Oy Vey! Or Benjamin Douglasstein Kvetches about Robert Sungenis

After leaving Catholic Apologetics International, I had intended to keep quiet about the whole "Sungenis and the Jews" debacle. I wrote a review of Roy Schoeman's book Salvation is from the Jews, which Sungenis has been attacking for the past few years, and figured I could let the contrasts between the positions which I documented in it, and the positions which Sungenis has imputed to it, stand for themselves. But that approach to the situation has become untenable. As I had feared, since my leaving CAI Sungenis' published writings have become increasingly ascerbic (I do not say that Sungenis himself has become increasingly ascerbic because, when I was on board, he would say the same types of things in the first drafts of his articles; it was just that through much belabored argumentation I could usually convince him to excise his biggest bloomers before they saw the light of day), and as I am in a unique position to mitigate the ill effects of his writings and to exonerate those whom he has attacked, it has become imperative for me to publicly oppose him. When Sungenis asked me recently, "Do you have any Jewish ancestry in your background?" then I realized that it really was high time for me to speak out.

Sungenis recently got wind of a private e-mail I wrote to one of his last defenders (the young man did not realize I had intended it as private, and posted it on a forum), and has decided to respond to it. His response will provide the catalyst for this article.

Sungenis begins by accusing me of contradicting myself, though he doesn't prove it. Next, he faults Schoeman for not denouncing the idea that Jewish Catholics should have a unique corporate identity within the Catholic Church. This is entirely fatuous because Schoeman is under absolutely no obligation to denounce it; it is an entirely viable opinion which any Catholic is free to maintain. In the Catholic Church, the Ruthenians have their own unique corporate identity (a sui juris particular Church) as distinct from the Ukrainians. In the near future, converts to Catholicism from the Anglican tradition may very well receive a similar structure. What is so unthinkable about Jewish Catholics having one as well? Indeed, one existed in the early Church: the "church of the circumcision" headed by the successors of St. James. Eusebius of Caesarea mentions it in his Ecclesiastical History (cf. Book IV, Ch. 5).

Of course, Catholics are free to argue that it would be imprudent to erect a unique Catholic rite for Jews, and that it is better for Jews to simply become members of an existing rite and to "disappear" into the rest of the Church (This is my opinion, and it is Schoeman's). But to denounce those who disagree with us as heretics or Judaizers, so far from being obligatory, is completely uncalled for. Nothing about the endeavor to preserve a Jewish corporate identity necessarily implies Jewish superiority over any other ethnicity within Catholicism, any more than the Ruthenian corporate identity implies Ruthenian superiority over other ethnicities within Catholicism. Rather, as Schoeman states, the main purpose for a Hebrew Catholic rite would be to facilitate Jewish conversions (whether this would actually be the case is open for discussion).

A little later on, Sungenis finds inconsistency between Schoeman's stated position in his book, that God does not wish the Jews to continue to follow the Jewish laws and festivals, and his practice of a Seder meal "in the light of Christ." However, there is quite a distinction between a Catholic Jew continuing to observe Halakhah and, as a private devotional practice, occasionally celebrating a Christianized version of a Jewish ritual. The former is not acceptable but the latter certainly is. As Sungenis himself has said, "If Mr. Schoeman wants to celebrate a Seder meal in the privacy of his own home, I won’t bother him" ("The Theology of Jewish Converts Roy Schoeman and David Moss"). Therefore he admits that celebrating a Seder meal is not intrinsically evil. And if it is not intrinsically evil, why should Schoeman not be able to talk about his practice openly?

In attempts to bolster his case, Sungenis next makes the absurd claim that Schoeman's "Seder in the Light of Christ" is indistinguishable from "what is practiced in Judaism today." Right, they are exactly the same, except of course for the former's lengthy quotations from the New Testament and repeated and explicit references to the Trinity, Christ, the Passion, and the sacrifice of the Mass. Oy vey. Schoeman's Seder is basically an educational service which illustrates the various ways in which the Passover foreshadows the Christian redemption and Eucharist. It is rather like reading a book by Scott Hahn on the Christian typology of the Passover, except you are eating things and praying instead of looking at letters on a page. It is thoroughly innocuous. Better than innocuous, it provides information which is immensely valuable for the evangelization of Jews.

