Monday, January 23, 2012

"2012: A Sungenis Odd-yssey": Robert Sungenis Pushes a "DVD of the Month" from an Anti-Christian Gnostic Space Case, Claiming that Famed Director Stanley Kubrick Filmed Fake Moon Landings



On "Catholic apologist" (???) Robert Sungenis' website, The Bellarmine Report, a page was put up on 1-16-12 under the category, "Latest News," entitled, "DVD of the Month: Stanley Kubrick Hired to Fake Apollo Moon Landings." I first saw this in a rotation ad at the top of his main website, when I visited shortly after midnight, eastern time, on 1-23-11. It's necessary to go into such detail because Bob has been known to remove controversial materials from his site, once someone critiques them. If he does, readers may trust that I saw this with my own eyes. I certainly didn't make up all this detail.


The film in question is called Kubrick's Odyssey (by Jay Weidner). Here is exactly what Bob posted on his page (from You Tube):



The lyric of the music heard in this ridiculous piece must be heard to be believed. I won't even attempt to describe how weird it is.

The film is offered at a bizarre site mentioned in the preview video, called Sacred Mysteries Marketplace, which offers all sorts of spiritually exotic materials that appear to be anything from theosophy to New Age to "alchemy." The page for the DVD here examined states:

In Kubrick's Odyssey, Part I, Kubrick and Apollo, author and filmmaker, Jay Weidner presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. In light of this revelation, Weidner also explores Kubrick's film, The Shining and shows that this film is, in actuality, the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA. . . .
"Weidner produces devastating proof that the landing was shot in a studio on Earth."
--David Icke

Even more bizarre is a linked review of the DVD by Andrew W. Griffin, from the Red Dirt Report website. Here are some profound, irrefutable tidbits from it:

And there are lots of secrets within Kubrick’s films, as we soon discover. Kubrick, suggests Weidner, is not only a great filmmaker, he was “privy to the main secrets of an occult society that rules the Earth.”

One of the biggest and most shocking is that Weidner speculates, through clues he found primarily in The Shining, that Kubrick faked the Apollo Moon landings, using his work on 1968’s 2001: A Space Odyssey as cover. Weidner, however, does believe the U.S. did get to the Moon, just not in the fashion we were told. . . .


Because the U.S. Government, through NASA, was hellbent to get a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960’s, as President Kennedy had promised, and because they wanted to prove to the Soviet Union that the U.S. was going to win the space race, they had to have some insurance – a way to prove, at least to the public and the world – that the U.S. had the technology and wherewithal to get to the Moon.

That’s where Kubrick comes in. Impressed with his work on Dr. Strangelove, Weidner speculates that Kubrick made a deal with the U.S. Government to fake the Apollo Moon landings – with Apollo 11 ultimately being the first one to land in July 1969.

Weidner leans towards the idea that the U.S. did go to the Moon but that the Apollo missions between 1969 and 1972 shown to the public were all staged and Kubrick was the guy directing the whole thing. . . . 

. . . things get even stranger further in Weidner’s film when he uses Stephen King’s novel, The Shining, as the basis for a film with the same name. Of course this interpretation would bother purists and confuse others. But Weidner explains that Kubrick needed a way to get it out there that he was the one behind the Apollo Moon landing hoax and that The Shining would be the way he could accomplish this.

Alright. Sure! I guess Bob was getting anxious to find some new exciting conspiratorial hogwash to foist upon his readership, and this fit the bill rather spectacularly! Of course, we must visit Jay Weidner's web page: cited in the review. This is the wise sage whom Sungenis chose to promote by making his DVD the featured one of the month on his site. What can we find out about him on his page? We learn very quickly that he is a Gnostic heretic of the first order. Here is just one example of his thinking: an article from an interview of Weidner, called "Rise of the Archons." It makes for rather surreal and exotic reading:
People don’t realise that, 2,000 years ago, there was a religion on this planet called Gnosticism, which was the biggest religion on earth at the time, was vying with Hinduism. You could go take a university course on the history of religions now and wouldn’t even find a mention of Gnosticism. The Nag Hammadi texts provide a description for what the Gnostics believed. Gnostic is a Greek word meaning knowledge – gnosis. The Gnostics believe that liberation can only be achieved by knowledge, by the consumption and evaluation of reality through knowledge. The library at Alexandria was run by Gnostics and they were the first people to collect scrolls and books and assemble this information. . . . Gnostics preached that there was an invasion that occurred about 3,600 BC and, about 1,600 years before the Nag Hammadi texts were buried, they wrote that this invasion was like a virus and, in fact, they were hard pressed to describe it. The beings that were invading were called Archons. These Archons had the ability to duplicate reality, to fool us. They were jealous of us because we have an essence of some kind, a soul, that they don’t possess, and the Nag Hammadi texts describe the Archons. One looks like a reptile and the other looks like an unformed baby or a foetus. It is partially living and partially non-living and has grey skin and dark, unmoving eyes. The Archons are duplicating reality so that when we buy into it, when we come to believe that the duplicated, false state reality is the real reality - then they become the victors. . . . 
I believe many of the stories of Jesus are actually Gnostic myths about a possible rebellion against the Archons who came down very severely on the rebel.. . .

I really hate to say this but we have all been fooled. The whole idea that some kind of messiah is going to come to save us is an Archon trick to make you think you don’t have to do anything about your present situation, no accountability. Maybe some supernatural force will come but I think you have to look at how this oppression occurred and why it was written out of history. When you begin to look back, you realize the early Christian, from the time of Jesus to the time of Constantine in 310 AD, they were preaching that they did not worship Jehovah; they worshiped the one true God. It could be argued that the early Christians were actually Gnostic followers of Jesus instead of what we, today, call Christians. The entire New Testament was completely rewritten by Constantine and all of the information on the Archons was removed and the ideas of Jehovah being a cruel god were lessened. This is a fact. The Nag Hammadi texts are older than the New Testament by 400 years. The New Testament that we have today wasn’t concocted until about 350 AD. When you go back to the Nag Hammadi, it doesn’t have the sin factor; they say what they really think. . . .

