I apologize for the hiatus in new posts lately, I am engaged in a really amazing series of exchanges at the TalkRational site, which will be the subject of a future post when concluded.
Today I received a comment from Kurt, over on "Harrisburg Affair Pt 2: The Timeline" and I reproduce it here, along with my response, and a further update received directly from Dr. Sungenis.
First, Kurt's comment:
I found a pretty good response to Father Harrisons defense of Robert Sungenis at this site,
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/fr-harrison-and-rsatj.html
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/fr-harrison-and-diocese-of-harrisburg.html
I think that they were very respectful and made a lot of good points. And I see that you didn't provide a link to Fathers article. It seems to be off-line. Are you sure he still stands behind it?
My reply:
Kurt: I find a useful correlation between your post and the kind of "argumentation" advanced in your link.
Insinuation is the order of the day:
"I see that you didn't provide a link to Fathers article. It seems to be off-line."
Now, Kurt, let me ask you. If the article were to be on-line, would this have anything at all to do with whether it were true?
If it were to have been online and then taken off-line, would this have anything at all to do with whether it were false?
Of course not.
The only utility such an observation would have, would be to afford the opportunity to advance an insinuation, designed to implant into the mind of the reader that, maybe, just maybe, the author didn't, or doesn't, or might, or might not, really mean what he said?
The logical fallacy is clear, but then some folks aren't very logical.
You are one of them.
We know this from your next statement:
"Are you sure he still stands behind it?"
Kurt. On what possible basis would you advance such a ridiculous question?
Do you have any evidence that he does not stand behind it?
No.
That's because there isn't any.
But if you don't have evidence, perhaps you can employ insinuation to suggest that perhaps, just maybe, a logical connection exists between internet availability and truth content.
Now let us situate this discussion on the basis of logic, and not insinuation.
Fr. Harrison's words are posted above.
You wish to suggest he no longer stands behind them.
Post your evidence.
I will save you the time.
There isn't any.
That is because, of course, he still stands behind them.
Thank you for providing us yet another insight into the techniques of character assassination which have been developed so elaborately on the Get Sungenis blog.
If you wish to take a shower after reading the Get Sungenis blog, and then return here and post whatever "good points" you insinuate but do not bother to demonstrate exist in its content, I will be happy to examine them.
UPDATE 2/9: I contacted Dr. Sungenis, who told me the essay, which was on his website way back in 2008, was removed as a matter of course, since the issue had been fully aired and, as far as he was concerned, fully addressed.
He has now put it back up, and anyone interested in reading it (highly recommended!) can do so:
Here!
Well, thank you for the link so that I can read Fr. Harrison's whole article for myself now but I think you're over-reacting on the rest. I don't want to waste time arguing about something that wasn't even my main point, but I asked the question because I couldn't find the article and also because I noticed on your blog that it was written almost four years ago. I don't see anything unreasonable or out of order about the question. You say Fr. Harrison still stands behind everything he wrote. Okay maybe he does I don't know. But four years is a long time. Has he written anything more about the Sungenis controversies since then that I could read? Did he ever answer the articles that were addressed to him? And if he did, could you give me the links so I can read them for myself rather than having to take your word for it, please?
ReplyDeleteI'd be especially interested to read any answer he gave to the articles that were addressed to him because I thought they were pretty good and respectfully written. Those were my two main points. They even say things like, "we would like to repeat that we respect and appreciate the many praiseworthy things that Fr. Harrison has done in service of the Church. And we consider him a brother in the faith, surely not an "enemy" as cast in his article" Whats in there to take a shower about? So your reaction has me wondering if we're even reading the same things. But regardless, can you post links to his answer to those articles or to anything else he's written more recently about Sungenis? Thank you.
You're welcome. Fr. Harrison sees no need, obviously, to answer the Get Sungenis blog.
ReplyDeleteI think Fr. Harrison's words speak for themselves. He stood up to defend a good Catholic whose reputation has been the target of a "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 – 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......."
Seems pretty clear.
But just to make sure the point is driven home, Fr. Harrison continues:
"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."
Anybody who knows Fr. Harrison, his immense faithfulness to our Holy Church, his erudition, his humility, and his courage, will understand that he stood up because he saw what was going on, and in conscience could not remain silent in the face of such a "pitiless personal campaign of vilification against Dr. Sungenis".
