Were you going to debate Bob Sungenis?

July 9, 2004

The answer to this question is yes, but here is why it never happened.

We weren’t sure if we should bring up the details about this issue on our website, but due to the fact that Mr. Sungenis has recently stated that we are “working for the devil” and that the debate didn’t happen because we were “trying to run the show from start to finish” (a lie), it became necessary to show what really happened.

For the past few years we were in contact with Mr. Sungenis’ debate director, Scott Keller, about a possible debate with Bob Sungenis. We had numerous tentative debate dates set up, but each time we would get close to the debate date, Mr. Sungenis’ debate director would inform us that either Bob or he couldn’t do it at that time and would have to push it back for a few months. This happened 2 or 3 different times.

But, finally, in 2003 we came very close to finally getting a debate set up with Mr. Sungenis – the closest we had come so far. Around June 2003, after some weeks of discussions about particulars, S. Keller (Bob Sungenis’ good friend and debate coordinator, and to whom Mr. Sungenis even dedicated one of his books) sent us the formal debate proposal. This proposal contained some things that were totally unfair and to which we could not agree.

1. The formal debate proposal contained the following clause:

“The apostolate [S. Keller’s apostolate] will accommodate those involved to the greatest extent possible. In those rare cases, the apostolate reserves the right to override/decide+ any deadlock issues. At this point, I think that would be highly unlikely. This event, although having certain serious logistical considerations, should be somewhat vanilla, unless, of course, an act of God occurs. Or, the debaters decide to make life difficult.”

Wait a second, what does this mean? The inclusion of this clause would not ensure us that the arrangements agreed upon in advance were going to be fulfilled. It sounded like a lawyer using fine print to attempt to swindle us out of what was agreed upon, if he so desired. We wanted this to be removed to ensure that all of the agreed upon arrangements surrounding this debate were fulfilled just as all parties agreed before the event.

2. The formal debate proposal, sent to us by Bob Sungenis’ good friend, also contained the following incredible statement, never mentioned before in our many talks about the debate:

“A tape master will be sent to all who request them…unedited of course. The Athanasius Apostolate is requesting $00.50 cents for each tape sold after that. Any issue with that, call me.”

This means that Bob Sungenis’ debate director now wanted $.50 for every tape we sold after the debate! What would be the point in doing the debate if we didn’t have the full liberty to distribute the tape without strings attached? We sell our tapes for almost nothing; and we would never pay him for a debate in which we were participants! What makes this most egregious, however, is the fact that this charge was never brought up before! It was always clearly understood that all parties would have free rights to distribute or sell the tapes of the debate. But the $.50 charge was foisted upon us in the final debate proposal! And get this, it was apparently only for our side [the Dimond Brothers], and not Bob Sungenis’ side! – who would not have to pay the $.50 charge!

When we received this incredible proposal, we immediately responded to Mr. Keller, protesting this charge and demanding to know if the same charge would apply to Bob Sungenis and his partner. Mr. Keller did not respond, most probably because he was not going to charge his good friend Bob Sungenis $.50 for every tape of the debate that he sold. So the last minute charge regarding the most crucial aspect of the debate (the right to distribute or sell the tapes of it) was apparently foisted upon our side (the Dimond Brothers) only. What else can one say, except that this is, frankly, outrageously dishonest, one-sided and unfair.

In fact, notice that in the proposal Mr. Keller says, “Any issue with that, call me.” In other words, I know that this is a new charge, never mentioned before, but I’m just trying to slip this one past you. We responded as follows:

“We cannot agree to this. We must agree that Most Holy Family Monastery has the full right to distribute or sell video or audio copies of this debate and no fee will be paid to anyone. Most Holy Family Monastery also has the right to add its name, address and phone numbers to the end of the unedited video or audio tapes so people know where to obtain more copies of the debate.”

And Scott Keller responded to this:

“I don’t care if you guys market the tape under your name etc. My concern is providing the Athanasius Apostolate a means for having a second debate with either you, or someone else. In the past, the AA has taken it in the shorts. Let me think about this one.”

Let me think about this one? Sorry, the whole understanding up until now in all of our talks was that we could distribute and sell the tapes without a charge from you, of course! But he’s going to think about it, while Bob Sungenis’ side apparently doesn’t get charged. What despicable bias and dishonesty. It is just a sick joke.

With these facts in mind, one can understand how we say that we never had a worse feeling dealing with any man claiming to be a traditional Catholic then we did when dealing with the coordinator of this debate. It was, frankly, like dealing with a snake who would try to bite you at every turn. If we didn’t scratch and claw for our rights, we would have been trampled upon.

3. No mention of Bob Sungenis selling materials at the debate.

In the final debate proposal, the following was written.

“I REALLY need you folks to brief your followers/constituency on the following: NO PETTY CRAP IS ALLOWED DURING/BEFORE/AFTER THE DEBATES… IF YOU CAN’T CONTROL YOURSELF DURING THE DEBATE, YOUR GOING TO BE SENT HOME. I also don’t want any leaflets/brochures or harassment of folks prior to coming into the debate facility. Again, if we act like idiots, as well as the audience, it will perpetuate the negative perception that already exists when it comes to the Traditional Catholic Faith, and those who are attempting to elevate it to its deserved status. Once again, to beat a dead horse, if we act like ducks, people will think we are ducks. Enough said.”

This was no problem for us. However, it got us thinking, “so I guess this means no booths for either side at the debate where we or they can sell or distribute materials?” So we asked the debate coordinator about booths or selling materials, since nothing about either side having a booth had been mentioned, and the above statement seemed to imply that both sides agreed not to distribute any materials at the debate site, during or after the debate. So, we wrote back:

MHFM: “Sounds good. However, is the Bob/Charles side going to have a booth at this event? If so, we would expect to have one as well. If neither side has a booth where materials are available, that's fine too.”