Ironically, Sungenis goes on to quote Colossians 2:16-17 against Schoeman: "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." One might quite easily turn St. Paul's text back against Sungenis: do not judge Schoeman with regard to a festival or a Sabbath. He recognizes that these are only shadows of what is to come, and that the substance belongs to Christ. In fact, his whole purpose in celebrating these festivals is to illustrate the way in which they point to Christ!

I would like to add one more text from St. Paul to this discussion: "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews" (1 Cor 9:20).

Next, we see one of the real bloomers of the type that I would sometimes succeed in convincing Sungenis not to publish. He quotes Schoeman as follows: "The fact that Jews have a special role to play until the Second Coming does not necessarily imply that Jews who convert should avoid 'disappearing' into the Church," and offers the following exegesis: "If you are confused by Schoeman's double negative, he is saying that Jewish converts are not required to 'disappear' into the Catholic Church." This is the kind of incompetent exegesis that one encounters in the writings of Eliseo Soriano. The whole point of this passage is to argue against the logic that, because Jews have a special role to play in salvation history, therefore they should preserve a unique identity in the Catholic Church. Schoeman says that this is not necessarily the case, and suggests rather that it could be precisely in disappearing into the Church, like yeast into bread, that Jewish Catholics fulfill their purpose. Let's take a look again at what Sungenis has not quoted:

It is useful to consider the parallel with yeast and bread. For yeast to do any good in making bread, it must be kept separate from the other ingredients until it is time to use it. But at that point in the process one must take some of the yeast away from where it has been kept separate and mix it in with the other ingredients until it becomes indistinguishable from the rest of the dough. Perhaps that is the case with the Jews. God gave them unique qualities which have a needed leavening effect on the entire Church. But for those qualities to have their effect, when God grants the grace of conversion to the Jew, He separates him from the rest of the "yeast" and mixes him in with the "dough"; that is, removes him from the Jewish community and mixes him into the Church. Just as the yeast does not lose its importance in disappearing into the dough but rather achieves it, so might the Jewish charism realize its unique importance in "disappearing" into the Church (Salvation is from the Jews, p. 71).

Sungenis goes on to respond to my charge that he engages in Protestant style argumentation in order to deny the conversion of the Jews in the end times. He begins with a tangent about similarities between Schoeman's interpretations of certain prophecies, and dispensationalist interpretations of those prophecies. He then pronounces an exegetical challenge to me, and reiterates his contention that there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers on the conversion of the Jews.

However, it's not clear that Sungenis would accept the conversion of the Jews even if he were forced to admit that the Fathers are in consensus on this issue. He has stated in a previous article that, so long as he does literal and detailed exegesis of Scripture, he should be free to depart from the consensus of the Fathers: "I never said we could not depart from the consensus [of the Church Fathers on the interpretation of Scripture]. In fact in my last letter to Mr. Field I specifically stated that, according to Pope Leo, if one departs from the consensus he must interpret Scripture literally and in its most obvious sense, unless reason or necessity compels him otherwise" ("Is Mr. Field Out in Left Field?", 2). This is an egregious misrepresentation of Leo XIII's rule. Leo XIII never says that one may depart from the consensus of the Fathers; on the contrary this is strictly forbidden. We are allowed to go into more depth than the Fathers, not departing from them but using them as our basis, provided that we follow the literal and obvious sense. It is incredible that anyone could interpret Leo XIII the way Sungenis has, much less a Catholic apologist and doctor of religion. He has more faithfully represented Leo XIII's teaching in recent essays, however he has yet to explicitly retract his error.

The next reason I stated that Sungenis effectively negates the authority of the Fathers to interpret Scripture is the following statement: "I am not interested in quotes from a Church Father here or there who says that there will be a significant conversion of Jews" ("Roy Schoeman, the Jews, and the Old Covenant", p. 36). Sorry, but when a sainted Pope of antiquity (Gregory the Great) mentions to his congregation that it is well known among them that at the end of the world the Jews will convert to Christ, all Catholic ears had better perk up. Yet Sungenis says, "I am not interested."

