What a comedown! After reading the new Apostolic Letter this morning, I eventually read Bob Sungenis’ attack on Bill Cork. It’s like driving from the top of Pikes Peak to Death Valley in just a few hours.

This particular piece is around 35,000 words, although it is peppered with long quotes. I’ll try to be more concise.

The sixth paragraph starts, “Not only has CAI chosen to critique the goals of Zionism, but it has also critiqued the attempt by prelates in the Catholic Church to change the Catholic doctrine of salvation in order to accommodate the Jews.”

Now as to Zionism, it’s obvious that CAI’s relationship with Zionism is like that of Fatah or the UN – all of them want to eradicate the state of Israel and none can offer either a good reason to do so or any reasonable outcome for the Israeli people. Many anti-Zionists claim to be free from anti-Semitism, but the anti-Zionist failure to address these crucial issues makes their claims of freedom from anti-Semitism ring hollow. Mr. Sungenis claims, “Zionism's main goal, as expressed originally by David Ben Gurion in 1948 to the Israeli Knesset, is to retrieve the original land occupied by Israel in the time of Solomon.” If so, then Zionism isn’t very successful, is it? The state of Israel has only a tiny sliver of land next to the Mediterranean. Even if the Zionist goal were the acquisition of a larger piece of southwestern Asia, is Mr. Sungenis suggesting that people like Bashar Assad and Saddam Hussein would do a better job of governing those territories than would the only functioning pluralistic democracy in southwest Asia?

I’ve read some overheated traditionalist sites lately that are filled with claims that Vatican II established a new religion. Mr. Sungenis echoes this sentiment in claiming that the doctrine of salvation has been changed. If something so central to the Church were “changed”, it couldn’t’ be done by anyone but an ecumenical council or a pope speaking ex cathedra. Unless Mr. Sungenis can give evidence of an authoritative source changing a central doctrine of the Church, he’d be well-advised to stop the outrageous accusations he’s making.

Sungenis repeats his assertions that he copied Nazi material without knowing its origin – from a website he can’t even remember. That makes me wonder how often Bob culls material from websites he hasn’t carefully checked for accuracy. As he mentions later, anyone can publish anything on the internet. Doesn’t he hold himself to the standard of only posting that which he has good reason to believe is truthful?

Sungenis tries to defend his Holocaust revisionism! "The statistics show us that there was no large difference between the number of Jews living in 1939 as there were living in 1948, " What statistics would those be, Bob? Or did you forget what website you got those from. The six million figure is to some degree an estimate, but it's an estimate rooted in objective facts. There were rolls kept at the concentration camps. There were family records of people who ceased to be. There were whole villages of people that were never heard from again. There may be a slight variation (on the order of, perhaps one-tenth of one percent) from six million, but to imply, as the above does, that the holocaust was a gross exaggeration makes it difficult to believe anything else you say. It also gives a very dark appearance to your motives.

He seems to claim that the internet is different from other media in terms of plagiarism and asks to see a legal definition for plagiarism. Plagiarism is like adultery, it isn’t a crime in the eyes of the law. That doesn’t make it any less of an offence. Reputable websites mention where they obtain information.

In the same vein, Sungenis makes the following unsubstantiated allegation: “From credible sources that I trust, it has been stated that about a third of the bishops in the United States are practicing homosexuals.” That statement might carry some weight with others if you provided a source – some means of verifying the charge. Instead we’re asked to take the word of someone who cites websites he can’t even remember and happens to inadvertently copy Nazi propaganda!

Bob’s next high point follows, “Mr. Cork's allegation [that Sungenis is anti-Semitic] is the most ludicrous and satanically originated lie ever perpetrated by someone purporting to be a Christian.” Strong words. They also imply that Bob somehow knows all the lies ever perpetrated by someone purporting to be a Christian – itself a tall order – but also that the lie was both ludicrous and initiated by Satan. We’re told that Satan is quite clever, and it seems that this must be the case. If Satan were the originator of this particular lie, then, one would expect for lie to be clever and subtle, rather than for it to be ludicrous. Then again, reason and consistency are sadly lacking from Sungenis’ recent writings.

Sungenis goes on to condemn various actions of several Israeli political leaders, apropos of nothing in terms of anything Bill Cork has said. He then talks around Mr. Cork’s objections to several ill-advised citations to papal documents having little, if anything, to do with relations between the Church and Jews. Bob concludes, “His [Pius XI’s] message of the kingship of Christ [in Quas Primas] was for the very purpose of thwarting their Zionistic goals. Perhaps you ought to take a closer look at Mortalium Animos.” Now I don’t see one thing in Quas Primas or Mortalium Animos to lead one to conclude that they were written in opposition to Zionism – modernism, indifferentism, even socialism and materialism. Not Zionism.

Sungenis goes on to critique Bill Cork’s excellent posts on this whole sordid affair. His critique is best summarized in this sentence, “Why does Mr. Cork insist on dropping names as his bases for his allegations? Has Mr. Cork disproved one assertion made by any of the above men?” Bob, it’s pretty simple. A writer’s choice of sources says quite a bit about the writer. If I were to quote Hans Kung, Rahner, Bultmann and Barth without making my disagreement with them clear, you’d be quite certain that I was a theological liberal. Similarly, your choice of sources is telling regarding your attitude toward Judaism and Jews. It does not appear to be the attitude of Nostra Aetate. If you missed where Mr. Cork disproved their allegations, I suggest you re-read his site, Bob. John Betts also does a nice job of it.

The last third of the piece gets worse. It’s well summed up in this quote, “I have learned a long time ago that, although some conspiracy theories are wrong, it does not apply to all conspiracy theories. In fact, there is a conspiracy from people like Mr. Cork to label things they don't want to hear as "conspiracy theories."” Bob, try to get some facts, verify them, and base your discussions off of them. You don't know what's going on in other people's minds.

Bob, this is very sad. You have some valuable talents. You obviously are consumed with zeal. I urge you to consider the real possibility that you’ve misread some things along the way and to seek reconciliation with the Church. The reason that you find so many people opposing you is that you’ve chosen to attack so very many things. As in any human endeavor, the more things you try to do at the same time, the less well you’ll do any of them. You may have some valuable insights to offer, but as long as you treat everything as having apocalyptic consequences and refuse to consider the possibility that you may have erred along the way, people aren’t going to listen to you.