Sungenis's Contradictions and Flip-flops on the Jews as Accursed

In regard to how the Fathers view the Jewish people, Robert Sungenis has made the following contradictory statements:

April 2004

" I would not say there was a consensus among the Fathers that the Jews were an accursed people. In fact, you hardly find the words "Jews" and "cursed" in the same sentence in the Fathers. There was certainly a consensus that the Jews, as a whole people, were judged by God for their sins, but there are very few Fathers who held that the Jews were cursed as a race. Of those Justin Martyr, Chrysostom and Augustine seem the most prominent, but even then, their words can be taken in more than one way." (emphasis added)
Question 30, April 2004

September 2006

"As I said earlier, the Fathers were in consensus (that is, there were no dissenting voices among them) that the Jewish people were...a cursed people" (emphasis added)

Michael Forrest and the Jews, page 43

Then Sungenis has also made the following statement, although it does not directly address the teaching of the Fathers:

December 2006:

“the fact that the Jew can be saved today is the proof that God has not rejected or cursed them” (emphasis added)

Q&A #57, December 2006

Clearly, the statements made by Sungenis in April 2004 and September 2006 about the views of the Fathers in regard to Jews are contradictory. And Sungenis’s statement in December 2006 seems reconcilable with his statement of September 2006 only if we take him to mean that he and the Church (in Nostra Aetate) both reject what Sungenis himself characterized as the unanimous consensus of the Fathers…a rather precarious position to take.

CAI (Kind of) Apologizes for Robin Williams Gaffe

Shortly after our previous post was published, exposing Bob Sungenis's error in claiming that Robin Williams is Jewish, CAI changed the headline of the news item to remove any reference to Williams's alleged Jewishness.

In addition, Sungenis posted this apology:

CAI apologizes for the original headline stating that Robin Williams is a "Jewish comedian." According to Williams, he is not Jewish, rather he is noted for speaking favorably about Judaism and grew up with Jews who referred to him as an "honorary Jew" (source)

It's nice to see Bob get closer to writing a real apology, but we all could have done without the rationalizations regarding Williams' purportedly good relations with Jews. It seems that if you are on good terms with Jews, you are automatically as suspicious and untrustworthy to Sungenis as those "out to rule the world" Jews. And the question still remains: why did he make the accusation in the first place? Why didn't he verify his information first? And what is the relevance of Williams' ethnicity, anyway? More interesting still, from where did he get this bogus information?

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Sungenis has expressed some resentment over the fact that he was called on the carpet at Sungenis and the Jews Blog:

... people like you [Jacob Michael] who, because we, like most people, assumed Robin Williams was either Jewish or wished he was, since he speaks very favorably of Judaism at the same time that he denigrates the Catholic Church, and also says that he considers himself an "honorary Jew" because of his friendship with fellow Jews, you then take it upon yourself to say that we are "creating Jews out of thin air" ... (Sungenis, email of 6/25/2007)

Whatever Bob's opinion may be, it is quite certain that "most people" do not "assume" that Robin Williams is Jewish. As noted earlier, even an anti-Semitic site like Jew Watch knew better.

The next time Bob has questions about which celebrities are Jewish and which ones are not, perhaps he could at least start by listening to Adam Sandler's Hanukkah Song.

Sungenis Inventing Jews? Robin Williams Singled Out as "Jewish"

Very recently, Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International added the following "News Alert" to his website:


Jewish Comedian, Robin Williams Mocks Catholic Church


(Such "News Alerts" are regularly cycled in and out from the CAI web site over time)

The article originally appeared at Life Site.

And what is the actual title of the original article?


Robin Williams Mocks Catholic Priests on Tonight Show


Notice that? Lifesite entitles the article: Robin Williams Mocks Catholic Priests on Tonight Show but Robert Sungenis feels the need to rename it Jewish Comedian, Robin Williams Mocks Catholic Church .


If you read the original article about William's hypocritical and bigoted remarks, you will find no mention at all of the ethnic or religious background of Robin Williams.

At first, the natural inclination may be to accept Sungenis's claim that Williams is indeed a Jew. But the question would remain: why is his Jewishness being singled out? Is Sungenis suggesting that his Jewish ethnicity was what drove Williams to mock Catholic priests? If so, then what are we to make of all the other people of various religions (including Catholics!) who have mocked the priesthood as a result of the scandals?

But the problem seems to be far worse. It seems clear that Williams isn't even Jewish! In fact, even the blatantly anti-Semitic website "Jew Watch" (a website that would certainly love to claim that Williams is Jewish) says the following about Robin Williams:

"Williams Robin - Actor...he is probably of Christian descent. According to Adherents, Williams gravitated to Jewish friends in school and attended 14 bar mitzvahs...His parents were descended from the English Welsh, and Irish (father) and French (mother). Robin Williams plays many Jewish
roles."

Of course, this anti-Semitic website has done everything possible to tie Williams to Jews as much as possible including the laughably twisted observation that he "plays many Jewish roles" in movies and has purportedly attended many bar-mitzvahs. But Robert Sungenis had to go them one better and claim that Williams is actually Jewish.


Wikipedia confirms William's gentile, Episcopalian background:

Wikipedia: Robin Williams

Of course, we can expect that Sungenis and CAI will quickly revise this News Alert to read "Gentile Comedian of Episcopalian Background, Robin Williams, Mocks Catholic Church!"


It's gotten to the point where Sungenis sees Jewish enemies everywhere. Every Catholic should reject this anti-Jewish obsession for the ugly bigotry that it is. There is no room for anti-Semitism in the Catholic Church.

One wonders exactly what it will take for Sungenis defenders like Mark Wyatt, Laurence Gonzaga and Chris Campbell to admit there is a serious problem and that they are only enabling an anti-Semite by their behavior.

Or is it that they don't care, and see Jews in the same way Sungenis sees them?

After everything that has gone on with Sungenis in the past 9 months concerning the Jewish controversy, what kind of man continues to throw himself headlong into verifiable blunders, continues to publish falsehoods without bothering to even execute the most rudimentary verifications?

As Sungenis said over a year ago to Catholic writer Matthew Anger in regard to his use of the racist source National Vanguard:

"I have a bad habit of not checking the sources...which will not be the case in the future."

Link

Over one year later, apparently Sungenis still makes these kinds of inadvertent and innocent mistakes...repeatedly...at least when it comes to Jews for some mysterious reason. And this happens in spite of all the serious, sustained effort Sungenis has exerted to be much more careful about his claims and "research" in regard to Jews.

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.

If It's Against the Jews, That's STILL Good Enough for CAI and Sungenis

Recently Robert Sungenis posted a recommendation for James Petras’s new book, The Power of Israel in the United States.

Petras is a regular contributor to “Counterpunch”, an extremist website already written about at Robert Sungenis and The Jews.

Additional information about him may be viewed here.

Again, Sungenis took the review from Amazon.com rather than writing his own review (although, thankfully, at least this time he credited the source rather than plagiarizing it). Once again, apparently all that was necessary to receive a recommendation from Sungenis was that the book be critical of Jews. Sungenis apparently feels no responsibility to actually read the things he criticizes or recommends. In Sungenis’s world, it seems a book can indeed by judged by its cover.

Two interesting articles on Petras:

In contrast to Sungenis's review from Amazon.com, here’s a very different review from the same web site that also has a strikingly familiar ring to it:

"Petras' book makes many arguments, but with each argument comes with equally as many pitfalls which serve to discredit his otherwise thought-provoking and plausible claims. One of the main problems with his arguments, as already illustrated, concerns his lack of credible sources and, in some cases, any sources at all. While the book features many endnotes, citations crucial to his arguments remain omitted in such instances as the amounts of money donated to political parties and financial aid given to Israel by the United States. Petras also has the problem of continuously referring to sources as "sources" (74) or "former and present knowledgeable news reporters" (73). Claims such as "The US state has repeatedly violated all international conventions and laws related to torture of prisoners, mass killings of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, pillaging of natural resources, and the establishment of client colonial states and imperial-centered economies" (83) are presented with no citation or information to back-up the claim. Consequentially, many of his statements are read as being little more than assumption and opinion; he continuously fails to support the lofty and serious accusations he makes throughout the book with citations and references. If one is to make claims as insinuating and potentially offensive as the ones he makes, that person must have sound and solid references and citations that can bear the burden of lofty claims.

Another dent to Petras' credibility is his writing style. The book is written in an irritatingly slanted manner with far too much subjectivity interjected. Instead of presenting an objective argument, Petras litters his pages with sensationalism and blatant anti-Zionism verging on anti-Semitism. It is very hard to take a writer seriously when he makes the claim that "Kristalnacht, the 1939 Nazi assault on Jewish homes, stores and persons in `reprisal' for a Jew killing a German Embassy officer was a garden party compared to the Jewish State's ongoing destruction of Lebanon" (110). Irregardless of how bad the situation is in Lebanon, under no circumstances should Kristalnacht be referred to as a "garden party" and trivialized to the point where the events of that night are considered nothing more than "the killing of a few Jews and property damage" (110). Referring to some Israelis as "mad dogs" (115) in the form of juvenile name-calling doesn't help one's credibility either nor do black and white statements like "You are either for America or for AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]" (81). Other examples of immaturity in his writing include referring to Flemming Rose as "`Fleming Rose'/Mossad [Iraqi secret police]" (140). All of these instances are both annoying and discrediting. A more objective and moderate writing style and tone would have done wonders for his arguments in terms of not detracting from his credibility and keeping his book from reading like a radical conspiracy theory as opposed to an educated political commentary.

On an almost-tangential note, the book is poorly written and constructed. It is littered here and there with grammatical and typographical errors. Structural problems include the Index referring the reader to pages that don't exist as well as citations that don't appear in the endnotes (36). At one point, Petras sets out to "examine the fifteen erroneous theses of the highly respected Professor [Noam] Chomsky" (170). He then lists fourteen points. Glaring and easily correctable errors like these do not have a major effect on the content, but promote the idea that the book (and consequentially the author) is an amateur and unprofessional production which reflects poorly on Petras and his argument."

The next article is particularly interesting because it is written by a leftist organization obviously sympathetic to the point of view espoused by the leftist, Petras. Yet, among other strong criticisms, the author of the critique writes:

“What sets Petras’ work apart, first off, is his dropping or blurring of distinctions. The terms “Jewish lobby,” “Israel lobby” and “Zionist lobby” are used interchangeably. Others, at least on the Left, have worked to mark the important distinction between Jews, as Jews, regardless of their differing ideologies, and those supporters of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, who actively promote and support Israel’s racist and expansionist practices. Petras facilely drops that distinction. (In an apparent attempt to deflect criticism, he states that he is justified in using the term “Jewish lobby” since that is what the Israelis use when discussing political support in the United States — as if adopting the Zionist movement’s cynical appropriation of all things Jewish serves any progressive purpose.)
What makes the use of the term an issue is the fact that Petras then lapses into the well-worn dual-loyalty discourse, using such language as “Israel Firsters,” “colonizers” and “colon” to describe Israel’s multi-layered and well-situated support system in the United States. To talk about “the Jewish lobby” in one breath and to then speak of strategically-placed Israeli agents, operatives, and Zionist infiltration in another is to suggest that American Jews generally are to be viewed as disloyal, suspect, untrustworthy, not what they seem.
Elements of the far right have always done this kind of thing. Such sloppy use of language lumps makes it seem as if Jewish-American opinion is monolithic in support of Israel, which is precisely one of the falsehoods that the Left needs to demystify.”

The author goes on to write:

"At one point, in relation to a passage critical of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s failings in regard to Israel, Petras goes so far as to mention, in a note, that the man’s wife is Jewish!"

and

"Unfortunately, his current book will be taken up there and elsewhere as some seemingly worthwhile analysis of how and why the United States does what it does in the world. It may also be seized upon as documented “proof” of “the anti-Semitism of the Left.” It might conceivably be taken up by elements of the far right, already convinced and not needing to be told, but always receptive to more “proof” of Jewish machinations and conspiracies."

Perhaps it is little wonder that Sungenis jumped to recommend this book after all.

Sungenis Source Israel Shamir: Racist by Sungenis’s Own Standards?

WARNING: A quote from Sungenis source Israel Shamir at the bottom of this entry contains graphic, vulgar language.

(Click here for information on Israel Shamir).

As you read on, keep in mind Sungenis’s DEFINITION DIFFICULTIES.

Ben Douglass forwarded the following email to RSATJ:

[Israel] Shamir believes that certain races have innate flaws in their DNA which give them a propensity to evil. This is Sungenis' definition of racism (and therefore, anti-semitism) which he takes from E. Michael Jones.

"Thus, some of the British population have an inbuilt genetic memory of a successful evolutionary strategy connected with apartheid and with application of 'Judaic' principles."

Article

Also in this essay, Shamir goes beyond attacking Talmudic Judaism to attacking biblical Judaism/ the Old Testament as well. I think Moses Mendelssohn would have a field day with his position in this regard: Shamir thinks he can sit securely in the upper story (Christianity) while simultaneously demolishing the lower.

And on other occasions he can be just plain vulgar:

"Men do fight and die for fair women: Sir Lancelot over Queen Guinevere, Tristan over Isolde came to grief but satisfied their passion. Others died in the attempt, they were sung about or bewailed. But a guy who dies for [vulgar term for female genitalia] he is not going to get anyway - deserves derision."

Article
(End Email)

Yet, in his most recent 60 odd page tirade against Ben Douglass, this is what Robert Sungenis said about Israel Shamir:

"The Shamir article was posted for what it said about Israel and the Jews... And I will be posting a few more articles from Mr. Shamir in the near future."

Article, see page 14

In light of Sungenis's long history on such matters, there are three things of which we can be confident:

There will be no apology.

There will be no retraction.

Sungenis's obsession with Jews will continue unabated.

And any stick will do.

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?