Sungenis and the Jews


#1

Catholic Answers has informed me that the previous thread on this topic was inadvertently erased in its entirety. Unfortunately the thread cannot be restored, but I thought it was important, given the current climate, to make sure that the disappearance of this thread wasn’t “spun” in a certain direction.

I am not interested in prolonging this discussion beyond its usefulness, but I am re-posting a small exchange with Mark Wyatt that, I think, gets to the heart of the matter for me:

Mark Wyatt: “Do you feel it is valid for Catholics to question these things?”

This has never been about refusing to question things, as Mark knows perfectly well. This has been about plagiarism, lying, slander, broadbrushing and mischaracterizing one’s opponent, double standards, Nazis and white supremacists, false claims to be an “authentic prophet of God”, and a whole bunch of other ugly stuff. Mark can fluff it all off as “a few roughly worded statements”, but all this does is highlight his own disconnect from the reality of what has happened here.

Mark Wyatt: “Why don’t you debate Robert on this topic?”

The reason, as Forrest and others have said over and over, is that that Bob is not qualified to speak or write on these issues. He approach has lacked any semblance of Christian charity; he has shown a reckless disregard for his colleagues, his opponents, and for the Jews in general. That has been thoroughly documented. Therefore, if these issues are to be discussed, it ought not to be with him.

My most recent commentary on this whole affair may be found here:

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=251

A CAI supporter e-mailed me recently to say he thought that article is fair and convincing. So perhaps I should just let that speak for itself.


#2

I tried to post this a few minutes ago and got the message that it is too long so I will have to divide it in to two parts.

Part I

Hi David,

I thought that this thread was purposely deleted so I didn’t say anything more about it but I had posted something that you might not have read so I’m reposting them here with the replies. David, you and I are old cyber acquaintances my old email address was ckrdflag@aol.com. I tell you this because I think that you will remember that I have very much respect for you and have enjoyed everything that you have written that I have read. I even agree with you on the Sungenis and the Jews topic as well as the other problems he needs to address. So I hope that you will not take the following as being hypercritical

Hi folks, just my 2 cents worth.

Mark: Robert does write about Zionism and the Talmud. Apparently this is off limits.

Me: Actually Mark if he wrote about Zionism (and told truth) I would be with him all the way and I wrote an email to him regarding this. When he writes the like of which he wrote in the quote below, who in his right mind would applaud him? I have been on record for years for defending Sungenis when he has been falsely disparage or attacked (do you remember donnatoo on envoy’s speak your mind?) and have been a contributor to CAI for years. Jacob may be able to affirm this if he knows that I’m that Donna. But Mark when you and MrS defend him against the indefensible it causes this thread IMHO to continue. I believe enough has been said here. If you cannot see that the criticism of Sungenis regarding the Jews is valid, I don’t think any amount of posts will convince you. As far as Sungenis’ “apology” this is quintessential Sungenis as Jake can confirm regarding his “apology” for the Mr. X debacle. This is a crying shame because as MrS has pointed out he is a terrific apologist and that is the rub. When he adds weirdness (sorry Robert if you read this) to his excellent work it tends to make people dismiss him altogether. Mark, I’m still interested in hearing what he has to say regarding geocentrism, but don’t you see why people will not even give him a hearing on this? Due to what was believed for centuries it sounds like a wacky theory. I’m not sure it is and am interested in it. You need to back off of Sungenis’ defense regarding this topic its indefensible and causes more harm to Sungenis, trust me.
The quote no one in his right mind can agree with: “R. Sungenis…. I have my doubts that it was 6 million, but even if it was 1 million, still, the point remains that they were a marked race by the Nazis. 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 familes actually helped Hitler in his quest, since their objective was to ellicit world-wide sympathy so as to migrate European and Russian Jews to Palestine, their long-sought goal which they have, indeed, accomplished.”