Pretty much covers it, I'd say.
So, apparently the "good points" you found at the Get Sungenis blog are.......what exactly?
That Fr. Harrison has found no need to respond further to the Get Sungenis blog?
I would say his response is comprehensive.
That the Get Sungenis blog articles are "pretty good and respectfully written"?
Well that's nice.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear.
I do not read the Get Sungenis blog.
If anyone has any substantive issue they want to bring over here, after they take the shower that will be necessary after wading through what is either "pretty nice and respectfully written" (according to you), or "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", according to Fr. Harrison.........
Do so.
Since you have no substantial issue, and since you are answered, have a nice shower.
Mr. Delano please calm down. I'm not sure why your being so hysterical about this. I asked a simple question. If Father Harrison hasn't written anything more for the past four years in response to this issue then fine. I don't see how it's so terrible to question whether he's still on board with all of this. But OK let's set that aside.
ReplyDeleteDid I understand you correctly that you haven't read the answers given to Father Harrisons either? Is it really honest and fair to conclude that there can't possibly be any good points in there if you haven't even read them? This is a little bit like your other comment where you refused to read any more becuase somebody said, factually, that you are a geocentrist. Please forgive me for saying so but it isn't very convincing to say that I won't read anything that the people who disagree with me write but I know their wrong anyway.
YOu seem pretty emotional about all of this so I'm not sure I want to get into a big spat over this. But let me give you an example of what I'm seeing.
Over on Dave Armstrong's blog I read that Sungenis received a letter from his Bishop with a two week deadline to take down all the anti-Jewish material from his web site and to stop commenting about Jews. In his article Father Harrison said that "Dr. Sungenis impressed him (the Bishop) favorably by promptly complying with his letter of June 29 and taking down from his website all material relating to Jews and Judaism."
But the answer to Father Harrison claims that Sungenis did not promptly comply. They say that he left the material up long past the two weeks and that he even added to and anti-Jewish material. They say that right after receiving the letter from Bishop Rhoades Sungenis even "publicly defamed His Excellency by falsely accusing him of being a proponent of the problematic Reflections on Covenant and Missions document, which gave the impression that Jews have no need of Christ or His Church." After your complaint about "insinuation" here what do you have anything to say about that?
They say that "It was only after Bob was subsequently summoned in to the diocese to meet with Fr. King and Fr. Massa at the end of July, 2007 that he “promptly” saw the light and indicated his intention to comply." And I saw that Sungenis himself just said on his web site that he didn't take the material down until August 1.
So Mr. Delano is Father Harrison right that Sungenis "promptly" complied by taking down all the anti-Jewish material and stop writing any more according to the Bishops directive and in the two week window he was given or is it true that he left the material up and added to it and made insinuations about the Bishop and only took material down after he went in to the diocese for a talking to a month after receiving the letter?
Please do not concern yourself that you might have disturbed my calm, Kurt. What you choose to attribute to hysteria is simply my insistence that you bring something substantive to the table.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I am honestly puzzled.
I have stated both in my post "David Palm and the Catholics", and again directly to you above, that I do not read the Get Sungenis blog.
But apparently you still require clarification on the matter.
I do not know what else I can do, other than to reiterate once again:
I do not read the Get Sungenis blog.
I invite you to believe me.
Your observations about whether I ought to read the Get Sungenis blog, are a matter of complete indifference to me.
I do not read it.
Now.
You wish to address a concern related to Bob's taking down the material from his website.
Why?
The material was taken down.
Oh.
I see you wish too quibble (just like they do on the Get Sungenis blog- do you happen to be a contributor, Kurt? Don't get hysterical- just asking!).
Let's examine your dredgings from the Get Sungenis blog:
"Over on Dave Armstrong's blog I read that Sungenis received a letter from his Bishop with a two week deadline to take down all the anti-Jewish material from his web site and to stop commenting about Jews"
Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong.
On June 29 Bob got a letter, out of the blue, from his bishop, directing him to remove material from his website by July 20.
But the Get Sungenis blog says "two weeks", which is false, and hopes you won't notice that the whole thing had proceeded to a friendly sit down in the chancery office by July 27.
