More Imprimatur and Canonical Difficulties for Sungenis?

The Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law states:


Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations (Canon 825 §1).

But it would appear that Robert Sungenis has decided that Canon Law does not apply to him and his “Catholic Apologetics Study Bibles” (CASB). His first volume on the Gospel according to St. Matthew contains a translation that was not approved by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops because Sungenis’s translation was not actually a new translation and because of what they described as his use of “dynamic equivalence”, a method of translation that is generally frowned upon. (Article) Yet, he continues to sell this volume to the public.

Sungenis then used the RSV-CE translation for his next two CASBs in order to avoid the problems related to his unapproved translation, although it appears as though he did not obtain the permission necessary to use this translation, either (scroll down to point #5). And while he submitted these CASB volumes for an imprimatur on the commentary portions and assured his patrons that they would receive it, these volumes have not. CASB2 was rejected by Sungenis’s bishop. And if Sungenis was being truthful when he indicated that he had submitted CASB2 for approval to another bishop after his own bishop had rejected it, then it seems clear that CASB2 has been rejected by that bishop as well. (Article 1 and Article 2)

Sungenis is now advertising three new CASBs (The “second edition” of The Epistles of Romans and James, Genesis and 1 Corinthians), which make use of his own “fresh translation” based on a “literal word-for-word rendering.” (Article 1, Article 2 and Article 3).

As there is no mention of any imprimaturs received on these volumes at BTF, it seems reasonable to conclude that Sungenis has again failed to receive the approval required by Canon Law to publish his Scriptural translations in CASB 3, 4 or 5. It also seems reasonable to conclude that Sungenis has also failed to obtain an imprimatur for the commentary portions of those volumes as well.

Of course, these issues are significant in and of themselves.  However, they are particularly pertinent in Sungenis's case for the following reasons:

1) Sungenis has repeatedly presented himself as one with the authority to condemn other Catholics and make public demands upon them (article 1, article 2, article 3) yet he cannot even seem to procure a simple imprimatur for his work any longer.   At this time, it has been roughly eleven years since Sungenis was able to procure an imprimatur for one of his books.

2) While Sungenis has attempted to pin all of his problems on Bishop Rhoades, he claimed to have submitted his work to another bishop as well (article).   And still, Sungenis has yet to receive the Church's official approbation.   And of course, this does not contemplate the fact that Archbishop Burke intervened in order to stop a presentation that Sungenis was scheduled to make in the Diocese of St. Louis in 2008 (scroll to #5).

3) Sungenis has not been honest about matters involving the reception of imprimaturs in the past (article).

4) He has promised his patrons that his CASBs would receive the Church's official approbation in order to prime the well for sales of his books (article).

It appears clear that Sungenis currently lacks the permission necessary to publish a new translation of the Sacred Scriptures. Yet, he has chosen to forge on nonetheless.   And so, as documented in By Sungenis Alone, the pattern of presuming to play the role of bishop apparently continues unabated at BTF. 

Sungenis' Books Continue to Lack Imprimaturs

It appears that Sungenis' long-standing difficulty in procuring imprimaturs for his books continues unabated. And while Sungenis has framed his difficulties as related solely to Bishop Rhoades as of late, the evidence proves otherwise.


Before any of them were written, Sungenis presumptuously assured his patrons that all of his CASB volumes would have imprimaturs. In doing so, he attempted to prematurely appropriate official Catholic clout in an effort to prime the well for the sale of his books. And as a result, he made a public issue of this matter. One cannot reasonably trumpet the expectation of an imprimatur in public in order to facilitate sales and then object when a denial of the same is also brought out in public. And clearly, Catholics have a legitimate right to know when a book with the word "Catholic" in the title and that deals with the Scriptures and theology has been refused the Church's official approbation.


To date, it appears that all three of Sungenis' "Catholic Apologetics Study Bible" (CASB) volumes have been rejected for an imprimatur. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) rejected his translation of Matthew in CASB1 because it was not actually a new translation, in spite of Sungenis' grand characterization of his work and also because of what the USCCB described as his use of "dynamic equivalency" in this translation (see here).

It should be noted that Sungenis continues to sell this unauthorized translation, apparently in direct violation of Canon Law: see Canon 825.

Although Sungenis had presumptuously assured his patrons that CASB 2 (The Apocalypse) would contain the Church's imprimatur before he had even submitted it for review (see here), CASB2 was rejected by Bishop Rhoades in early December, 2006. Sungenis and a few of his supporters then engaged in a campaign of deception designed to hide that rejection:

Sungenis and the CASB 2 (Apocalypse of St. John): More Source-Reference Problems

Sungenis and Co. Evasive on Simple Questions about Catholic Apologetics Study Bible (CASB) and Canon Law

Sungenis Smears Bishop, Continues to Mislead and Distort the Record

Sungenis then claimed to have submitted CASB2 to another bishop shortly thereafter (early 2007):

In fact, a little while after I received Bishop Rhoades letter, I wrote to Queenship Publishing and told them I would like to apply for an imprimatur for the CASB2 in Queenship's diocese. They obliged and the matter is in process (Sungenis, Jacob Michael, the Imprimatur and the Smear Campaign, p. 1; no longer available on-line.)

It has been almost a year and a half since then, yet no imprimatur has appeared on CASB2. Therefore, if Sungenis was telling the truth about submitting CASB2 to another bishop, it seems safe to conclude that the other bishop has rejected it as well.

Sungenis also claimed to have submitted CASB3 (Romans and James) to another bishop and he was waiting for approval before publishing it (see here).

However, CASB3 has been published and there is no mention of any imprimatur by Sungenis (here). As such, it seems reasonable to conclude that CASB3 has been rejected by another bishop as well.

Another interesting fact about a recent Sungenis book has been illuminated at Wikipedia as well. Galileo Was Wrong, which is substantially the same as the "doctoral dissertation" Sungenis submitted to Calumus International University for a Ph.D. in theology (see Just What the Doctor Ordered?) was refused consideration for an imprimatur because the book was judged as "primarily one of philosophy and science and not one that is primarily theological in nature" (see here). One might naturally ask how a work that focused primarily on philosophy and science could serve as a dissertation for a putative Ph.D. in theology.

In the end, it is noteworthy that Sungenis has not received an imprimatur on any of his books over the last 10 years.

CASB2's Missing Imprimatur: The Real Reason the Bishop Said "No"?

In his January 2008 article for Culture Wars, "The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked? A Review of the PBS Documentary: Jews and Christians: A Journey of Faith", Bob Sungenis offers his readers an explanation as to why his study bible on The Apocalypse of St. John was turned down for an imprimatur.

Our readers will recall that this blog uncovered several interesting details concerning CASB2's conspicuous lack of an imprimatur; the most important of these details included the fact that Bob and his associates engaged in a campaign of deception in order to hide the fact that the imprimatur had been denied because of CASB2's treatment of Jewish issues (link).

