Tuesday, January 31, 2012

David Palm and the Catholics

Well, I've finally made it.

I have become the latest Catholic, after Fr. Brian Harrison, to warrant personal attention from the odious, spooky, shadowy bunch of reputation-destroying fanatics over at the Get Sungenis blog.

I happen to have the advantage of knowing who the self-appointed KGB officer overseeing my file is- that would be Mr. David Palm.

Go ahead and read his hit-piece, if you like.

I won't.

I stopped at the beginning, where Palm situated his attack upon me by having recourse to the observation that I-scandalously!- hold to the ancient and apostolic Catholic Faith in this exact respect: I am a geocentrist.

That happens to put me in the same boat with just about every Catholic who ever lived, right up until l'affaire Galileo, where it was proven that the Church had it wrong, and Galileo had it right.

Except..........it wasn't.

She didn't.

He didn't.

Every argument Galileo advanced has since been falsified as a matter of science.

Which David Palm knows, or should know.

But it doesn't matter to David Palm that every single argument Galileo advanced against the Church's ancient and apostolic belief, and authoritative magisterial teaching, has been scientifically falsified, and that no Catholic has ever been required under any teaching of the Church in all of Her history to reject geocentrism.

It is enough that Mr. Palm expects that his one or two readers (if that many- I am actually doing him too much of a favor even linking to his site) will find themselves shocked- shocked, I tell you!- that this evil Catholic Rick DeLano believes what the Scriptures, the apostles, the Fathers, the Doctors, and the entire Church believed for centuries upon centuries.

The charge is that Rick DeLano is Catholic, and I can only pray with all my heart, soul, and mind, that the Just Judge will find me guilty.

I have thought long and hard about how to respond to this fellow's attack.

I have decided that the best thing to do is to identify it, and the entire Get Sungenis blog, as the evil calumniation it in fact is, and then to bid hasta la vista to it, to him, and to the entire cabal of self-appointed ecclesiastical KGB operatives at the Get Sungenis blog.

Do you wish to take a shower?

Just go to the Get Sungenis blog, and the desire will rapidly escalate to necessity.

You can bookmark it for that precise purpose.

David Palm specializes in attacks upon Catholics in good standing, for the crime of believing what the Church teaches.

I have discharged my duty in conscience to recount the facts concerning the "Harrisburg Affair", an ugly example of how a good Catholic's name, reputation, and relationship with his Bishop were destroyed by the implacable and pitiless campaign of a very few neo-Catholic "apologists", who end up being apologists for the enemies of our Holy Faith, and enemies of its bravest defenders.

If any reader of this blog, now or in the future, finds any aspect of this ignoble Pharisee's hit job to be of sufficient credibility to raise questions, please feel free to come on over here and post them.

I hereby declare myself guilty of the charge of obstinate and unshakeable Catholicism.

I humbly pray God will agree.

As for David Palm, I shake the dust off my shoes, and I am rid of him.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Absolute "Must Read" Essay On Usury By Thomas Storck

I have just finished a first read-through of the best article on usury I have ever seen published in the Catholic blogosphere, and I urge every Catholic truly concerned with the moral and theological implications of our presently-collapsing, usury-based global financial architecture, and the proper formation of our Catholic conscience on the matter, to read it.

I will have to think this one through several times, but I expect it will become an important source for me when- time permitting!- I am able to get back to the question of usury here at this blog.

The piece can be accessed here.

I agree completely that the teaching of "Vix Pervenit" remains the authoritative exercise of the magisterium on this question.

I question the legitimacy of interest applied to extrinsic titles, but Storck advances some source materials that require me to rethink this.

Highly recommended.

Atheist Author John Loftus the Newest Member of the Magisterial Fundies Memoryhole Hall Of Fame


"The site has blocked you from posting new comments."

If you can't debunk, you can always Memoryhole!

Welcome to the Memoryhole Hall of Fame, John!


Over at John Loftus' blog "Debunking Christianity", John himself has finally made an appearance.