You see, Kurt, this is why I ask if you are a contributor to the Get Sungenis blog.
You have that obsessive desire to nitpick, to cast insinuations about, and to attempt to create the impression of disobedience where there was none.
Anyway, the Get Sungenis blog has supplied you with inaccurate information (shocked! shocked I tell you!).
As for the entire "covenant God made with the Jews through Moses" heresy that was advanced as a binding teaching of the Catholic Church by Bishop Rhoades, well.
The less said about that at this point the better.
It is sometimes necessary to submit to unjust demands of our bishops, in order to demonstrate the kind of fidelity and obedience which we know pleases God.
This Bob did.
But it is never permissible to submit to heresy under any circumstances, ever, and that is one thing I can solemnly assure you Bob Sungenis understands as clearly as any Catholic apologist out there.
So.
Have a nice day Kurt.
Mr. Delano, there are a few things you mentioned that still don't add up to me but your point about the apparent discrepancy in the timing of things is a fair point. I will do a bit more searching and see what I can find.
ReplyDeleteKurt: In light of this response may I say that you are always welcome to bring up points you wish clarification upon here.
ReplyDeleteYour fair-mindedness is just what I was hoping to see.
Mr. Delano as I said I would I took some time to go over the information you brought out. There's really a lot to read, LOL! I reread Father Harrisons article and the new article by Sungenis and looked for the documentation at the Sungenis and the Jews blog. Here's what I found.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you that it looks as though the Sungenis/Jews blog was wrong about the two week cut-off for taking down all his Jewish material. A two week cut-off after receiving the letter would put it at about July 14. Father Harrisons article quotes the Bishop himself as saying July 20. But in fairness I did find where they got the "two week" figure from in their article called "Timelineof Events" http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/timeline-of-events.html. They got it from the article written by Sungenis friend Thomas Herron about everything in Culture Wars. According to the article Sungenis took Herron with him to the meeting at the Diocese. Here's the link they gave to part of Herron's article: http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/uploads/Fear_of_the_Jews_in_Harrisburg_-_Culture_Wars.jpg So they didn't make the "two week" thing up and wasn't far off from the actual date, unless I'm missing something else.
But I can't see how that answers the basic problem. The question was if Sungenis abided by what his bishop told him to do in taking down the material about Jews. You say yes and Father Harrison says yes. But he was told to take it down by July 20 and by his own account the material didn't come down until August 1 after he had gone in for a meeting at the Diocese. Father Harrison said that "Dr. Sungenis impressed him (the Bishop) favorably by promptly complying with his letter of June 29 and taking down from his website all material relating to Jews and Judaism". And when Father talks about the July 27 meeting he talks about "Dr. Sungenis’ prompt and humble compliance with the original command. (He had already removed all the Jewish material from his website.)"
But Sungenis admitted that he didn't take the material down until after the July 27 meeting which was also after the July 20 dealine. He had not "already removed all the Jewish material from his website" when he went into the meeting. So I still don't see how this is a "prompt and humble compliance with the original command" as Father Harrison said.
There's another thing I found that looks worse to me about the situation but I don’t want to make this too long so I thought I would just see what you thought about this.
Kurt:
ReplyDeleteI address your points:
"But I can't see how that answers the basic problem."
>> Your first problem is that you think there is a problem. There isn't. Other than, perhaps, the problem that even though nearly four years have passed since the final resolution of this matter, with no disciplinary action ever taken against Bob Sungenis, and no disobedience on the part of Bob Sungenis to any lawful, binding precept of his bishop, and Bob Sungenis existing today in full and perfect communion and good standing as a Catholic subject of the Pope and the Bishop of Harrisburg.......
You still seem to think there is a problem.
If there is a problem, that's it.
"The question was if Sungenis abided by what his bishop told him to do in taking down the material about Jews."
The question is whether Bob Sungenis disobeyed any lawful and binding precept of his bishop.
That question has already been answered. See above.
The answer is "no".
"You say yes and Father Harrison says yes."
>> That is because Father Harrison and myself both know Bob very well, and stood with him through this affair. Bob is not required to do "what his bishop tells him to do", unless what his bishop tells him to do is:
1. Not sinful
2. Within his legitimate authority
3. In accordance with canon law
"But he was told to take it down by July 20 and by his own account the material didn't come down until August 1 after he had gone in for a meeting at the Diocese."