In an attempt, no doubt, to recover from the damage of these revelations, Bob tried to justify himself with the following words:

Referring back to the United States Catechism's provocative statement on page 131 ("Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them"), 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." He made this accusation without pointing out even one example in the book where I had violated Church teaching, and further added that he would accept no more discussion on the issue. ("Covenant", p. 11)

Our first step here will be to break down this rather lengthy excuse and boil it down to the bare essentials:

1) Bishop Rhoades denied an imprimatur to CASB2

2) Bishop Rhoades allegedly said that CASB2 "[lacked] adherence to authoritative Church teaching on Judaism"

3) Bishop Rhoades cited page 131 of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (USCCA) in support of this conclusion

4) Bob assumed that the specific sentence on page 131 referred to by the bishop is the sentence dealing with the "eternally valid" Mosaic covenant

5) Bob further assumed that this must mean his book got turned down because "it called for the conversion of the Jews and held them responsible for their historic disbelief in Christ"

6) Bob concluded that his bishop agrees with "the USCCB's liberal stance on the Jews", that "Rhoades and the USCCB [are] attempting to propagate [erroneous theology] to unsuspecting Catholics", specifically the "Dual Covenant theology that he and USCCB [are] apparently promoting." ("Covenant", p. 11)

To make the matter plain: Bob accuses Bishop Rhoades of censoring him because the bishop holds to Dual Covenant theology, which Bob considers to be a heresy. And he bases this accusation on the fact that his bishop made a reference to "page 131" of the USCCA (as well as two other objectionable "observations").

Bob is wrong for three reasons:

1) Bishop Rhoades has now directly refuted Bob's accusations about him [see a complete account here.]

2) There are six sentences dealing with the Jewish people in this section of the USCCA, not just one. Yet, remarkably, Bob jumped to the conclusion that the one potentially problematic sentence must be the one to which his bishop referred.

3) Bishop Rhoades does not interpret this one sentence in the same way Bob does (that is, using a "hermeneutic of suspicion" that seeks the worst possible meaning first)

So why did the bishop reject Bob's book?

Here is the full paragraph of the USCCA to which Bishop Rhoades referred (addressing Jews and Judaism):

The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that "this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues" (LG, no. 16). When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a "great nation." This began the history of God's revealing his divine plan of salvation to a chosen people with whom he made enduring covenants. Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them. At the same time, "remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of antisemitism leveled at any time or from any source against Jews" (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4).

The actual reason why Bob's bishop declined to grant an imprimatur becomes more obvious when we look the entirety of the paragraph in question. It speaks of several things which Bob has repeatedly gone to extraordinary lengths to repudiate, dismiss, minimize or re-define:

1) The Church's "special relationship to the Jewish people."

2) The quote from Nostra Aetate regarding our "common heritage with the Jews" that repudiates "all hatreds, persecutions, displays of antisemitism leveled at any time or from any source against Jews."

3) The acknowledgment of God's abiding interest in, continuing concern for, and unique relationship with the Jewish people.

Could it be, perhaps, that Bob's CASB2 smacked too much of that anti-Jewish sentiment that, as we have amply shown in many articles on this blog, so permeates all of his writing and thought?

Why don't we look at CASB2 and verify it for ourselves?

Barely 30 pages into the text, Bob deals with the passage "every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him."

First, Bob applies this text simultaneously (and confusingly) to both the Jews of the future and all the Jews of past ages:

If the reference to "those who pierced him" is more general, it may refer to Jews living at the Second Coming who represent all the Jews from the past who have disbelieved in Christ (CASB2, p. 31).

Then, Bob turns the interpretation on its head, and says it refers to the Jews of the first century, who will "be raised from the dead in order to see Christ coming to earth at the end of the world". (ibid.) He writes, "John intends to convey the idea that the Jews, who had disbelieved Christ at his First Coming, and continue to do so in their blindness (Rm 11:7-8), will, on the Last Day, finally see and be forced to accept that the man they crucified was, indeed, the very Son of God" (ibid).

Indulging in a bit of theatric melodrama for a moment, Bob continues, "Thus the Jews will be beside themselves with grief and vexation when they finally realize that they were totally wrong. But it will be too late, for the Second Coming is the time of judgment, not repentance, and this is the reason they will be 'wailing'" (ibid, p. 32).

He then ties this "every one who pierced him" phrase to Zech. 12:10, and notes that it has reference to the Roman soldier who literally pierced Christ's side - but then, amazingly, he manages to bring even this literal/historical fact back to an accusation almost entirely against the Jews, while excusing the Romans:

The phrase in Zc 12:10, "they have pierced," is plural, and thus the soldier of Jn 19:34 represents both the Romans and the Jews who were involved in the death of Jesus. But though the Romans were involved, it is well known from both Scripture and Catholic commentary that the Roman officials were instigated into the crucifixion because of the hatred the Jewish leaders had against Christ (ibid, p. 32).

Bob's campy and contrived pathos is bad enough, as he sketches for the reader a picture of the first-century/present-day/future Jews (he apparently doesn't care which) being "beside themselves with grief" at the moment when they "finally realize" that they were not only wrong, but "totally wrong" - but alas! it is "too late" for them, for this is "the time of judgment, not repentance."

But much worse is the fact that Bob is apparently so driven to keep the reader fully focused on the Jewish fault at the Crucifixion, that he introduces a novel interpretation wherein even the Roman soldier who actually pierced Christ becomes a symbol of "the Romans and the Jews" who killed Christ - and when he says "Romans and Jews", he really means just "the Jews" because "though the Romans were involved," everyone knows through the teaching of "both Scripture and Catholic commentary" (you'll have to fill in the blank here with titles, because Bob doesn't cite any) that the Romans were only "instigated [sic] into the crucifixion" (Noah Webster, please call your office) because of the "hatred" of "the Jewish leaders."

Moving on to the passage that speaks of "the synagogue of Satan", Bob does not hesitate to interpret this as a reference to "the Jews". He doesn't explain, he doesn't persuade, he doesn't interact with any existing scholarship that argues that these people who "say they are Jews, but are not" are really not rank-and-file ethnic Jews - he just assumes that conclusion. But then he goes a step further:

. . . Satan is the instigator behind the attack against the Church. He is not a figment of our imagination. He is as real as real can be, and he is, indeed, very powerful. He wants worship and will settle for nothing less. He has incited the Jews against Christianity just as he incited Judas against Jesus (ibid, p. 50).

Bob's misstep here is that he cannot seem to utilize any kind of verbal precision when making these sorts of statements about "the Jews". He does not discriminate - the "synagogue of Satan" is simply equated with "the Jews", and Satan "has incited" (present-continuous) the Jews against us. Because "Most Jews simply would not accept Jesus", says Bob, "they became the sworn enemy of Christianity." (ibid.) Missing from this rather sensitive discussion, which Bob is content to handle with sandpaper and steel wool, is any distinction between the select group of first century Jews who did indeed persecute the Church, and the generic "Jews" of all time. For Bob, it is enough to wax schmaltzy about that old Devil who is "real as real can be", and who - it must be repeated - "has incited the Jews against Christianity."

It is beginning to become clearer why Bishop Rhoades chose not to sanction this manuscript with the Church's own seal of approval.

Moving further into the book, we arrive at Bob's commentary on Apocalypse Chapter 7. After eleven pages, there, sticking out like the kosher pig's feet, is the bold heading: "Romans 11 and the Future of Israel." For the next sixteen pages, the reader is treated to a full-blown soap-box sermon on the following subjects: Israel is no longer the Chosen People, there will be no special future conversion of the Jews, the hardness that has come upon the Jews will endure until the end of time, the Old Covenant has been revoked, Israel has no right to the Promised Land, the Church Fathers do not teach a future special conversion of Israel, and the "constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church" is that the "Olive Tree" of Romans 11 refers to Christ and not to Israel.

The words "propaganda piece" are almost too perfect to pass up.

