Debunking Another Conspiracy Theory

In the spring of 2008, the bishops of the United States voted to change the wording of a problematic statement on page 131 of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (see our write-up here). As the Catholic News Service (CNS) reports:

The proposed change -- which would replace one sentence in the catechism -- was discussed by the bishops in executive session at their June meeting in Orlando, Fla., but did not receive the needed two-thirds majority of all members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at that time. After mail balloting, the final vote of 231-14, with one abstention, was announced Aug. 5 in a letter to bishops from Msgr. David Malloy, USCCB general secretary. (LINK)

Robert Sungenis noted this fact by putting an erroneous spin on events and by floating a baseless conspiracy theory:

This tells us, of course, that the decision to excise the erroneous statement was not a slam dunk. If in June 2008 two-thirds (or 66%) of the USCCB’s bishops were not on board, it means that less than 162 bishops were in favor of excising the statement on page 131. What made the vote suddenly climb from less than 162 to 231 (or 93% [sic]) of bishops in favor of excising the statement is anyone’s guess. Perhaps there were not enough of the bishops present during the executive session. Or, perhaps in the privacy of a mail-in ballot the bishops could not only think more clearly about the issue but could voice their opinion without any peer-pressure from fellow bishops giving them a jaundice [sic] eye in a public meeting. (LINK)

One will notice that Sungenis made a few unsupported assertions in this statement. He read the CNS statement that the motion, “did not receive the needed two-thirds majority of all the members” to mean that there was sufficient opposition to the measure that it could not garner the needed votes at that meeting and that something caused the allegedly flagging support for the measure to "suddenly climb." This conclusion is not warranted by what the CNS reported, nor is it in line with the facts. In the next sentence, Sungenis touched on the truth: “Perhaps there were not enough of the bishops present during the executive session.” This was correct. But then, unfortunately, Sungenis went on to add a gratuitous surmise that perhaps some number of the bishops were just afraid to vote for the change publicly. Ultimately, this is another troubling pattern found in Sungenis' writings over the past several years. Rather than doing the kind of basic, sound research that could provide firm answers, he is content to present rash theories if they align with his preconceptions and agenda.

As will soon become evident, contrary to Sungenis’s assertion, when one considers the actual facts – including the 94% (not 93%) approval - this vote does indeed look like a “slam dunk.”

More recently, a Sungenis supporter at a Catholic forum ratcheted up the rhetoric, claiming, "That vote had to be done by a secret ballot" and "considering that only 14 bishops voted to keep the heresy in our Catechism, we can see that a number of them flip-flopped when they got back home and voted in secret" (at his request, we have removed his username from this blog post). Now, with these additional unsubstantiated assertions we’ve degenerated into full-blown conspiracy mode.

In light of this development, it seems appropriate to help set the record straight. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, these conspiracy theories can take on a life of their own and degenerate over time. And as we also have learned from experience, very few people have the inclination to confront and refute the committed conspiracy theorists who tirelessly propagate such stories. All too often, when the conspiracy theorist is confronted with his errors, he simply moves on to new accusations and "proof". Conspiracy theorists tend to be "true believers" and nothing - including facts - seems to get in the way of their dark suspicions.

But for those who are interested in facts, the following is the relevant information we accumulated on this matter:

1) According to the USCCB website, there were 268 active bishops as of January 2008 and 260 active bishops as of March, 2009 (2008, 2009). If these are all voting bishops, then depending upon the exact number of bishops who were active as of the vote in Orlando, between 173 and 179 (two-thirds) were necessary for passage.

2) The Orlando meetings were held over three days, from June 12-14, 2008 (link). Agenda: link.

3) The number of bishops present varied from session to session and from day to day. The record illustrates that on the 12th and 13th, as as many as 192, but as few as 141 bishops were present to vote on any particular item (link). The 141 recorded for a vote during one session was well short of the number needed for a two thirds majority of the whole conference. There may well have been even fewer bishops than 141 present on Saturday, June 14th.