Next, in "Christian Zionism: A Contradiction in Terms" he states that of the Fathers only Jerome and Cyril of Alexandria hold out for a future restoration of faith in Israel. This is an egregious misrepresentation of the patristic record. Sungenis need only look at that hated website sungenisandthejews.com or read Jacob Michael's hated book Never Revoked by God to find similar testimonies from Origen, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine, Ambrose, Cassiodorus, John Damascene, Isidore of Seville, Bede, and Gregory the Great, among others. Sungenis seems at least to have been corrected over this particular error. However, he still finds excuses not to accept the patristic view. In his review of Jacob Michael's book, Sungenis makes the pathetic argument that there are lots of other Fathers who Mr. Michael does not quote. Well, not every single Father has to address this issue for there to be a consensus! When a view is widespread among the Catholics of antiquity, and every Father who addresses the issue (about a score of them) affirms it, silence among the others implies consent. If Sungenis could find a few Fathers denying that there will be a mass conversion of Jews at the end of time, then he might have a leg to stand on.

Readers may consult David Palm's essay, "The Ongoing Role of the Jews in Salvation History," for further evidence of how Sungenis stoops to non-Catholic forms of argumentation in order to dismiss this doctrine, which for some reason he is so incredibly hostile to.

Sungenis continues by attempting to turn my charge back at me: "In actuality, it is Douglass who is closer to 'Protestant styled' views on the subject since virtually all Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists side with his view of the Jews." Well, if believing in the conversion of the Jews makes me a Christian Zionist, you can wrap the star and bars around me and call me John Hagee. This is absurd.

Perhaps the best remedy for Sungenis' contention that I share a Protestant Zionist view of the Jews might be for him to go back and reread my review of Schoeman's book. In it, he will note that I talk about the Jewish contribution to the origination of Communism, I highlight instances of Jewish hostility to Christ, and I endorse as a probable speculation that the Antichrist will be Jewish. Further, he might recall that I am a sharp critic of Talmudism and Kabbalah, and that I state openly that Christ is the only solution to the woes of world Jewry. For that matter, most every day I recite the prayers of St. Bridget of Sweden and the prayer of reparation of St. Teresa of Avila, both of which would be considered anti-Semitic by many. I admire the Akathist hymn to the Passion of the Lord. Politically, my sympathies lie with Palestinian and Lebanese Christians. Like Fr. Paul Marx, OSB, I'm not afraid to openly take note of the disproportionate number of Jews involved in abortion advocacy (See "Pro-Abortion Jews and the New Holocaust" in Confessions of a Prolife Missionary). The Jews who have rejected Christ are the prodigal son; they have left their Father's house, they have squandered His gifts, and they are currently herding swine. I merely recognize that the prodigal son will eventually come home. In taking such a position, so far from aligning myself with Protestantism, I am firmly within the mainstream of traditional Catholic thought, as expressed by the Fathers, by the medievals (St. Thomas Aquinas eminent among them), and also by more recent Catholic authors whom in other contexts Sungenis has highly praised: Cornelius A. Lapide, Blessed Pius IX, Fr. Denis Fahey, Pope Benedict XVI, and Dr. E. Michael Jones (See "The Conversion of the Revolutionary Jew" in Culture Wars, October 2006). In fact, given that Sungenis is an avid reader of Jones, he should have been able to recognize the ways in which my article draws on his work.

Robert continues by accusing me of calumniating him when I say that he has lumped Roy Schoeman together with the heretical "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" document. However, he has in fact done so, in his commentary on Benedict XVI's appeal for the conversion of the Jews: "As we would expect for a message that disagrees with the current consensus among 2002 'Covenant and Missions' authors (e.g., Cardinal Keeler and Jewish rabbis) and various Jewish converts (e.g., Roy Schoeman and David Moss), the only place this address was publicized was L'Osservatore Romano." Of course, in actuality there is nothing in Pope Benedict's message with which Schoeman would disagree.

In his next paragraph, Sungenis argues that Schoeman and St. Edith Stein's views of the Holocaust are contradictory, which is false for Schoeman bases his view on St. Edith Stein. Sungenis thinks that in Schoeman's view, all the Jews who died in the Holocaust were slaughtered innocents, whose death was precious to God and thus helped to usher in the second coming of Christ. However, if he rereads the relevant pages of Salvation is from the Jews he will note it is only truly faithful Jews whom Schoeman has "carrying the Cross" of redemptive suffering. I do not believe he would disagree that, for any unfaithful Jews who culpably rejected Christ, the Holocaust would have been a punishment for sin.