I have asked him to answer the question that so far, none of his contributors have been able to answer.

The thread ought to be viewed soon, I would venture to guess.

It might not be around all that long.

Of course I have screenshots if technical issues should intervene...............

UPDATE 12:58 PST 1/30/12: Didn't take long. My comments are now being blocked, but at least the thread is still up.

UPDATE 1:08 PST 1/30/12: Annnnnnnd we have a new Memory Hole Hall of Famer, as John W. Loftus, that fearless advocate of free thought and scientific honesty, has begun to pull down some of my inconvenient posts about Mary's Bones :-)

I think I may revisit this exchange in a future post with screenshots.


They contain soft tissue, collagen, and hemes.

Now Mary has always refused to carbon date the bones.

But another team of researchers- ironically, attempting to prove Mary's Bones were contaminated with "biofilms"- did carbon date them.
Instead, it was organic dinosaur (TRex) tissue.

Dated to less than 60,000 carbon years of age.

What should a scientist like Mary Schweitzer do in the face of this evidence, John?

Ignore it?

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Response to Atheist "Articulett" From "Debunking Christianity"

I have responded to a post by "articulett" at "Debunking Christianity"

I think lots of believers in "woo" think that their assorted faith passes the OTF... the Mormons will say that they got a personal sign from god (a burning in the bosom, etc.) confirming that the Book of Mormon is true... Pentacostals will point out speaking in tongues as "proof"... Catholics will point to stigmata, official "miracles" and such
>> No. The only Catholic I can speak for (that is, myself) accepted the Catholic Faith on rational grounds long before supernatural Faith was infused, sufficient to allow me to request, and receive, baptism.
... Muslims will point to all the Muslims willing to die for their faith as proof of it's truth... reincarnationists point out that their religion makes more sense and they have "evidence" like this: http://reluctant-messenger.com... Scientologists will point to the seeming unnatural success of Tom Cruise, John Travolta and other Scientologists... 