Morris: Right… he’s not an expert in this realm. Our objections to his posts are in no means an attempt to denigrate him. He IS an expert in Catholic Apologetics. I stand by that statement and always will. However, when he confesses that he doesn’t care whether or not the information he posts on Jewish issues is “true or partially true” then anyone with any semblance of brotherly charity needs to speak up. He’s a scholar of too high of a caliber to stoop to such things. Those of us who spoke out on this issue have absolutely NO gain (monetary or otherwise) in speaking out on this issue. It is simply a matter of trying to convince Bob of his enormous potential to either hurt or harm…

Me: But, don’t you think that it is time to drop this for the time being? Its been said.

Donna


#3

Part II

MrS :amen:

Augustine22:

Welcome Daniel-Donna

Don’t you think part of the problem is that Sungenis keeps coming out with this stuff? And now he’s talking about this “revealing expose” he’s doing with Douglass or something.

It sounds like you’ve talked with him a lot and you even support him (with donations?) but he doesn’t listen to you, either. I don’t get it. I don’t think any of these guys are his enemies.

But look at what happened. Unless I’ve got it wrong, and tell me, Forrest put up a criticism of his work on Jews. It didn’t look personal to me. but then Sungenis went at him for like half his 70 pages—all personal stuff making him look like a liar and a user who was out for money. I dont know, but it looks obivious to me that Sungenis wanted to make the guy look bad so no one would look at what he was really doing. And to read what people write, it looks like he fooled some people with that.

So what’s wrong if these guys now prove that Sungenis hasn’t beel telling the truth? I mean, the guy wrote it, didn’t he?

“Welcome Daniel-Donna,”

Thank you Augustine.

“Don’t you think part of the problem is that Sungenis keeps coming out with this stuff? And now he’s talking about this “revealing expose” he’s doing with Douglass or something.”

Yes, sadly I do and when he comes out with other things then they should be answered. I think that MrS has a good point that Sungenis puts his stuff up on his site and he is discussed here however. This “revealing expose” stuff is also quintessential Sungenis and this is sad he seems to go off half cocked a lot. It is my opinion that many men especially those with exceptionally high IQs are somewhat lacking in the wisdom department. Sungenis seems to be a case in point. I hope that Ben will realize that this is not something that he wants his name connected with. The best that can be said about what he intends to do is that it is childish.

”It sounds like you’ve talked with him a lot and you even support him (with donations?)

Yes I should have qualified that. With donations. However I have also supported him against his enemies if his enemies were being unfair. For this I have been accused of being in Sungenis’ pocket. (However I no longer donate to CAI, he isn’t worried though, CAI won’t go belly up for lack of our donations.)

“ but he doesn’t listen to you, either. I don’t get it. I don’t think any of these guys are his enemies.”
Well, it’s been quite some time since I weighed in on the Jews problem and I continued to donate and defend when he was unjustly attacked. Who knows? Maybe I’ll do that again one day.

“But look at what happened. Unless I’ve got it wrong, and tell me, Forrest put up a criticism of his work on Jews. It didn’t look personal to me. but then Sungenis went at him for like half his 70 pages—all personal stuff making him look like a liar and a user who was out for money. I dont know, but it looks obivious to me that Sungenis wanted to make the guy look bad so no one would look at what he was really doing. And to read what people write, it looks like he fooled some people with that.

It seems that way to me as well but until the next installment in this it is best to end this.

”So what’s wrong if these guys now prove that Sungenis hasn’t beel telling the truth? I mean, the guy wrote it, didn’t he?”

But, Augustine, it’s been done. Its time to drop this for the time being. Robert if you read this or if Mark will relay this to him I ask you for your sake to drop the idea of an “expose” you will only dig your embarrassing hole deeper.

Donna


#4

Why don’t you guys just drop it?


#5

Below are some of my posts that were lost as well:

Mark:
I understand that it may tweak the interest of conspiracy theorists to think so, but I had no contact with Shea, Meisel et al before writing [/FONT]www.sungenisandthejews.com[FONT=Arial]. I barely know Shea and I do not know Meisel. I made very clear my reasons for writing the piece and you are choosing to ignore them and are instead ascribing convenient motives to me.