Sungenis continues, and asserts that no one knows what Schoeman meant when he said that supercessionism is an error. However, as Schoeman explains it, what he meant is that it is an error to say that the Jews no longer have any special mission to fulfill in salvation history. Why can Sungenis not let this be the end of the story? Why can he not joyfully proclaim that his Catholic brother, whom he thought rejected Catholic teaching, in fact does not? His refusal to retract his statements about what a pernicious and nefarious heresy Schoeman is teaching is simply obstinacy.

This brings us to the subject of the Jerusalem Temple. Perhaps no other issue better illustrates Sungenis' utterly flabbergasting and indefensible behavior. Schoeman emphatically denies that restoring animal sacrifice in the rebuilt Jerusalem Temple could be licit after the sacrifice of Christ. On the contrary he affirms that such sacrifice would be offensive to God; God has revealed his attitude toward the endeavor of rebuilding the Temple by smiting the people who tried to do so during the reign of Julian the Apostate. The smallest modicum of Christian charity, or less, even natural justice, would demand, therefore, that Sungenis retract his scurrilous charge that Schoeman eagerly expects the return of the Temple as a source of divine blessing upon the Jews, and that he thinks anyone who opposes it is "of the Antichrist." To obstinately continue to attribute heresy to someone who firmly repudiates that heresy is calumny, plain and simple.

Incidentally, this is why, as soon as I realized that I had been wrong to trust Robert's exegesis of Schoeman on the Temple, I immediately attempted to retract what I had written about the subject. Yet Sungenis had the audacity to tell me no, my article had to remain online! I should have given him the ultimatum that either it was coming down or I quit right then and there. It is no wonder why almost everyone who has worked closely with Sungenis has turned against him, when he pulls stunts like this. Yet Sungenis has the audacity to claim that since founding CAI, he has been "surrounded by Judas-like figures"! Is Robert Sungenis really surrounded by Judases, or is it perhaps his own fault that he drives even his most loyal friends away with his execrable behavior?

Sungenis makes much of my stated belief that, in his book, "Schoeman constructs a premise from which it logically, necessarily follows that the Jerusalem Temple sacrifice is good: he argues that the prophecies about the abomination of desolation setting himself up in the holy place, profaning the sanctuary, and taking away its sacrifice, might be fulfilled by the Antichrist profaning the Jerusalem Temple. He sets this in parallel to the patristic interpretation, in which the Antichrist takes away the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Note that the abomination of desolation does not set himself up in the place of illicit and offensive Christ-denying sacrifice: he sets himself up in the holy place; he profanes the holy place; it follows that the sacrifice which he causes to cease in that place is holy." However, what is germane to the present discussion is that Schoeman utterly rejects this erroneous conclusion. When Sungenis says, "Mr. Douglass pointed out to Schoeman [that his] claim contradicts the premises and conclusions he put in his book" (emphasis mine), he is blatantly misrepresenting me. What I am accusing Schoeman of is not of proposing heretical conclusions: it is not the mortal sin of heresy I accuse him of but the involuntary fault of inconsistency. I do not believe Schoeman thought his premises out completely before publishing his book. I do not believe he realized the full implications of what he was saying. Incidentally, I also firmly believe that, had Schoeman realized the full implications of what he was saying, he never would have said it.

Now, Robert clearly has an intense desire to convince Catholics who might be attracted to the contrary position that the reinstitution of the Jerusalem Temple would be an abomination. He is also intensely worried that Catholics might be led into the contrary position by Schoeman's book. So, why is he not joyfully shouting from the housetops this wonderful news that Schoeman in fact repudiates this heresy which many thought he embraced? Why is he not using Schoeman's testimony as ammunition in the fight against Dispensationalist inroads into Catholicism? Why is he not helping to make publicly known that Schoeman sees the reinstitution of Jewish animal sacrifice as evil? Again, sheer obstinacy. Rather than admit he was wrong, Sungenis prefers to imply that Schoeman is a liar, and affirm again and again that he "is not only seeing the re-gathering of Jews in Israel as a positive movement of God and fulfillment of 'Old Covenant' prophecies, he also sees the reinstitution of Temple sacrifices in the same way" ("Roy Schoeman, the Jews, and the Old Covenant," p. 20). How does one reason with a man who, when he is told that someone rejects a belief which he has attributed to him, insists that that person must be lying, and that secretly he must still affirm that belief?

Next, Sungenis takes note of the fact that Schoeman was less than helpful when I tried to take him to task in private over what I believe to be his inconsistency. However, Schoeman's behavior is understandable enough, given that I have been a long-time close associate and defender of Sungenis, and given how viciously and indefatigably Sungenis has been calumniating him for the past few years. If I were Schoeman I would be mad at me too. I would not be especially forthcoming in response to my inquiries either.