>> He was also told that unless he took it down by July 20, the threatened sanction would be imposed by the Bishop.
Now the second real problem for your "problem", is that no such sanction was ever imposed by the Bishop. Not on July 21, and not on July 22. Not on the 23rd, 24th, 25th, or 26th either.
Now.
Ask yourself, please, this question.
If Bob had failed to obey his bishop in any matter legitimately requiring that obedience, why were the sanctions not imposed?
Why was the meeting allowed to take place?
Are you starting to catch the outlines of the solution to your "problem" Kurt?
A meeting was, in the interim, agreed to by the bishop, at which meeting the entire affair would, *for the very first time*, involve that tiny little detail required by simple justice, as well as canon law, that Fr. Harrison points out: the opportunity to defend oneself against the charges which have precipitated the prescript in the first place!
So.
No problem.
"Father Harrison said that "Dr. Sungenis impressed him (the Bishop) favorably by promptly complying with his letter of June 29 and taking down from his website all material relating to Jews and Judaism". And when Father talks about the July 27 meeting he talks about "Dr. Sungenis’ prompt and humble compliance with the original command. (He had already removed all the Jewish material from his website.)"
ReplyDeleteThat is incorrect. The material was removed *subsequent* to the July 27 meeting.
Promptly.
The command to remove it was made *prior to* the bishop's subsequent approval of a scheduled meeting at which the matter would be discussed.
The Bishop obviously understood this, since, as I said, he never imposed the sanction threatened on the date specified.
No problem.
"But Sungenis admitted that he didn't take the material down until after the July 27 meeting which was "also after the July 20 dealine. He had not "already removed all the Jewish material from his website" when he went into the meeting. So I still don't see how this is a "prompt and humble compliance with the original command" as Father Harrison said."
>> Now you do.
"There's another thing I found that looks worse to me about the situation but I don’t want to make this too long so I thought I would just see what you thought about this."
>> Well bring it on.
So far the Get Sungenis blog continues to convince you that problems exist.
There is only one problem- the implacable determination of the reputation destroying fanatics at the Get Sungenis blog, to continue to insinuate non-existent problems.
Oh, Kurt, I forgot one thing.
ReplyDeleteYou are very punctilious in your interpretation of what Bob was required to do in order to obey his bishop.
Now Michael Voris has received precisely the same command from the Archdiocese of Detroit, that Bishop Rhoades *threatened to issue* (but never did) against Bob Sungenis.
Do you find yourself applying the same standards of inquisitorial procedure to the Voris matter?
Why is there no Get Voris blog?
Why is there no hue and cry against the "disobedience" of Michael Voris?
I mean, really.
Please give me the benefit of your thoughts on this. I want to understand your motives better.
Mr. Delano you asked why I’m interested in this and I think that's a fiar question. I'm interested because I've benefited from the work Sungenis has done in the past but I'm unhappy about the path he's been on for a number of years now. FYI: I'm not a Jew or a Zionist and it has nothing to do with the whole two-covenant issue. Among other things I have some perceptions about what went on between him and his Bishop but I've seen you saying something quit a bit different. So I want to make sure whether my perception is right or not. So I want be willing to look hard at whether my perceptions are right or not and that takes going into some detail. I appreciate your being willing to discuss with me because I know you have a different perception.
ReplyDeleteI don't really know anything about the Voris case and I have never gotten any personal benefit from the work of Voris and so that case does not interest me. I don't perceive that the Voris case is really the same anyway but I don't want to take this off onto to many different directions.
I did notice something else though, that I'd be interested to hear your reaction to. You quoted Bishop Rhoades telling Sungenis that "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." But Father Harrison stopped in his article, just before that sentence and didn't' quote it. That was a very important sentence, don't you think? Sungenis was given some recourse by the Bishop but it seems to me that Father Harrison made it look it as if he did not. Maybe that'll seem like small quibble to you but I don't understand why Father Harrison would leave out that sentence while he's trying to show how unreasonable the Bishop was supposed to have been. It doesn't seem right to me.
