Proverbs 26:11

More Broken Promises, More Attacks

As documented most fully here, the perplexing pattern of going on the offense, issuing a pseudo-apology for offense, promising to change course, and then totally reversing course and going back to more offenses - continues unabated at Sungenis’ organization, BTF.

In January, 2008, Sungenis made the following promise:

Sungenis: “Because such political, cultural and social criticism of the Jews can so easily be misunderstood, I have decided to refrain from any more dealings with those aspects of Jewish life. I’ll leave criticism of Jewish politics and culture to people more capable than I apparently am. My expertise is in theology, and that is where I will put all my efforts. Hence, any future dealings that I have with the Jews, whether on our website or in published articles, will only concern the theological side of things. As you can see by the Jewish material presently on our website, every article is about theological matters, and that will always be the policy of our apostolate from here on out… I will not be expressing those (Jewish, non-theological) opinions in my speeches, articles, website or any other public venue. Again, I will only be expressing my thoughts in public that deal with the theological dimensions, as our apostolate has done for the past several months. ” (January 25, 2008)

If one reads Sungenis’ entire statement, one will note a complete lack of reference to anyone at RSATJ or Sungenis’ bishop, the Most Reverend Kevin C. Rhoades. Sungenis’ promise here emanated from his own personal discernment. Of course, if one has followed Sungenis’ affairs, a remarkably similar statement issued by Sungenis in the fall of 2006 will likely come to mind - Sungenis “Open Letter” (which can be found here)

And just as Sungenis broke his promises in 2006, he has done so in 2008. At present, there are many entries at BTF that violate Sungenis’ promise to stick solely to theological issues. And even when an issue is primarily theological in nature, Sungenis’ animus against Jews is still readily apparent.

Sungenis’ continuing anti-Jewish course only further validates Bishop Rhoades’ wisdom in directing Sungenis to stop writing about all Jewish issues and further underscores that the problem has never been about the dual covenant error. That argument is and has always been a canard.

The first example of such promise-breaking, Jim Condit Warns of ABC’s “Jesus, Mary and DaVinci" – the opening sentence of which is “Top Media Jews Commit This Year's Holy Week Atrocity” - dredges up some of the very same anti-Semites that first created problems for Sungenis back in 2002 (as documented by Dr. Bill Cork and a number of others here ). One will find familiar names like Dilling, Hoffman, Pranaitis and Piper in this article now posted at Sungenis’ site.

Additionally, in this article, one will find the interesting claim that "The Talmud, or at least most of it, was developed...about 200 BC when the Rabbis and Pharisees who rejected Christianity started to put together their own man-made defense of their now superceded religion." How the "Rabbis and Pharisees" began opposing Christianity 200 years before Christ was born is left unexplained. Perhaps Condit was simply confused between "AD" and "BC".

Then we have Bob’s review of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, in which (among other things), we experience the déjà vu of another misleading and false "quote" intended to prove the Jewish make-up of a purported political cabal. This time, conservative columnist David Brooks is the victim (article).

Next is the article Overlooked Millions: Non-Jewish Victims of the Holocaust, which - in an an eery echo of a statement Sungenis made soon before Michael Forrest quit CAI - informs us that the claims of "millions" of deaths in the concentration camps are "highly exaggerated." (p. 12)

And in Q&A #76, we read the following:

Questioner: I was wondering if someone could tell me how accurate Texe Marrs' claims are about Jewish world domination in his video 'The Power of Prophecy'

Sungenis: …his material seems to be factual and his analysis fairly accurate, at least when it comes to Jewish issues. Unlike most commentators today, Marrs is unafraid to tell the negative side on Jewish matters.

For those who have followed Sungenis' anti-Jewish crusade, the name Texe Marrs may ring a bell. In fact, Bob gave an infamous radio interview - the one in which he posited that Jews sent in Monica Lewinsky to take down President Clinton - at a station that features Marrs and other interesting characters. Some of the "interesting" titles to be found at Marrs' website are:

Slaves of Zion—America Has Become a Jewish Colony
Now We Are All Toiling on the Zionist USA Slave Plantation
9-11 Evil—Israel's Central Role in the Sept. 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks
All Hail the Jewish Master Race
The Synagogue of Satan: The Secret History of Jewish World Domination.

One will also discover such anti-Catholic titles as:

Vatican Rising: The Seduction of Christianity and the Triumph of Rome
The Vatican Terminator
The Pope, the Devil and the Masonic Lodge
Is The Pope Catholic?—Shocking Revelations About the World's Most Powerful Religious Leader
Vatican Rising—The Seduction of Christianity and the Triumph of Rome

In The Vatican Terminator, we read:

Satan has chosen a new Pope. This new, chosen vessel will not only inherit the ecumenical legacy of the aging and increasingly frail Pope John Paul II, he will be endowed with the occult energies to found and organize a stunning New World Religion.

In the ad for Vatican Rising we read:

Triumphantly, the Pope is adored by multitudes who tout him as their "Holy Father." He occupies a regal throne and claims to speak for God. Some believe he is God! So, what now? Are hidden supernatural powers about to be unleashed that will magnify the Pope and crown him Lord of all?

Yet, disturbingly, Bob is completely unfazed by Marrs' anti-Catholicism, even going so far as to excuse it. Bob writes:

Marrs, of course, does have his issues with the Catholic Church, but who doesn't? Many leaders in the Catholic Church today are complicit with the negative material Marrs uncovers. (source)

Even Protestant apologist James White has described Marrs as a "true anti-Catholic." Ironically, after accusing others of having greater "allegiances" to Jewish causes than the Catholic faith, it appears that Bob has greater allegiances to his fellow anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists than he does to the Catholic faith. What does it matter if Marrs is out and about teaching that the Holy Father is Satan's chosen one? Marrs understands the problem with Jews!

Another extreme example at BTF is Bob’s friend and perhaps most vocal supporter, Edgar Suter. An extended screed that is representative of Suter's writing can be found in the January, 2008 issue of Culture Wars (pp 2-4). In this letter, Suter expresses his aspiration that a future Pope will exhume John Paul II's corpse, cut off his fingers, and throw his mutilated body into the Tiber River. Ben Douglass has also confirmed that Suter was a source of blatantly 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 the 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.

