Jewish Conspiracy Behind Titanic Disaster

In light of the overwhelming evidence produced in this shocking documentary, one must concede that Jews were indeed behind the sinking of the Titanic. However, the "smoking gun" seems to have been missed by the person who produced this documentary. As another blogger has noted publicly:

"It was an iceBERG that sunk the Titanic. Coincidence you say? I think not!"

Indeed.

Unfastened Coins: The Sinking of the Titanic

We await a breaking News Alert at CAI to fill the world in on even more proof of Jewish involvement in this disaster.

A Last Word

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Forrest, David Palm and Jacob Michael

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.