On a Certain Rash Accusation of Dishonesty

In a recent article entitled, "A Lesson in Charity for James White," I objected to Dr. White's propensity to rashly accuse those who disagree with him, both Catholics and Protestants, of dishonesty, and offered him advice on how to act more charitably in the future. It is presently my distinct displeasure to have to rebuke a similar failing in a Doctor of Catholic theology.

Fr. Brian Harrison, OS, STD has accused me and several of my colleagues of engaging in "half-truths, innuendo, misrepresentation, [and] disregard for context" when we write in opposition to Robert Sungenis. Quite tellingly, his article lacks a section where he substantiates this accusation with concrete examples (by contrast, I and others have documented Sungenis' dishonesty from his own mouth on numerous occasions; see, for example, here). Indeed, Fr. Harrison fails in his sole attempt to prove that we have spoken dishonestly in a specific instance. His accusation is rash, and he should never have made it.

Fr. Harrison claims that it is dishonest of us to apply to Sungenis the words of Our Lord in Matthew 18:17: "if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican." I will let Fr. Harrison speak for himself:

Jesus is talking here about the extreme ecclesial penalty that consists in being placed 'outside the Church' (as are "heathens and publicans"). That is, in post-biblical terminology, the penalty of being excommunicated! So in publicly headlining Mt 18: 17 against Dr. Sungenis, his enemies were inciting their readers to view him and treat him as one who had incurred the church’s extreme penalty, while they knew full well that neither Bishop Rhoades nor any other church authority had declared any penalty whatsoever against him. Dr. Sungenis was not even under an interdict or any similar lesser penalty, much less excommunication!

And that is not all. The Gospel gives as the reason for imposing this penalty the offender’s "refus[al] to listen to the Church". Now since, as we saw, Jesus was talking there about the extreme ecclesial penalty – exclusion from the community of the faithful – the offense for which he was prescribing this penalty was, logically, only an extreme "refus[al] to listen to the Church". That is, the kind of refusal for which the modern Church prescribes excommunication in her canonical legislation against heresy and schism (cf. Code of Canon Law, cc. 751, 1364, §1)...

Clearly, then, there was no excuse for Dr. Sungenis’ enemies in publicly branding him as one who was "refusing to listen to the Church" and therefore meriting the ostracism due to "heathens and publicans". The appropriate name for this kind of thing is defamation. Or, if you like, calumny.¹

Not quite. First of all, before I address the text of Scripture, I must correct Fr. Harrison on a factual point. I do not know "full well that neither Bishop Rhoades nor any other church authority ha[s] declared any penalty whatsoever against him." Sungenis has claimed in the past that Bishop Rhoades put him under the specific canonical penalty of "interdict." As I have no inside knowledge of the proceedings between Sungenis and the diocese of Harrisburg, I have only Sungenis' word (and the word of Fr. Harrison, who appears to get all his information from Sungenis) that he is not under interdict at present.

That issue aside, let's look at Our Lord's words, in the RSV-CE translation:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt 18:15-17).

There is a textual variant in v. 15: many early manuscripts lack the words eis se (against you), such that the verse reads, "If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault, etc." This reading seems preferable. This passage is not, primarily, a divinely instituted means for redressing personal grievances. Rather, the Christian duty to correct an erring brother is founded on charity, i.e., concern for the erring brother's salvation. As such, the Christian should confront all those sins by which his brother puts himself in danger of Hell, regardless of whether or not the Christian is an immediate, personal victim of the sin. In concrete terms, I should rebuke my brother for his slander whether he is slandering me, my mother, or a stranger on the internet.