More to the case at hand, Suter 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)

Even Fr. Brian Harrison, who has recently come publicly to Bob’s defense, described Suter’s rant as “totally paranoid” and “crazy” (email of February 7, 2008). Father Harrison later characterized Suter as one of the “real anti-Semitic Catholics….brimming with hostility and suspicion against everything Jewish” (email of March 6, 2008). Yet Bob cannot even manage to distance himself from Suter.

Another pertinent Q and A on Jewish issues currently at BTF is #44. Below is the last section of the entry:

The goals [of the] Christ Crucifiers has [sic] been for hundreds of years 1) Get the deicide crime abolished. 2) Get the Old Covenant to be still valid for them by the Vatican. 3) Get the Noahide Laws established worldwide by placing 5th columns in the 5 great religions of the world.

And what was Sungenis' response? In response to his patron’s slander of modern Jews as "Christ Crucifiers," one might hope Sungenis would at least quote Nostra Aetate #4: "what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."

Maybe he would even quote another passage: "this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues."

Perhaps he might even have gone as far as to fraternally admonish his patron for regurgitating the kind of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories that he himself had finally promised to swear off.

Unfortunately, Sungenis chose none of the above. Instead, he replied:

R. Sungenis: And that's why we are here to preach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ- in order to rebut these false ideas.

And thus he confirmed his patron's "wisdom" and the continuing purpose of CAI-BTF.

Of course, then we have the following excerpt from Sungenis’ recent review of E. Michael Jones’ latest book, which Sungenis remarkably praised as “like a sequel to the Bible”:

" Jones,...makes an indelible impression upon our minds as he adds two millennia of documented facts and figures onto St. Paul's final and sobering assessment of the Jews: 'the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone, trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins' (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16)....All his facts and figures are for the purpose of showing us that St. John's label of godless Jews as the 'synagogue of Satan,' the spirit of Antichrist, is not only alive and well today but has almost completely overwhelmed our modern society, thus serving as a public omen to the world that the Apocalypse has, indeed, come upon us, in full and furious force" (article).

Certainly, this contemporary, broad-brush condemnation of the Jewish people also seems to run directly contrary to Nostra Aetate’s teaching that, "what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." (#4)

Very recently, Sungenis has added a “news alert” bewailing the fact Amazon.com has refused to sell the latest book written by his colleague and source of Jewish information, Michael Hoffman II. Hoffman, of course, is a notorious Holocaust “Revisionist” and conspiracy theorist who also believes the debunked, extremist theory that today’s Jews are ethnic pretenders. He is the same man who disgustingly defamed Sungenis’ bishop as a “fag” without receiving a single word of rebuke from Sungenis (article). Yet, Sungenis is concerned enough about Michael Hoffman II’s book sales to put up a “news alert” for him.

Next, we have Sungenis’ “response” to Mark Shea in which he makes the following eye-opening comments:

“"it's time for people to wake up and stop being corralled by the Jewish slave masters" (p. 10).

He suggested that Bishop Rhoades is paying “homage” to the Jews “because they own the mortgages on the Catholic buildings erected in his and other Catholic dioceses.” (p. 10)

There are the following “news alerts” at BTF as well:

Chris Matthews: Presidential Election Should Not Be about Israel

Vatican Officials Excise Scriptures to Accommodate Jews

Orthodox Jews Burn the New Testament

Einstein Letter Disses God, the Bible and Religion

Now, some of the information in these articles may be true, of course. But that is not the point. Sungenis promised he would no longer address Jewish issues unless they were actually theological. Again, his most recent of several broken promises, as of January 2008 was:

“I have decided to refrain from any more dealings with those aspects of Jewish life. I’ll leave criticism of Jewish politics and culture to people more capable than I apparently am. My expertise is in theology, and that is where I will put all my efforts. Hence, any future dealings that I have with the Jews, whether on our website or in published articles, will only concern the theological side of things. As you can see by the Jewish material presently on our website, every article is about theological matters, and that will always be the policy of our apostolate from here on out.”

Most recently, we have the newest “article review” at BTF: Georgia, Israel and the Future. In the second half of Sungenis’ review he puts an extended “plug” in for a book about a conspiracy theory involving Fatima and ends with this:

The conflict in Georgia has more to it than meets the eye. By and large, Georgia is a Jewish stronghold, politically and economically. It just so happens that the Jews and their friends in Georgia were persecuting and killing Christians. But the province in Georgia had a pact with Russia that if such an attack would occur, Russia would come to its defense, which is precisely what happened. Of course, the Neocon-dominated USA portrays it only as an instance of Russian aggression, and tries to make Russia look like an international pariah, just as it has done with Iran of late. In reality, Georgia is just another conflict between Jews and Christians, a dimension of the conflict that is systematically glossed over by the news media.

Sungenis then provided links to articles in case one wanted even more about what he described as “the political intrigue.” Theology, indeed. Of course, Sungenis does not inform his readers that there are merely an estimated 13,000 Jews in all of Georgia and that Georgia is comprised by and large of Orthodox Christians.

And finally, we have the following Q & A. While the issues involved are indeed theological, the problem is that Sungenis managed to take an innocuous question about No Salvation Outside the Church (EENS) – one that does not even mention Jews – and answered it with an extended criticism that singles out “the Jews”.

Contrary to Fr. Harrison's recent complaint, no one is attempting to read Robert Sungenis’ heart. To paraphrase St. James, Sungenis’ works (and words) speak clearly for themselves. He has broken his latest promise to refrain from addressing non-theological matters involving the Jewish people. And even when he does address issues of a theological nature, he continues to misuse theology in order to push his personal, anti-Jewish agenda (click here for additional proof).

Sungenis has repeatedly made it clear that the reason for any scaling back in his attacks upon the Jewish people is due simply to the same pragmatic considerations he has previously offered in years past - “because my intentions could very easily be misunderstood,” for the sake of “peace”, and “to calm some of the storm.” (Although, upon viewing the number of items about Jews on his home page as of late, it is difficult to notice any real scaling back at all.) These are his own public words and they are entirely in keeping with the long-standing pattern he has followed since 2002 (article).

