with when a man claims so stridently to represent the Catholic Church and her teachings. This is particularly true in regard to an issue as sensitive as Catholic–Jewish relations and most especially when this sensitive issue has been treated with reckless disregard for the truth and basic standards of decent behavior.

For example, when the information broke out that the President had been having an immoral relationship with Monica Lewinsky (whom Sungenis claimed had been sent in by "the Jews" to bring down Clinton), the President's wife was quick to attach the blame, not to her husband whom she knew full well was a serial adulterer, but rather to a "vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president" (link). Bob Sungenis has been caught citing Nazis, repeatedly plagiarizing sources, issuing threats to former CAI associates and correspondents, publishing the most bigoted language against Jews, slandering Catholic converts from Judaism and his own bishop, and much more. But he's never truly taken responsibility for his own actions. Rather, he has chosen repeatedly to spin it all as a great conspiracy to destroy him:

as soon as I began to speak critically on Jewish issues and point out the severe lack of critical Catholic judgment on them, most of my former friends and colleagues have made it their determined goal to ostracize me from the Catholic community and precipitate my financial ruin, which is particularly disturbing because I have a wife and nine children to support. Every day [sic!] for the past five years I have experienced malicious character assassinations, half-truths, set ups, deceit, gossip, hatred and assortment of distortions of my life and work that I had hardly dreamed was possible. (The Old Covenant, Revoked or Not Revoked, footnote 1, pp 1-2)

In the very image of the Clintons, Bob just can't seem to imagine that anybody would respond vigorously when he does things such as: accusing Jews of promoting pedophilia and of being inherently violent, recruiting CAI patrons to try and "out" his opponents as closet Jews, or treating Jewish converts to Catholicism as malicious subversives, to name but a few examples. Rather, he conveniently concludes that it must be everybody else's malicious nature that would cause them to respond negatively to his words and actions. Similarly, like the Clintons, he and his supporters can't seem to grasp the distinction between the immoral actions of an unjust aggressor and the moral actions of those who seek to defend the targets of that aggression.

Another common feature of the Clintons is their blatant double standards. For example, when radio shock jock Don Imus used the word "ho's" to refer to members of the Rutger's University womens' basketball team, Senator Hillary Clinton personally sent an e-mail to her supporters denouncing Imus for his "small-minded bigotry and coarse sexism." But Clinton had no problem accepting $800,000 in campaign contributions from rapper Timbaland, whose lyrics are replete with the word "ho" (link).

And with Bob Sungenis, as with the Clintons, double standards are legion. For example, while claiming to be a Catholic apologist par excellence, Bob has repeatedly adopted non-Catholic methods of argumentation and evaluation of evidence in order to deny the powerful Catholic consensus that there will be a future special conversion of Jews to Christ (see numerous examples in The Ongoing Role of the Jews in Salvation History.)

In his piece "My Ph.D. from Calamus International University" Bob sneeringly denigrated the credentials of Jacob Michael, while at the very time employing Ben Douglass—whose credentials are essentially identical to Michaels'—as Senior VP of Apologetics at CAI (see Just What the Doctor Ordered?).

Sungenis was livid when Michael Forrest went public with www.sungenisandthejews.com (after numerous attempts to remonstrate with Bob privately), blustering that, "The least you could have done with something this serious is allow me to give the other side of the story along side of yours so that the viewing public could judge for themselves" ("Michael Forrest and the Jews"). But as was pointed out in Comments on a Controversy, Sungenis never once contacted such individuals as David Moss, Roy Schoeman, and now his own ordinary, Bishop Rhoades, in order to accurately ascertain their beliefs before publicly charging them with the most extreme deviations from the Catholic faith.

Sungenis was equally livid when former colleagues were compelled by justice to make certain e-mails public in order to defend various individuals from false charges. But at the same time, Sungenis himself has been perfectly willing to utilize private e-mails. However, he did so not to defend anyone from injustice, but simply to embarrass and cajole his opponents (see An Update on the Negotiations).

For many more examples see also "More Double Standards" in Sources, Schoeman, and the Credibility of Bob Sungenis, "Double Standards Abound" in David Palm's Defense of Michael Forrest and the examples in Just What the Doctor Ordered?.

Another tendency the Clintons have is to engage in provocative behavior only to then accuse their opponent of doing the very thing they have done. Recently, for example, in order to try and blunt a win for Barack Obama in South Carolina, Bill Clinton injected racial issues into the Clinton/Obama contest in a number of stump speeches. When Obama finally was forced to respond, the Clinton campaign turned around and blamed Obama for...you guessed it...introducing race into the contest. As the New York Times reported:

Former President Bill Clinton defended himself Wednesday against accusations that he and his wife had injected the issue of race into the Democratic presidential primary in South Carolina, and he accused Senator Barack Obama of Illinois of putting out a "hit job" on him (link).