4) According to a USCCB official who attended the Orlando meeting:

a. The vote on the U.S. Catechism took place on Saturday morning (June 14th) at the end of the meetings and after many of the bishops had left because of various commitments. Even Archbishop Wuerl, who headed the committee in charge of the U.S. Catechism, had to leave for ordinations scheduled that same Saturday. Public evidence of this fact may be found here: link.

b. The use of mail ballots around the June meeting is common because fewer bishops typically attend it. Several items required a mail-ballot (not a more sinister-sounding “secret ballot”), not just the vote on the U.S. Catechism for Adults (USCCA). Even the simple, uncontroversial National Directory for Catechesis required a mail ballot.

c. Those bishops who voted in Orlando were not sent mail-ballots. Only those bishops who missed the initial vote in Orlando were sent mail-ballots. Therefore, the theory that some bishops changed their votes ("flip-flopped") in favor of the change once they were safely out of the public eye is baseless.

d. After the initial presentation was made on the need to change the sentence on page 131 of the USCCA, there was relatively little discussion and no one stood up to oppose it.

The bottom line is that the sentence on page 131 of the USCCA needed to be changed, the bishops voted overwhelmingly in favor of that change, and there is no ground upon which to weave these conspiracy theories.

We do acknowledge that Sungenis also wrote, “perhaps there were not enough of the bishops present during the executive session”, which happened to be the truth. But he should have left it at that. The fact that he even publicly floated his baseless conspiracy theory is irresponsible. For obvious reasons, it would be to his advantage were his conspiracy theory to stick in people’s minds. And perhaps in the case of his supporter at the previously mentioned Catholic forum, he was successful in accomplishing just that outcome. We hope that this information helps to set the record straight.

Sadly, Sungenis’s multiple conspiracy theories – whether about his own bishop (link 1 and link 2), the Jewish people, or a number of other things – continue to bear bad fruit. To review some of the many other conspiracy theories espoused and propagated by Sungenis, read Sowing Confusion, Distrust and Conspiracy Theories.

Note: Subsequent to the publication of this posting, Adoremus Bulletin printed the following in its September, 2009 issue, which provides further corroboration of the facts:

Majority Vote at USCCB June Meeting?

On all liturgical action items, 2/3 positive vote of all the eligible bishops is required, not merely a majority (or 2/3) of those present and voting. Thus, because none of the action items presented at the June meeting received the required 2/3 of the total number of active Latin-rite bishops, even though a majority of those present approved them, an absentee ballot was required.

U.S. Catechism for Adults Revised

The positive change on page 131 of the USCCA affirms the efforts of many good, knowledgeable, orthodox Catholics who have been in touch with their bishops for some time about this particular issue. We're especially appreciative of those who did so without opting to make a public spectacle of themselves or positioning themselves as judges, juries, and enemies of the U.S. Catholic bishops. Such people deserve credit for following the letter and spirit of canon law:

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

Unfortunately, a few Catholics grossly distort the plain meaning of this passage by exaggerating the references to “rights” while simultaneously glossing over the references to “responsibilities.” It seems that such individuals can conceive of only one manner in which to express concern or disagreement: public condemnation and outrage. And for such individuals, anything short of condemnation and outrage apparently makes others guilty of “complicity,” “heresy,” or whatever other charge seems most provocative. (Click here for a related discussion.) For instance, some months ago (Feb 2008), in a fury over this sentence in the USCCA, Robert Sungenis wrote:

…Catholic universities may be following the lead of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops who recently published these provocative words in its United States Catholic Catechism for Adults: ‘Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.’… This is an unprecedented move, but it is not surprising. More and more the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has shown itself to be a predominately liberal institution…Where there should be absolute outrage from the USCCB…there is little more than complacency…the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is fast becoming a mouthpiece for modern dissidence and liberalism in American Catholicism. (The Old Covenant, pp. 6-7)

And

“I later found out that Rhoades was in league with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on this issue…I knew…the erroneous theology…Rhoades and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops were attempting to propagate to unsuspecting Catholics” (ibid, p. 11).