>> But all of this is irrelevant, since it is a matter of basic logic that either all religions are false, or else all but one are.
The Catholic proposes that all but one are.
If you ever believed in some brand of Christianity or any other "woo"-- you can probably remember doing the same.
>> Nope. Never had any stigmata, never experienced any official miracles. But yet, I am Catholic by the grace of God this day.
Your argument fails to account for this.
I remember having different ways of confirming to myself that my assorted supernatural beliefs were true back when I had them. I guess that it hadn't occurred to me that real things should be distinguishable from a delusion when scientifically tested back then; I thought it was good just to have faith.
>> Either all religions are false, or else all but one are. You apparently chose to base your faith on sand; that is, upon subjective thrills up the leg.
I hadn't yet realize how very prone humans were to confusing correlation with causation and confirming their biases.
>> Obviously you have not spent much time in the company of cosmologists and Darwinists.
I've since become quite an expert on the subject and I'm convinced that all believers in all supernatural things are engaging in these sorts of logical fallacies
>> Since you are presently being answered by a believer in supernatural things who has managed to escape your own self-admitted logical fallacies, I would say you are less expert than you imagine.
But this sort of "confirmation bias" doesn't work on most outsiders... which is why the OTF has a chance of breaking through to many delusional people. 
>> The first delusion at issue here is your logical fallacy:
Since people subscribe to false religions on irrational grounds- just like you admit that you did- therefore all religions are false and irrational.
The logical fallacy could not be more obvious.
The technical term is “circulus in probando”, or “petitio principii”; that is, the conclusion is present in the premise.
The Christian would demand a much higher standard of evidence to believe in Islam or Scientology than the type of "evidence" a Muslim or Scientologist uses to confirm theirs.
>>False. This Christian applies the same standard of evidence to all three.
As would a someone who truly interested in what is true.
>> The above sentence is apparently mistyped. I have no idea what it is you intend to assert here.
 Confirmation bias type evidence tends to only work on people who want to believe or those who imagine that they are special or "saved" for believing a certain unbelievable story or damned for doubt.
>> Confirmation bias is especially present, for example, in the Darwinist who ascribes the presence of collagen, blood cells, and soft tissue in Cretaceous T Rex bones to......what? Magical collagen- preserving, Second Law of Thermodyanics-suspending Fairies?
It works on those who are indoctrinated. And those who who believe that faith and feelings are methods of finding out what is true. 
>> Exactly so. Faith in magical collagen fairies seems a fairly widespread form of confirmation bias among Darwinists, for example.
The Christian has a low standard when it comes to their own religions' supernatural or far fetched claims and a different standard for conflicting beliefs and other unfalsifiable or far-fetched claims. 
>> Not this Christian. You apparently have less expertise in handling Catholics than you have in handling others.
Just as delusional people do not ever recognize themselves as delusional people, I think there are those who take the OTF (or think they did) and really believe that their particular supernatural beliefs pass better than the supernatural beliefs they reject even though there is no scientific evidence that any supernatural claim is true or that any invisible/divine/supernatural beings exist.
>> This is hilariously false. The evidence, for example, of the existence of a physical universe, combined with the logical certainty that no thing can be its own cause, renders your above argument thoroughly falsified in one simple sentence.
There is no valid reason to believe that humans are conscious after they are dead any more than other animals are--
>> This is also false. We have excellent evidence that human beings remain conscious after death, since we have objective evidence of a Resurrected Christ telling us so.
or what it even means to exist but have no material properties whatsoever. 