While it is true that the Vulgate follows the reading eis se, and hence most Catholic discussion of this verse has assumed it to be the true one, many Catholic exegetes have nevertheless interpreted the verse as referring to all sin, not merely sin which is directed at one's own person. Cornelius A Lapide, for instance, argues that sin eis se is a synecdoche for all sin.² Fr. George Haydock, quoting Jansenius, argues that eis se means, not "against you," but "to your knowledge."³

In any case, Our Lord teaches us that if, by our rebuke, we succeed in convincing our brother to repent of his sin, we have gained our brother. That is, we have gained his soul for salvation. On the other hand, if he refuses to hear us, if he persists in his sin and even "defend[s] his sin as if it were a just action" (as St. Augustine takes this phrase to mean⁴), we are to apply additional corrective measures. We are to rebuke him in the presence of witnesses. Finally, if this too fails, we are to bring him before the Church. Catholic exegesis has generally interpreted "the Church" in this passage as referring to Church authority. Hence, we are to bring our brother "to a pastor and superior, or a prelate, as to a spiritual father and a judge."⁵ St. Jerome, who reads "the Church" as a reference to the congregation, is in the minority.⁶

And now we arrive at verse 17. "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Given the preceding context, what Our Lord means by refusal to listen to the Church should be clear. If a man persists obstinately in his gravely sinful behavior in spite of private rebuke and in spite of the rebuke of his spiritual father and judge, and indeed defends his sin as just in the face of these rebukes and reviles the ones who are doing the rebuking, he is refusing to hear the Church.

Next, note that verse 17 is framed as a simple "if... then" statement (the "then" being implied). If the "if" condition is fulfilled, the "then" statement immediately, ipso facto, takes effect. There are no additional requisite conditions. In other words, if a man refuses to hear the Church, by that very fact he ought to be treated as a heathen and a publican, regardless of whether or not the Church sees fit to impose upon him a formal, legal penalty. Cornelius A Lapide explains how the man who refuses to hear the Church renders himself a heathen and publican:

For he who despises the prelate of the Church giving him admonition, despises the whole Church which he represents and rules, and shows, thereby, that he does not want to be a son and citizen of the Church. Therefore, he must be accounted not a faithful Christian, but a heathen and a publican, that is to say, a public sinner. For among the Jews, says S. Jerome, publicans were considered to be notorious criminals because of their thievery, perjuries and oppression of the poor; but the Jews clearly abstained from dealings with idolatrous heathens.⁷

Clearly, then, Matthew 18:17 admits of broader application than merely to those subject to a formal penalty of excommunication. For further confirmation of this, witness Pope Leo XII, who applies this passage to those who despise the Church's precepts regarding fast and abstinence:

But what shall We say about the precepts of the Church, what in particular about abstinence, about keeping the fasts? How many are there who do not care about this precept as they should, or even despise it entirely? In this matter too you understand how necessary it is that the faithful understand to what extent the precepts pertain to the Church and with how much veneration they are to obey the authority of so great a parent, of whom the bridegroom himself, Jesus Christ said: Whoever does not hear the Church, let him be to you like a gentile and publican.⁸

Let's return to the present circumstance. For the past six years, numerous individuals have remonstrated with Robert Sungenis in private and in public over his grossly irresponsible and dishonest treatment of Jewish issues. He has rejected these remonstrations and reviled the remonstrants.⁹ Now that his bishop has rebuked him as well, he reviles his bishop.¹⁰ He obstinately defends his manifestly sinful behavior.

So, at this point, we are ready to put two and two together. In light of the exegetical discussion above, I submit that Matthew 18:17 may justly be applied to anyone who persists obstinately in gravely sinful behavior, in spite of the rebuke of his fellow Catholics and the rebuke of a successor of the Apostles, especially if he attempts to defend his evil behavior as good and if he slanders the ones rebuking him. Furthermore, in light of the factual information which is amply documented in other articles at this website and at sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com, I submit that Robert Sungenis has behaved as such. I hold these positions in good faith, and thus Fr. Harrison is wrong to accuse me or anyone else of dishonesty in this regard.

Ben Douglass
September 3, Anno Domini MMVIII

[1] Fr. Brian Harrison, "Dr. Robert Sungenis Has Disobeyed No Binding Precept of His Bishop."