Interestingly, this supposed “mouthpiece” that Sungenis “knew” was so determined to spread “judaizing” errors to “unsuspecting Catholics” moved - by a nearly unanimous vote - to make this positive, helpful change in the service of orthodoxy.

One wonders if Sungenis still considers Bishop Rhoades to be “in league with the USCCB”, now that the U.S. bishops have taken this positive step (and we have reliable information confirming that Bishop Rhoades voted for the change as well). Sadly, in his newest article, Sungenis has chosen to continue propagating falsehoods about Bishop Rhoades. For example, Sungenis is still peddling the baseless, defamatory accusation that he was denied an imprimatur on CASB2 because Bishop Rhoades believes the dual covenant error. He continues to base his case in part on the fact that Bishop Rhoades referred to page 131 of U.S. Catechism for Adults in the denial. We have already documented in detail why Sungenis’ claims are baseless: here and here.

We hope and pray that individuals who have been particularly condemnatory of the U.S. bishops as a whole (and even their own bishop) on this specific issue - such as publicly accusing them of intentionally spreading error to their “unsuspecting” flock - will apologize for and retract the calumny and perhaps even send along a note of appreciation. Sadly, while Sungenis has at least expressed appreciation for the change, he has refused to apologize for and retract his calumnies, opting instead to float another baseless (and erroneous) theory about the bishops’ possible fear of voting openly for it (More Confusion on Page 131, p. 5).

Last, it bears repeating that the reasons Sungenis has been criticized by his bishop and so many others in regard to “Jewish issues” have been laid out in detail many times. These reasons have nothing to do with the need to address this one sentence in the USCCA. It is erroneous to claim otherwise. Rather, the controversy is about Sungenis’ numerous prejudiced and inflammatory statements against the Jewish people, extending over a period of more than six years:

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-invitation-to-bob-sungenis.html

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/proverbs-2611.html

http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/Section2.html

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html#eight

Deo gratias, the U.S. bishops have resolved this issue. Let’s all pray for them as they continue to grapple with so many other serious issues that demand their attention.

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

Response from the USCCB on Page 131 of the USCCA

In early September, 2007, Robert Sungenis posted a letter he had sent to the Vatican. In this letter Sungenis goes on for 12 pages, presenting his objections to one sentence on page 131 of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, a statement he referred to as “erroneous, if not heretical” (p. 2):

"the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them."

We would note that Sungenis generally managed to express himself in a decent, respectful manner. In fact he wrote:

“I have great respect both for the USCCB and the catechism it produced for the benefit of Catholic adults…” (page 1)

And he even managed to admit the possibility that he may not understand this statement correctly:

“Unless I am misunderstanding the words or the intent of the United States Catechism, I do not see any other conclusions that can be made.” (p.3)

However, it is evident that this respectful approach was a tactic designed to conceal his true opinion of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Clearly, he wanted to be taken seriously by the Vatican and realized that the more contentious, condemnatory approach he usually adopts would fall upon deaf ears. This was certainly a prudent decision, but it would have been more effective had he continued to keep his true views to himself.

In subsequent public writings not sent to the Vatican, he opted to share his honest views of the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops. The fact is, completely contrary to his humble statement to the Vatican, Sungenis had no doubt in his mind at all that he was interpreting this statement in the only possible way. One will note that, like his treatment of Jewish issues, he has a penchant for painting the entire conference of bishops with a very broad, condemnatory brush.