What is a little more than entertaining is the way Bob cannot seem to make up his mind concerning the number of Fathers who hold to a special, future conversion of the Jews. In a dialogue with John Pacheco, he wrote, "Only two Fathers hold out for any future large restoration of faith in Israel". (The Fathers and the Return of the Jews) Later, however, in another article, he wrote, "Only three Fathers hold out for a future and distinct conversion of Jews." (Judaizers in the Catholic Church)

In his CASB2, he admits that "a few Fathers anticipated a significant conversion of the Jews". (p. 147) But a little later on the same page, he writes, "a little over half a dozen [Fathers] speak about an anticipated conversion of Jews," although he claims (on the strength of his own say-so, and without offering the least shred of proof) that "half of them apply it exclusively to the salvation of a remnant during the Church age". (p. 147) Note well: as of this writing, Bob has yet to demonstrate that the word "remnant" represents an insignificant number; for example, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that at "the end of the world ... the remnants of Israel will be converted" (Summa, I-IIae, q. 102, a. 5, reply to obj. 5), but elsewhere he shows that by "remnants" he means all of the Jews living at that point in history: omnis Israel salvus fiet, non particulariter sicut modo, sed universaliter omnes. ("All Israel will be saved, not individually as it is now, but all universally"; Super Ep. B. Pauli ad Rom., Cap. 11, Lect. 4)

Bob has yet to demonstrate, when the other Fathers or Popes use the term "remnant" in reference to the future conversion of the Jews, that this term is incompatible with the idea of a significant majority of Jews living in the end time, as we saw in St. Thomas Aquinas.

Be that as it may, Bob moves from "two Fathers" to "three Fathers", from "three Fathers" to "a few Fathers", and from "a few Fathers" to "half a dozen". Last year, in response to Ben Douglass, he admitted that "there is a prevalent opinion in the early Church that the last generation of Jews might be saved en masse" ("I'm Mad, and I'm not Going to Take it Anymore", p. 19), although he quickly shrugged this off by adding, "but there was also a prevalent opinion endorsing Premillennial eschatology in the early Church".

In his review of Jacob Michael's Never Revoked by God, Bob writes, "Mr. Michael cites Pope St. Gregory the Great as supporting his view, and rightly so. But what Michael doesn't tell us is that Gregory is merely reiterating the views of a few Fathers who went before him, since Gregory doesn't offer any exegesis of the passages from which he quotes." ("Jacob Michael's 'Never Revoked by God': A Review by Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.", p. 13) He quickly lapses into an exegetical argument with the sainted Pope ("Gregory's citation of Isaiah 61:7 as applying to the Jews of the future is undercut, etc., etc."), but not before the audience has hopefully picked up on his unintended admission: when Pope St. Gregory the Great spoke of a future significant conversion of the Jews, he was "reiterating the views of a few Fathers who went before him." When a Sainted Pope "reiterates" the position of saints "who went before him", Catholics call this "handing on a tradition."

When it comes to preserving his interpretive bias, however, Bob is unshakeable, and un-teachable; even the witness of the Church Fathers, Doctors, and Sainted Popes to the contrary will be met with protestations from Bob like the following:

• "some of the Fathers were poor at exegeting Scripture." (Will Enoch and Elijah Return to Preach to the Jews?, p. 3)


• "Some of [the Fathers] did not even know the languages of the Bible, Greek and Hebrew." (ibid., p. 3)


• "with the tools of biblical exegesis we have today, as well as the exegetical knowledge and easy access of Greek and Hebrew not available to some of the Fathers, contemporary exegetes of Scripture have a distinct advantage in discovering the truths of Holy Writ that were not always available to the Fathers." (ibid., p. 4)


• "Of the dozen or so Fathers that speak about a future conversion of the Jews, only superficial and question-begging assertions are made of Rm 11:25-27, and often with some obvious blunders." (ibid., p. 11)


• "Gregory’s treatment of both Rm 11:25 and Is 61:7 contain obvious blunders" (ibid., p. 20)


• "Gregory interprets the Greek word [houtos] as 'and as follows,' ... But as we noted previously, [houtos] does not mean 'then' or 'afterwards'" (ibid., pp. 20-21)


• "Here we see Jerome interpreting the Greek adverb [houtos] as if it were the word 'then.' It seems that the Fathers were so conditioned by the Chiliasts that went before them, even when the definitions of Greek words were staring them in the face, that they didn't see the real meaning of the word." (ibid., p. 21, fn. 34)


• "As a result of [Augustine's] exegetical duplicity, Augustine and his followers subsequently produced many forced interpretations of Ap 11:5-8 and Rm 11:25-26 to make room for both a Jewish conversion and a Jewish evangelism to the Gentiles." (ibid., p. 17)


• "As we will see, not one Father addressed the exegetical details of the passages in question, much less could any of them come to firm conclusions about their interpretations." (ibid., p. 20)


• "Not knowing Hebrew, Chrysostom and Augustine often end up in unsupported exegesis by relying only on the LXX" (Intense Dialogue on Romans 11)

"In fact, Chrysostom incorrectly turns the Greek 'houtos' in Romans 11:26 from its function as an adverb modifying how Israel will be saved into a future time element for the salvation." (Judaizers in the Catholic Church)

Bob's demand for proof of a "consensus" (which he arbitrarily defines as "unanimous consent", cf. Intense Dialogue on Romans 11) on this point is disingenuous anyway; perhaps finally realizing that the patristic witness against him really is quite substantial, he has begun to forge a new position, a position he had not previously promoted:

It is the divine origin of a particular doctrine that makes the doctrine a requirement of belief for salvation, not the majority or common opinion of the Fathers, the medievals or theologians and prelates of today (Enoch and Elijah, p. 3).

. . . no Catholic is under any compulsion whatsoever to abide by whatever was predicted about Israel among even a majority of patristic writers ... even if the Fathers are in consensus on a given topic, we are still permitted to add information that has been gleaned from fresh studies of Scripture (Never Revoked, p. 12).

In other words, we're dealing with a lost cause: if Bob is shown that a Father or Doctor of the Church believes in the conversion of the Jews, he will dismiss their opinion because they failed to give a thorough textual exegesis; if patristic textual exegesis can be demonstrated, or it can be shown that a Father or Doctor interprets Scripture in a particular way, Bob will not hesitate to belittle that Father or Doctor's knowledge of the original languages or exegetical skill; in any case, he will say, no consensus (read: total unanimity) exists; but if that consensus can be shown, he will still duck and dodge and retort that we need not agree with the patristic majority view ... when he says so, anyway. Certainly we've all witnessed this kind of (mis)treatment of the Fathers of the Church. But it comes from certain Protestant apologists.

In short, Bob is making this up as he goes along, evading the evidence at all costs so long as it allows him to maintain his negative view that there will be no significant future conversion of the Jews - remember, Bob has publicly accepted as the "unofficially declared" teaching of the Church the position that the anti-Christ will be a Jew, and he does so on the testimony of maybe two or three Fathers, without once demanding proof of textual exegesis and unanimous consent. And now he has declared in his CASB II "the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church" was that Christ is the Olive Tree of Romans 11 (see point #5). As such, the one consistent rule of Bob's theological world seems to be: listen to me, I alone have figured it out!

As a side note, Bob ridicules several Fathers above for interpreting houtos as "and THEN" instead of "and IN THIS MANNER"; in particular, we saw him criticize St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom (a native Greek speaker!), and Pope St. Gregory the Great for interpreting the Greek in this way (thus proving that even if you do show Bob the patristic exegetical witness, he'll just argue that their exegesis is wrong, even if they were native Greek speakers). It is worth pointing out that, here too, the patristic majority is against Bob:

. . . the Greek Patristic literature in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae CD-ROM ... shows that kai houtos in Rom 11:26 was most commonly (73% of 60 citations!) understood in the temporal sense of "and then." For Greek Patristic texts frequently substitute for kai houtos some other expression, such as tote or meta touto ..." (J.M. Scott, "And then All Israel Will Be Saved", in J.M. Scott [ed.], Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives [Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001], p. 491).