I'm not trying to debate Canon Law and whether or not anyone broke it here because I've got no training in that area. What I'm interested in is whether or not Sungenis has been a respectful and obedient Catholic to his bishop or not. My perception is that he hasn't been respectful and obedient to his Bishop. But you and Fr. Harrison disagree with that. You said over on Dave Armstrongs blog that "The difference, Kurt, is that Bob did everything he possibly could to accommodate his bishop. He tried to make peace." And Father Harrison said that Sungenis had responded to the Bishops directive "promptly" and that "This new decision was motivated largely, it seems, by Dr. Sungenis’ prompt and humble compliance with the original command. (He had already removed all the Jewish material from his website.)"
Here's why this still does not look obedient and respectful to me.
The new decision Fr. Harrsion it talking about was decided at the July 27 meeting. So it seems to me that Father is just incorrect that Sungenis had showed "prompt and humble compliance with the original command" from June 29. I coudln’t tell above whether you meant Incorrect to me or you were admitting that Father was incorrect here.
But the Jewish material didn't come down on July 20 it came down after the July 27 meeting. That doesn’t qualify as "prompt and humble compliance with the original command" in my book and it’s not doing "everything he possibly could to accommodate his bishop". I ask you a simple question, if Sungenis really was going to do everything possible to accommodate his bishop then why did the Jewish material at issue not come down before July 20?
TBD
K: "it has nothing to do with the whole two-covenant issue"
ReplyDelete>> It has everything to do with the dual-covenant heresy.
The difference between Bob Sungenis and Mike Voris is precisely the fact that Bob stood up to an heresy being sold even to the US bishops, that attacks the Catholic Faith in its very foundation, on precisely the question of the relationship of the Jews to Christ and to salvation.
I predicted after your last little note that every syllable you sent from then on would be devoted to..........
Yup.
Jewish issues.
It took a while to smoke you out there, "Kurt", but at least I have.
You see, nobody else cares about the Get Sungenis blog, or the Get Sungenis smear campaign.
It's over.
It failed.
We cared about the heresy sweeping the Church back when bishops were actually denying imprimaturs to Catholic authors because they refused to accept that "the covenant God made with the Jews through Moses remains eternally valid for them".
In other words, because they refused to surrender the Catholic Faith
It's a war that was fought and won by orthodox Catholicism in the face of that damnable heresy almost four years ago.
Bob has moved on.
Bishop Rhoades has moved on.
The world has moved on.
But not the Get Sungenis blog.
They never raised so much as a whimper against the devastating scandal of an heresy being published in a National Catechism.
Come to think of it, neither do you, "Kurt".
You could care less about that.
What you are interested in doing is talking about "the Jews".
Well.
Now that we have established what your real "problem" is, let me assure you I have no interest.
If you disagree with Bob's writings on the Jews, take it up with him.
I have no ability to speak for him, and I could care less whether you agree or disagree with him.
He is a free, adult, responsible fellow and he treats those issues as he sees fit.
All of your attempts to suggest Bob failed to obey any canonical have long since been answered, and nothing further has been advanced by you that is relevant in any way at all to what has, after all, already been conclusively established:
Bob Sungenis has disobeyed no binding precept of his bishop.
Whether you personally "like" the way he did this or the way he did that is a matter of complete indifference.
It is not relevant how you "feel" about Bob.
It is not relevant what you "feel" about the way Bob did this or did that.
All of that is, exactly, Bob's business, and the bishop's.
That business was concluded going on four years ago, "Kurt".
I suggest you find something else to obsess about, because we are done here.
Do you know the blog The Reluctant Traditionalist?
ReplyDeleteI there found a blogger who accused Robert Sungenis of using un-Catholic material "like" ... series of names ... "...Pranaitis."
I wonder how one can call Fr Pranaitis anything else than a Catholic priest, unless one prefers to say he deliberately bungled a case in 1911. But he could have bungled it simply out of a habit of being too specialised and neglecting irrelevant side issues too much as well.
The author of the blog is David Palm, who is written up in my post "David Palm and the Catholics".
ReplyDeleteI do not read Mr. Palm's blog.
But it does not surprise me in the least to find the Robert Sungenis, myself, and Fr. Harrison are not the only Catholics to be accused of the crime of Catholicism there.