Again, the parallels to Bob's behavior are remarkable. Back when this controversy had been newly ignited by the publication of www.sungenisandthejews.com, Bob insisted that his wife was an independent witness to a critical phone conversation that he had had with Michael Forrest:

Oh sure. I'm just making all this up about Mr. Forrest having another gig opportunity in 2005! Where would I ever get the notion that Mr. Forrest had an upcoming gig and that his promoter was looking at our website, if not from Mr. Forrest?? My wife was a witness to this whole series of events, and she can't believe that Mr. Forrest is now denying this! Sure, Mr. Forrest quit his band in 2004, but what does that have to do with Mr. Forrest seeking a solo gig at a new concert in 2005?? (Sungenis, Michael Forrest and the Jews; my emphasis).

And in another place Bob even denigrated his own recollection of the events, thus magnifying the importance of his wife's allegedly independent testimony:

But regardless of our respective views on who left and who got fired, the thing that bothers me the most is HOW this all came about. Whether Mr. Forrest left or I fired him is nothing compared to the absolute betrayal I endured under Mr. Forrest's hand because of his sudden actions against me. I have forgotten many of the details of the events that transpired, but my wife was also a witness to these events, and she has a memory like an elephant. She also knows the great pain I went through when Mr. Forrest decided to betray me so suddenly. (Question 50, November 2006; my emphasis)

So he admitted that his own memory is faulty—although this never stopped him from making the most outlandish charges against Forrest with absolute certitude—but backed up his own deficiencies by resorting to his wife's memory. The obvious problem is that his wife simply does not have any independent access to the facts—she was not an eyewitness at all, but got the details of Bob's conversations with Michael Forrest from Bob himself. Here's how I presented this in my essay Sources, Schoeman, and Sungenis:

This hasn't stopped [Sungenis] from continuing to insist that Forrest is lying (most recently in a private email to me of January 20, 2007: "As the record stands, not only was Mr. Forrest going to play music at this speaking engagement, he was in the process of trying to get even more opportunities to speak and play his music. That's what he told me on the phone ... Ask him. If he denies it, he's a liar."). In the same Q & A in which he admits his own lapse of memory he brings his wife into the fray: "my wife was also a witness to these events, and she has a memory like an elephant" (ibid.).

I considered it highly unlikely that Mrs. Sungenis actually heard the phone conversation of on or around 1 March 2005; at the very least, if she had, one would have expected her to use her elephantine memory to help Bob avoid making repeated mistakes of established fact during this controversy: No Bob, there was no music gig. No Bob, there was no concert promoter. No Bob, Michael doesn't play the guitar. No Bob, Michael never said anything about his promoter being worried about CAI. Etc.

I asked for clarification of this point. Bob answered that, "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" (private e-mail of January 20, 2007). But Bob sidesteps the crucial question: did his wife hear the specific conversation in question, in which Forrest presented to Bob his reasons for leaving CAI? Forrest, well acquainted with speaker-phones in his line of business, is quite certain that this conversation was not held on a speaker-phone and anybody who has carried on such a conversation knows that one can tell if the other party is using such a device.

But even if Mrs. Sungenis was privy to this conversation between Michael and Bob, she gave Forrest no indication that she was listening in, which is clearly an ethical breach of privacy and not at all praiseworthy. For my part, I do not believe that she was eavesdropping and thus she is in no position to be an independent witness to these matters.

As such, it seems more likely that Bob's wife parroted back to him the same distorted characterization of events he undoubtedly shared with her after his conversation with Forrest in the first place. If this counts as an "eye witness" then Mr. Michael would certainly be a credible "eye witness," since he too was in conversation with Michael Forrest both before and during Forrest's departure from CAI, and has seen both sides of the email correspondence. The obvious difference in terms of objectivity is that neither I nor Jacob Michael are married to Forrest (Sources, Schoeman, and Sungenis).

That's it. Bob brought his wife into the argument, claiming that she was an independent witness to a conversation between him and Michael Forrest. I questioned that claim and gave my reasons for so doing. How did Bob proceed to spin this? It's easy to figure it out—just ask yourself, What Would Bill Do? That's right. After bringing his own wife into the controversy and then dodging pointed questions about whether she really was an independent eyewitness to the events in question, Bob followed up—in another rant reminiscent of Bill's "hit job"and Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy"—by claiming, not just that we had introduced his wife into the controversy, but that we had "attacked" her:

I have been on the forefront of Catholic apologetics exposing the errors and agenda of these Jewish racists for the last five years. You can imagine what they have tired [sic] to do to me. Relentless attacks on my personal life, my academic life, my theological and biblical knowledge, my apostolate, even my wife and children ("Catholics Falling for Jewish Errors").