>> Oh, you mean like Hawking’s "nothing" that produces universes? I agree. To exist with no material properties whatsoever is not a proposition proveable from within the domain of science.
It is, however, proveable on grounds of the reliable testimony of One Who has risen from the dead, and Who therefore provides us motives of credibility sufficient to warrant credence to testimony not otherwise proveable through material experiment.
Invisible beings are indistinguishable from imaginary beings as far as the evidence is concerned.  
>> Circulus in probando. Your assertion presupposes that only material evidence is evidence. This is false even in science itself.  Invisible beings are quite obviously proveable from evidence; for example, the existence of sub quantum particles can be mathematically established to a scientific certainty, although these particles are utterly invisible to us.
Invisible *rational* beings’ existence can only be established on the basis of the credibility of the One who reports their existence, and so our position concerning the existence or non-existence of such beings depends upon the motives of credibility supplied by the One reporting on the matter.
But I'd say religionists are not really seeing their faith as an outsider does even though they may truly believe that they are. 
>> This has nothing at all to do with whether the faith in question is true or false. The mere fact that false religions exist, does not establish that all religions are false.
In fact, it is a matter of basic logic that either all religions are false, or else all but one are.
Your arguments are completely unequipped to handle the proposition that all but one are.
If the Scientologist or Muslim saw themselves as we or the Christian sees them and their supernatural beliefs, they would have a hard time hanging on to those beliefs-- and this would be obviously true of the many brands of Christians if they could actually view their faith as an outsider does.
>> This is of course utterly irrelevant to the question of the truth or falsehood of any of the specified religions.
All we can know about them objectively is that either all of them are false, or all but one are.
Most of us understand this because we were once insiders to Christianity and we now see it as an outsider.
>> This proves nothing. Many people once believed a true thing, and later rejected it in favor of a false thing in direct contradiction to the true thing.
This says nothing at all about the truth of the true thing, or the falsity of the false thing.
These remain true, or false, entirely apart from the question of whether anyone believed, or ceased to belive, in them.
Hell is clearly a very strong incentive for a Christian (or Muslim) to never "really" examine their faith as an outsider does.
>> Quite to the contrary. Hell is instead a very strong incentive for atheism. It is much more comforting to believe that such a terrible judgement is a fiction. Therefore the strong incentive is in the other direction. 
We can recognize how religionists use different standards for assessing their own magical beliefs versus the supernatural/superstitious beliefs of others, but I really don't think many of them can.
>> Irrelevant. If even one can, your argument is falsified.
In their mind a 3-in-1 god who becomes his own son is more sensible than Xenu... 
>> But of course. No comparable motives of credibility exist for the report of Xenu, as exist for the report of the Triune and Thrice Holy God. L. Ron Hubbard’s disciples do not report his resurrection from the dead.
a resurrecting man-god who temporarily dies to save his imperfect creations from the hell he created makes more sense
>> It makes profound and, indeed, irrefutable sense, given the existence of both Hell and a loving Triune God, whose attributes include both Justice and Mercy.
 than Mohummed flying on a horse.
>> Flying on a horse ( a preternatural, but not necessarily supernatural, event) is not a sufficient motive of credibility to assent to one or another position on Hell.
Since Hell is asserted to occur after biological death, any credible report of its existence and conditions must include evidence of having both experienced, and conquered, biological death.
No such claim is advanced for Mohammed.
A talking snake and a floating Zoo make more sense than myths past.
>> The correct hermeneutic of all such religious texts can be provided only by One Who establishes motives of credibility more powerful than the motives of credibility of those who deny the possibility of such texts reporting Truth.