Kathleen,

I can understand your reaction, but I think it may be because this is being viewed out of context. Ben Douglass contacted me after Jacob Michael’s piece had been posted making a specific offer:

“I’d really like this latest controversy to be over, so I’d like to make a proposal. CAI will take down all of Robert’s old articles on the Jews and Judaism, and the latest articles in response to your website, Robert will stop writing about Jews and Israel, and in the future I will handle all matters Jewish at CAI…In exchange you and Jacob Michael take down your articles.”

(email from 9/29/06)

It was Ben who made this offer to me. And he had previously gotten Sungenis’s approval to make it. If you look at the final agreement that Douglass and I agreed to, you will see that it actually softens Ben’s initial offer somewhat in the specific area you mentioned. Rather than taking everything down, it would be reviewed. This was not to be an ongoing process for any new things written, but just a review of what was already up.

No one forced them to make this offer. They wanted the material written by Jacob and myself about this situation taken down permanently…

Bob changed his mind and rejected everything. And so the material at www.sungenisandthejews.com will remain up.

Magic Silence,

Let me be clear. I’m not an expert on Jewish issues and I don’t play one on TV. But I have spent a fair amount of time reaching out to Jewish people in the hope of helping to bring them to the fullness of the faith and think I’m fairly knowledgeable. And so, I wouldn’t mind at least offering a few ideas to consider.

You wrote: “I agree with a lot of what Sungenis says about the Jews. And we are talking about secular atheistic Jews here.”

First, it is heartening to see you make some distinctions (secular atheistic Jews). You know that Sungenis very often fails to make distinctions, speaking only of “Jews”, right? In fact, I often criticized and pushed him to make distinctions, but he only did so sporadically and would fall back into the habit of speaking only about “the Jews.”. When someone does not see valid distinctions (aka stereotyping), that is strong evidence of prejudice, imo.

That said, could you clarify if you agree with Historical Revisionists/Holocaust deniers like Michael Hoffman II, Michael Collins Piper, The Institute for Historical Review (IHR/JHR), racialist organizations like National Vanguard, conspiracy theorists with a penchant for Israeli conspiracies like Ted Pike, and Justin Raimondo? These are all sources used by Sungenis.


#6

Continued:

You continue: "But he is off the mark in some areas. E.g the Russian camps did exist,

ieie.nsc.ru/~parinov/svecha/AG1.jpg

But they were not for murdering Christians, but “retraining” criminals. Now, many of those criminals died as a result of the harsh conditions, so it might explain why Bob saw them as death camps. And I am sure that a lot of those criminals were technically “Christian”."

I looked at the link and only saw a map entirely in Russian, so I can’t really comment. But the thing that especially caught my attention in Sungenis’s approach to this was in his Q and A’s at CAI. In his discussion with a “Stephan Trottel”, Trottel is clearly speaking about Judaism and Sungenis attacks Lenin and Trotsky as proof of how bad Jews are. Lenin seems at most to have been only partially Jewish and not a follower of Judaism at all. Trotsky was Jewish but again, not a follower of Judaism. Previously, he has even gone after Stalin as proof of “bad Jews” and Stalin was a baptized Christian who attended seminary from what I can gather.

And of course, his attack on FDR as effectively working as a Zionist agent because he may have had a small amount of Jewish blood in him is really beyond the pale. As I noted in SATJ, this smacks of bygone days where one could smear another by simply implying that they had a “negro” somewhere in their lineage.

Here are some of the links:
catholicintl.com/qa/2006/…#Question%2018 (Question 18)

http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2006/qa-jan-06.htm#Question%208 (Question 8)

freerepublic.com/focus/religion/744670/posts

You wrote: “His comments about the Jews running America are right. The Jews DO run America.”

What is your level of research on this issue? Because on the face of it, that statement sounds remarkably like ones that come from Anti-semitic sources. I am not saying that you are, personally, but I think you need to flesh that out more.