Moving on, Sungenis engages in a bit of projection, and accuses Roy Schoeman of racism because of his views on Muslims and his speculations over their role in the end times. Note well that Sungenis thinks that when the Jews get into power they can be some of the most ruthless people on the face of the earth, that the Jews fight lots of unjust wars, that the Jews might very well cause World War III and nuclear holocaust (Armageddon?), that Jewish holy books are fully of depravity, and that the Antichrist will come from Jewry. This poses an obvious question. How is what Sungenis believes of Jews better than what Schoeman believes of Muslims? If Schoeman is an anti-Arab racist, then surely Sungenis is an anti-Semite.

Sungenis goes on to ask why it is that Catholics are not heavily skeptical of Schoeman's claims to have spoken with the Blessed Virgin Mary. He suggests that if he were to claim a similar heavenly visitation he would certainly be sneered at. Well, the general rule when assessing claims to private revelation is "by your fruits you will know them." If I recall correctly, Sungenis' conversion story begins with a phone conversation with Gerry Matatics, at the end of which he has a vision of the saints praying for him. Of course, when Sungenis wrote that, Catholics all believed him, because that vision resulted in the conversion of a man who became a valuable Catholic author and apologist. Similarly, people believe Roy Schoeman's claims to a vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary because Mary has made him into a zealous Catholic evangelist. If Schoeman started preaching that the Jews do not need Christ, and claimed the Mother of God for support, then of course orthodox Catholics would cease to believe him.

Similarly, very few would believe Sungenis if he claimed the support of a heavenly apparition for his unjust attacks on Schoeman and other Catholics. In fact, when he says things like "God is on my side" against his critics, when he tells them that at their particular judgment they will regret having attacked God's ministry, and says that God will not hear their prayers, when he calls them "Judas", and accuses them of trying to crucify him, when he applies messianic Psalms to himself, and makes any number of other bombastic, self-righteous pronouncements of God's predilection for himself and his writings, no one believes him. On the other hand, if tomorrow Sungenis announced on his website that his Jewish mother had appeared to him and chastised him for unfairly attacking her people, and that he was going to don sackcloth and ashes and make peace with Schoeman and all his former friends, then I think a rather large number of people would believe him. I for one certainly would.

Near the end of his article, Sungenis sets about painting and denouncing a crude caricature of Schoeman's views on the special role of the Jews in salvation history. "Anyone who says that God favors the Jews simply because they are Jews is one of the most nefarious heresies [sic] the Church has ever known." In reality, Schoeman's views on this subject are perfectly in line with those of Pope Benedict XVI, whose book on these subjects Sungenis has praised effusively:

The mission of Jesus consists in bringing together the histories of the nations in the community of the history of Abraham, the history of Israel ... This course of events has two aspects to it: the nations can enter into the community of the promises of Israel in entering into the community of the one God, who now becomes and must become the way of all because there is only one God and because his will is therefore truth for all. Conversely, this means that all nations, without the abolishment of the special mission of Israel, become brothers and receivers of the promises of the Chosen People (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 27).

[E]ven if Christians look for the day when Israel will recognize Christ as the Son of God and the rift that separates them will be healed, they should also acknowledge God's providence, which has obviously given Israel a particular mission in this "time of the Gentiles" (Ibid., p. 104).

Will Sungenis call the Pope a heretic, now, too?

Finally, Sungenis quotes Romans 2:11: "God shows no partiality, for he is no respecter of persons" and pronounces his case closed. Not so fast. What St. Paul says in Romans 2:11 has been true from all eternity, that is, it was just as true during the time of the Old Covenant as it is today. Therefore, if God's "showing no partiality" precludes Him from electing one particular nation to a unique, special role in salvation history today, it would have precluded Him from doing so 4,000 years ago. And I highly doubt that even Sungenis will deny that the Jews had a special role in salvation history as the chosen people of the Old Covenant. He cannot seriously maintain that they were just another nation. Therefore there can be no logical incompatibility between Romans 2:11 and God choosing one nation for a special role in salvation history. God will treat all men justly, but He may give gifts according to His good pleasure. Let's just hope and pray He will give Sungenis the wisdom to recognize his errors.

Ben Douglass