We will not hold our collective breath waiting for Bob to admit that his exegesis on this point stands soundly corrected by a large majority of the Greek Fathers, who forgot more Greek than Bob Sungenis will ever know.

Not only is he treating his audience to an improv act, he is also willfully ignoring and suppressing evidence. Before CASB2 was published, Bob purchased, read, and wrote a review of Jacob Michael's book Never Revoked by God; in that book, some twenty Fathers, saints, Doctors of the Church, Medievals, etc., were brought forward as witnesses to this common Catholic belief. For Bob to still move forward and publish a book that says "only a little over half a dozen [Fathers] speak about an anticipated conversion of Jews", when he had seen solid evidence to the contrary, illustrates what kind of person we are dealing with.

The way in which Bob's animus towards the Jews permeates his theology and hampers his exegetical ability is also evident in other ways in this bible study. At one point, while discussing the army of 200,000,000 that will destroy "a third of mankind", Bob somehow manages to bring the discussion around to the issue of Jewish unbelief. he writes:

In the time of Elijah, there were approximately 3 million men in Israel. A million and a half came out of Egypt 600 years earlier ... so an estimate of 3 million in the time of Elijah is conservative. But out of that huge number, God says that only 7,000 could be found in the whole nation who had not bowed the knee to the false god, Baal. That is 0.23% of the people (p. 187).

He said the same things in his infamous radio interview with Mark Dankhof, only using slightly different numbers:

... if we say a million or two million people back in that time, in 800 BC, and as Paul says, that God told Elijah that "I have 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Ba'al", well 7,000 out of a nation of a million or so is .7 percent, ok? Now, you take that .7 percent, that's much more of people that were saved in Israel in 800 BC than we see today, in Modern Israel, where it's .08 percent, you see. So the statistics don't lie, I mean, if you look at them closely, there haven't been any real conversions to Jesus Christ from Israel - these people are as blind as they were 2,000 years ago!

Aside from the fact that Bob is pulling these numbers out of thin air, a more fundamental problem exists with this smoke-and-mirror show. Bob says "the statistics don't lie", but in this case the corollary is all too true: liars often use statistics. Bob breathes new life into the saying, "57% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

In both of these quotes, he uses the seven-thousand faithful Israelites of Elijah's day to start building his line graphs and pie charts of fabricated percentages as though "seven thousand" is absolutely and without question, literal. But the actual biblical text from which Bob continually wrenches this number suggests a different sort of story.

. . . you shall anoint Hazael to be king over Syria; and Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint to be king over Israel; and Elisha ... you shall anoint to be prophet in your place. And him who escapes from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay; and him who escapes from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him (1 Kings 19:15-18).

So what is the text saying? Who are these seven thousand? Are these just seven thousand souls that have not bowed the knee to Baal? They are at least that, but read closely: they are the "seven thousand" that God will "leave" as survivors after the swords of Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha have finished dispensing God's justice.

The problem is simply this: if this number is literal, the passage is saying that God intends to wipe out hundreds of thousands - millions, if we believe Bob's numbers - and leave only seven thousand survivors in the Northern Kingdom. It's not that this scenario couldn't be true - it's that there is no record of such a scenario in Scripture or secular history. God did literally use Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha to administer the sword and slay the wicked, but it seems far more likely that they left more than seven thousand survivors in the Northern Kingdom.

The point? The number seven thousand is very likely a symbolic number - the covenant number, seven, multiplied by a thousand, showing that God has indeed preserved a faithful, covenanted remnant for Himself. More than a literal seven thousand, but a remnant all the same.

In fact, two renowned biblical scholars, Fr. George Leo Haydock and Dom Bernard Orchard both raise this very issue and treat the symbolic interpretation of this passage as the more likely:

Dom Bernard Orchard, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, p 337:

The 'Remnant' (this is the first instance of an idea common in the 8th century prophets), from which flourishing religious life was to grow, is given in a figurative number, the 7 suggesting health. Perhaps however, the actual number of the orthodox in the North is indicated.

Fr. Leo Haydock, Comprehensive Catholic Commentary, p 451:

God lets him know that he is not left alone, but that many thousands (C.) even in Israel still continue faithful; so far was the true Church from being in danger of perishing entirely. H. - Seven is often put for a great number. Prov. xxiv 16. Yet some suppose, (C.) that only this number served God out of 1,110,000 men in Israel.

But did Bob inform his readers of this more likely interpretation? No. He only presented the most negative (and less likely) interpretation of this number and then even proceeded to use it to arrive at his own estimated percentages, all in order to convince his readers how faithless the Jews really are. Perhaps this is simply a hangover from his years as a protégé to Harold Camping, a man infamous for such numerological shenanigans.

As we continue our tour of the Apocalypse, we finally reach the chapter on the Whore of Babylon, and it is here that Bob can no longer restrain himself from spewing forth things he's been wanting to say about the Jews. On pages 346-347, Bob goes on about the Jews for several paragraphs.

He notes that "Judaism was a grave problem in the first century Church"; then we get a short history lesson on how the Jews "migrated to Babylon where they stayed for the next thousand years", before "they were driven out of Babylon and settled to the northeast in the land of Khazaria" (p. 346).

Going on, he explains that "By the second millennium, many of these same Jews had become engrossed in mysticism, producing the Kabbala and the Zohar." At last, he begins to drive towards the sweeping conclusion:

All of the writings of the Jews had one common trait - they were thoroughly anti-Christ and anti-Christianity. Hence the same antagonism towards Christianity that began in the 'synagogue of Satan' in the first century continued to brew throughout the first millennium and finally erupted in the second. It is predicted by many of the Catholic saints and doctors that the Jews will become a significant force in the oppression of Christianity in the future, some stating that the Antichrist himself will come from the Jewish race. Thus, if there is a more specific historical/apocalyptic relevance to the title 'Whore of Babylon', it could be said that Apocalypse 17-18 is prophesying that Israel, who was divorced from God for her whoredom and sent to ancient Babylon ..., would emigrate to Babylon and remain in her whorish state, from which she would come forth once again in the last days as one of the main persecutors and evil influences upon the Church (pp. 346-347).

And there it is. The fact that the Jews were twice exiled into Babylon is enough for Bob to conclude that the Jews are the famous "Whore" of the Apocalypse. He continues this though a few pages later:

In a similar vein, the church at Smyrna is confronted with the 'synagogue of Satan,' which refers to the religion of Judaism that has now become an antagonist to the Gospel. The Jewish religion has been forsaken and it has become part of the 'Whore of Babylon.' It is this whore who is now trying to entice the Christians away from Jesus Christ, and therefore they are doing the work of "Satan" (p. 376).

As with his previous statements, so also here Bob displays an incredible lack of precision and prudence. He leaves the reader with the distinct impression that Judaism is Satanic, that the Jews are doing "the work of 'Satan'", that the Jews are the "Whore of Babylon" who "is now trying to entice the Christians away from Jesus Christ." He paints with an extremely broad brush, and smears the colors of his anti-Jewish animus on the wall with incredible sloppiness.

Why did Bishop Rhoades reject CASB2 for an imprimatur? Was it because Bob "called for the conversion of the Jews and held them responsible for their historic disbelief in Christ", as he alleges? Or was it, rather, because of paragraphs like the above, which paint "the Jews" indiscriminately in the most evil light?

Was it, perhaps, because the bishop read statements in CASB2 such as the ones we saw above, and when he compared these statements to the USCCBC teaching (from Vatican 2), "she [the Church] deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of antisemitism leveled at any time or from any source against Jews," he had no choice but to judge that Bob's book lacked "adherence to authoritative Church teaching on Judaism"?