In other words, Jesus Christ must be more credible than articulett.
I argue that Jesus Christ is much more credible than articulett, on entirely objective grounds.
An immaterial god that is indistinguishable from a delusion makes more sense than Zeus or Ra or Fairies.
>> “Circulus in probando” again. The conclusion is implicit in the premise.
An immaterial God is quite distinguishable from an illusion, since anything material cannot be God; anything material must proceed from a prior cause, and therefore cannot be God.
Although the evidence would put these sorts of beliefs on the same plane, their belief that their own particular "woo" is true makes it "feel" more obviously true in their heads. Religion encourages people to confuse feelings for facts.
>> “Feel” has nothing to do with it. That was your problem from the beginning- you situated your faith in feelings.
In other words, you built your house on shifting sands, and unsurprisingly, it fell.
Another thing religionists do is they keep their beliefs nebulous-- they avoid saying what exactly it is they believe so that any things that they don't understand can be "interpreted" by them as "evidence" for their faith. I don't think most religionists know exactly WHAT they believe or why-- but they are afraid NOT to believe. They've learned to associate good things with having faith.
>> Your arguments are clearly not well-equipped to deal with the truth claims of a Catholic who knows his Faith.
All of Catholicism’s dogmas proceed from an objective, historical Fact, which supplies the necessary motives of credibility upon which to conclude a reasonable basis for Faith.
Ultimately it's arrogant, because each religionist is believes that they think that THEY can't be fooled like all those others all those others of the wrong faiths-- but this is understandable when it comes to religions like Islam or many of the branches of Christianity-- because faith (in the right unbelievable story) is said to bring the utmost in rewards... and lack of faith is said to bring ETERNAL torment (at the hands of a "loving" god--ha!). Plus they have a god who tests people in vile ways (asking Abraham to kill his kid) and a devil that plants fossils or tries to garner souls or whatever.
>> Again, utterly irrelevant. The mere fact that one or two or seventy six religions are false, proves nothing at all with respect to whether all religions are false.
In fact, it is a matter of basic logic- which you have repeatedly failed to grasp- that either all religions are false, or all but one are.
The Catholic proposes that all but one are.
So when people like Harold tell me their faith passes... then I assume that he really believes it does... just like a Mormon might think so about his faith... and a Muslim... and a Jehovah's Witness... and those who are sure they've been probed by aliens-- 
>> What motives of credibility do they supply? Feelings, or even merely preternatural (as opposed to supernatural) miracles will not suffice.
Resurrection from the dead will do nicely, however.
But of course I think they are as delusional as they think all those of the wrong faiths are... and for pretty much the same reasons.   
>> Irrelevant. What you think is not dispositive of what is objectively true.
The OTF is not a miracle worker.
>> You can say that again :-)
 But I think it's the best tool around for unbrainwashing people. If a believer tells me their supernatural beliefs pass-- I believe that THEY really think so.
>> Let them provide motives of credibility comparable to those of the Catholic Faith. If they cannot, then they can safely be ignored.
That will quickly get us down to either Catholicism, or atheism.
I will be happy to defend Catholicism.
And I believe that there are people who really think they've been probed by aliens or seen a chupacabra or are possessed by demons. But I don't believe in any of these things, and I don't really think believers in such things have the type of evidence that would convince most outsiders-- at least not the skeptical ones. Nor do I think they have the kind of evidence THEY themselves would require to believe in some conflicting faith.
>> Let us see their motives of credibility. If they are not comparable to the motives of credibility supplied by the Catholic Church, we can leave them aside and get to the meat.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Concerning the "Harrisburg Affair" Pt 2: The Timeline