January, 2008:

Sungenis: “I can also understand how and why, when my quotes are isolated and placed in this video (a video of some of Sungenis’ statements about Jews), people who view it would react negatively…My intentions could be very easily misunderstood, and the potentiality of that is very high. Hence, because such political, cultural and social criticism of the Jews can so easily be misunderstood, I have decided to refrain from any more dealings with those aspects of Jewish life.”

Sungenis: “Whether right or wrong, I took them down so there could be peace between me and my Jewish opponents.”

Response to P. Catan

February 2008:

Sungenis: “I did decide to calm some of the storm by removing Jewish articles from my website…”
(Article)

Of course, it would be very interesting to see Sungenis finally explain how he was simply “misunderstood” when writing that Jews have “infected our Catholic Church" or when making the numerous other statements documented here.

One will search in vain to find a true, unadulterated expression of remorse, personal fault or change of heart. To the contrary, Sungenis has repeatedly made it clear that “no one” will change his mind about “the Jews” or that while he may partially refrain from saying so in public, he still believes these things about them “in my personal thoughts.”

Please carefully review the important statements Sungenis has made, below:

Sungenis: “I am not coming to you asking you to remove your website [RSATJ] as if I have relinquished these beliefs about the Jewish people…I am coming to you saying that I am no longer advertising them, and you should reciprocate by taking down your website that rebuts them. If you don't take it down…I will resume putting up Jewish articles on my site and I will revise and expand each one of them . . . As to the retraction in 2002, yes, I did it for "peace," because I still believed most of the things I wrote…Neither you nor anyone else is going to get me to change my mind about the Jews, Israel, Judaism and even Roy Schoeman…. I am here simply to make a deal with you.” (e-mail of 28 Aug 2007).

Sungenis: “"Neither you nor anyone else is going to get me to change my mind about the Jews, Israel, Judaism and even Roy Schoeman. What I'm telling you is, I will refrain from addressing it if you take down your website. I've said my piece and could easily move on.” (email of Aug. 28, 2007)

Sungenis: “Although some of the material in those [anti-Jewish] quotes I will reserve the right to hold and believe in my personal thoughts because I believe the material to be factual, nevertheless, I will not be expressing those opinions in my speeches, articles, website or any other public venue. " (BTF Q &A of 25 Jan 2008).

Sungenis’ own words are clear. He still personally holds to his offensive, prejudiced views of the Jewish people. He insists on his right to express them publicly when and where he deems fit - while apparently hoping that no one will notice or care that he has repeatedly promised to stop.

And so, when all of the verbiage is whittled down to the essentials, what does Sungenis actually offer all those he has offended, scandalized, confused, slandered and otherwise maligned over the past 6 years in order to obtain their pardon? Yet another promise – a promise he has already broken - that he will refrain from expressing at least some of his most offensive opinions with the kind of frequency we’ve seen over the past 6 years – because he has merely been “misunderstood” and for the sake of “peace”.

On the first attempt (back in 2002) many people – including the writers at RSATJ - were inclined to overlook the serious shortcomings of Sungenis’ apologies in the hope that a small seed of regret might eventually grow into full-blown repentance. But after the second, third and fourth deficient attempts, a very old saying comes to mind: “Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice (thrice, four times?) – shame on me.”

Fr. Harrison and RSATJ

Recently, Fr. Brian Harrison wrote a 16 page paper in defense of Bob Sungenis. In it, he refrained from substantively addressing the core issues involved. Instead, he chose to make a narrowly crafted, technical canonical argument in support of Bob while leveling blanket condemnations and attempting to divine the motives of Sungenis’ critics – singling out the principals of this blog for his most vehement denunciations.

However, the public record remains completely clear as it pertains to Robert Sungenis’ views of the Jewish people. As was stated and documented two years ago: 1) Sungenis suffers from a significant, personal prejudice against the Jewish people that extends even into theological matters, 2) he has illegitimately used the title “Catholic” in spreading his personal agenda, 3) he is not the expert he has long pretended to be on Jewish-related issues, 4) he has often made use of (and even plagiarized) extremely problematic, objectionable sources in communicating his views of the Jewish people, 5) he has regularly defamed anyone who publicly criticizes him on Jewish issues and 6) he has been and continues to be committed to spreading his prejudiced, anti-Jewish agenda, even now (article).

Father Harrison complains: “In short, the members of this group now make no serious attempt to be even-handed or ‘dialogical’ in criticizing Dr. Sungenis. Instead – perhaps spurred on by frustration at their inability to silence him after years of merciless and unrelenting effort – they are unabashedly one-sided.” (page 2)

As Fr. Harrison presumably believes his own article to be “even handed” and “dialogical”, it is difficult to take such criticism of our documentation seriously. The most Fr. Harrison could bring himself to say in criticism of Bob is that his publicly professed views of the Jewish people (which may be viewed here and here ) are “at worst, merely exaggerated or immoderate” while simultaneously (and indiscriminately) disparaging Bob’s critics as “persecutors,” “cyber-vigilantes,” “Sungenis baiters” and over a dozen other such strong, unequivocal condemnations. Additionally, we find it unfortunate that Fr. Harrison has chosen to frame matters in terms of “enemies.” We’ve never seen it that way.

A brief comment made by Rosemarie Scott at Mark Shea’s blog in reaction to Fr. Harrison’ article concisely sums up several aspects of the situation:

Never mind the fact that repeated "even-handed" attempts to "dialogue" with him during the past (nearly) six years have all failed.

Funny how Fr. Harrison starts out talking about Internet calumny, then proceeds to basically calumniate those who have tried to counter Sungenis' extremism as "merciless and unrelenting." …

I stand by my statement that saying that those who counter Sungenis' extremism made a "merciless and unrelenting effort" is false.

His critics have "relented" on a number of occasions, such as when they tried to broker a deal with him through Ben Douglass in late 2006. They went for a while without talking about him when it looked like he would make a deal, and only began again when it fell through.
 Then, in August of last year, when Sungenis' bishop told him to cease and desist and it seemed Sungenis would comply, the people at the RSATJ blog refrained from commenting further on the issue for six whole months (that's unrelenting?). Only after Sungenis began attacking his bishop in February of this year did they start commenting again. Even so, the last post on that blog, as of today, is from May 19, 2008 - nearly two months ago.
 Unrelenting??? C'mon.