Sungenis Smears Bishop, Continues to Mislead and Distort the Record

Recently, in an attempt to explain extremely misleading information he and his associates have given about the Catholic Apologetics Study Bible (CASB1 and CASB2), Robert Sungenis made a plethora of additional false or misleading statements and chose to smear his own bishop in the process. Some of these statements will be addressed below.

The careful reader should note a pattern throughout this unfortunate saga. Sungenis continues to make extremely misleading and occasionally outright false statements with the absolute confidence and assertiveness of the well-seasoned professional debater that he is. At this point, it should be plain that important assertions made by Robert Sungenis should not be accepted without first carefully examining the evidence and hearing all sides.

1) The Smearing of Sungenis’ Bishop

In reaction to the fact that Sungenis’ bishop refused to grant an imprimatur for CASB2, Sungenis chose to smear him:

"With all due respect to Bishop Rhoades, I believe I know what his theological viewpoint is, since he is a protégé of William Cardinal Keeler and very close to him personally and theologically, Keeler having come from the Harrisburg diocese and the ordinary who ordained Rhoades. If you remember, Cardinal Keeler was a co-author with several Jewish rabbis of the Reflections on Covenant and Missions document in 2003. I think you get the picture. I won't say anymore out of respect for Bishop Rhoades."
(Jacob Michael, the Imprimatur and the Smear Campaign, p. 11)

Yes, unfortunately, one does readily “get the picture.” Sungenis opted to smear his own bishop with innuendo and guilt by association and then had the nerve to claim he was showing “respect” for him by so doing. The reader will notice that Sungenis provided no substantive documentation for his implied charges. He simply associated Bishop Rhoades with Jews, Cardinal Keeler and the RCM document and that was enough for him to conclude that the Bishop must subscribe to the dual covenant position, or perhaps must be one of those bishops he previously described thusly:

"As long as [my critics]…refuse to condemn the USCCB and other hierarchy for their capitulation to the Jews, then they will never be my friends, they will be my enemies. God will be the judge of who of us has been right."
(Article, page 23)

This attack on Bishop Rhoades is particularly outrageous and hypocritical as Sungenis and his associates have bitterly complained that Sungenis is a victim of guilt by association in regard to Jewish issues. They have argued that he is being called an anti-Semite simply because some of his sources are anti-Semitic. However, in Sungenis’ case, it is most certainly not a matter of guilt by association. It is not guilt by association when one actively and purposely promotes, uses and otherwise directly associates oneself with the “Jewish research” of anti-Semites.

In stark contrast, Sungenis provided no documentation at all that bishop Rhoades holds to or promotes the “two separate, salvific covenants” concept suggested by the RCM document. His mistreatment of Bishop Rhoades is therefore a classic example of guilt by association.

This is made all the more ugly by the fact that Bishop Rhoades has a good, conservative reputation and is highly regarded by orthodox Catholics. He is certainly not considered liberal and has also exhibited a favorable disposition toward the Traditional Latin Mass.

Apparently, relatively soon after Sungenis’ attempted defense was posted in multiple venues, he received complaints on the outrageousness of this smear against the bishop and removed it. However, characteristically, no public retraction or apology has been made by him at CAI.

As a side note, one also wonders why Sungenis felt the need to only present selected parts of the letter from his diocese regarding CASB2 rather than reproducing the entire text, as he did in the case of the letter from the USCCB on the rejection of CASB1. A natural question arises as to what exactly is in the rest of the letter that led Sungenis to exclude it.

2) Sungenis Promises of an Imprimatur for the CASB

“Now, some people might ask why we didn’t reveal that we had been denied an imprimatur from the Harrisburg diocese. The reasons are many. First, to be quite blunt, it is really nobody’s business but ours. For example, if one is declined an imprimatur, he is not required to put a notice on the inside cover of the book that it has been denied. Books are denied imprimaturs all the time. Have you ever seen someone advertise that they have been denied?”
(JMISC, p. 9)

One has to agree with Sungenis on his last point. One would be hard-pressed to find an individual who advertised that they had been denied an imprimatur. However, one would be equally hard-pressed to find an individual who advertised that he would have an imprimatur on books that had yet to be reviewed by his bishop or even written, for that matter. By so doing, Sungenis presumptuously attempted to prematurely appropriate official Catholic clout in an effort to prime the well for the sale of his books. And therefore it was he, not anyone else, who initially made a public issue of this matter. One cannot reasonably trumpet the expectation of an imprimatur in public in order to facilitate sales and then cry foul when a denial of the same is also brought out in public.

Further on in his reply, Sungenis seems to at least somewhat sense the problem and attempts an answer:

“R. Sungenis: There is nothing wrong or dishonest about this statement [promising an imprimatur], since my books Not By Faith Alone and Not By Scripture Alone do contain imprimaturs. But at the time the above statement was written, we had not even completed the first volume of the Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, and the advertisement that is on our website is from that time period. Notice that Mr. Michael does not show a date for the above statement, since he knows it comes from 2003, but that date wouldn’t add any fuel to his accusation, since it shows we were anticipating getting an imprimatur long before the book was published.” (JMISC, p.4)

And

“Mr. Michael is trying to give the impression that just because the page exists on our website as of June 27, 2007, then it must apply currently. He knows it doesn’t because he knows that it is an ad from 2003 that was never taken off our website. There are many things on our website that we fail to take off for one reason or another. It’s been that way since we started CAI in 1993.” (JMISC, p. 8)

Aside from the fact that Sungenis doesn't seem to realize that this is a rather odd and embarrassing admission, unfortunately, his statements don’t resolve the actual issues involved. Again, at least as of July 6, 2007, the teaser ad/link for this same advertisement is still prominently displayed on the home page of Sungenis’ website and Sungenis is fully aware of it. Click on the advertisement at the lower right-hand portion of the screen that excitedly exclaims, “3 Down 10 to Go!”:

“And, of course, they contain the Catholic Church's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, just as the CASB will contain.” (link)

First, again, it is extremely presumptuous to publicly promise an imprimatur for books that have as yet to be reviewed by one’s bishop, as Sungenis has recently discovered. Second, Sungenis seems to be arguing that because he initially posted the advertisement some time ago, this somehow nullifies its current relevance and effect. This is an irrational argument.

Consider an analogy. Driving down the road you see a sign exclaiming “Unleaded Gas, $2.00/gal!” So you pull in and fill up with 20 gallons. When you look at your receipt, the charge is for $60 ($3/gal). Confused, you call over the station owner himself and he tells you that the price is $3 a gallon. You point out that big sign in front of the station promising $2/gallon. And he replies, “Listen, I put that sign up there two years ago. You can’t possibly hold me to that now!” Would you be satisfied with that answer?

The fact is, Sungenis publicly made a presumptuous promise that he had no right to make. And that ill-considered promise is renewed every day it remains on his website. That’s simply common sense.

The final problem for Sungenis’ argument in this case is the fact that it is almost certain he was made aware that this advertisement was still up at CAI for at least the past month and a half. And he has yet to revise it. For anyone who has followed the work of ubiquitous Sungenis defender and promoter Mark Wyatt and CAI “Media Technician” Laurence Gonzaga, there can be no serious doubt that Sungenis was informed about this matter:

On May 24th, 2007, Sungenis associate, Mark Wyatt, wrote:

“Unfortunately the description you are reading about the updated DR is in the ad titled ‘1 down [i.e., Matthew], 12 more to go!! ‘. In fact this was true when he started and finished the Matthew study bible, but is not true now after finishing the Apocalypse and Romans / James (in publication). He needs to update his site.” (link)

And then we have these assurances from CAI “Media Technician” Laurence Gonzaga on May 25th, 2007:

“I think CAI should revise their page on the CASB to avoid any confusion... I will talk to Bob about it later...” (link)

“Okay... I can understand your concern especially with the information on the CASB page... It needs to be REVISED reflecting this issue and future plans...” (link)

Although both Mr. Gonzaga and Mr. Wyatt apparently asked Sungenis to revise this ad, the erroneous material still remains even now, a month and a half later. (link)

The careful observer will notice that Sungenis did recently manage to find the time to update the teaser/link for the advertisement on his home page to reflect the fact that 2 more volumes of the CASB had been completed, however. The initial teaser/link said, “1 down, 12 to go!” Now it says, “3 down, 10 to go”. It seems Sungenis has his own personal priorities.

Additionally, one may also notice some selective presentation of facts at work. Sungenis writes:

R. Sungenis: There is nothing wrong or dishonest about this statement, since my books Not By Faith Alone and Not By Scripture Alone do contain imprimaturs. (JMISC, p. 4)

However, below you will find the full quote to which he referred from his advertisement:

“If you are familiar with my books (Not By Faith Alone; Not By Scripture Alone; Not By Bread Alone, et al) you know what kind of material to expect in the CASB. And, of course, they contain the Catholic Church's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, just as the CASB will contain” (emphasis added, link)

Sungenis failed to mention that his ad also includes Not By Bread Alone in this list of books that have a nihil obstat and imprimatur. Not By Bread Alone does not have an imprimatur or a nihil obstat, as noted in the previous blog post here at RSATJ. So there certainly is something "wrong or dishonest about this statement."

As a final note, Sungenis' views on truthfulness were further illuminated as a result of this latest episode:

“Thus, when I said that we were applying and waiting for an imprimatur for the CASB2, I was referring to the SECOND attempt to do so at the diocese of my publisher. Hence, nothing I said was false.” (emphasis in original, JMISC, p. 1)

The fact is that Sungenis and his associates were questioned directly as to whether he had been denied an imprimatur, whether he had heard anything back from his bishop and when he applied for the imprimatur. The answers that he and his associates chose to give were purposely crafted to give the false impression that Bishop Rhoades, to whom the manuscript was first submitted for an imprimatur, was still in the process of reviewing the work and that there was no reason to doubt that it would arrive in good order. The deceptive effect of their answers is illustrated here: link 1, link 2 and link 3

3) The Purported Appeal of the Denied Imprimatur

First, contrary to Sungenis’ implications, it should be pointed out that it has not been claimed that Sungenis must have an imprimatur for the commentary portion of his study bibles simply in order to publish them. However, as acknowledged even by his associate Mark Wyatt, he cannot sell them “in churches or oratories” where he may speak or debate “unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority” (Can. 827 §4)

Sungenis also makes the following assertion:

“In fact, a little while after I received Bishop Rhoades letter, I wrote to Queenship Publishing and told them I would like to apply for an imprimatur for the CASB2 in Queenship’s diocese. They obliged and the matter is in process.” (JMISC, p. 1)

This statement by Sungenis raises several issues and questions. Sungenis indicated that he appealed “a little while after” he was denied, which occurred at the beginning of December, 2006. In light of Sungenis’ demonstrated willingness to give seriously misleading impressions, it would certainly be helpful to know precisely when he filed his purported appeal. It has been over 7 months since he was denied the imprimatur. And the diocese of Harrisburg has already indicated that they have no record of any appeal in process, which would be expected in such circumstances. Was the purported appeal by any chance filed after questions were being increasingly raised about the missing imprimatur? Did Sungenis inform this other purported bishop that he was denied the imprimatur, as he was directed that he must by the diocese of Harrisburg? These are reasonable and pertinent questions that deserve an answer.

4) The Letter from the USCCB Regarding Sungenis’ New Translation

“Mr. Michael, in another attempt to discredit me a couple of weeks ago, was traveling around the Internet making derogatory comments that the letter from the USCCB that I said I had received stating that the USCCB could not grant an imprimatur for the Matthew translation because it was actually a ‘translation of a translation,’ didn’t exist. Mr. Michael suggested I was fabricating the letter in order to diffuse the issue.” (JMISC, pp. 11-12)

This distortion is significant enough to call it a falsehood. The issue was not whether Sungenis had ever received any letter from the USCCB that denied an imprimatur due to his “translation of a translation” difficulty (although, even here, it turns out that Sungenis and his associates had omitted an additional reason for the rejection, see below). Rather, Jacob Michael focused on the impression being given by Sungenis associates Mark Wyatt and Laurence Gonzaga that Sungenis had a letter from the USCCB explicitly giving him carte blanche permission to go ahead and publish his translation without an imprimatur:

“If he has a letter from the USCCB giving him a free pass, where is it? Why wasn't mention of it made in his CASB 1? Why doesn't he just put it out there, now that he knows (due to your recent contact with him) that the lack of imprimatur has become an issue?....Did Bob get a free pass from the USCCB or didn't he? You've made the claim publicly, so where's the proof?”
(link)

In fact, Jacob Michael was correct. Sungenis never received a letter that granted him permission to go ahead and publish his unapproved translation. If one carefully reviews the letter from the USCCB, as reproduced by Sungenis himself, one will notice that there is nothing expressly mentioning any such permission, or a “free pass” as Jacob Michael phrased it. As he has so often in previous situations, Sungenis seems to have jumped to conclusions that were not expressly stated in the letter itself, conclusions that were most beneficial to him.

As a final note, it is also clear that the USCCB did not definitively reject Sungenis’ translation in CASB1, leaving him without an avenue for appeal. In fact, they invited him to consider pursuing this avenue. Yet, oddly in this case, he seems to have considered his work definitively “denied”, unlike the case of CASB2. Additionally, the USCCB did not reject the translation in CASB1 solely for a “technical” difficulty as Sungenis and his associates have led everyone to believe since November of 2006. The USCCB also rejected Sungenis’ application for an imprimatur because of his stated advocacy of an approach that tended toward “dynamic equivalency.” (JMSIC, p. 13) This reason for the rejection was previously concealed by Sungenis, as illustrated below:

“R. Sungenis: When I applied for the Imprimatur for the Matthew volume, the USCCB determined that my modifications to the DR were a ‘translation of a translation’ and not a true translation, and therefore, I could not get the specific Imprimatur for a ‘translation.’” (Q and A 73, November 2006)

In light of these newly discovered facts, perhaps it becomes much clearer why Sungenis has long been so reticent to make this letter from the USCCB public.

5) Copyrights for the RSV-CE

Sungenis writes:

“They tried to claim I was being unethical regarding the CASB 2, The Apocalypse of St. John. They claimed that I did not get approval from the copyright holder of the bible portion of the book. Result? The responsibility of the copyrights and other such issues are Queenship’s. As they have in the past, they secure rights and pay the fees whenever it is required, as they have done for me the last 11 years.” (JMISC, p. 2)

This is false. No one “claimed” that he had been unethical or had not gotten approval. Sungenis was asked, privately, with his closest associates as witnesses, whether he had been given permission. And he was given an opportunity to provide proof to dispel any doubt, privately, precisely in the manner which he has repeatedly complained has been refused to him in the past (e.g., "Mr. Michael could have easily come to me and asked about the situation, but since he has been incommunicado with me for almost a year, that kind of polite Christian gesture wasn’t on his agenda. Instead, he prefers to gossip on the Internet with juicy insinuations in order to further his campaign against me.", pp. 1-2). Despite his protestations that his critics can always "easily come to me and ask" questions of this nature, Sungenis refused to answer any questions in private, and insisted it was no one's "flipping business." (email of 6/28/2007)

In light of Sungenis’ well-established history of plagiarism (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4 and link 5), it was not unreasonable to ask Sungenis if he had obtained permission to use the RSV-CE.

Sungenis avoided answering the question. The reader will note that he never indicated whether permission was granted or not and chose instead to deflect any possible blame to his publisher. Regardless of who should have obtained the permission, if it was not obtained, then this is yet another mark against Sungenis’ CASB.

The holder of the copyright (the NCCC) has indicated that they have no record of granting permission to either Sungenis or Queenship. And they have very specific verbiage that must appear on an author’s book when permission is granted (see here) - in particular, the notice "Used by permission" must appear on the copyright page, a notice which does not appear on the copyright page of CASB 2. Perhaps Sungenis does have permission, in which case it would be a simple task to provide the proof and end the doubt. For some reason, however, Sungenis has resisted providing proof and - let the reader make note - has decided to make a public issue of this, rather than taking the opportunity offered him to deal with it in private. Similar gross distortions of personal correspondence with Sungenis were also made in his latest defense.

6) The Unexplained Contradiction:

In Sungenis, the CASB (The Apocalypse of St. John) and the Imprimatur, the following issue was brought to light:

“The reader will note that Sungenis himself indicated back in September 2006 that the CASB 2 was ‘at the Bishop's office’ being considered for an imprimatur – long before it was published. However, in May 2007, Sungenis indicated that he had ‘already decided to submit the manuscript for an Imprimatur after the book was published.’ Clearly, barring a tortured interpretation of these statements, they do not reconcile with one another.” (link)

Sungenis’ answer (JMISC, p. 5) was essentially an admixture of bluster and insult with no substance. He never got around to actually explaining how to reconcile these two conflicting statements about CASB2.

To recap, first, he acknowledged that he had sent CASB2 to his bishop in September 2006, before it was published. Then after he came under scrutiny he claimed that he had “already decided to submit the manuscript for an Imprimatur after the book was published.” Note, Sungenis’ new claim to have submitted another request for an imprimatur to a different bishop does not provide an obvious means to readily reconcile these two statements. The original discrepancy remains: How could Sungenis “already” have decided to submit the manuscript “after” it was published, when in his own words, he actually submitted the manuscript long before it was published? Perhaps Sungenis can finally elaborate on a sound, logical way to fully reconcile these two conflicting statements.

In closing, even aside from the fact that Sungenis’most recent defense/complaint is far more full of deflection, rationalization, distortion and falsehood than substance, his demands for apologies ring quite hollow in light of the repeated gross injustices he has inflicted on so many without a word of apology, from non-Catholic Jews, to Jewish converts, to his own friends and volunteers, and now even to his own bishop. Sadly, it appears that Sungenis’ many years of debating have led this bright man to the point where he reflexively seeks to win an argument at all cost rather than seeking and promoting the truth. It’s apparently all about Bob, even for certain ubiquitous Sungenis promoters. One standard for me, another for thee. Whether or not he has actually convinced himself and his associates of his own gross distortions, rationalizations and falsehoods is an open question.

Sungenis, the CASB (The Apocalypse of St. John) and the Imprimatur

A few days ago, an individual wrote to RSATJ claiming to have contacted the Diocese of Harrisburg, PA in order to determine whether or not Sungenis’s CASB2 (The Apocalypse of St. John) was expected to receive an imprimatur, before using it as a catechetical text. The individual claimed to have been informed by the diocese that Sungenis had already been denied the imprimatur. To establish the veracity of this claim, an inquiry was just made to the chancery office of the Diocese of Harrisburg, PA. The chancery has now confirmed that Sungenis had been denied the imprimatur on the CASB2, late in 2006.

Following are the relevant statements made by Sungenis over time in regard to this issue:

“And, of course, [Sungenis’s books] contain the Catholic Church's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, just as the CASB will contain.” (emphasis added) (CAI Link)

August 2006: Sungenis announced that his "CASB Vol 2, The Apocalypse of St. John, is now with Queenship and is being printed. It should be out in their next catalogue, and the book should be available in a month or so." (Q&A 18, August 2006)

September 2006: Sungenis informed an inquirer that CASB 2 is "presently at the Bishop's office in Harrisburg PA in the process of obtaining an imprimatur." (Q&A 38, September 2006)

November 2006: Sungenis indicated that "the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition" was used for "the text for CASB, vol 2, The Apocalypse of St. John," and announced that this volume "should be out before the end of the year." (Q&A 56, November, 2006)

February 2007: CASB 2 was still not yet published, and Sungenis explained that "there has been a delay in Queenship's publishing of The Apocalypse of St. John. They had trouble with the formatting and had to start from scratch." (Q&A 4, February, 2007)

March 2007: Sungenis indicates to a reader that CASB 2 "will be available this Spring." (Q&A 19, March, 2007)

May 2007: When challenged on the fact that his newly-published CASB 2 lacked an imprimatur from his Bishop, Sungenis claimed, "I had already decided to submit the manuscript for an Imprimatur after the book was published, which is in the works…Mr. Michael would know none of this because he doesn’t communicate with me. The only thing he does is gossip about me on Internet forums with fallacious imaginings of his own hateful and jealous mind.” (emphasis added)
("Jacob Michael: Incompetence and Immaturity", pp. 9-10)

The reader will note that Sungenis himself indicated back in September 2006 that the CASB 2 was "at the Bishop's office" being considered for an imprimatur – long before it was published. However, in May 2007, Sungenis indicated that he had "already decided to submit the manuscript for an Imprimatur after the book was published." Clearly, barring a tortured interpretation of these statements, they do not reconcile with one another.

Additionally, questions were raised about this issue at the Catholic Answers Forums:

“it doesn't make sense to me to be going for an imprimatur now after you publish and not before you publish a book and I still stick to it. I haven't heard any answer on that. Do you ask him about that one, too?” CAF

“Did Bob apply for an imprimatur for CASB 2 or didn't he? More importantly, when did he apply for it, if he applied at all? Was he rejected? Did the bishop's office just ignore the request? Was it approved pending further investigation?” CAF

Based on what they were told by Sungenis, Sungenis associates Mark Wyatt and Laurence Gonzaga posted the following answers to these concerns at the Envoy and Catholic Answers Forums:

Mark Wyatt:

“My understanding is that he is in the process of getting one. In the mean time he has a schedule, so he released the volume." CAF

“My understanding is that Robert did apply for both Vol. I and vol. II. He is still in the process of obtaining imprimatur for Vol. II…" CAF

“..my understanding is that he is trying to get the imprimatur.” (Envoy Forum)

CAI "media technician" Laurence Gonzaga:

“Well, it does have one [an Imprimatur], for the translation... The commentary itself is being sought..." CAF

“no it doesn’t seem wierd (sic) to seek it [an Imprimatur on CASB2] after it is published because the book can be published again." CAF

Clearly, Sungenis has always understood the value and importance of having an imprimatur on his books and has sought it for all of them. Indeed, whether a work has received the Church’s official acknowledgment of freedom from errors of faith and morals or has been denied the same is a legitimate issue of Catholic concern and inquiry. And from the beginning of the CASB project, Sungenis has certainly used the (anticipated) presence of a Catholic imprimatur as a marketing tool:

If you are familiar with my books (Not By Faith Alone; Not By Scripture Alone; Not By Bread Alone, et al) you know what kind of material to expect in the CASB. And, of course, they contain the Catholic Church's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, just as the CASB will contain (emphasis added) (CAI Donations Page; page contents as of 27 June 2007)

As a side note, Not By Bread Alone (NBBA) does not have an imprimatur. Sungenis explained in considerable detail the purported reasons for the missing imprimatur in the pages of NBBA itself. In contrast, no such explanation was given for the missing imprimatur in the pages of either CASB1 or CASB2.

Aside from aiding internet and book-store sales, there are other reasons why this approbation would be important to have. The Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law states:

Can. 827 §4. Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.

This means that, for example, CAI would not be able to sell volumes which lack the approval of his bishop in a parish church in which talks on apologetics or other topics were given.

For all the assurances that each of the CASB volumes will bear ecclesiastical approbation, the promised imprimaturs for the CASB have failed to materialize. The first volume of the CASB, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (CASB1), was published without an imprimatur (the reasons for this lie beyond the scope of this entry.)

In regard to CASB2, the phrases used by Sungenis and his associates like "in the process of getting one", "is still in the process of obtaining", "being sought", "in the works", clearly assure the reader in May of 2007 that the reception of the Imprimatur was simply a matter of time, practically a foregone conclusion. Again, it has been confirmed that Sungenis was informed in late 2006—at least five months before CASB2 came out and almost six months before these misleading statements were made by Sungenis (both directly and by proxy)—that the imprimatur for The Apocalypse of St. John had been denied. Although an appeal of such a ruling either to the CDF or to the bishop of the diocese in which the volume is to be published is technically possible, the party making the appeal is to communicate to the CDF or the other bishop that the work has already been denied the imprimatur. To date, the diocese of Harrisburg has no record of any pending appeal. In any event, this would not explain the answers Sungenis and his associates have given to direct inquiries on this matter.

In contrast to the granting or denial of an imprimatur, the reasons for any rejection are not properly a matter of public conjecture and discourse. That is a matter most properly handled between an author and his bishop. Largely for this reason, the comment box has been turned off. Whether here or elsewhere, everyone is encouraged to avoid unnecessary and unhelpful speculation in that regard.

--------

NOTE: Important follow-up articles that shed a great deal of additional light on this situation may be found here, here, here, here and here.

More Confusion on Sungenis's Catholic Apologetics Study Bible?

Robert Sungenis's newest volume of his Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, The Apocalypse of St. John (CASB2), continues to be a source of confusion and concern. Sungenis had promised a new translation of the Scriptures based on the Douay Rheims, going back to the original languages to assure the most accurate translation available today. However, after his translation was refused an imprimatur by the USCCB (due to a technical difficulty, according to Sungenis), he decided to use the RSV-CE in all future volumes.

Yet, Amazon.com and All Catholic Books, the only sources that come up aside from CAI to purchase CASB2 on google, have the following to say about CASB2:

Product Description
Second Volume of the series using an updated Douay Rheims translation...extensive Scripture.

Amazon.com

"The CASB gives you an updated version of the Douay-Rheims Bible, the most accurate and authoritative Catholic translation available. The CASB replaces some archaic 16th century words with more precise words. The grammar and syntax of the original Greek and Hebrew are analyzed in conjunction with the Latin Vulgate for the most accurate translation."


All Catholic Books

Sungenis has known for months about the change in translation. So why is this misinformation still posted on the web? It's not as if there are hundreds of retailers selling his product.

Sungenis and Co. Evasive on Simple Questions about Catholic Apologetics Study Bible (CASB) and Canon Law

Robert Sungenis's CAI associates Mark Wyatt and Laurence Gonzaga have been out promoting Sungenis' new Catholic Apologetics Study Bible: here.

However, important questions have arisen about both his first volume on the Gospel of Matthew and his second volume on the Apocalypse.

An RSATJ reader has recently pointed out that Robert Sungenis' Catholic Apologetics Study Bible (CASB) has neither an imprimatur nor a nihil obstat, although Sungenis has actively sought and received both approbations in the past (Not By Scripture Alone, Not By Faith Alone and How Can I Get to Heaven). While it is not strictly necessary for a Catholic to have either an imprimatur or nihil obstat in order to publish an apologetics book (although it is recommended by canon law), Sungenis has clearly exhibited a desire to receive such important Catholic approbations in the past. In fact, in the case of Not By Bread Alone, when Sungenis did not receive the imprimatur, he made sure to give a thorough explanation of the extenuating circumstances surrounding his inability to procure it (although it is perhaps odd that no mention has been made by either Sungenis or his associates about attempts to procure the missing imprimatur for Not By Bread Alone now that the purportedly extenuating circumstance no longer exists).

However, perhaps even more importantly, it has been pointed out that Sungenis, in addition to publishing apologetics material, has also taken it upon himself - in this case of CASB 1, The Gospel According to St. Matthew- to create and publish his own translation of the Sacred Scriptures, apparently without the requisite approval of the Catholic Church. Unlike the publication of apologetics material without an imprimatur, this is a more serious matter. The Church is extremely protective of the Sacred Scriptures.

Canon law clearly states:

"Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations." Canon 825 §1.

Sungenis went on at considerable length about the depth of the research involved in his new translation, touting the level of the scholarship involved in completing it (pages i-iii, Volume 1, Matthew). While "the CASB has remained as close as possible to the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims translations," Bob insists he "has also made many necessary improvements." The reader is assured that "great care has been taken in producing the CASB translation," and "scholar and layman" alike "can trust that what is presented in the CASB is a faithful representation of what appears in the original languages." Bob maintains that he has even gone beyond the Vulgate where necessary: "The CASB endeavors to bring out even more accurately the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew text underlying the Latin Vulgate."

Sungenis and his associates now claim that he was told by the USCCB that he is free to publish his translation of the Gospel of Matthew, even though he has not received canonical approval, because his translation of the Scriptures is a "translation of a translation" and that such translations technically cannot be approved under this canon law.

This certainly sounds odd. Because Sungenis' translation isn't a completely new translation, the bishops have essentially given Sungenis a free pass of sorts to print it? Also odd is that, unlike the case of Not By Bread Alone, Sungenis failed to detail this extenuating circumstance and the concomitant "free pass" of sorts purportedly given by the USCCB in the introduction CASB 1 (Matthew) itself.

Sungenis associate Laurence Gonzaga has claimed that Sungenis told him he switched to an approved translation of Scripture (the RSV) precisely in order to facilitate the reception the coveted imprimatur for CASB 2 on the Apocalypse. Sungenis associates Mark Wyatt and Laurence Gonzaga have claimed that it's no "big deal" to get an imprimatur and that even "garbage" books can get one. Yet, oddly, there is still no imprimatur anywhere to be found in the pages of CASB 2, even though Bob has had 4 or 5 years to obtain one, after being made aware of the problem with his translation on CASB 1.

Sungenis himself has written an article as a supposed answer to these significant issues. Unfortunately, he failed to answer the basic questions and only raised the level of doubt by playing what appears to be evasive word games.

There are four simple questions Sungenis should answer for the sake of his patrons and everyone who plunks down the large sum of money required to buy his CASB:

1) Did the USCCB explicitly give Bob Sungenis permission to publish CASB 1, or did they only refuse his request for an imprimatur based on a technicality, and Bob inferred the rest?

2) Where is this supposed letter from the USCCB granting Bob permission to publish his new translation because of this technicality? If it were so completely favorable to Bob's case as his associates claim, wouldn't he have published it long before now?

3) When, exactly, did Bob apply for the imprimatur on CASB 2, using the RSV translation?

4) Is Bob asking us to believe that he has never received any kind of refusal, or any other kind of indication one way or the other from his bishop concerning the imprimatur on CASB 2?

While we're at it, what of Galileo Was Wrong? Why does Bob not have the imprimatur for that book either? Was it submitted to his bishop for approval? Was he refused? If not, then what exactly did Bob's bishop indicate?

How about some straight and non-evasive answers, for a change?