Do I dispute the contention that Jews occupy many positions of power, especially in Hollywood? No. But I am not comfortable with the implications that may flow from your statement. Even secular Jews are not a mass that can be treated as a monolith.

Even Sungenis has implicitly given a nod to this reality in his criticisms of Steven Spielberg. At first, he painted him as a die-hard Zionist Jew. Then, after “Munich” came out, he had to admit that even a Jew like Spielberg could see certain problems in the behavior of Israel.

One could much more easily (and without the use of conspiracy theories and stereotypes) argue that Christians control America. And the point would be?

You continue: “And there is a very valid point amongst all of this.
Why is it that wherever the Jews go, they are hated?”

That’s another rather loaded question, don’t you think? I do not believe that question is fair. Of course, we can go back to Egypt in the Bible. They were not at all hated for a very long time (Genesis 47-50). What was it that changed the situation? Read Exodus, chapter 1: “Then a new king, who knew nothing of Joseph, came to power in Egypt. he said to his subjects, ‘Look how numerous and powerful the Israelite people are growing, more so than we ourselves! Come, let us deal shrewdly with them to stop their increase; otherwise, in time of war they too may join our enemies to fight against us and so leave our country.’” At this point, they were enslaved.


#7

Continued:

I think you might also benefit by reading what Einstein had to say on this very issue. Sungenis took at cobbled together and fabricated quote from an article he wrote in Collier’s Magazine in order to “prove” that even Einstein thought that the charge of Anti-Semitism was nothing but a clever ploy. The mangled quote he took was obviously not found in Collier’s itself but likely taken from a racist source. Sungenis has admitted that he did not find the quote in Colliers. Do a google search on this and see the kinds of places that “quote” it.

Einstein brings out some valid points, imo (in the real article), like the fact that Jews are almost always a minority. And at least on the whole, do not readily assimilate completely into new cultures. They do not “disappear” into a melting pot. They have shown a remarkable stubbornness in maintaining their ethnic and religious identity for nearly 2,000 years, in spite of having no country to call home.

But should this be news to anyone? How many times did God describe Israel as “stiff-necked”?

Yet, he chose them anyway. Might God have chosen them in part precisely because they are stubborn and he knew they would hold onto their identity with a tenacity that other peoples could not match? This could be seen as the flip-side of their stubbornness. It has its plusses and minuses.

You can read the article Einstein actually wrote right here:

sungenisandthejews.com/up…instein_p1.pdf

sungenisandthejews.com/up…instein_p2.PDF

sungenisandthejews.com/up…instein_p3.PDF

sungenisandthejews.com/uploads/Einstein_p4.PDF

Donna:

I don’t believe we’ve met previously, so it’s nice to “meet” you. I read your last post with interest and I find much agreement with it.

However, while I can’t speak for others, I can at least tell you that I have no intention of “beating a friend to death.” I don’t think that is a fair analogy. I see this as correcting a friend more and more firmly over a long period of time to get him to stop unjustly attacking innocent people.

I have seen firsthand what he has wrought and it is damaging in ways that I cannot divulge here. His reliance upon deeply prejudiced sources has been documented, yet these articles and Q and As which either explicitly or implicitly use these sources are still at CAI. How many other websites have copied his writings? How many articles has he written for other publications? These will always be “out there”, too. Furthermore, in private and public exchanges he has expressed nothing that could seriously be construed as a change of heart, only a change in tactics.

If he were to remove the worst sources from his articles, this would only camouflage the ugliness behind them and thus make them more palatable for the innocent. I’m not convinced this would be such a great development, either. We know what is behind his opinions.

If he were to name his website “Politics and Religion by Bob Sungenis” rather than “CATHOLIC apologetics International”, it would be somewhat less problematic. But many people see “Catholic” and think what he writes is Catholic, also in part because of his credibility in other areas (NBFA, NBSA, etc).

At one time I unintentionally aided him in the spread of his views on Jewish issues by gently trying to persuade him over time and also because I did not take the time to read everything he had written. In conscience, I cannot allow my continued desire to help Bob to obscure my responsibility to consider all the others he has harmed…and continues to harm…as every bit as important as Bob.