Merciless?

Sungenis has been given ample opportunity to repent, and the critics went silent whenever it looked like he might repent.

Maybe Fr. Harrison is just not well-informed about this whole, long, drawnout matter. Perhaps that explains his highly negative portrayal of Sungenis' critics which simply does not jibe with the facts…”
 (link to comment)

Below, a few additional, brief comments are offered:

- Contrary to Fr. Harrison’s claim, Bob has not genuinely apologized for and retracted his offensive statements about the Jewish people, nor has he refrained from engaging additional such attacks (evidence 1 , evidence 2 and evidence 3).

- Contrary to Fr. Harrison’s claims, neither Jacob Michael, David Palm nor Michael Forrest (RSATJ) have ever called for Bob to “be completely isolated and brought down to absolute rock-bottom – to nothing!” We don’t know who supposedly expressed this view, but it was not one of us and we disagree with it. Additionally, Fr. Harrison leveled a few other charges while at least giving the false impression that the principals of this blog were involved – the most notable example is the implication that we had something to do with the cancellation of a speaking engagement by E. Michael Jones. For the record, very little communication has occurred between Fr. Harrison and the principals of this blog in regard to Bob. And, in fact, he has never communicated in any way with Michael Forrest at all.

- Contrary to Fr. Harrison’s claim, we do not believe that “any explicit and critical mention of influential Jews or Jewish trends in any sphere of activity is to be immediately exposed, condemned and ruthlessly stamped out with the insinuation that it is a step along the road toward a new Auschwitz” and have stated this openly on multiple occasions (for example: read #3 under “I do not intend to:”, David Palm’s “foreword” and this article). In fact, we have written articles that contained criticisms of Judaism, individual Jews and/or Jewish organizations. But we have written them without demonizing or broad-brushing the Jewish people, using fraudulent quotes or making use of racist sources.

- Contrary to Fr. Harrison’s claim, we did not “[know] full well that neither Bishop Rhoades nor any other church authority had declared any penalty whatsoever against him. Dr. Sungenis was not even under an interdict or any similar lesser penalty…” (p. 7). The fact is, Bob himself explicitly claimed to have been under “interdict”:

Sungenis to Edgar Suter: “The fact is that I was under an interdict from my bishop. I had no choice unless I decided to directly disobey him.” (email of Aug 5, 2007, emphasis added). 1

While Fr. Harrison tried to dismiss Bob's public claim to have been "ordered" as merely "a little word that needlessly handed to his enemies on a platter a seemingly powerful, but in fact phony, piece of ammunition" (p. 9), it is not so easy to slough off Bob's use of such a specific, canonical term as "interdict." Additionally, it seems a particularly strange defense to ridicule Bob's own description of matters with his diocese as "phony" and then blame others for believing him.

Below, the reader will find important statements Bob made to Michael Forrest on the very next day after he made the statement above to Edgar Suter about “having no choice” and being “under an interdict.”

Sungenis to Forrest: “I specifically stated in my recent posting that Bishop Rhoades did not conclude that I had to remove all the Jewish material from my website… As I specified in the above posting, I voluntarily took down the material…Why is it that you went against what my bishop concluded by claiming that the bishop demanded I remove the material, when, in fact, I stated that he did not do so?”

“[The bishop] only asked that I would be more careful in my writing on the Jews…there is nothing more he requested.”
(Email of Aug 6, 2007)

Clearly, it was Bob who “knew full well” that he was not being honest. 2

- We have never criticized Bob for expressing concerns about the sentence on page 131 of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults that the United States bishops recently replaced (see can. 212). We are pleased with the improvement and appreciate his desire to help effect positive change. However, we have strenuously objected to the manner in which he chose to express his concerns. Persistence and assertiveness are one thing, but impugning his bishop and the rest of the U.S. Bishops by accusing them of intentionally teaching error to “unsuspecting Catholics” is quite another (click here).

We maintain that Bob Sungenis has become a grossly irresponsible and dishonest apologist who should be avoided, specifically in matters pertaining to the Jewish people. Furthermore, he has behaved in a defamatory and defiant manner against his bishop. Additionally, Ben Douglass has recently published a rebuttal to Fr. Harrison's claim that, because Bob is not under the formal canonical penalty of excommunication, we were wrong to apply Matthew 18:17 to him (click here).

In closing, we understand that Fr. Harrison is a good friend of Bob’s, having “virtually traveled the world” with him and that they “see eye to eye on almost everything” (article). And we understand the well-intentioned role he has chosen to take up for Bob because we have each played that role for Bob to an extent in the past as well. Additionally, we respect and appreciate the many praiseworthy things Fr. Harrison has done in service of the Church. But his article is misguided and ill-informed.

We pray that Fr. Harrison eventually uses his influence to truly help Bob get back on the right track. Unfortunately, at least as matters stand now, Father Harrison is merely the latest in a long line of devoted, well-meaning friends who - in spite of very different intentions - have ultimately only served as enablers of Bob’s prejudice, distrustfulness, dishonesty, anger and self-centeredness.

It is no charity to enable Bob to believe the delusion that he is the victim of unjust “persecution” by Catholics who are under the control of the “Jewish slave masters” and by a bishop who is paying “homage” to Jews “because they own the mortgages on the Catholic buildings erected in his and other dioceses” – as Bob so recently opined (p. 10) .

We hope and pray that Fr. Harrison manifests the same kind of praiseworthy concern for those whom Bob has harmed, confused and scandalized as he does for Bob himself.

____________________________________________________________

Footnotes:

1 Suter inexplicably sent the email that included this quote to a large number of Bob’s critics, including the principals of RSATJ.

2 We have struggled to come up with a good reason why a person would falsely (and explicitly) claim to be under such a specific penalty. We can only offer an educated guess. (And of course, this all assumes that the latest story put out by Bob through Fr. Harrison is finally the truth.) Perhaps in making it appear as though he was forced to comply, Bob was trying to save face with his extremist, anti-Semitic friends and colleagues like Edgar Suter and Michael Hoffman II - the latter who publicly ridiculed Bob for what he deemed to be Bob’s craven acquiescence to his “fag bishop” (click here). Regardless of the exact reason, it is important to note that this is the way Bob was addressing one segment of his constituency, while for the sake of public relations with all those more mainstream Catholics he had alienated with his anti-Jewish extremism, he was portraying himself as a humble son of the Church who felt that it was a “privilege” to be under the “wise and caring” direction of men like Bishop Rhoades, who acts in “God’s stead” (click here).