[2] The Great Commentary of Cornelius A Lapide, The Holy Gospel According to Saint Matthewm Volume II (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2008) pp. 202-203.

[3] "Others understand against thee, to mean in thy presence, or to thy knowledge, because fraternal correction is a duty, not only when our brother offends us, but likewise when he offends against his neighbour, and much more when he offends God. It is moreover a duty not peculiar to the injured, but common to all. When the offence is not personal, our advice will be less interested [i.e., biased]" (Fr. George Leo Haydock, The Douay Rheims New Testament [Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1991] p. 1286).

[4] Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon XXXII, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. 1, Vol. 6, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994) p. 359.

[5] Lapide, op. cit., p. 208.

[6] "[W]e should immediately reprove our brother, if he has once lost his shame and innocence, so that he does not remain in sin. And if he listens, we profit his soul, and through the salvation of another we too acquire salvation. But if he refuses to listen, we should summon a brother; and if he does not listen to him either, yet a third should be summoned in the hope of either correcting him or meeting him with witnesses. Then if he refuses to listen even to these, the congregation must be told, so that they may curse him. Then the one who could not be saved through shame may be saved through their approbation. But since it is said, "Let him be to you as a heathen and a publican," the person who under the name of faith does an infidel's works is shown to be more cursed than those who openly are heathen. Publicans, figuratively speaking, are those who pursue the profits of the secular world and exact taxes by business, fraud, theft, crimes and false oaths" (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament Ib: Matthew 14-28 [Downers Grove: IL, Inter Varsity Press, 2002] p. 77).

[7] Lapide, op. cit., pp. 211-212. I acknowledge that Lapide also refers our Lord's words, "Let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" to the penalty of excommunication. I concede that this is a true interpretation. I deny that this is the only true interpretation.

[8] Leo XII, Charitate Christi, 14.

[9]

• To Jacob Michael: You're a real devil, Mr. Michael.
• To me: Do you have any Jewish ancestry in your background?
• To Mark Shea: [Y]ou better spend less time on your blog and more time on the tread mill.
• To me: This is what Jewish racism does to a person. It makes them irrational.
• To Michael Forrest: Judas.
• To Jacob Michael: My, my, it sounds like you are the one who considers himself a Jew first and a Catholic second.
• To me: Don't "JMJ" me because right now you are not practicing the Catholic faith.
• Of Sandra Miesel: Sandra Miesel is next on my list. I'm going to expose that Jezabel once and for all.
• To Jacob Michael: I simply don't consider you a Catholic or a Christian any longer.
• Of me: Other Jewish ideologues, like Ben Douglass, do the same.
• To David Palm: Knuckle buster Davido.

[10]

• Of Bishop Rhoades: How is it that the Jews have garnered such a market on suffering that Bishop Rhoades finds it necessary to pay homage to them? Is it because they own the mortgages on the Catholic buildings erected in his and other dioceses?
• What about the war Rhoades [sic] is apparently still having with Catholic doctrine, Mr. Shea? Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Shea doesn't regard it as a departure from Catholic doctrine because he believes the same heresy that Bishop Rhoades has not clearly renounced and so presumably still believes, even after the Holy Father promulgated the new Good Friday prayer - namely, that the Old (Mosaic) Covenant isn't superseded and remains ‘eternally valid’ for the Jews.
• Rhoades’ allegiances are not difficult to discern. His lifelong mentor is William Cardinal Keeler who was the previous bishop of Harrisburg and who ordained Rhoades to that position in 2004. It appears that he and Keeler are on the same wavelength when it comes to reinterpreting Catholic doctrine to accommodate the Jews.
• I subsequently wrote the bishop a letter saying that I would be quite happy to expose the belief in Dual Covenant theology that he and the USCCB were apparently promoting.
• I knew upon leaving the building the erroneous theology he, Rhoades and the USCCB were attempting to propagate to unsuspecting Catholics.