I hope that doesn’t come across as unkind or too strident. But I have seen the harm he has done first-hand (harm he continues to do) and it still pains me deeply.


#8

Continued:

You can read the article Einstein actually wrote right here:

sungenisandthejews.com/up…instein_p1.pdf

sungenisandthejews.com/up…instein_p2.PDF

sungenisandthejews.com/up…instein_p3.PDF

sungenisandthejews.com/uploads/Einstein_p4.PDF

Donna:

I don’t believe we’ve met previously, so it’s nice to “meet” you. I read your last post with interest and I find much agreement with it.

However, while I can’t speak for others, I can at least tell you that I have no intention of “beating a friend to death.” I don’t think that is a fair analogy. I see this as correcting a friend more and more firmly over a long period of time to get him to stop unjustly attacking innocent people.

I have seen firsthand what he has wrought and it is damaging in ways that I cannot divulge here. His reliance upon deeply prejudiced sources has been documented, yet these articles and Q and As which either explicitly or implicitly use these sources are still at CAI. How many other websites have copied his writings? How many articles has he written for other publications? These will always be “out there”, too. Furthermore, in private and public exchanges he has expressed nothing that could seriously be construed as a change of heart, only a change in tactics.

If he were to remove the worst sources from his articles, this would only camouflage the ugliness behind them and thus make them more palatable for the innocent. I’m not convinced this would be such a great development, either. We know what is behind his opinions.

If he were to name his website “Politics and Religion by Bob Sungenis” rather than “CATHOLIC apologetics International”, it would be somewhat less problematic. But many people see “Catholic” and think what he writes is Catholic, also in part because of his credibility in other areas (NBFA, NBSA, etc).

At one time I unintentionally aided him in the spread of his views on Jewish issues by gently trying to persuade him over time and also because I did not take the time to read everything he had written. In conscience, I cannot allow my continued desire to help Bob to obscure my responsibility to consider all the others he has harmed…and continues to harm…as every bit as important as Bob.

I hope that doesn’t come across as unkind or too strident. But I have seen the harm he has done first-hand (harm he continues to do) and it still pains me deeply.


#9

Some of what is said on lumengentleman is true, but it amounts to nothing more than a misunderstanding and poor scholarmanship on the part of Sungenis.

His treatment of the Jews is fair and I do not know where you are coming from.

It is a FACT that Auschwitz used to have a plaque that said 4 million Jews died here etc…

It if a FACT that this changed to 1.5 million

Not conjecture, not theory, but fact.

Now, whether that was a mistake on the part of the people in charge, or whatever, doesn’t matter. People have the right to look at the different plaques and say “Hold up, 2.5 million people have just not died”.

Peace in the Lord Jesus who was a Jew Himself. :slight_smile:


#10

That said, could you clarify if you agree with Historical Revisionists/Holocaust deniers like Michael Hoffman II, Michael Collins Piper, The Institute for Historical Review (IHR/JHR), racialist organizations like National Vanguard, conspiracy theorists with a penchant for Israeli conspiracies like Ted Pike, and Justin Raimondo? These are all sources used by Sungenis.

Do I deny the holocaust happened? No.

Do I deny that 6 million Jews died. Yes, it was not that many, and this is documented fact!

As has been said already, so long as the research conducted by these people is sound, there is no problem citing them so long as it is clear that you don’t agree with their position on x,y,z…

I looked at the link and only saw a map entirely in Russian, so I can’t really comment.

It is a link from Wikipedia showing the positions of the camps. There are thousands of them it seems, which would explain the high numbers of deaths.

And of course, his attack on FDR as effectively working as a Zionist agent because he may have had a small amount of Jewish blood in him is really beyond the pale. As I noted in SATJ, this smacks of bygone days where one could smear another by simply implying that they had a “negro” somewhere in their lineage.