Related articles:

Father Harrison and the Diocese of Harrisburg

Sowing Confusion, Distrust and Conspiracy Theories

Fr. Harrison and the Diocese of Harrisburg

Before addressing Fr. Harrison’s complaints against Bishop Rhoades and the Diocese of Harrisburg, we would like to repeat that we respect and appreciate the many praiseworthy things Fr. Harrison has done in service of the Church. And we consider him a brother in the faith, surely not an “enemy'” as cast in his article. Additionally, we understand the well-intentioned role he has chosen to take up for Bob because we have each played that role for Bob to an extent in the past as well. But his article is misguided and ill-informed.

To begin with, there is considerable irony in the fact that Fr. Harrison spent a great deal of space complaining about the alleged mistreatment Bob received from Bishop Rhoades while convening what amounts to an impromptu, canonical version of the “people’s court” designed to indict His Excellency. As such, we won’t be presuming to present our own canonical brief.

However, one cannot help but notice the number of equivocal words and phrases – “if”, “presume”, "seem”, “good reason to suppose” – that liberally line the arguments leading to Fr. Harrison’s conclusions. And perhaps more importantly, Fr. Harrison appears to have obtained all of his evidence from Bob. There is no evidence in his article that he has had any direct contact with the Diocese of Harrisburg to get the other side of the story. While we can understand why Fr. Harrison might be satisfied with his good friend’s word, the problem is that Bob has already been caught mischaracterizing and omitting relevant information from official, ecclesial correspondence in the past (read here and here )

As such, if Bob and Fr. Harrison were set on this course of action, it would at least have been less objectionable to reproduce his entire correspondence with the diocese – both from Bob and from the diocese - in PDF format for everyone to view (including that which is related to the refusal of his imprimatur on CASB 2), rather than continuing to leak whatever selective quotes are deemed most advantageous to Bob.

In fact, even the extremely limited amount of material that Fr. Harrison leaked brought to light new, pertinent information about the reasons Bishop Rhoades rejected Bob’s article Catholic Apologetics International and Its Teaching on the Jews (CAITJ) – a rejection that played a pivotal role in Bob’s ultimate decision to disobey Bishop Rhoades.

For instance, while Bob gave his readers the impression that Bishop Rhoades' rejection of CAITJ was based solely on doctrinal content and that his “tone” did not play a role:

Sungenis: I subsequently wrote a new article [CAITJ] whose “tone” was proper… (OCRNR, p. 11)

We now know that it most certainly did:

Fr. Harrison: “the Vicar General, Fr. King, replied with a long letter, dated August 23, 2007, stating that in the judgment of Bishop Rhoades, the 7-point statement on Judaism contained in the letter [CAITJ] was not fully satisfactory because of the tone and content of some passages. (p. 12, #5: emphasis added).

Notice also that Fr. Harrison describes the letter from Fr. King as “long.” One wonders what else might come to light were Bob to simply reproduce his entire, long correspondence with the diocese for all to view. (For a further discussion of some of the problems with CAITJ, read here: link1 and link 2 ).

At this point, one may also wonder why Fr. Harrison finds himself in the position of even attempting to make such a public case against a bishop, a case that is, for all intents and purposes, solely for the sake of Bob’s public relations. The simple answer is, because Bob first decided to make a public issue of it.

It was Bob Sungenis who publicly divulged what was occurring in his private interactions with the Diocese of Harrisburg. Bob opted to make several very public, defamatory accusations against Bishop Rhoades designed to justify his decision to recommence attacking Jews. And after Bishop Rhoades merely defended himself from Bob’ s false, public accusations at someone else’s request, Bob then had the chutzpah to use this as an excuse to make additional public attacks on His Excellency. (Please read here for more detail). Had Bob kept this matter private, as he ought to have - and just as the Diocese of Harrisbug did – then the Catholic faithful would have been spared the sad spectacle of this impromptu “court.” And Fr. Harrison would likely have avoided the time-consuming CAI-BTF role known by ex-Sungenis volunteers as damage control.

Perhaps a few additional, brief comments may be of use:

1) Contrary to Fr. Harrison’s claim, Bob did not “promptly comply” with Bishop Rhoades’ “letter of June 29 and (sic) taking down from his website all material relating to Jews and Judaism.” (p. 14) In fact, a few days after receiving the aforementioned letter from Bishop Rhoades, Sungenis publicly defamed His Excellency by falsely accusing him of being a proponent of the problematic Reflections on Covenant and Missions document, which gave the impression that Jews have no need of Christ or His Church. Sungenis then not only kept all of his anti-Jewish postings up for a full month, but also proceeded to post several new anti-Jewish items at CAI - including a prominently placed cartoon of a Jew pointing an assault rifle in a child's face.

It was only after Bob was subsequently summoned in to the diocese to meet with Fr. King and Fr. Massa at the end of July, 2007 that he “promptly” saw the light and indicated his intention to comply. (Please read the following for a more complete treatment of this issue: Timeline and Sungenis Smears Bishop). However, as we know - because of the letter he wrote to his friend Edgar Suter (which Suter promptly forwarded to a large group of Sungenis’ critics) – Sungenis did so for pragmatic, self-serving reasons and not the grandiose, noble-sounding reasons he attempted to claim in public (click here).

