More Anti-Jewish Bigotry at BTF

In response to a Q and A at BTF entitled “What do you think of the pope’s speech on the Jews”, a BTF patron using the name “daaharper” made the following comments (question 121) and even invited Sungenis to remove his posts if Sungenis found them offensive.  His comments are the only ones currently published in response to Sungenis’s article.  Apparently, Sungenis finds nothing offensive in them.  For four weeks and counting now, Sungenis has published the following comments from his patron at BTF:

“Enough is enough.
At what point do we start calling a thing for what it is? Do words and actions actually mean anything anymore?
The Shoah has become the chief ontological event in the New World Order, and a potent political tool used to justify and facilitate all manner of political evil.”

 

“If Rome still had courage it would force the issue, many scholars are willing to support Bishop Williamson.”

 

“The Pope is teaching heresy, there is only one reading of Holy Scripture…Rabbinical Judaism…is satanic, or more precisely, 'The Synagogue of Satan'.” 

“Rightly, has Archbishop Theodosius of Sebaste told the Pope he is not welcome.”

“The term Anti-Semite has nothing to do with racism, if it did, the Jewish nation would be the most Anti-Semitic nation on earth.”

 

“Robert…anybody who supports Zionism – including the Pope – is evil.  Period.  If the Pope kowtows to Rabbinical Judaism, he is worshipping Satan.”

 

"Major Premise:  The Talmud is satanic

Minor Premise:  The Pope praises it 

Conclusion:  The Pope is praising Satanism."

After these extreme and offensive comments, Sungenis’s patron then returned to make another comment,  apologizing for being “so passionate” and to assure Sungenis that his diatribe was not directed at Sungenis himself but at “the Catholic World” - “particularly the hierarchy.” 

After somewhat equivocating on his charge of heresy against the Holy Father, Sungenis’s patron then offered this remarkable caveat:  “If somebody supported Nazism out of good will nowadays, we’d certainly think unfavorably of them.”  The idea of supporting Nazism out of good will certainly seems odd enough in an of itself.  But it is also telling that Sungenis's patron would merely  “think unfavorably” of someone who supported Nazism.

 

The next day, perhaps after realizing that he had revealed his thoughts a little too fully, Sungenis’s patron offered something akin to the “I have Jewish friends” defense…“I have known many fine Jewish people”.   He then went on to convey that he didn't really mean to slander all Jewish people.

And so, the pattern that we noted back in 2006 continues unabated:  “[Sungenis] continues to evidence a propensity to uncritically seek out and accept unsavory, dubious and/or negatively biased information in regard to Jews and has drawn others with similar proclivities to his website.”  (emphasis added, see: Sungenis and the Jews) 

Debunking Another Conspiracy Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Majority Vote at USCCB June Meeting?

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

Robert Sungenis vs. Pope Benedict XVI on the Holocaust

Pope Benedict XVI: "Any denial or minimisation of this terrible crime [the Holocaust] is intolerable and altogether unacceptable." (link)

versus

Robert Sungenis (2002): "The figure of six million Jews dying under Hitler's regime is even admitted by informed Jews to be mere propaganda" (from the article "Uncorking the Erroneous Teachings, False Allegations and Liberal Agenda of Bill Cork", posted 15 Oct 2002, link)

Robert Sungenis (2005): "I have my doubts that it was 6 million [Jews killed in the Holocaust]...Hitler hated the Jews, not only for what he saw as a youth, but because the Jews had a stranglehold on European finance and banking for many years. There are some stories, however, that suggest these Jewish banking families actually helped Hitler in his quest, since their objective was to ellicit [sic] world-wide sympathy so as to migrate European and Russian Jews to Palestine, their long-sought goal which they have, indeed, accomplished" (from "The Holocaust-Conspiracy Q and A", on or about 15 Feb 2005, link)
 

Robert Sungenis (2009): "it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that six million Jews were killed in Nazi internment camps." (from "Question 183 – Michael Forrest talking to Mark Shea", posted 2 Oct 2009, link)

Robert Sungenis (2009): “I suggest you read the unsanitized accounts of what really happened [in the Holocaust]. When the Jews and Jewish sympathizers start showing proof that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews by gassing them, instead of jailing people for even bringing up the question, then you can talk about the Nazis and I’ll listen”  (from "Question 173 - Is there a conspiracy against you?", posted 24 Aug 2009, link)

R. Sungenis (2009): "I suggest you stop blaming it on the nation who excised [the Jews] and start looking at what the Jewish people do to get themselves excised" (from "Question 173 - Is there a conspiracy against you?", posted 24 Aug 2009, link)

R. Sungenis (2009): "As for Germany's relationship with the Jews, well, the Germans treated the Jews very nicely when the Jews were excised out of Russia and migrated to Germany. Then the Jews turned on the Germans because they got a better deal from someone else" (from "Question 173 - Is there a conspiracy against you?", posted 24 Aug 2009, link ; a very similar statement was repeated in Sungenis's article "Ask Your Questions About the Jews")

Robert Sungenis (2009): "One example of this evidence is the fact that the worldwide Jewish population from 1940 to 1948 did not decrease by even a half million, much less six million....But the international population records show that the numbers of Jews after World War II were virtually the same as before the war" (from"Question 183 – Michael Forrest talking to Mark Shea", posted 2 Oct 2009, link) (Click here to see a refutation of this claim often made by Holocaust deniers and "revisionists".)