“More and more the USCCB has shown itself to be a predominately liberal institution…Where there should be absolute outrage from the USCCB on the scandals and heterodoxy occurring within its own rank and file, there is little more than complacency.” (page 6)

“the USCCB is fast becoming a mouthpiece for modern dissidence and liberalism in American Catholicism. We had a revealing indication of the USCCB’s agenda when it joined with the ADL in reviewing a stolen copy of an early draft of Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ, which in an ad hoc committee of five liberal Jews and four liberal Catholics condemned it as “anti-semitic.” When Gibson threatened to sue, the USCCB apologized for its devious actions.” (page 7)

“Mouthpiece”, “Agenda”, “Devious"

“I later found out that Rhoades was in league with the USCCB on this issue.” (page 11)

“In league with the USCCB”? That turn of phrase is most often employed with the most nefarious characters…as in, “in league with the Devil.” The negative implication is clear enough.

“I knew upon leaving the building the erroneous theology he, Rhoades and the USCCB were attempting to propagate to unsuspecting Catholics.” (page 11)

“Attempting to propagate to unsuspecting Catholics.” Apparently, Sungenis would have us believe this is part of another conspiracy.
(Article)

If this is representative of the “great respect” Sungenis has for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, wonders what he might say if he did not respect them.

The question also needs to be asked: Did Sungenis ever make a serious, filial effort to obtain a clarification from the bishops? We are aware that he once sought out an influential layman at the USCCB who Sungenis knew had strong, liberal leanings. No doubt Sungenis singled him out because he believed this individual would give him the fodder he sought, rather treating this serious matter as a game of "gotcha!" But did he approach the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as a faithful son? Did he apply a rule that St. Ignatius recommends in regard to any common individual, let alone the successors to the Apostles? Or did he view the bishops as adversaries, opponents against whom he would enjoy scoring points and “winning”?

"it is necessary to suppose that every good Christian is more ready to put a good interpretation on another's statement than to condemn it as false. If an orthodox construction cannot be put on a proposition, the one who made it should be asked how he understands it. If he is in error, he should be corrected with all kindness. If this does not suffice, all appropriate means should be used to bring him to a correct interpretation, and so defend the proposition from error." (Rule #22, The Spiritual Exercises)

Indeed, this is what Jacob Michael set out to do. In a correspondence dated January 26, 2007, Jacob wrote wrote to the USCCB:

In a section of the Catechism dealing with the Old Covenant, the statement is made that ‘the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.’”

”My question is this: what does the Catechism mean here, concretely? Is this an affirmation that the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jewish people today? Does it mean that we are living in what some theologians call a "bi-covenantal" situation? Or is this merely an affirmation that the Jews retain a special relationship to God because of the Old Covenant, while not stating that the Jewish people can be saved apart from Christ?” (emphasis added)

On February 2, 2007, Msgr. Daniel Kutys of the USCCB responded:

“My understanding of the meaning of that statement is your final observation… God never goes back on his word. But as you also suspect, the enduring nature of the Covenant does not preclude that one day all people will come to Christ and the responsibility all Catholics have to evangelize others about the need for faith in the Triune God revealed in and through Jesus Christ.” (emphasis added)

Certainly, as Bishop Rhoades has acknowledged, it is understandable that one might be confused by this particular sentence. It could certainly be improved. And it appears clear that the bishops are already aware of this fact and it would not be surprising to eventually see it modified for the sake of clarity.

But as faithful Catholics, we must refrain from reaching the worst possible interpretation of the teaching being given by our bishops. How much more must we refrain from accusing our bishops of “attempting to propagate” errors to the "unsuspecting" faithful, as though our bishops are willful agents of evil.

Bob has made much of the “response” he received from the CDF to his letter. However, as even Wikipedia has noted, the response he received appears to be a postcard-sized form letter with two brief sentences and a stamped signature. The reader will notice that the letter does not even address Sungenis by name and the topic of the letter he sent isn’t mentioned in this “response” he touts as a “reply from the Vatican.”

Catholics can trust that good, sober minds are already aware of this issue and it will be handled as the successors to the Apostles deem appropriate, with or without the contributions of those who approach them with deep suspicion.