Agreed :slight_smile:

What is your level of research on this issue? Because on the face of it, that statement sounds remarkably like ones that come from Anti-semitic sources. I am not saying that you are, personally, but I think you need to flesh that out more.

Why on Earth would is be anti-semitic to say that?? Its like saying the Jews run Israel. Nothing to it.

Even secular Jews are not a mass that can be treated as a monolith.

Alright, but you will admit that they maintain a rough uniformity surely?

Einstein brings out some valid points, imo (in the real article), like the fact that Jews are almost always a minority. And at least on the whole, do not readily assimilate completely into new cultures. They do not “disappear” into a melting pot. They have shown a remarkable stubbornness in maintaining their ethnic and religious identity for nearly 2,000 years, in spite of having no country to call home.

So, it is your position that because they maintain their ancestry, they are hated?

Peace and God Bless.


#11

Hi Michael,

You: Donna:

I don’t believe we’ve met previously, so it’s nice to “meet” you. I read your last post with interest and I find much agreement with it.

Me: That is correct, you are one of the few people involved in this that I don’t think that I ever “met” in this cyber way (I’m not an important “player” I have just been around the net for a long time) but I have known of you for quite some time. It’s nice to “meet” you as well.

You: However, while I can’t speak for others, I can at least tell you that I have no intention of “beating a friend to death.” I don’t think that is a fair analogy. I see this as correcting a friend more and more firmly over a long period of time to get him to stop unjustly attacking innocent people.

Me: Right, and I understand that. But up to this point IMHO, he has been answered. That is what I mean by “beating a friend to death”.
I would hope that you folks would “cool it” unless and until he posts more unfortunate things. Perhaps it will take diligence to monitor his writings but I don’t think that you have to be “on top” of every single one, just enough to get the word out. And pray for him Gk Chesterton’s friend prayed for him for over 20 years!

You: I have seen firsthand what he has wrought and it is damaging in ways that I cannot divulge here.

Me: I believe you but still think that enough has been said for the time being.

You: His reliance upon deeply prejudiced sources has been documented, yet these articles and Q and As which either explicitly or implicitly use these sources are still at CAI. How many other websites have copied his writings? How many articles has he written for other publications? These will always be “out there”, too. Furthermore, in private and public exchanges he has expressed nothing that could seriously be construed as a change of heart, only a change in tactics.

Me: We need to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves. We need to pray for wisdom in this spiritual battle. We don’t want to kick Sungenis so far out there that it would be difficult for him to return. I think that I’m using the royal “we” here as I don’t believe that I will add to the discussion with Sungenis.

BTW, as an aside, I agree with Sungenis on more things than you know that I think “sticks in your craw” I don’t imagine that there will ever be a time to discuss the differences but if we do please understand that I hold no animosity towards you or others who agree with you and if I state something that you believe to be very wrong, and you disagree, I will ask you to back it up. I’m willing to change my mind but only if convinced. Now doesn’t that raise your curiosity? :smiley:

Donna


#12

I’m with you bigdawg. It seems that some of the most prominent apologists in the Church in America have a real axe to grind against Sungenis. Why? I’m not sure. I just see no point to this.

I like Sungenis’ books. I am eagerly awaiting his Bible study on Revelation. If anything I’ll buy it just to stick my finger in the collective eye of these people who seem determined to destroy Sungenis.


#13

Vladimir and Bigdawg–

You guys are just fine with this stuff Sungenis has been writitng?
Did you read everyhting first?

www.sungenisandthejews.com

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=251

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=241

“R. Sungenis…. I have my doubts that it was 6 million, but even if it was 1 million, still, the point remains that they were a marked race by the Nazis. 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 familes actually helped Hitler in his quest, since their objective was to ellicit world-wide sympathy so as to migrate European and Russian Jews to Palestine, their long-sought goal which they have, indeed, accomplished.”

Sungenis: “95% of the Jews today still despise Jesus Christ.”