Robert Sungenis (2009): "The documented records of the International Red Cross show that there were less than a few hundred thousand Jews who died in Nazi camps, and that most of those were from disease" (from "Question 183 – Michael Forrest talking to Mark Shea", posted 2 Oct 2009, link)  (Click here to see a refutation of this claim often made by Holocaust deniers and "revisionists". According to the International Committee of the Red Cross itself, this is not what these records "show.")

Robert Sungenis (2009): "The pope made no mention of the '6 million' figure that has become such a hot issue in the Williamson affair. The Pope did the right thing. In reality, it doesn’t make any difference whether it’s 600,000 (according to a recent report by Meyer) or 6,000,000...The Nazis didn’t care whether you were Jew or Gentile. " (link)


versus

Pope Benedict XVI: "It is right and fitting that, during my stay in Israel, I will have the opportunity to honor the memory of the six million Jewish vicitims of the Shoah, and to pray that humanity will never again witness a crime of such magnitude." (Ben Gurion Airport, May 11, 2009. The full text of the speech may be viewed here)

Pope Benedict XVI: "I have come to stand in silence before this monument, erected to honor the memory of the millions of Jews killed in the horrific tragedy of the Shoah. They lost their lives, but they will never lose their names: these are indelibly etched in the hearts of their loved ones, their surviving fellow prisoners, and all those determined never to allow such an atrocity to disgrace mankind again. Most of all, their names are forever fixed in the memory of Almighty God...May their suffering never be denied, belittled or forgotten!" (Yad Vashem, May 11, 2009. The full text of the speech may be viewed here)

Pope Benedict XVI: "Any denial or minimisation of this terrible crime [the Holocaust] is intolerable and altogether unacceptable." (link)
 

Related Links: 

Pope Continues to Repudiate Holocaust Revisionism Promoted by Sungenis

Ferrara Repudiates Holocaust Views of Bishop Williamson and Sungenis

More Sungenis Anti-Jewish Duplicity on Display at BTF

Sungenis’ pattern of anti-Jewish chicanery continues unabated at his Bellarmine Theological Forum. For example, BTF has recently posted a “News Alert” link to a video by the “Reverend” Ted Pike - an anti-Jewish extremist who is regularly published by white supremacists such as National Vanguard and David Duke and from whom Sungenis has previously been caught plagiarizing (click here then scroll down to point #34 ).

However, more importantly, Sungenis has again illustrated another disturbing pattern of behavior that we have documented at this blog. He has repeatedly removed problematic material when he comes under heavy fire only to later return to that material when he feels the coast is clear. (Article 1, Article 2 and Article 3)

In this case, Sungenis’ duplicity is all the more blatant when one considers a previous, condemnatory statement he made about Ted Pike:

R. Sungenis: CAI didn't pull any Pike comments until we found out the truth about Ted Pike. Mr. Forrest didn't provide us with any information that Ted Pike was associated with National Vanguard [white supremacists]. That information was provided by CAI itself, and when we found out, I made the decision to pull Ted Pike from our sight [sic].

So let's recap. We now we [sic] have several instances in this response where it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that when correct [sic] with corroborated information about a certain source, I will make the necessary decision to pull the source. In EVERY instance this has been the case. But what does Mr. Palm do? He makes it sound as if I knew previously all this information about the sources and deliberately left them on our site! (Article)

Here Sungenis acknowledges the “truth” about Ted Pike that he “discovered” himself - Pike is such a seriously tainted source that Sungenis determined it was “necessary” to entirely remove him from the BTF/CAI website. Furthermore, Sungenis used the opportunity to insist that he does the right thing “in every instance” when it comes to such seriously tainted sources and that his decisions have absolutely nothing to do with the heavy criticism he receives for using them. And finally, he fiercely protested against the slightest implication that he knowingly and deliberately subjected his patrons to such a seriously tainted source. It was, he contended, a mere, innocent oversight on his part.

And so, what is Sungenis’ excuse now for exposing his patrons to a man he knows perfectly well to be a seriously tainted source? Has Sungenis ever honestly objected to Pike’s anti-Jewish extremism and his associations with white supremacists as he claimed back in 2007, or was this simply another public relations ploy?

It may also help to once again recall Sungenis' own stern (and hypocritical) warning to Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong:

Sungenis: “If you have no political affiliation with these neo-cons, then I suggest you put a disclaimer on your site, otherwise people are going to get the wrong impression, and you can't blame them if they do. Any person with common sense who sees their names on your web site would assume that you support the political views of the aforementioned unless you say otherwise.”
(Sungenis, Q&A, January, 2005, Question 3).

Indeed. And when someone repeatedly uses the kinds of unsavory sources Sungenis does, "people are going to get the wrong impression, and you can't blame them if they do."