On August 5, 2008, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released the results of a vote taken to revise the heretical text- "(t)herefore, the covenant God made with the Jews through Moses, remains eternally valid for them"- which had been approved and published in the 2006 first edition of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (USCCA).
This vote was a great victory for our bishops, and for the faithful.
"With very good reason, indeed, those who sought to justify or explain away the "eternally valid" formulation, saw in this apostolate a clear, persistent, and uncompromising voice raised in unambiguous opposition to the entire fiasco. Thanks in part to the support and unquenchable Catholic optimism of the supporters of this apostolate, no amount of error, distortion, intimidation, or theological "bomfoggery" (to borrow Chris Ferrara’s incisive term) could stand in the way of the overwhelming weight of Scriptural, Patristic, and Magisterial witness: the covenant God made with the Jews through Moses most certainly does not remain "eternally valid," but is instead fulfilled, brought to completion, and perfected in the new and everlasting covenant in the blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
How did it happen, and what price did Dr. Robert Sungenis pay for his “unambiguous opposition to the entire fiasco”?
Here follows, for the record, the timeline of what I have come to refer to as the “Harrisburg Affair”.
Dec. 6, 2006: Dr. Sungenis receives a letter from the Diocese of Harrisburg regarding his submission of The Apocalypse of St. John for an imprimatur, in which the diocesan representative states: “Bishop Rhoades has decided not to grant an imprimatur for your book....The principle reasons why this book was not granted an imprimatur include the following: 1) lack of adherence to, or neglect of, authoritative Church teaching on Judaism and on the Church’s relationship with Judaism, as presented in: Lumen Gentium 16; Nostra Aetate 4; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 839‐840 and 597‐598 and the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, pp. 130‐ 131; Addresses/Speeches of Pope John Paul II (e.g., Address to Jewish Representatives, Mainz, Germany, November 17, 1980; Documents of the Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with the Jews which promote and issue directives relative to conciliar and papal teaching; 2) Lack of adherence to, or neglect of, the Church’s authoritative interpretation of the meaning of “Outside the Church there is no salvation” as contained in Lumen Gentium 14‐16 and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846‐848.” 
NOTE: The reference to the “Address to Jewish Representatives, Mainz, Germany, November 17, 1980” refers to precisely the address of Blessed Pope John Paul II, which is dealt with in Dr. Sungenis’ January 2008 “Culture Wars” essay:
The simple fact is, John Paul II has never said that his statement, “the Old Covenant, never revoked by God” referred to the Mosaic covenant, and neither did any of his post-Vatican II predecessors. He has clearly stated that his use of the phrase “Old Covenant” was in reference to the Abrahamic covenant and no other. This fact was made clear in the pope’s Sydney speech of November 26, 1986, in which he said: “It will continue to be an explicit and very important part of my mission to repeat and emphasize that our attitude to the Jewish religion should be one of the greatest respect, since the Catholic faith is rooted in the eternal truths contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in the irrevocable covenant made with Abraham…for it is the teaching of both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that the Jews are beloved of God,who has called them with an irrevocable calling.
So as far back as 2006, Bishop Rhoades was explicitly invoking, among other things, the very same speech of Blessed John Paul II that had been employed as justification for the inclusion of an heretical sentence in the USCCB Catechism, in order to deny the most visible public opponent of that sentence an imprimatur.
At no time was Dr. Sungenis ever provided with any specific examples of his book contradicting the referenced teachings, and he was informed that "Bishop Rhoades is not open to further consideration of this work for an imprimatur".
Jan. 18, 2007: Dr. Sungenis receives a letter from Monsignor David J. Malloy, General Secretary of the USCCB, responding to a letter in which Sungenis complained of the erroneous teaching of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. Msgr. Malloy replies that “after the completion and approval by the bishops in their General Meeting, it was submitted to the Holy See for review and recognition. I am pleased that the Holy See has granted that recognition, as noted in each edition of the Catechism.” 
NOTE: It is often alleged by the wolf pack (which has apparently shrunk now to a wolf pair) bent on savaging Dr. Sungenis that he never attempted a private resolution of these difficulties before taking the matter into the public forum. To the contrary, Dr. Sungenis sent detailed letters concerning these matters not only to Msgr. Malloy but also to Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. In both instances, he was assured that there was no problem at all with the sentence.