Sungenis: “The charge of “anti-Semitism” is nothing but a clever ploy…Albert Einstein finally recognized after dealing with his own people:
“Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world…the root cause is their use of enemies they create to keep solidarity” (Albert Einstein, Collier’s Magazine, November 26, 1938).”

(Quote proved to be bogyus)

Sungenis: “Other Catholic organizations are also becoming fronts for Zionism. Catholic Answers in San Diego and the Eternal World Television Network seem to be the two mainstays. They are enamored with Jewish converts, but do very little to censor the erroneous theology being propagated by them.”

Sungenis: “A telltale sign in the movie industry of the shift in mores was demonstrated no better than in the Walt Disney Corporation. Founder Walter Disney was well-known in the 50s and 60s for wholesome family entertainment. Interestingly enough, Walt had a policy of not hiring Jewish people.”

Sungenis: “We also know through the exhaustive effort of Michael Collins Piper’s new 738-page book, Final Judgment, how Bronfman (note: a Jew) is implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The story begins when Kennedy refused to capitulate to Israel’s demand for nuclear weapons, and you can probably guess the rest of the story.”

Theres a lot more. It’s all right there at the website (sungnisandjews). But your fine with this?

Donna–

You sound like a nice person trying to do the right thing. So nothing personal at all but if Sungenis didn’t still keep all his articles up, then you might have a better point. But most of them are still there. Look for yourself. He said he knows he wrote things that weren’t right and used bad sources didn’t he? So why are they still there? Is he stopping? Doesn’t look likeit.


#14

I wondered what happened! you all just disappeared! Its nice to see you again, but sad, too.

To the person who wrote “It seems that some of the most prominent apologists in the Church in America have a real axe to grind against Sungenis. Why? I’m not sure. I just see no point to this.” I didn’t like it either until I read what mr. Sungenis has been saying. When I read it, I really felt sick to my stomach. I have Jewish friends.

I would be so upset if they ever thought that this is what I think of them because I’m Catholic, too. I do NOT think these things and they are very hurtful. Why does he have to keep saying them?

I am sad to say it, but I think mr. Sungenis has something against Jewish people and I just wish he would stop. I don’t see any other way to understand him. :frowning:


#15

Augustine,

I see no point in dragging Sungenis through the mud over and over and over and over again here at CAF and no, I’m not “fine” with everything Sungenis writes. I also don’t find it necessary or even useful to keep attacking him as I am sure we all have more important things to tend to and I see no good coming out of all of this.

Let’s see what he does next with CAI and I don’t think we should forget all the good he has done.

If you feel this strongly about Robert and what CAI has been doing, why not pray for him instead of venting on the forums?


#16

For my part, I was drawn here by the “I don’t see what the problem is” approach adopted by Mr. Wyatt, et al. I confess that, given all I’ve seen, that gets under my skin (or “up my nose” as the British say. I’ve always liked that saying.)

Donna, I certainly do remember you and I don’t take your criticisms badly at all. Your feedback is important and fair enough. I don’t think I need to say more on the topic as things stand.

God bless.


#17

Bigdawg–

I’m glad you don’t agree with Sungenis on these things. And I know he’s done some very good things. But about your idea to pray for him, why do you think I don’t already?

But I see his keeping his stuff still up over there like he’s still swinging at people. Taking cheap shots really.

What would you think if your out at a bar and a guy picks a fight with you, taking cheap shots? And this happens, night after night. Then someone comes along and says to everyone, “I know this looks bad, but don’t jump in and help the guy whose getting hit with the cheap shots night after night, just pray for the guy whose hitting him, he’s done many good things in the past!”?

So-- it looks to me like your to worried about Sungenis and not enough about the people he keeps whacking.

And also, do you mind if I ask if you’ve ever written anything public saying that he should stop what he’s doing? Or have you stayed on the side when hes been doing this ? I’m not trying to be unfair by saying that. I really don’t know. Maybe you did write some things about this. If you have, can you show me where it all is?

And you didn’t say whether you read everything I gave links to. Did you?


#18

quote=DavidPalm

Is this David Palmer with Catholic radio in the DFW area?