It’s déjà vu all over again at CAI/BTF.

Related articles:
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/search/label/broken%20promise
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/search/label/false%20apologies

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. 

More Heterodoxy from Sungenis?

It was not long ago that Robert Sungenis was loudly clamoring for Roy Schoeman to recall his book, Salvation is from the Jews, due to its alleged doctrinal errors:

If Mr. Schoeman can tell us one place where the Fathers interpreted Old Testament prophecy about the restoration of Israel as referring to a nation state of Israel in the future, then he has a case. If not, then he needs to burn his book... Schoeman needs to recall his book and fix the offending paragraphs, as well as fix a lot of other erroneous ideas in his book, including but not limited to his apparent Jewish racism.
 ("Catholics Falling for Jewish Errors," pp. 36, 41)

I hold that Mr. Schoeman should be called upon to retract these views and also that Ignatius Press should recall his book and insist that he revise it.
 ("Thirteen Problems with the Theology and Eschatology of Roy Schoeman," p. 1)

Schoeman has an obligation to his readers and to the whole Catholic world to retract, rephrase and resubmit his problematic paragraphs.
 ("David Palm Still Confused and Getting More Confused," p. 4)

This being the case, it will be interesting to see whether Sungenis will abide by his own standards if it is demonstrated that he has enunciated a grave doctrinal error in one of his own books, Not By Scripture Alone.

Sungenis enunciates his error while rebutting an argument of the Protestant apologist Norman Geisler. Geisler had faulted Catholics for supplying only probable arguments for the authority of the Magisterium, rather than absolute proof. Sungenis responds by pointing out that Norman Geisler himself believes many things on faith which escape rational proof, so he should not require that Catholics produce rational proof of their faith beliefs given that he is unable to provide such for his own.

While it is unclear whether Sungenis fully understands Geisler's argument, his response, thus far, is true as far as it goes. And if Sungenis used, as an example of Geisler's unprovable beliefs, his faith in the Trinity or the inspiration of Scripture, the argument would be entirely unproblematic. However, he instead cites a belief of Geisler's which in fact does admit of absolute, deductive, rational proof, namely, the existence of God.

We can all play the "proof" card in a faith-based religion such as Christianity and find cracks in each other's position. Engaging your opponent in "mutually self-destructive" apologetics is futile and irrelevant. From where this apologist has taken the argument, we can go even further. There is no "proof" that God exists because, as even John 1:18 says, no one has seen him at any time. We have only circumstantial evidence (cf. Rom. 1:20; Heb. 11:1-2). Hence, unless the apologist wants to become a Nihilist, it is pointless to argue his case as he has done. (Robert Sungenis, Not by Scripture Alone [Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1997] p. 289)

It is difficult to read Sungenis' argument any other way: the existence of God is not logically demonstrable; we must become Nihilists unless we believe He exists by faith.

This proposition is heretical. The Catholic Church teaches that we can know that God exists with certainty, by natural reason alone, without faith. There is, contra Sungenis, "proof." The First Vatican Council defines, in its third session, "If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema." St. Thomas, in Summa Theologica, par. I, q. 2, art. 2, demonstrates that the existence of God is demonstrable. In the following article he proceeds to demonstrate it five ways: from motion, from causation, from contingency, from the scale of perfection of created beings, and from the teleology of created beings.

So there is no need for Dr. Geisler to become a Nihilist. Even if he were to insist on believing nothing without proof, he might at the very least remain an Aristotelian natural theist.

As for Sungenis, will he recall, retract, and revise Not by Scripture Alone, with apologies to Dr. Geisler and all others to whom he has heretically misrepresented Catholic dogma? Will he subject his own work to the same standard to which he has subjected Schoeman's? Will he lay the same burden on himself which he has seen fit to lay on others? This would be ideal and we're prepared to be pleasantly surprised. Alternatively, can he defend his statement as being somehow not heretical?  We're doubtful.

On a disparate subject, Sungenis recently posted a notice of an upcoming speaking engagement of his: Robert Sungenis in Southern California.

He supplies no more logistical detail than that he will be in Southern California on March 18-19, and says he will only publicly announce specifics a few days before the event. Why the secrecy? In light of Archbishop Burke stepping in to stop Sungenis’s speaking gig in St. Louis this past June, is Sungenis perhaps trying to prevent the local bishop in Southern California from hearing about this event until it is too late to stop it? If this is the case, Sungenis would do well to heed the admonition of a holy Father whom he has in the recent past seen fit to quote prominently on his site: "The one who does something secretly from the bishop serves the devil" (St. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Smyrneans, 9).

Ben Douglass


RSATJ note: 

Sungenis has also come under strong criticism for denying that God exists outside of time and for insisting that God has real emotions and that He changes his mind.  (See Dave Armstrong's blog here:  Article 1 and Article 2).  Unfortunately, Sungenis also opted to take another swipe at his bishop there as well.

The RSATJ blog has documented other erroneous theological opinions (which he often presents as “facts”) held by Sungenis as well. See, for example, The Theology of Prejudice.