We also noted that Fr. Harrison used ellipses to omit the most contentious and defiant sections of Sungenis’s statements to Bishop Rhoades, such as his statement that he would “be quite happy to expose [to the Vatican] the belief in Dual Covenant theology that [Bishop Rhoades] and the USCCB were apparently promoting.” (p. 7) Sungenis was certainly not the humble, obedient son of the Church Fr. Harrison has portrayed him as being (see also: Sungenis’ “Invitation” to Bishop Rhoades)

2) Contrary to Fr. Harrison’s claim, Sungenis has not compliantly desisted from using the title “Catholic” at his website. The name “Catholic Apologetics International” is still prominently featured, including the address of his website and the name of his publishing company: catholicintl.com and Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc.  In fact, with the exception of Bob's "home page", the name "Catholic Apologetics International" appears at the top of virtually every other web page on his site.  As such, Bob apparently remains in violation of canon 300 because he has never obtained the permission required to use the title “Catholic.” A few examples of Bob's continuing misappropriation of the title "Catholic" may be found on the following web pages:  link1 , link2 , link3.

3) We invite Fr. Harrison to attempt to reconcile the statements Bob made to Michael Forrest and Edgar Suter on successive days:

Sungenis: “I specifically stated in my recent posting that Bishop Rhoades did not conclude that I had to remove all the Jewish material from my website… As I specified in the above posting, I voluntarily took down the material…Why is it that you went against what my bishop concluded by claiming that the bishop demanded I remove the material, when, in fact, I stated that he did not do so?”

“[The bishop] only asked that I would be more careful in my writing on the Jews…there is nothing more he requested.” (Email to Michael Forrest, Aug 6, 2007).

Vs.

Sungenis: “The fact is that I was under an interdict from my bishop. I had no choice unless I decided to directly disobey him.” (Email to Sungenis supporter, Edgar Suter, Aug 5, 2007, emphasis added)

4) It is telling that Fr. Harrison, a doctor of theology, explicitly declined to publicly address Bob’s multiple calumnies of a theological nature against Bishop Rhoades (those documented here, here and here). Instead, although he candidly acknowledges that he has a very limited canonical background, he felt compelled to publicly take up a canonical defense of Bob Sungenis.

5) The timing of Fr. Harrison’s article has raised more than a few eye-brows, following so soon after the bishop of the diocese in which he resides (Archbishop Burke) was reassigned to the Church’s top canonical court at the Vatican. In fact, we have been made aware that Archbishop Burke had been contacted regarding a presentation that Bob was invited to make at a recent event organized by Fr. Harrison in Archbishop Burke’s Diocese of St. Louis. According to the reliable information we have received, Bob was subsequently disinvited due to the direct intervention of the Archbishop. This being the case, one wonders what Archbishop Burke would think of Fr. Harrison's present article.

6) Irrespective of the canonical argument Fr. Harrison fashioned for Bob’s disobedience a year after the fact, he failed to indicate whether he believes Bob’s stated reason was a sound moral basis for refusing to listen to Bishop Rhoades. Recall, Bob’s actual rationale for refusing to listen to Bishop Rhoades was that it is “against Catholic faith and morals” for him to refrain from addressing Jewish issues (read more here). Further, Bob founded this “faith and morals” argument on his baseless accusation that Bishop Rhoades holds heretical views that he is “attempting to propagate” to “unsuspecting Catholics”. One might have hoped that a priest of Fr. Harrison’s stature would take serious umbrage at a layman publishing such unsubstantiated charges of heresy against a Catholic bishop. Unfortunately, Fr. Harrison explicitly declined to comment on Bob’s charges against Bishop Rhoades.

Ultimately, the question is whether Bob should have listened to his father in the faith. And then, even should one answer in the negative, the question becomes whether it was therefore acceptable for Bob to justify his refusal to listen by publicly accusing his father in the faith of holding to a heresy, “attempting to propagate” it to “unsuspecting Catholics” and having greater “allegiances” to Jewish causes than the Catholic Church. We think not.

Bishop Rhoades was right in directing Bob to cease public commentary on Jewish issues. Bob has repeatedly proven himself incapable of handling Jewish issues responsibly and honestly. He remains committed to spreading his offensive, anti-Jewish agenda. Everyone, from Jewish converts to people still in need of Christ and His Church and even Bob himself, would greatly benefit were Bob to listen to His Excellency. And with every new anti-Jewish comment, article and conspiracy theory that appears at BTF (click here for the most recent examples), Bishop Rhoades’ discernment and prudence is only reconfirmed. It pains us to see a priest of Fr. Harrison’s stature place himself on the wrong side of that prudent judgment.


In the end, it seems increasingly clear with each passing day that Bishop Rhoades was indeed acting “in God’s stead” when he intervened, precisely as Bob himself stated at the end of July, 2007.

Related articles:

Father Harrison and RSATJ

Sowing Confusion, Distrust and Conspiracy Theories

We also recommend reviewing the following articles in their entirety:

1) Timeline

2) Bishop Rhoades Sets the Record Straight

3) By Sungenis Alone

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

Is Sungenis Schismatic? The Verdict in Sungenis' Own Words

As this controversy has unfolded, we have documented numerous instances in which Robert Sungenis holds to radical double-standards - indeed, with him, one can expect on a regular basis for there to be "one standard for me and another for thee." (see here for examples). When it comes to Sungenis' standards on obedience to ecclesiastical authority, the double-standard rule is also abundantly evident.

That Sungenis has radically flip-flopped with regard to obedience toward his bishop and has engaged in the most outrageous revisionism in the process is now public knowledge. Thanks to an article by Sungenis' new enthusiastic supporter Thomas Herron in Culture Wars (October, p. 9), we now know that Bishop Rhoades stepped in on June 29th to reprimand Sungenis for both the tone and content of his Jewish writings, giving him two weeks to cease writing on this subject and remove his writings from the Internet. Over a month later, on July 31st, Sungenis decided to try to salvage his public image by making a show of his alleged obedience to the bishop (July 31 "Catholic Apologetics International and its Teaching on the Jews). This self-aggrandizement was particularly hypocritical and deceitful considering the fact that he was given 2 weeks to comply with his bishop's directives. Yet during the next month, he not only retained all of his anti-Semitic material at CAI, he even posted more articles and "features" against Jews. Most outrageous was an article, posted a mere five days after reception of his bishop's cease and desist letter, in which he smeared bishop Rhoades himself! (Sungenis Smears Bishop, Continues to Mislead and Distort the Record)

Then, on July 31st, he had the brass to "pray thus with himself" (cf. Luke 18:11) in front of all of his readers:

Since I am a faithful son of the Catholic Church, 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.