#19

I’ve talked to him privately but haven’t put anything out publicly and you may be right, maybe I am more concerned about Robert than I am those who he is “whacking”.

I have read some of what has been posted (including your links) but haven’t read everything.

To me, this is just tiring…a never ending pi**ing contest about who said what and when, and this isn’t soley directed at the…for lack of a better term anti-Sungenis crowd.

I am confident that Robert won’t make the same mistakes again, so I will wait and see what happens in the CAI camp.


#20

Magic,

Please understand, I’m not interested in an in-depth review of your beliefs regarding Jews. As I said, I am not an expert or authority on Jewish issues, and I highly doubt you are either. But yes, imo, there are things you wrote that suggest you may have a bias against Jewish people or at least a lack of sensitivity to others who do.

For instance, one thing that struck me in particular was the link you provided: takebackourrights.org/docs/who_runs_america.htm

My immediate reaction:

  1. Christians control the White House, the Senate, the House and comprise about 85-90% of the population, not Jews. Christians (even specifically Catholics) have been behind everything from the dismantling of the Hays production code in Hollywood that kept the smut out (Jack Valenti did this, and Italian Catholic) to the drug craze fomented and led by Catholic Timothy Leary to the invention of the contraceptive pill, to the craze led by the Beatles…half of whom were baptized Catholics. So there it is: Sex, drugs and Rock and Roll. The plague of the 60’s unleashed by…Catholics.

Most human groups have a tendency to see (and magnify) the problems in the other groups while conveniently glossing over their own problems.

  1. Did you notice that when speaking about the ACLU, your article singled out Crystal Eastman as the “co-founder” of the ACLU because she was a “Jewish, lesbian, feminist.” That’s a somewhat interesting conglomeration of descriptives. Notice that “Jewish” is thrown in with “lesbian” and "feminist.

I also noticed a strange omission. Eastman was the CO-founder of the ACLU. Who exactly was the other founder? Roger Balwin, a Christian. Why was Roger omitted?

These are the kinds of things that raise one’s eyebrows, or at least ought to imo, Magic. But I’m not interested in appointing myself public defender of Jewish causes far and wide. I have many serious issues with individuals and organizations that are Jewish (the ADL for one). But I see no need to broad-brush, single out and stereo-type Jewish people in the process. That’s not Catholic.

My reason for criticizing Sungenis is because I have in-depth, first-hand knowledge of his lack of expertise, objectivity and fairness. Yet, he remains fixated on Jewish issues. And so, yes, I believe people err when they take him seriously on Jewish issues. He has a demonstrated bias across the board in regard to Jews, yet he continues to portray himself as an expert and too many people seem to believe he is.

If you have not read www.sungenisandthejews.com, I ask you to consider what I laid out as the express purpose of the study:

To be clear, I intend to assert and document the following:

  1. Bob Sungenis expresses views in regard to “Jewish issues” in such a way as to explicitly or implicitly convey a level of certainty and authentic scholarship that is materially exaggerated. He is not an authority or expert on these issues.

  2. He has repeated verbatim or sometimes merely reformulated slightly writings he has obtained from others on Jewish issues. He has sometimes represented these as his own, without acknowledgment or attribution and has even defended these practices.

  3. He 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.

  4. He maintains a vigorous commitment to expressing and propagating these views and an unwillingness to retract or genuinely apologize for any of them.

I do not intend to:

  1. Systematically engage all the negative views and assertions repeated by Bob in regard to Jews. While this may well be a worthwhile endeavor for someone to undertake, this is not critical to the issues as laid out and I have neither the time nor inclination to pursue it at this point. They may contain varied amounts of truth. But points 1-4 enumerated above are sufficiently demonstrative of a serious issue in and of themselves without delving into such a project.

  2. Charge Bob Sungenis with Anti-Semitism. I am not certain what has created the negative predisposition evident in his writings and at his website.

  3. Assert or imply that being Jewish (or any ethnicity or religion, for that matter) exempts one from criticism.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.