Rense [interviewer]: Many people look into the media – not the mainstream media – for information. So who are these Archons now? These are Talmudic Zionists, to a large degree. They are part of it, perhaps they are the central core of it. We need to start looking at the name values are and where their DNA says they came from, the Czarian Empire. They adopted Judaism and used it like a stick to beat people and hide behind at the same time which is a great tragedy for true, honest and Jews of good heart and there are millions of them. [my bolded emphasis] . . .

Weidner again: Anyone who is following this mad, insane god, Jehovah, will be lead to their death for certain.. . . The defining myth of Western mythology is that Jehovah told Adam and Eve that they could not eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Not only that but if they did eat of it, they would surely die. Yet they both ate of it and didn’t die so he wasn’t even telling them the truth. 

There you have it, folks. Robert Sungenis wants to host and promote a video made by an anti-Semitic Gnostic wingnut like this? I trust that further documentation of this sort of pathetic, ludicrous, anti-Christian, conspiratorial nonsense is unnecessary. I have provided the links, if anyone else wants to discover further wonders of revelation . . .

None of this is particularly new for Bob (aside from, perhaps, the incredible recourse to an anti-Christian Gnostic as a source). I knew that he was an "agnostic" (his description) about the moon landings over a year ago, and that he believed "9-11 was an inside job and that the Muslims had nothing to do with it". Here is a portion of one of my papers about Bob's odd beliefs (his words in blue):



Bob is disturbed that I am inclined to accept what NASA tells me about science. This makes perfect sense, I reckon, since in one exchange the following skepticism regarding the authenticity of the moon landings is documented:
Jordanes had stated earlier in the combox thread that he didn't think you asserted that the moon landings were faked. Someone ("Pete") produced "documentation" that you did believe this. I find this to be insufficiently documented, as it was based on "gossipy"-type hearsay from a former associate, and from a post on a hostile website. So if you think the lunar landings actually happened, I'd be happy to hear you clarify that, so that it can be stated as a matter of record on my blog that this is an unjust charge against you.

I do not know whether they were real or fake.
He expanded his "lunar skepticism" to 9-11 as well in his piece, "Response to Jared Olar":

As for my right to be an agnostic about the moon landings, I’m certainly not the first and won’t be the last. Any intelligent person who has studied the issue is going to have doubts as to whether the United States had the capability to put a man on the moon in 1969 when, for example, the processing power of a 1969 computer was less than one-tenth of that in a typical cell phone of today, especially when the U.S. was at the height of the Cold War and was still stinging from the Russian launch of Sputnik in 1957, and especially when the ability to fake a moon landing in a hidden studio was well within the talents of Hollywood technicians. My suspicions are only heightened when I see Neil Armstrong holding an American flag on the moon and suddenly a gust of wind forces the lower part of the flag to move up to the upper part of the flag. Any fool knows there is no wind on the moon. You can see this video on the Internet and in the documentaries made of the moon landings. [see one lengthy critique of this theory] Yes, and I might as well tell you so I can beat Mr. Olar to the punch: I also believe 9-11 was an inside job and that the Muslims had nothing to do with it, and I maintain this belief along with several thousand other intelligent scientists, engineers, military personnel, airline pilots, firemen and the like who, from their expertise in this area, are thoroughly convinced that we have been sold a bill of goods by our government.

I'm obviously part of this nefarious conspiracy, myself, being named Armstrong . . .

In the same paper I documented from his site, Bob's belief in "an earth of approximately 10,000 to 15,000 years old" and that "the universe rotates around the earth once per day." He denies that the earth itself rotates. 




***

40 comments:

James said...

Dave,

Your first words out of the gate: "On former apologist Robert Sungenis' website..."

Since when did Robert Sungenis become a "former" apologist? Certainly, you will correct yourself here, no? If he is no longer an apologist why are you spending so much ink to smear him?

James Phillips

Dave Armstrong said...

If citing his own practices and web pages and the words of those whose DVDs he makes "DVD of the month" are "smears" then so be it. He has smeared himself in that case.

Dave Armstrong said...

But I will modify the language a bit. It might be possible or conceivable to still regard Robert as an apologist, since he defends something about the Church or Catholic doctrine in maybe one out of every fifteen papers he does.

Dave Armstrong said...

As long as Bob is out there purporting to represent and defend the Catholic Church, then the conspiratorial, anti-Semitic (and in this case, literally anti-Christian and Gnostic) garbage he puts out should be documented and shown for what it is.

Anyone who publishes public material in a sense of advocacy should be scrutinized if they are claiming to speak for the Church. This kind of nonsense comes back to harm apologists who actually devote themselves to defending the Church, the Bible, and Christianity, rather than spend most of their time attacking and tearing down Holy Mother Church, the Holy Father, etc.

S said...

At the top of the Bellarmine website, it says, "A Closer Look at Religion, Science, Politics and Culture."

If you look at his articles, you'll see the following there:


Wesley Clark on US/Israel

Are Evangelical Christians Warmongers? (About Evangelical support for Israel)

Chris Matthews: Israel Trying to Incite War on Iran

James Morris: Watch for Another USS Liberty Incident from Israel

Jim Stone shows Israel Behind Fukashima Disaster

Dr. Alan Sabrosky Ties Israel to

Israel Pays US Media to Slant the News

Politics, Religion, Israel and the Seduction of the Catholic Voter

Jewish Author Exposes Israel's Lies

Netanyahoo says Israel Doesn't Need U.S. Help

Should We Expect a Mass Conversion of Jews?

Israel Creating Super PAC to Defeat Ron Paul


There are a number of articles about science, too. But relatively little that would truly be characterized as "Catholic Apologetics", imo.

If you look at the newest material appearing at the Bellarmine website, you'll see that it's less and less likely to do with Catholic apologetics and more and more likely to do with conspiracy theories involving Jews and science.

Maybe it would be more accurate to call him a pop controversialist at this point?