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. (FreeRepublic Archive of "CAI and its Teachings on the Jews")

He even wrote in private correspondence:

The bottom line is that my bishop has authority over me and I have to work things out with him. Catholicism is all about authority and obedience, otherwise we are Protestants. My apostolate is founded on the Catholic Church's authority, and nothing less (email to Edgar Suter, August 5, 2007; forwarded by Suter to a broad group of individuals.)

While Sungenis sought to position himself publicly as a "faithful son of the Church", his private correspondence made it very clear that he had simply decided to change tactics, making a simple, cynical calculation and playing along with the bishop as long as he felt he could still save enough face in the process:

Further on in his letter to Suter he wrote:

"For now, there is no reason to fight [the bishop's directive], because both parties are in a win-win situation."

For now.

A short time later he wrote to Jacob Michael that if this blog was not removed from the Internet, "I will begin reposting the material on my site, one article at a time, revised and expanded, and I'm going to pay particular attention to Roy Schoeman and you" (email of 27 Aug 2007).

To Michael Forrest he similarly stated: "If you don't take [www.sungenisandthejews.com] down, then you will force me to take the appropriate counter-action. For instance, I will resume putting up Jewish articles on my site and I will revise and expand each one of them, and I will start with Roy Schoeman specifically" (email of 27 Aug 2007).

Finally, to Ben Douglass he stated, "As for my 'Jewish' articles, let me set you straight there also. I will put up any 'Jewish' article I please, either now or in the future" (email of 2 Nov 2007).

Then, even after this letter of "humble obedience," Sungenis began "testing the waters" so to speak, dropping the word "Catholic" from the masthead of his website (likely to prevent the public relations blow of having it forced upon him by his bishop), posting anti-Jewish Q&As in his forum, posting anti-Jewish news alerts on the website. It did not take long, however, for this trial-balloon of subtle disobedience to break out into full-blown and open defiance. As of January 2008, Sungenis has publicly stated his intention to disobey his bishop's directives. As his sometime promoter and personal apologist Mark Wyatt wrote in the "Robert Sungenis" Wikipedia entry:

Sungenis wrote to the bishop and stated that he is not required to obey the bishop if the bishop issues orders that are in conflict with the faith and morals of the Catholic Church, and that if the bishop desired to contest Sungenis' stance, Sungenis would be willing to do so under the aegis of a canonical trial. The bishop did not respond to Sungenis's proposal. [See Culture Wars, January 2008, pages 12-39, for more information] (Wikipedia, s.v. "Robert Sungenis", Revision by Mark Wyatt, Feb. 1, 2008)

This view of matters has been echoed by Sungenis himself in a recent email:

. . . it was up to [Bishop Rhoades] 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. (email of Feb 20, 2008)

In a moment we will look in more detail at this rather interesting approach to "Catholic" obedience (i.e., "take me to court and prove me wrong first, then I'll obey") that Sungenis has adopted.

But first, let's take a look at what Bob Sungenis is currently doing, and how Bob himself must of necessity interpret these actions. In January, Bob Sungenis submitted a brand new article for publication in E. Michael Jones's Culture Wars, which he titled "The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked? A Review of the PBS Documentary: Jews and Christians: A Journey of Faith". There are several things about this article that must be highlighted.

First, Bob proudly admits that his ecclesiastical superiors - whom he so recently referred to as "wise and caring pastors" and "the shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work" - do not want him to be writing the very things he is writing in this article (the "Rhoades" he so flippantly refers to in the quote below is his own Bishop, The Most Reverend Kevin C. Rhoades, Successor of the Apostles in charge of shepherding the Harrisburg Diocese):

I later found out that Rhoades [sic] was in league with the USCCB on this issue, since a few months later he invited me to a meeting with Fr. James Massa, Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB, in an effort to dissuade me from pointing out some of the very things I am writing in this essay. ("Covenant", p. 9)

Second, Bob admits to his readers in this article that his own bishop has indeed "ordered" him to stop writing the very kinds of things he is writing in this present article - thus making the article itself an act of self-proclaimed disobedience:

[Bishop Rhoades] 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. ("Covenant", p. 10)

At this point, we should remember what we read of Bob's own words above:

The bottom line is that my bishop has authority over me and I have to work things out with him. Catholicism is all about authority and obedience, otherwise we are Protestants. My apostolate is founded on the Catholic Church's authority, and nothing less (email to Suter, August 5, 2007).

The conclusion is inescapable: by Bob's own standards and measures, he has become a Protestant. He acknowledges that his bishop "has authority over me"; he acknowledges that his bishop "ordered me to stop writing about the Jews and Judaism altogether"; and yet he continues to write about the Jews and Judaism, in flagrant and public defiance of his bishop's orders - which, by his own judgment, makes Bob Sungenis a Protestant.

This turn of events recalls a warning issued by a contributor to the Robert Sungenis and the Jews website, Dr. Art Sippo:

I am concerned that [Bob] has started wandering into increasingly extreme and questionable areas that have taken him well out of the mainstream of Catholic thought and which may be leading him out of the Church.

Dr. Sippo took a fair amount of heat for expressing that concern from those who thought it extreme and uncalled for. However, his warning is appearing increasingly prophetic.

The disturbing thing about Bob's defiance is that he has apparently found a way to justify it. Mark Wyatt has already added a helpful update to Bob's Wikipedia entry, as we saw above, cluing the readers in to the fact that Bob has expressed to his bishop two reasons for his disobedience: "he is not required to obey the bishop if the bishop issues orders that are in conflict with the faith and morals of the Catholic Church", and also, "if the bishop desired to contest Sungenis's stance, Sungenis would do so only under the aegis of a canonical trial." Of course, as a result of Bob’s latest email, we know that Wyatt was merely repeating what he had been told by Bob.

This latter point is something Bob is also more-than-happy to elaborate upon in his most recent article. He tells his readers (with no small amount of bravado) that,

I ... wrote the bishop a letter saying that, if he wanted to reverse his position once again and censor me, he would have to do so under the aegis of a canonical trial, at which time I would appeal to the Vatican in order to have the matter fully adjudicated, and at which time I would be quite happy to expose the belief in Dual Covenant theology that he and USCCB were apparently promoting. After four months, there has been no response from the chancellery ("Covenant", pp. 11-12).