UPDATE 2/1/12: Correction: the response from the CDF was in the form of an acknowledgement of receipt only.
June 29, 2007: Dr. Sungenis receives a certified letter from Bishop Rhoades stating: “I hereby direct that you immediately desist from commenting on the Jewish people and Judaism both online and in all other publications. I ask that you further remove all commentary presently contained on the website of Catholic Apologetics International pertaining to Judaism and the Jewish people by July 20, 2007. If you do not comply with these directives, I will publicly advise the faithful of my directives and further declare that Catholic Apologetics International lacks the appropriate ecclesiastical consent for the use of the name Catholic and I will direct that the name ‘Catholic’ should not be used due to the above-
mentioned concerns about your writings. If you have any questions about this letter and its directives or if you wish to discuss this matter further, I have asked my Vicar General, Father William King, and a representative of the USCCB [Fr. James Massa, Secretary of Interreligious Affairs] to be available to meet with you at your request.”

NOTE: This remarkable directive of His Excellency Bishop Rhoades- a directive specifically depriving the most visible public opponent of the USCCB's highly problematic teaching of any right to address the matter in any way at all!- is the subject of an essay by Father Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D. Professor Emeritus of Theology, Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, written in April of  2008, entitled "Dr. Robert Sungenis Has Disobeyed No Binding Precept of His Bishop".
Fr. Harrison makes the following points with regard to the directive quoted above:
The above precept, however, actually involves a violation of church law and constitutes an act of injustice on the part of the bishop. Why? Because the bishop manifestly failed to comply adequately with c. 50 before he issued it. This canon states: “Before issuing a singular decree [a term which here includes singular precepts, cf. the wording of c. 49], an authority is to seek out the necessary information and proofs, and, insofar as possible, to hear those whose rights can be injured” (emphasis added). 
Bishop Rhoades letter indicates he had indeed looked at material critical of Jewish positions and activity on Dr. Sungenis’ website, and received complaints about it. But the italicized
words above indicate that canonically – and indeed, this is also a plain matter of natural justice – that is by no means enough. It is illicit for a church authority to impose a penalty or restriction without first listening to those persons whose rights are at stake, wherever possible. Now, the first of such persons, obviously, is the one for whom the penalty or restriction is being contemplated. But in this case, even though it would have been not only possible, but quite easy, to hear Dr. Sungenis’ point of view prior to formally commanding him to be silent on Jewish issues, the bishop made no attempt to do so, whether in writing or by summoning him to the chancery for a discussion of the problem. The command therefore fell upon Dr. Sungenis like the proverbial ‘bolt from the blue’. He has assured me in writing of the total lack of prior consultation, and indeed, this omission is virtually evident from the wording of Bishop Rhoades’ letter itself: it treats the whole matter ‘from the ground up’ and does not mention any previous admonitions or discussions as background to the new prohibition – as it surely would have if such had ever taken place. 
Fr. Harrison also brings up a very, very cogent observation:
It seems these complaints had come mainly from the same small group of lay Catholic apologists
who have for years ostensibly been trying to “correct” Dr. Sungenis as an “erring brother” by means of a website dedicated to nothing other than exposing his errors (real and imagined) concerning Judaism and Jewish issues. In my opinion – and I am not alone – this initiative has developed de facto into a pitiless personal campaign of vilification against Dr. Sungenis
N. B. You most certainly are not alone, Father Harrison!
 – harassing him, one-sidedly ransacking his writings to ‘cherry-pick’ and string together whatever can possibly be lifted out and turned against him, trying to isolate him as a pariah, to get him banned from speaking on any Catholic platform, and to totally destroy his apologetics apostolate, by portraying him as an anti-semitic bigot. Just recently I was sent a list, composed by one of these anti-Sungenis crusaders (a widely respected Catholic lay leader), of about ten unacceptably anti-Jewish positions which, he assured readers, were espoused by this alleged bigot. On submitting the list to the “accused” himself, I discovered from him that the list was a shocking distortion of his views. All the positions or expressions attributed to him were either distortions of what he had really said or (in a couple of cases) errors which – as the accuser should have known – he had long since retracted and withdrawn from his website. I myself have received thinly-veiled threats from members of this group, resorting to the same tactics of intimidation, censorship and “guilt by association” that are used so effectively by militant leftist and Jewish groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti- Defamation League. I have been darkly warned that my own reputation – and even the credibility of theological positions I share with Dr. Sungenis, such as the classical doctrine of biblical inerrancy! – will suffer serious seriously if I dare to speak at any conference or gathering to which he is also invited.
Father Harrison continues:
Perhaps most importantly of all, the main specific point which the bishop and his censor seemed to have in mind in claiming that the book exhibited a “lack of adherence to authoritative Church teaching on Judaism” was a doctrinal position of Dr. Sungenis which is in fact perfectly orthodox. And the contrary position, gravely unorthodox, was one seemingly endorsed by the bishop himself! This unorthodox doctrine, which Bishop Rhoades cited and apparently considered “authoritative”, has never been taught by any Pope or Council, only by the United States Catechism, published recently with the authority of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Apparently with a view to exposing Dr. Sungenis’ “lack of adherence” to Church teaching on Judaism, Bishop Rhoades appealed to a paragraph on p. 131 of the said catechism in which the only doctrinal statement incompatible with the doctrine of Dr. Sungenis’ book is the following: “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them” (my emphasis). But Dr. Sungenis was absolutely right to teach the doctrine contrary to this proposition, because it is unquestionably the latter which is a doctrinal error – and a truly scandalous one!  
It should be kept in mind that Father Harrison's words above were written before the August 2008, triumphant victory of orthodoxy achieved by our Catholic bishops, in their overwhelming 231-14 repudiation of the "remains eternally valid" fiasco.
It seems that Bob Sungenis has some very loyal, courageous, and excellent friends, and they- and he- were right on this one.
The wolf pack- or wolf pair- can go howl at the moon.
I close- for now; who knows, maybe the wolf pair will require that the timeline be extended?- with a friendly suggestion to another fine, brave, loyal and important Catholic apologist, Michael Voris.
Michael, I wish you well in your canonical pursuit of justice.
I have no doubt that you too have many loyal friends, who will stand by you even should you find in the end that you must follow the example of Dr. Robert Sungenis, who submitted to a grotesquely unjust edict of his bishop, because.........
sometimes that is what it takes, to please God.
And what we need more than anything now- more than any other single thing- is to find ways in which we might please God, so that He may be pleased to deliver us from the incredible devastations now descending upon our beloved Holy Mother the Church.
Christus vincit!
Non praevalebunt!
Rick DeLano
Member of the Board
Bellarmine Theological Forum
January 27, 2012