One wonders what happened to this pledge he made:

"Because such political, cultural and social criticism of the Jews can so easily be misunderstood, I have decided to refrain from any more dealings with those aspects of Jewish life. I’ll leave criticism of Jewish politics and culture to people more capable than I apparently am. My expertise is in theology, and that is where I will put all my efforts. Hence, any future dealings that I have with the Jews, whether on our website or in published articles, will only concern the theological side of things. As you can see by the Jewish material presently on our website, every article is about theological matters, and that will always be the policy of our apostolate from here on out."

http://bellarmineforum.xanga.com/639352942/response-to-p-catan/

S said...

I missed the new feature story at the Bellarmine Report: "Arch-Zionist Adelson Supporting Gingrich".

Looking the website over, "Catholic Apologist" isn't what comes to my mind. Definitely something more like "pop controversialist" or "conspiracy theorist". The "Catholic" part seems very secondary to me.

Maybe he's going to go the way of the "Black Sheepdog" (Fr. Corapi)?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2011/06/following-the-black-sheep-dog-down-the-rabbit-hole/

James said...

Dave,

This won't come close to adequately responding to your typical shot gun smear of a fellow Catholic apologist. Suffice it to say, I will be addressing, but one point here, that of 9-11.

For years now, even to this day, it has been a favorite pastime for late night-time comedians to denigrate their fellow Americans who don't go along with Big Brother's version of what happened on that fateful September day. Imagine -- they can still get a few good snickers and laughs from Boobus Americanus! Is that what you are going after when you deride Robert Sungenis for not believing our government on the question of 9-11?

Are you a student of U.S. History Dave or is that too much below or above your pay grade? If you are familiar with U.S. history Dave are you familiar with the incredible number of times our government leaders have lied to us and continue to lie to us? Did you think they somehow stopped lying to us on September 11, 2011? Did you think a self-imposed government moratorium on lying was passed that day?

Do you not know what the term false flag operation refers to Dave? Are you familiar with the documented history of false flag operations Israel has pulled off since its terrorist inception? If history books are not your bag, perhaps you could at least sit back and watch an online video: Missing Links. It will give you a good overview of the history of Israel's false flag operations before it keys in on the really big enchilada, 9-11. If you don't want to bother with that then at least take a good look at perhaps the most informative work done on 9-11 which can be found at www.bollyn.com, that is unless you are afraid of being wrongly trashed as an anti-Semite, whatever that's supposed to mean.

Of course, if you don't wish to take a good honest thorough look at 9-11, but would rather be a good government sheeple well all I can say is you won't be the first or the last to find false comfort in your ignorance of 9-11. You will also be on the right side of the hoped for audience of those late night comedian hacks as they themselves seek to remain on the right side of their paymasters and the Israeli Lobby.

Perhaps, you are saying now it's not a big deal for a Catholic apologist to take a side as to who "done it" as regards 9-11. Are you kidding?! Look around you. Do you not realize what has weighed in the balance of 9-11? Do you not realize how much bloodshed, how many mangled bodies and minds and even souls, how many widows, how many orphans, and how many totally wasted trillions of dollars could have been avoided by the mere telling of the truth by our government to her citizens.

Are you completely divorced from any sense of responsibility in not decrying the horror of the 9-11 mass murder lies which our government has perpetrated on us (and the world)? Does a Catholic apologist's responsibility end by proclaiming the truth and goodness of the Church's Just War Theory while taking an ostrich approach to whether or not it applies in a given historical context such as the most blatant one facing us with our horrific wars of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which we would have initiated, much less carried out if our government had not fed us a pack of preposterous 9-11 lies.

Just where do you get off anyway by deriding Robert Sunenis on telling the truth about 9-11? Are you (and your audience?) really that blind as to go along with the utter stupidities fed us by our most shameful traitorous government leaders?

James Phillips

S said...

"unless you are afraid of being wrongly trashed as an anti-Semite, whatever that's supposed to mean."


I can't speak for Dave Armstrong, but for me, the kinds of things listed here are a pretty fair indicator of what it means to be anti-Semitic:

http://wquercus.com/sungenis/


http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm


http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/05/pope-benedict-xvi-continues-to.html


http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/Section2.html


http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-invitation-to-bob-sungenis.html


I also think some people are prone to believing conspiracy theories, whether about Jews or whomever.

As I Google the name James Phillips, I see that he's a backer of the work of the anti-Semitic Michael Hoffman, who teaches the theory that todays Jews aren't really even Jews:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-catholic-shoah-theology-newsletter.html?showComment=1240938120000#c3228893315301159821


Michael Hoffman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II

http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/Michael%20A.%20Hoffman%20II



James is a Holocaust “revisionist."

He's a 9-11 Truther.

http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=291067&sid=985224e975d68bad6331a35efdfa462d


http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/109293


I think when you start to see a pattern of this sort, then there's something more than just an honest, disinterest search for truth at work. There's a certain mind-set involved, a willingness or even desire to believe these sorts of things.

May some of these kinds of theories be true to one extent or another? Sure. But most people seem to intuitively understand that the conspiracy theorist mindset is dangerous and unhealthy. OTOH, some people are drawn to it like flies to a bug zapper. Still others even go to the extreme of trying tirelessly to draw in yet other flies to the bug zapper along with them.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Personally, I don't consider the kinds of proof offered by "Missing Links" or any other conspiracy theory video I've ever seen to be "extraordinary proof". The promotional video for "Missing Links" and the part of the movie itself that I've seen is hokey - the typical conspiracy theorist approach. A typical appeal to emotion (replete with scary music, another emotional manipulation) with factual bits thrown in to give the impression that it's an "open and shut case."

Personally, I find this video to be more conclusive proof that there was conspiracy behind the Titanic disaster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI

Conspiracy theorists typically tend to fill in those "missing links" with the most nefarious information. Do they actually prove their case? No. But they still leave people with an uneasy feeling that something really bad is going on.

I'm not interested in cultivating that kind of mindset. I don't advise others to, either.

Kurt said...

I thought the original article was about Sungenis posting an advert for a DVD about faked moon landings. Presumably James Phillips can come up with a detailed apologia as to how that too fits hand-in-glove into a robust Catholic apologetic?

And am I the only one who noticed that Phillips didn't get around to explaining how the sungenis site is now chockablock with Jewish conspiracy articles when Sungenis promised that he wasn't going to write about that anymore?

Kurt said...

I thought the original article was about Sungenis posting an advert for a DVD about faked moon landings. Presumably Steve "scotju" Dalton can come up with a detailed apologia as to how that too fits hand-in-glove into a robust Catholic apologetic?

And am I the only one who noticed that Dalton didn't get around to explaining how the Sungenis site is now chockablock with Jewish conspiracy articles when Sungenis promised that he wasn't going to write about that anymore?

James said...

Kurt,

I see you have studiously avoided the one issue I raised, the issue of 9-11. Why is that?

I raised the issue of 9-11 because -- and it's not the first time either -- Mr. Armstrong appears to enjoy mocking Dr. Sungenis for his beliefs that run contrary to the standard government propaganda/lies on same. Did you not read in this article Mr. Armstrong's following words: "He [Robert Sungenis] expanded his "lunar skepticism" to 9-11." Read the full context to get the full gist of Mr. Armstrong's mockery. See how he describes the lunar skepticism he attributes to Dr. Sungenis. He calls it "pathetic, ludicrous, anti-Christian, conspiratorial nonsense."

Sure, I could have raised all kinds of other issues like the DVD itself, but of what importance is the promotion or non promotion of a DVD about the moon landings in comparison to the ongoing horrific tragedy created out of the web of lies our government has fed us regarding 9-11? Why don't you get serious about the one issue I addressed rather than trying to ignore it. Again, it was Dave who introduced the issue of 9-11 not me.

James Phillips

James said...

S,

It's interesting that people like you who hide behind their anonymity are so quick on the trigger in racing off to Google up the names of those you want to throw mud at.

You publicly accuse Robert Sungenis, Michael Hoffman, and myself of anti-Semitism. Guess what Mr. or Mrs. or Miss S? You are totally wrong. Not only that, you are engaging in calumny, a rather serious sin.

I personally know these people (Yes, I even know myself!) and I can tell you that regardless of how much online calumny from others you regurgitate ad nauseum you are way off the mark.

You throw out your silly supposed denigrations of me of being a "9-11 Truther" and a Holocaust “revisionist" as if one who seeks the truth about 9-11 is automatically odd and hence not credible and that the standard 6 million gas chamber version of the Holocaust cannot be subject to any honest inquiry. (Do you take umbrage with the fact that the official death toll at Auschwitz was revised downward after 1992 from a high of 4.1 million to the current figure of 1.1 million? That's a part of official history that's been revised!)

You go on to denigrate me as being a "conspiracy theorist." The fact that you use such an inane term says a lot. The common use of the terminology of conspiracy theorist and anti-Semite are reflections of a culture bereft of a real ability to think. Instead, terms such as these are thrown around willy nilly simply to discredit the opposition without any real discussion of the underlying issues.

Hopefully, you will be able to break out of the politically correct corral, but if not you will always find happy company in Plato's cave.

James Phillips

Kurt said...

"I see you have studiously avoided the one issue I raised, the issue of 9-11. Why is that?"

Because that wasn't the main topic of this article.

"See how he describes the lunar skepticism he attributes to Dr. Sungenis. He calls it "pathetic, ludicrous, anti-Christian, conspiratorial nonsense.""

Of course he was speaking specifically of the DVD that Sungenis promoted. You would appear to find it credible enough to defend. Do you buy into the lunar landing conspiracies too? You find this sort of material to be perfectly proper for a Catholic apologist to peddle? No danger of making the faith look ridiculous?

And what about that promise that Sungenis made not to write anymore about Jewish political, cultural, or social issues anymore? Pretty interesting, no?

Rick DeLano said...

Hi Dave:

Pouncing again I see.

Gee, I wonder what would happen if somebody combed through your website, and found you recommending some piece of music, or some TV show, or some film, and then proceeded to employ the hysterically illogical tactic of "guilt by association", to suggest that since you liked that piece of music, or that TV show, or that film, you therefore somehow intended to embrace everything its composer, producer, or director might happen to believe?

Might make a great blogpost, eh?

This is a new low for you, Dave.

You need to understand that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I doubt I am the only one who has learned that particular bit of wisdom......

Nathan Wagar said...

Mr. Armstrong,

You have written alot of good apologetics work on your site. In fact, I often wonder where you find the time to write so much.

That being said, one of the downsides to the current "apologetics scene" is the tendency to argue just for the sake of the argument. Curious protestants are literally attacked for asking legitimate questions at Catholic Answers and then unceremoniously banned; inconsistent theology abounds on blogs for the sake of "proving" Catholic doctrine in Scripture; or in this case, attacking another Catholic apologist.

Dr. Sungenis is, yes, an apologist. He spends a great deal of time on his current Scripture series, and the commentary on the Greek is excellent; I recommend it highly. He actually just did a debate at my request with a Church of Christ professor of mine on the authority of the Church in Alabama. He also has many children, who are fed by his apologetics efforts.

Perhaps you are offended by some of his viewpoints; I am aware of the controversies about his opinions on Judaism and Geocentrism. However, that is the beauty of the Catholic Church. You can have all the supposedly whacky ideas in the world, but as long as your dogma is aligned with the Church, you are one of the flock.

Last I checked, some of the fathers were accused of being anti-semites, and nearly all of them were geo-centrists, young-earthers, etc. However, I don't remember many, if any, of them attacking each other since they had the audacity to represent the Church in matters of official teaching. Don't we still read them and enjoy their work?

Dr. Sungenis puts food in his childrens' mouths with apologetics, and it seems that you frequently focus a great deal of effort in what appears to my eyes to be a smear; and I only know Dr. Sungenis on a superficial level. My question is, why would you do that? Does the Church need your protection from the "stain of Sungenis" as its representative? The last time I checked, none of us on earth are worthy representatives of the Body of Christ. Also, the last time I checked, in matters of Dogma Sungenis is more trustworthy than most, because he goes straight to the councils, straight to the Fathers, and straight to the Magisterium. And that, Mr. Armstrong, is all I heard when he was defending Holy Mother Church to my protestant professor: Cited Church teaching.

It seems to me that his site does not attempt to merely be an apologetics site anymore, and so attacking his apologetics or "representation" of the Church is not only a misfocused application of your talents toward another member of the Body of Christ, but contains within it a hint of malice. His apologetics is how he feeds his family.

And I'll say something else. Let's assume the worst case scenario: that Dr. Sungenis is a paranoid Jew-hating geo-centrist whackjob that thinks the world is ending in 2012 as the moon we never landed on crashes into the state of Israel while being piloted by the Illuminati wearing American flag t-shirts. Now....

Do you think turning on him and attacking him relentlessly is going to help any perceived paranoia on his end? He is a fellow brother in Christ, Dave. Maybe there should be more articles about the digusting sex abuse scandals in our Church, rather than about a man with a large family that is doing his best for us with his talents, that may have some fringe viewpoints. The Church is big enough, Dave. I promise.

In the meantime, I'd suggest ordering his pdf of the Gospel of John, it is an excellent adjunct to any study you already have; I can vouch for it.

God Bless.

Rick DeLano said...

Kurt asks:

"And what about that promise that Sungenis made not to write anymore about Jewish political, cultural, or social issues anymore? Pretty interesting, no?

>> Very interesting. In fact those following the current Michael Voris/RealCatholicTV spat in Detroit know that Bob was subjected to precisely the same demand Voris has now received.

The difference, Kurt, is that Bob did everything he possibly could to accommodate his bishop.

He tried to make peace.

He tried to show his bishop that his concerns were exactly with the damnable heresy from the deepest pit of hell that the USCCB had- incredibly!- allowed to appear in a Catechism.

You remember, don't you, Kurt?

"The covenant God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them"?

That is heresy.

Bob called it such.

His bishop ordered him to remove material related to Jewish questions, which Bob *did*, on the understanding that Bob could continue to write about those aspects of the Jewish question which directly pertained to the theological battle concerning the Catechism.

The bishop's response was to pull the name "Catholic" from Bob's website.

The instant Bob complied with this grotesquely unjust but perfectly legal demand, Bob had the complete freedom to publish whatever he wished- just like all the rest of us here in the USA.

So the truly disturbing degree of calumniation, guilt-by-association, and character assassination exemplified both in Dave's embarrassing article, and in your insinuations, ends up redounding to your, and Dave's discredit.

Which was to be demonstrated.

Kurt said...

I have a few thoughts for Nathan Wager if I may. You make a very emotional appeal but I really think you underestimate the damage that is done by mingling the Catholic faith with the fever swamp of political conspiracy theories. I also found it extremely odd that you could call Dave Armstrong's once in a blue moon commentary on Bob Sungenis "relentless". When I look at the contents of some of the links above and at what is on the Sungenis site right now that is more like what I call relentless. He seems absolutely obsessed with conspiracies of every shape and form and especially Jews. It got so bad that his bishop had to tell him to stop using the name Catholic.

You are in here strongly chiding Dave for his occasional comments about Sungenis. I'm curious if there is somewhere you can point us to find any public criticism by you of the behavior of Sungenis? If I have misjudged you in this then please forgive me but how strange it would be that that you are so concerned for Sungenis and so quick to criticize Dave and seem to care not a fig for the people he pounds on incessantly. Is your outrage somewhat selective?

A man has no natural right to be a Catholic apologist and certainly concerned people have no obligation to refrain from warning the faithful if a self-appointed apologist starts to say and do things that are prejudicial to the faith, especially when he has been corrected by eccleastical authority and he thumbs his nose at his bishop and starts publicly claiming he's a heretic.

You are right that we have a lot of serious problems in the Catholic Church but in my view these loose cannon apologists and "evangelists" who flip their bishops the bird when corrected are very dangerous too.

Nathan Wagar said...

@Kurt,

I think you are missing the point. Most normal societies become tribal and closesly bonded under adversity; not so the catty world of Catholic apologetics. We fight and clamor for the "true lay-representative of the Faith." It's ridiculous.

I underestimate the danger of mixing Catholicism with weird politics? No, I don't. Sungenis isn't the reason that the Church is dying and collection plates are empty across the West; you can thank modernism and the sex abuse scandals for that. Let's take a step back for a minute, Kurt. Most of our real adversaries and potential converts are likely to be atheists/agnostics.

Do you realize how stupid it looks to an atheist mind to see two Catholics attacking each other when they both worship a cracker and are members of an organization that shuffles around known sex offenders like playing cards? And you think Sungenis is a problem?

Since converting to Catholicism, I have noticed several disturbing trends: trad vs. neo-con vs. super duper trad vs. feminist liberals, every "mainline" apologist vs Sungenis, liberal vs the Pope, etc. People get converted by Catholic answers and then get converted right back out because the people just want to argue themselves to death. Sungenis has literally been blackballed and reduced to a fringe, when his apologetics work is easily some of the best out there in defense of the Church.

I have a crazy Uncle that hates Mexicans. He is still part of my family. We love him, we don't hide him, and we don't push him away. What would happen if we did? He would probably be in a log cabin in Idaho muttering something about illegals. In short, we would be taking a man with a potentially problematic viewpoint and further hardening him within that viewpoint with a lack of love. Instead, I have a crazy Uncle involved in my life that can tell you all about my Irish Family lineage going back well before the potato famine. Sungenis is part of a much larger family, and my contention is that there is room for him, just as there is for Dave. I realize that the apologetics scene attracts people that love to get caught up in minutia, but it seems like no argument is too small nowadays.

I've looked into the issues on both sides regarding Sungenis and Jews, his bishop, etc etc. I have come to this conclusion: It's complicated, and I don't know. I never will, either, unless I want to devote my life to digging up dirt on a fellow Catholic so I can decide whether or not I should judge him. What I can tell people, is that Sungenis is another wafer-worshipping member of my crazy family, may have some weird views, and will knock your socks off on justification.

If we are going to criticize each other, it should be an in-house thing. Apologetics websites have a wider audience, and honestly as a Church I think we have bigger fish to fry than each other.

Dave Armstrong said...

Meanwhile, Bob advocates kooky, loony stuff that is so "out there" that even his defenders won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. I think even they know it's ridiculous, but they think Bob should have the "right" to put out garbage anyway, with no regard to its effects.

That's precisely why it needs to be addressed. People like you come around and say "his apologetics work is easily some of the best out there in defense of the Church."

I don't want this sort of goofball conspiratorial hogwash to be anybody's impression of what Catholicism is about. If I didn't fight it, I and other Catholics would be in danger of being conceptualized as advocates of this ridiculous nonsense. Anti-Catholic prejudice and misinformation is already bad enough; this just adds fuel to their fires.

Truth is truth, and that is always my goal and allegiance.

You say we ought to hide our corrections of public nonsense? Why not advocate keeping nonsense such as this, that has nothing to do with Catholicism, private instead of public in the first place? If someone favors sheer absurdity and hogwash, as this is, and does it in public, then other Catholics have to condemn it in public and show that it doesn't represent Catholicism, to believe odd, weird nutcase, kooky junk like this.

Nathan Wagar said...

Dave, I'm not worried about Sungenis staining the bride of Christ, anymore than I am of you. The Church is bigger than you or I, and it really isn't that hard for me to answer a non-believer with the words "no, I don't agree with Sungenis on that point." And to be honest, I imagine Sungenis wouldn't have a problem with that either.

St. Paul had stinging criticism for fellow brethren that would take each other to task in court in front of the non-believers, and I see little to no difference in your approach. It is not your task in life to safeguard the perceived augustness of our Faith from descending into ridiculousness. God confounds the wise, we worship God in the appearance of unleavened bread, and Sungenis is still part of our "here comes everyone" Catholic Faith.

Dave Armstrong said...

In other words, as soon as Bob has a public website and puts out questionable information under the guise of "Catholic apologetics," he is fair game for public criticism, just like anyone else.

The problem is, Bob (to put it as mildly as possible) doesn't take kindly to criticism of any sort. He has, for years, reacted in a highly defensive manner to any and all attempts to criticize him. It's always a three-ring circus when anyone dares to disagree with Baghdad Bob.

Shortly I will be posting yet another article in a long series, from my friend David Palm, documenting numerous examples of this behavior.

I for one am sick and tired of it. If even this present sheer nonsense can't be condemned by his rabid followers, then there is nothing rational people can do. Some folks are beyond all hope in terms of being persuaded by reason and fact and even common sense. We must leave them to prayer and miracles of grace.

But those outside looking in (or those on the fence) can see that there are Catholics who will call foolishness for what it is, and won't put up with kooky conspiratorial theories set forth by anti-Christian Gnostic loons, adopted and promoted in "DVDs of the Month." There is simply no choice.

I ignore 95% of what Bob puts out. But I saw this in visiting his site (the first time in many months) and it was just too much to not criticize. He refuses to cease and desist with this kind of hogwash, even though he has stated that he would (as noted by others in this combox). He keeps doing it, and so occasionally we respond to it.

And don't let Bob pretend that he doesn't severely criticize others in the apologetics world. He has savaged Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, myself, and others (not even to mention Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. And it is far worse than anything I have ever done. Basically I simply document the nonsense for all to see, as it is its own refutation.

If Bob wants to put out kooky stuff: anti-Semitism, 9-11 denial, an earth that doesn't rotate, fake moon landings, the entire universe going around the earth every day, or asserting that an omniscient God can change His mind, he has that right. It's when he does so under the guise of legitimate Catholic apologetics that there is a huge problem.

Dave Armstrong said...

St. Paul had stinging criticism for fellow brethren that would take each other to task in court in front of the non-believers, and I see little to no difference in your approach.

This has nothing to do with courts. You have it exactly backwards. St. Paul was scathingly critical of the Galatians and the Corinthians (FAR more than anything I've said): all the while acknowledging them as brethren and Christians and as churches.

Jesus did the exact same with the seven churches in Revelation. And he lambasted the Pharisees, right after telling His followers to do what they teach, but not imitate what they do (Matthew 23). All of that made it into the Bible: to be read by millions henceforth.

Lastly, St. Paul rebuked St. Peter (whom we believe was the leader of the early Church and first pope) in front of everyyone, for playing the hypocrite. That, too, made it into the Bible for posterity, and Protestants throw it in our face, by misinterpreting it.

Kurt said...

Nathan, I think Dave had some good responses to you and perhaps not surprising to you I'm going to strongly disagree with you as well. I think that in all of the issues you raise the real scandal comes precisely when good Catholics DON'T stand up to the evil in the Church (sorry for shouting). To just stand by and say nothing in the face of injustice is wrong. And again I come back to my question why you felt compelled to rebuke Dave publicly but as far as I can see you have never once corrected Sungenis in any way. Why this strange disconnect? You really think it is worse that Dave would say that something is wrong with Sungenis writings than that there IS something wrong with them (sorry again for shouting).

And to Rick Delano, I didn't see your attempted defense of Sungenis until after I had last posted. Basically I believe that bishops (and popes!) get the benefit of many doubts and from what I have read Sungenis has not even come close to proving anything he has charged against the bishop.

And I'll say to you what I've said to each of the Sungenis supporters in turn. I thought the original article was about Sungenis posting an advert for a DVD about faked moon landings. Presumably Rick Delano can come up with a detailed apologia as to how that too fits hand-in-glove into a robust Catholic apologetic?

And am I the only one who noticed that Delano didn't get around to explaining how the Sungenis site is now chockablock with Jewish conspiracy articles when Sungenis promised that he wasn't going to write about that anymore?

thepalmhq said...

DELANO: Gee, I wonder what would happen if somebody combed through your website, and found you recommending some piece of music, or some TV show, or some film, and then proceeded to employ the hysterically illogical tactic of "guilt by association", to suggest that since you liked that piece of music, or that TV show, or that film, you therefore somehow intended to embrace everything its composer, producer, or director might happen to believe? (END)


And what did Robert Sungenis himself have to say about that (to none other than Dave Armstrong!)?

Robert Sungenis: “If you have no political affiliation with these neo-cons, then I suggest you put a disclaimer on your site, otherwise people are going to get the wrong impression, and you can't blame them if they do. Any person with common sense who sees their names on your web site would assume that you support the political views of the aforementioned unless you say otherwise.” (END)

(Sungenis, Q&A, January, 2005, Question 3; my emphasis).

http://web.archive.org/web/20050111211245/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/qa.htm#Question%203

(DELANO) Might make a great blogpost, eh? (END)

Yes, or a Q and A by Bob Sungenis!

(DELANO) This is a new low for you, Dave. (END)

And for Bob, it would seem.

(DELANO) You need to understand that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. (END)

Indeed.

(DELANO) I doubt I am the only one who has learned that particular bit of wisdom...... (END)

But apparently your mentor, Bob Sungenis, isn't one of them.

S said...

James Phillips writes, "It's interesting that people like you who hide behind their anonymity are so quick on the trigger in racing off to Google up the names of those you want to throw mud at."

You and Robert Sungenis write under your full names and that hasn't helped much in terms of reigning in your excesses and lack of charity.

You praise articles at "realjewnews.com" (nice), praise Bishop Williamson and Michael Hoffman for their writings and views on Jews - including an article named "Holocaustianity" (nice).

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=375

You call Jews "Judaics", a practice probably picked up from Michael Hoffman, who uses the term to denigrate today's Jews.

http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=5530#comment-6434

{continuing on below}

S said...

{continuing on from above}

Hoffman uses the term "Judaic" because, according to him, today's Jews are imposters. They're not Jews at all.

http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/Michael%20A.%20Hoffman%20II

Hoffman wrote : "you refer to a modern people you term 'Jews.' You call these people Jews rather than Judaics. If you can defend your use of the term that's fine, but since the records of the Temple with the genealogical data were destroyed in AD 70 and we don't believe anything else the rabbis say, why do we believe them when they assert that they are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and King David?...Many are indeed followers of Judaism and so the term Judaic seems accurate as a description."

http://web.archive.org/web/20070320220523/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/qa.htm#Question%2025

Here, you (Phillips) referred to the Holocaust as "the sacred 6 Million Gas Chambers Hoax":

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2011/02/mainz-communist-of-nuns-joins-society.html

{continuing on below}

S said...

{continuing on from above}

Sungenis says Jews are "godless", that they're trying to take over the Catholic Church, that they've "infected our Catholic Church", that the Holocaust was that period of time when "the Jews turned on the Germans because they got a better deal from someone else". And he tried to make it appear as though Pope Benedict XVI is sympathetic to Holocaust "revisionism", which completely false. Obviously, there's much more where that came from.

So I'm very comfortable with others looking at what I wrote above and comparing it to what you and Sungenis have written and promoted about Jews, scientists, the Church, et al and deciding which of us is more reasonable and charitable.

James writes, "You publicly accuse Robert Sungenis, Michael Hoffman, and myself of anti-Semitism. Guess what Mr. or Mrs. or Miss S? You are totally wrong. Not only that, you are engaging in calumny, a rather serious sin."

Calumny requires that the statement be false. I'm comfortable allowing others to judge whether the kinds of things I mentioned from Sungenis and Hoffman above constitute anti-Semitism according to the common definition: prejudice or hostility against Jews as a group.

James writes, "Do you take umbrage with the fact that the official death toll at Auschwitz was revised downward after 1992 from a high of 4.1 million to the current figure of 1.1 million? That's a part of official history that's been revised!"

This was never the "official" death toll at Auschwitz, as though scholars widely agreed upon it. There's a story behind this number that you should read. And this particular "revision" has no bearing on the approximate figure of 6 million Jews being killed in the Holocaust. This issue is a canard often trotted out by Holocaust deniers.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/4-million-variant

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-09.html

The kind of Holocaust "revisionism" you, Sungenis and Hoffman champion is of a completely different nature. You would like people to believe that total was perhaps in the thousands. No serious historian believes that. But it is widely championed by conspiracy theorists.

Dave Armstrong said...

Is anyone willing to defend this lunatic Weidner, whose DVD Bob promotes, or is the idea (like much of politics) to ignore the actual substance of the post as much as possible and simply attack me?

I know these are standard Sungenis lapdog tactics: seen time and again on this blog, but the rather obvious point needed to be made.

This present post of mine is the first time Weidner's name has even been mentioned in this entire combox: let alone his wacko ideas and Sungenis' advocacy of his video defended.

I understand the embarrassment, but at some point a man has to stand up and be a man and cease being a wimp and an intellectual coward: to relentlessly ignore the very issue at hand; and have the courage of his convictions, and manfully defend them or else retract them.

Rick DeLano said...

To David Palm:

Are you really, really aboard with this, Mr. Palm?

There is still time to allow this absurdity to fade into the sunset.

Let this go, Mr. Palm.

It is grotesque, embarrassing, and unChristian to stir up a ruckus over such an utterly unimportant thing as a video recommendation.

Why, I honestly ask you, would you waste your time and talents on what cannot possibly yield anything but unnecessary discord and scandal?

Do you think it ridiculous that Bob likes the video?

OK.

So what?

This has nothing at all to do with our Holy Faith.

Please, Mr. Palm.

We have had good and edifying, strong and sharp debates on matters important to the Faith.

This is not one of them.

Please.

Let it go.

Dave Armstrong said...

Again, you pass on all substance whatever, to make one of your usual ridiculous posts?

Dave Armstrong said...

We're supposed to just put our heads in the sand and throw Frisbees and sing Kumbaya when someone who purports to defend Catholicism (who still influences many thousands) touts a video by a wacko wingnut Gnostic anti-Christian? This is what causes people to mock Holy Mother Church and our Holy faith.

And then he writes an ultra-silly failed reductio, complete with two quotations falsely attributed to me, and ruminations about how I lay awake at night dreaming of Led Zeppelin reunion concerts and how I probably dropped acid in the old days (when in fact I am squeaky clean with regard to any drugs), I'm supposed to sit here like a statue and do nothing, either?

If I didn't point out this sort of outrageous, outlandish, ludicrous nonsense, I wouldn't be an apologist at all. This is what we do: refute errors. Bob is harming Holy Mother Church and the apologetics enterprise with this nonsense, and I am defending both.

Rick DeLano said...

Dave:

It seems you are fully determined to create discord, scandal, and disunity over this completely ridiculous and utterly unimportant matter.

Please understand that this is wrong, it is unChristian, it is obviously a manifestation of your personal animus against Bob Sungenis, and as I told you, nothing good-at all- will come from it.

I sincerely hope Bob ignores you from this day forward.

I certainly shall.

Dave Armstrong said...

You say that Bob is entitled to have his opinion. Yes, of course. Free country; free speech.

And I am equally entitled (and duty-bound) to note if publicly posted opinions by one who claims to be almost uniquely qualified to defend Catholicism are ludicrous and ridiculous (for reasons I present for the perusal of readers).

You make out that it is no big deal (just more kooky, tin foil hat stuff from Bob; what else is new?). But I can turn the tables on that and say it is no deal for me to reply to Bob's ad. He can write it; I can respond. It's all public and fair game.

Why, then, is it Chicken Little when anyone dares to critique Grand Poobah Bob? Why is it instant hysteria and instant attack against anyone who dares do so? Is Bob's "apologetic" vision so majestic and sublime and exalted that no mere mortal can ever deign to make the slightest criticism of it?

Even popes do not have that level of immunity from any criticism. But for some reason Bob does, in the eyes of his lackeys, and seemingly, in Bob's own opinion.

It's just a few folks critiquing something he did; no big deal at all . . .

But if you are as embarrassed by this as you should be, the drama queen histrionics and grandiose and pompous and condescending denunciations on behalf of your Big Hero make perfect sense.

Dave Armstrong said...

See ya Rick. Be sure to shut the door behind you as you leave for good, high-tailing it to the hills.

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...

1) I do not know who Weidner is except for what you tell me. He might be a Gnostic or Anti-Christian for all I know, but that does not automatically stamp him as a liar about Kubrick.

2) It is Gnostic and Antichristian to say a Demiurge created amaterial universe that is made one way and then arranged it so we could be fooled in believing it was another way. It is not gnostic or antichristian, though it might be factually wrong, to say Apollo landing was staged by Kubrick.

3) Even if it was not, that is not a case against each and every school of Geocentrism, see further my post:

Moontruth? Why?
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/moontruth-why.html


where I argue that Geocentrism per se does not need this.

I furthermore argue - down in comments - that the cases against such a fake - big scenario, small scenario, et c. - by one Astronomer are not quite as strong as those a Christian could make againt any kind of "disciples stole the body" kind of conspiracy.

4) Robert Sungenis is clearly antizionist, and he should be. Care to read Zionist founder Theodor Herzl's account of meeting Pope Saint Pius X? That account clearly states the Pope's, the Saint's, and by extension the Catholic's view about Zionism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...

Oh, of course Sungenis and I do not condone in any way an article like "Rise of the Archons" - see further my posting and commenting the clearly antiaverroist and antignostic condemnations by Stephen Tempier, Bishop of Paris - and trying to imply either of us does is indulging in "guilt by association".

thepalmhq said...

Rick,

The point I was making above is simple: this is just one more example of how Bob has one standard for himself and a completely different one for everyone else. Unfortunately, Sungenis fans like you don't even notice or question it. It's goofy and weird. And I agree with Dave about the source in this case. Bob just doesn't think. If he thinks something helps his case against Jews, he just can't resist posting it. It doesn't matter if it's an anti-Catholic like Texe Marrs (http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/proverbs-2611.html), the white supremacists at National Vanguard (http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/04/sungenis-source-shut-down-by.html AND http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/05/sungenis-dishonesty-and-hypocrisy-over.html) or some unknown kid from somewhere who sends him a bogus quote of a Catholic who is Jewish (http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm). Maybe the weirdest case is Ted Pike who Bob has even admitted in the past to be a bad source and he assured everyone that he would never (NEVER!) knowingly use him...only to then use him over and over again ( http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-sungenis-anti-jewish-duplicity-on.html ). The same stupid practice is apparently at work in regard to his "science". Maybe Bob needs to hire a full-time "fact checker and source exonerator" (Ben Douglass used to take care of that for him as a volunteer, but he had to resign from exhaustion....moral outrage.)

But, all lunar-landing conspiracy theory goofiness aside, what actually brought me here is more serious. You (and also Bob) continue to spread slander about a Catholic bishop here and elsewhere. That gets my attention much more than Bob's wing-nut conspiracy theories about science. I've seen you (Rick) do this elsewhere recently, such as Fr. Zuhlsdor's blog where you forced the subject of Bob Sungenis and his lies about Bishop Rhoades into a thread that wasn't even about Bob.

These accusations are "slanderous and erroneous", to use the Bishop's own words. The proof has been out there for a long time and you've all been pointed to it numerous times. Your comment that "Bob did everything he possibly could to accommodate his bishop" actually made me laugh out loud. If I'd been drinking milk, I would have snorted it out my nose. You can't really be serious. In case you are, I'll be giving you the proof again in the near future here. Could you finally take the time to look it over more carefully so that you can stop spreading these lies about Bishop Rhoades, Rick? I know you really look up to Bob and that you're on his board of directors, but come on. Enough is enough.

Dave Armstrong said...

I censor anti-Semitic bigots, Diego, not "the infallible word of God." Last time I checked, the whole human race is fallen and in rebellion against God, and hence worthy of judgment, not just the Jews.

We are far more culpable today, in most of the world, based on abortion alone, for our outrageous sins, than the Jews ever were, because we have more revelation.

Rick DeLano said...

Mr. Palm:

If I understand you correctly, it seems that you assert that I have posted lies about Bishop Rhoades.

Certainly, if this can be demonstrated, I will be the very first both to acknowledge the fact, and publicly apologize on my blog.

Now in order to allow me to obey the Faith, which requires me to proceed from an informed and examined conscience when assessing such accusations, I would like to propose that you point out to me exactly what I said that you considered to be a lie.

The exact words, if you would.

If you could, try and restrain the editorial commentary to the extent you can, since that editorial comment would reflect your interpretation of my words, and I would like to examine the words themselves, first.

In this way we might possibly be able to come to a better understanding.

thepalmhq said...
This comment has been removed by the author.