This is vintage Clinton...or Sungenis. But the bottom line is that we now know for certain that Bob was lying about his wife having independent access to information about Forrest, because we found where Bob himself had accidentally admitted that he gave her the details of his interactions with Forrest. Here's how it was reported at this blog:

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)

(More Notable Quotes From Sungenis)

Another example of this propensity to accuse his opponents of the very thing he just did himself occurred back in the spring of 2007. Bob managed to coerce a CAI patron named Bill to approach Jacob Michael under cover of anonymity, to ask Jacob if he had Jewish ancestry. Frankly, this can only be viewed as the product of an extremely paranoid mind—accusing your opponents of being closet Jews is also a move right out of the Nazi play book. As an aside, the whole thing starts to take on the character of a Monty Python sketch when one finds Fr. Nicolas Gruner accusing E. Michael Jones (Sungenis' mentor and ally on "Jewish issues"), who has his own problems with anti-Semitic rhetoric, of being a closet Jew:

For his part, Father Nicholas Gruner, defender of the secrets of Fatima—and someone frequently taken to task by Fidelity for his obsession with alleged marian messages—shows his colors when he tells Cuneo that "Jones is secretly a Jew. He's a Marrano, planted in the American Church to confuse Catholics and sow hatred against people like myself. I think most of us have figured that out by now" (The Smoke of Satan, First Things, Dec 1997).

This is all the more remarkable when we consider a satire written about Sungenis entitled, “The Zionist Conspiracy Deepens” in which life comes amazingly close to imitating art; in this satire an even-more-paranoid anti-Semite ends up accusing Sungenis, who is referred to as "Robert Hanswurst", of being a closet Zionist:

The reality is, this man, who once fearlessly investigated and exposed Zionist conspiracies and plots across the globe by means of such ironclad proof as: Pope Paul VI wearing a Jewish ephod, FDR’s likely Jewish ancestry and Pope John Paul II’s secret love of bagels, is a Zionist himself...

Who else but Hanswurst is going after the Jews with such sustained intensity and notoriety? Who else but Hanswurst has even managed to elicit sympathy from our ally Louis Farrakhan toward the Jews by his constant, ferocious attacks (“Those poor Jews!” Louis Farrakhan, August 2005)? Who else but Hanswurst has clandestinely tipped the enemy off as to our real views and aims by incredibly damaging “accidents”? The truth is there for the objective to see: Hanswurst is using the same tactics he proved that the Jews used back in the days of the Holocaust: fomenting intense global distrust of and anger against the Jews with the underlying intent of eliciting sympathy which in turn will facilitate the spread of Zionism. The conclusion is thus inescapable: Hanswurst is a Zionist.

To reiterate, my intention here is not to ridicule Bob Sungenis. But perhaps a little humor is appropriate in the face of men whose paranoia is such that every adversary is suspected of being a closet Jew, while at the same time they claim vociferously not to be anti-Semitic.

Returning to the issue at hand, when Jacob uncovered the "plot" to "out" him as a Jew, he and Bill had a private heart-to-heart conversation (via e-mail) about the things Bob had been saying and doing for the past 5 years. Unfortunately, Bill sent this private correspondence to Bob. And what did Bob do? He published it on his web site, tagged with his own rebuttal. Now let's be clear. Jacob Michael did not publicize this information, Bob did. He put Jacob's accusations of anti-Semitism, made in private, in a public place where all of his readers could see them, and then proceeded to challenge Jacob, publicly, to provide the documented proof.

And so Jacob did just that - in the RSATJ post Sixteen Proofs of Sungenis's Antisemitism. At this point, Bob (again) went ballistic and (again) threatened to sue Jacob for libel.

So, let's review. Bob sent Bill to "uncover" Jacob Michael's alleged Jewish ancestry; then Bob published Jacob's private correspondence with Bill on his website; he then went on to publicly demand that Jacob prove his charges; and then he became irate and started threatening a lawsuit when Jacob did precisely what Bob demanded (providing proof). This is right out of the Clinton bag of tricks.

Another obvious parallel between Clinton and Sungenis is the amazing plasticity words have when either man needs to wiggle out of a sticky situation. When it was convenient for him, former President Clinton suddenly had difficulty remembering the basic definitions of salient words like "is" and "sex". Similarly, when it is convenient for him, Bob Sungenis has difficulty locating the dictionary definition for salient words like "anti-Semitism", "plagiarism", "vigilante", "calumny", "libel", "disavow" and even well-defined Catholic words such as "Judaizer". Perhaps even more clintonian is the fact that he accused his opponents of not defining their terms or of adopting false definitions. See Sungenis's Definition Difficulties and More Definition Difficulties.

Again, the purpose of documenting these parallels to the Clintons is not to ridicule Bob Sungenis. Rather, it is to help people more easily understand the nature of some serious character deficiencies that have resulted in some very serious injustices against both individuals and groups. Hopefully such an analysis can serve both as a warning to the Catholic apologetics community at large and also as a mirror for Bob himself, so that he might eventually come to the realization of how badly he has been behaving and amend his ways.

The bottom line is that when one presumes to lead others, whether as president of the United States or president of a purportedly Catholic apostolate, trustworthiness is absolutely vital. It really is character that counts most.

David Palm