As a side note, Bob attempts to smear his bishop again by suggesting that his bishop "[wants] to reverse his position once again and censor me". The entry at Wikipedia further implies that Bob's refusal to be censored is based, in part, on the principle that Bob feels "he is not required to obey the bishop if the bishop issues orders that are in conflict with the faith and morals of the Catholic Church."

However, it should be noted immediately that it is Bob who has reversed his position, not the bishop. The bishop's own position, as quoted by Bob, was that Bob could continue writing on Jewish theological issues "provided that you take an approach quite different in tone and content from the one pursued in the past." ("Covenant", p. 11)

Bob has manifestly not adopted "an approach quite different in tone and content" from his previous writings, and thus, his bishop is fully justified in insisting that Bob simply "stop writing about the Jews and Judaism altogether." ("Covenant", p. 11) Bob is correct, in that one of the two parties has reversed their position; he is wrong in his identification of that party. If anyone has reversed their position, it is the man who said in August, when he felt on balance it was to his advantage, that it was a privilege to obey the ecclesiastical shepherds God has put over him, but who is now accusing those same shepherds of being wolves, and refusing to submit to their authority.

In August of 2007, when he was still feeling compliant and generous toward his bishop, he wrote, "Neither our obedience to our bishop nor our bishop's directives should in any way be interpreted as either of us compromising on the truth." ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2)

He further noted that, in his 2007 meeting with Fr. King and Fr. Massa, "the shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work" gave Bob "various examples in which I have crossed the line into inappropriate language and accusations" in his writings on the Jews - and most importantly, "I communicated to them my agreement with their overall assessment." ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2)

In other words, Bob has known since August that his bishop has problems with "the tone and content with which I write about the Jewish people", and when shown specific examples of this, Bob agreed with the "overall assessment" of these "shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work." He agreed to remove "all the content on [CAI's] website concerning the Jews in order to make the initial adjustments in complying with my bishop's directive", and insisted that neither his bishop's censorship of his work, nor his compliance with that censorship, should "in any way be interpreted as either of us compromising on the truth." ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2)

In no small part because of his expanding commiseration-collaboration with E. Michael Jones and Thomas Herron, Bob has now reversed his position, and apparently interprets his bishop's directive for Bob to be silent in this one area as somehow being "in conflict with the faith and morals of the Catholic Church", even though he at one time spoke of the "wisdom and counsel" of his shepherds and insisted that he viewed "their direction as if it was from God himself." ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2) Bob's Bishop, of whom Bob once said that "he acts in God's stead" ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2), is now merely "Rhoades", a man "in league with the USCCB" ("Covenant", p. 11), who is "attempting to propagate [erroneous theology] to unsuspecting Catholics" (ibid.), and whom Bob "would be quite happy to expose" (ibid.) in a Vatican-sponsored canonical trial.

In short, Bob Sungenis does not intend to obey his bishop until forced to do so by means of a canonical trial, which he already intends to "appeal to the Vatican" so that he can "expose" the bishop's allegedly (and dangerously!) erroneous theology. As we have already seen, Bob's bluster about his bishop's alleged heterodoxy amounts to nothing less than a case of slander against his shepherd.

Bob's insistence on withholding his obedience to what he has called "the shepherds God has placed as overseers of my life and work" ("CAI and its Teaching on the Jews", p. 2), until such time as a canonical trial can be held, is eerily reminiscent of the Protestant Reformation Father Martin Luther, who first promised to heed the commands of the Church's prelates only after a formal trial, then insisted that the commands had to come from the Pope himself, and then (when both of these demands were met) appealed to a future council.

Bob's position is also very reminiscent of the stance taken by a certain Archbishop in Switzerland during the 1970s - an Archbishop whose disobedience Bob has publicly denounced on more than one occasion. We are referring, of course, to the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, who similarly insisted on withholding obedience to the orders of his superiors, until the matter could be taken up in canonical court.

But Bob's previous writings leave him little room to make excuse. When the subject is Archbishop Lefebvre, Bob suddenly has great insight and perception: while admitting that "Lefebvre had 'legitimate' complaints about the pope that the pope thoroughly ignored", he also acknowledges that "insofar as legal legitimacy, yes, the pope had his rights". This is absolutely key, because Bob accuses the Pope in this matter: "as far as dealing with Lefebvre's concerns of a Church leaving her traditions and going down the wrong path, the pope totally missed the mark." Regardless of how Bob judges the Pope's theology in this case, however, he still insists that "Lefebvre will be judged for disobeying the direct disciplinary order of the pope", even if "the pope will be judged for bringing the Church to the edge of apostasy." (A Frank Discussion with Jim Likoudis about Vatican II, John Paul II and "The Great Facade")

Similarly, in a 2004 Q&A, Bob displayed remarkable clarity in his ability to distinguish between a prelate's juridical authority and personal theology: "If our obedience was based on whether the pope is always infallible, we would have no Catholic Church ... The problem with the SSPX is that they confuse the personal faith and practices of John Paul II with the papal office itself. As long as they continue to judge the papal office by the temporary occupant of its chair, they will continue to make problematic judgments that keep them in schism." (Q&A, July 2004, Question 24)

The words of wisdom spoken by Bob here concerning the Pope may arguably become the words of his own condemnation. Indeed, this last quote can be turned around and made to function like a mirror, reflecting Bob's own recent schismatic leanings.

"If our obedience to our bishops was based on whether the bishop is theologically correct, we would have no Catholic Church ... The problem with Bob Sungenis is that he confuses the personal faith and practices of Bishop Rhoades with the episcopal office itself. As long as he continues to judge the episcopal office by the temporary occupant of its chair, he will continue to make problematic judgments that keep him in schism."

Of course, Sungenis' disobedience is all the more grave because his bishop does not hold to the theological error with which Sungenis has seen fit to slander him. At least Archbishop Lefebvre had a plausible dilemma to sort through. The very suggestion that it would be a "moral evil" for Sungenis to remain silent on Jewish issues is risible, and is yet another indication of the extent to which he over-estimates his importance.

It seems appropriate to end here with Church teaching about our bishops:

“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

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium