Liars for Jesus

teach the controversy

While Catholics labor to bear honest witness to the Faith, Bob Sungenis and Rick Delano have managed to take their lunatic boutique obsession with geocentric idiocy and create a national splash of scorn for the Church by the venerable technique of Lying for Jesus.

First, Lawrence Krauss makes it clear that he has no idea how he wound up in the film.

Then, poor Kate Mulgrew likewise announces:

“I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a documentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism. More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused. Kate Mulgrew”

Delano releases a long, self-aggrandizing statement, the core of which is to lie that because these people were tricked into signing release statements they were therefore not lied into believing the film was about something besides geocentrist quackery. But of course, the reality is that absolutely no serious person would have been roped into this bunk without being lied and tricked into it. It will be interesting to see if any of the other people lied into participating will come forward too.

Now Slate, NPR, TIME, Daily Kos and various other outlets have picked up the story and used it for this week’s 15 minute hate themed “Why Christians are Lying Morons”. In this case, there is no reply except, “Guilty as charged”. Good job, guys. And all for a movie that will probably never see the inside of a theatre (unless Delano and Sungenis get their relatives to rent one out for the night). Quite the vanity project.

Oh, and for extra fun, Sungenis’ writings about the Holocaust (Summary: “It never happened and besides the Jews deserved it”) are also coming to light along with the geocentrism idiocy and lies. Happily, at least the Daily Kos had the integrity to note that Sungenis’ bishop had ordered him to stop using “Catholic” in the name of his website. So there is some recognition that these clowns don’t speak for the Church. But they still drag the name of Christ into disrepute. I hope that sooner or later the suckers who invested in this project realize what fools they’ve been and demand their money back. But the people who go for this junk tend to hail from among the Reactionaries who see themselves as The Greatest Catholics of All Time and therefore chalk up their epic failures of discernment to Shadowy Forces Arrayed Against Them such as Jews and Modernists and Neo-Catholics. Never to themselves.

“For our appeal does not spring from error or uncleanness, nor is it made with guile; but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please men, but to please God who tests our hearts.” – 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

  • The Deuce

    Fortunately, I doubt they’ll deceive anyone who doesn’t need deceiving, on account of having already chosen to deceive themselves.

    Unfortunately, the real effect of their movie will be to generation ammunition for smearing Christians as stupid and dishonest.

  • Nathaniel

    While this sort of incident is embarrassing, it doesn’t really have much to say about Christians or Christianity in this instance. Kooks will always be with us, and this person seems a rather lonely and unloved kook at that.

    • Almario Javier

      It’s sad when you see someone who you know used to have rational frames of mind descend into kookery.

    • MarylandBill

      The problems are that Kooks cause scandal. There are too many in the world who are willing to hang anything on the Church. Since Sungenis argues that modern cosmological theories are all essentially heretical, and tries to argue that true Catholics will believe in some form of geocentrism, there will be many enemies who will use him to try to label all of Catholicism as being open to such ideas.

  • Cypressclimber

    While your broad point is correct, there’s one key part of your argument — about a lie by the producers of the movie — that I am unclear about.

    When you say:

    Delano releases a long, self-aggrandizing statement, the core of which is to lie that because these people were tricked into signing release statements they were therefore not lied into believing the film was about something besides geocentrist quackery. But of course, the reality is that absolutely no serious person would have been roped into this bunk without being lied and tricked into it.

    …you don’t provide a link. I went a-googling, and found a statement that was posted on Facebook, and is presumably the one you meant. I understand you don’t want to drive traffic to him (but then, you chose to do this post, so…)

    Delano claims Krauss sat for a five-interview, and explicitly said that this or that discovery had “non-Copernican implications,” and cashed a check along the way. The clear implication being that all this makes it hard for Krauss to stress the “no idea” angle.

    So when you say Delano “lied” — I’m not clear on how you prove that, specific, charge.

    This isn’t about the merits of geo-centrism, or whether Sugenis is a loon. I already said — and I’ll say again — your overall point in those matters is correct. You’ve backed up those contentions well.

    But it is possible that Ms. Mulgrew just did a job and failed to ask questions. It happens. And it’s possible that Mr. Krauss was happy enough to engage in a conversation about explosive or hard-to-categorize “implications” of some new discovery; because there’s been plenty of discussion, in recent years, among those who study the universe, that recent discoveries are, indeed, troubling or hard to square with existing theories. Only afterward did he realize he’d been foolish.

    • chezami

      The lie is that because Krauss signed a release, it therefore follows he was not lied to about the nature of the film he was interviewed for.

      • Cypressclimber

        OK…I’m not aiming to be contentious; just precise (and maybe I’m a little slow this lazy Sunday afternoon) — but I understood Delano to say both that Mr. Krauss signed a release, and he understood where the film-makers were headed with their work.

        Of course, Mr. Krauss denies that. And it’s possible that he could go through five hours of questioning and not once get the drift of where the filmmakers were going.

        All I’m saying is that your post doesn’t — to my mind — demonstrate clearly that Mr. Delano lied to Krauss and Ms. Mulgrew in the process of gaining their participation.

        if what you’re saying is, given a choice between believing Krauss v. Delano, I believe Krauss…OK. That’s fair. My point was that I’m not seeing an objective support for the “he lied” part.

        But I’m also feet up in my recliner, so…

  • Bridgeport Guy

    Did anyone have the same beef with Ben Stein when he made “No Intelligence Allowed”? Because he did pretty much the same thing in getting atheist scientists to say some things that seemed to be supportive of Intelligent Design. I don’t remember everyone coming down so hard on Ben Stein.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X