And he responded:

SK: “What ever you would like. As long as nobody piggy backs. I don’t think Charles will have anything; Bob might sell a few of his books. But, only the debaters get a booth etc. Just tell me what you want specifically, and Steve and I will do our best to accommodate. Please is rest assured that things will be fair to the best of my ability. Also, you don’t know anyone that will be outside with pamphlets or anything…right? (NO CIRCUS!!)”

Okay, ladies and genteman, here we go again. The debate coordinator now admits that “Bob might sell a few books.” Well that was news to us. This means that he was planning on Bob having a booth or something set up for him to sell books, but he didn’t tell us about this. We knew nothing about this until we questioned him after the final debate proposal had been sent. It was only because we questioned him, being puzzled by the implication in the final debate proposal, that this even came out.

Why wasn’t the fact that Bob Sungenis will probably be selling his materials at the debate mentioned weeks earlier in our discussions about this debate? The fact is that it wasn’t mentioned because their side (which includes the “impartial” debate coordinator) didn’t want us to have a booth. All we expected from the coordinator of this debate was fairness for both sides, and this we were not getting, not by a long shot.

Can anyone fail to see again that this was completely unfair? If the debate director was fair and forthright, he would have told us up front that Bob is going to sell books, so you can distribute or sell some materials as well. But no, we would have been jammed again if we didn’t fight for our rights.

4. The debate resolution and our names.

In our discussions with Mr. Keller about this debate, we made it a point to emphasize that the moderator of the debate would have to address us as Bro. Michael Dimond and Bro. Peter Dimond respectively, not as Michael Dimond and Peter Dimond. We told him that we didn’t care how Bob Sungenis and his partner referred to us, but the moderator must be impartial and therefore must refer to us as “Brother.” Mr. Keller agreed and assured us that this would be no problem at all. But when we got the formal debate proposal, here is how it read:

“Resolution: The Chair of Peter is vacant and John Paul II is an Antipope

Michael and Peter Dimond will take the Affirmative
Robert Sungenis and Charles Coulombe will take the Negative”

So, he again violated our trust and did the very thing he said he would not do. What more can one say?

In addition to this, notice the debate title or resolution: The Chair of Peter is vacant and John Paul II is an Antipope.

We never agreed to this resolution. We had suggested other things, which were completely ignored, while their choice for a resolution was just foisted upon us. For weeks we had requested the resolution: John Paul II is the head of the Catholic Church or John Paul II is not the head of the Catholic Church. We were willing to discuss this issue and we were open to discussing other resolutions which they proposed, but the above resolution was foisted upon us without our input at all as the final debate resolution.

This again is totally unfair and totally biased, for a resolution in a debate is the most defining aspect in the entire debate – it literally determines exactly what you are trying to prove. So, their unilateral decision to decide the resolution and foist it upon us was absurd. The reason that the above resolution wouldn’t work is that it would entail unnecessary debate over the actual definition of the term "Antipope," which is not central to this issue. The central issue is whether John Paul II is the Pope or the head of the Church. But that may have been their intention, to be able to muddy the waters by arguing over the definition of “Antipope,” after we proved to the listeners that John Paul II is not the Pope because he is not a Catholic.

5. Assigning their side the right to speak last and refusing to have a coin flip.

The final debate proposal stated the following:

“Lastly, the format of the debate is below. At this point, I am going to attempt to even it out as much as possible. The Dimond Bro’s will be the “affirming” for the proposition. They will have the last word for the questions and answers portion of the debate. Robert Sungenis/Charles Coulombe will have the last word for the statement portion of the debate. It’s as fair as I can make it with only one debate. If we have a follow-on debate, we will reverse the order with a proposition for Robert to Affirm etc. During the question/answer period for the audience, if the debaters don’t like the questions given by the audience, they have the option of substituting their own. I have a suspicion that the audience will be fairly split…I think.”

First, notice how he says he is going to attempt to even it out as much as possible. Then notice how he slyly says that the Dimond Bros will have the last word for the questions and answers portion of the debate. Sounds good, doesn’t it? But then notice how he says “Robert Sungenis/Charles Coulombe will have the last word for the statement portion of the debate.” Translation: this means that they will get the last word in the debate – their closing statement will be made last. They speak last in the debate, we don’t, end of discussion. That’s quite fair, isn’t it? He simply assigned them this position! We objected to this unfair decision, of course, and wrote back as follows:

MHFM: “No, this is not going to work. We need to flip a coin to see who gets to speak last in the statement section. If it is no advantage to speak last then Bob and Charles should have no problem letting us speak last in the statement section. But if it is an advantage (which we believe that it is) then we should flip a coin for it. That is fair. If Bob and Charles win the flip then we have no problem with them speaking last.”

This was fair on our part. We wanted to have a coin flip and we agreed that if we lose it we have no problem at all with them speaking last. That would be fair, of course – and that was what we were looking for from the coordinator of this debate: equal treatment of both sides. But it is not fair at all to assign them that spot without giving both sides a chance for it. But no, the debate coordinator (Sungenis’ good buddy) refused to flip a coin to see who would speak last! Apparently, they were desperately afraid of even giving us the chance to speak last!

Thus, the debate coordinator again showed that he is totally biased and unfair, by assigning them the last spot without any consideration for us. To our demand for a coin flip, he responded as follows:

“This is going to be a sticky one. Protocol usually allows the host to allow for such a decision. Secondly, and most typically, if you speak first, many times you can throw the speaker off his main selling points. So, the advantage doesn’t always go with those who speak last. Let me speak to the other party, but, this is a not how it usually goes. Like I said before, perhaps we can a second debate and swap who get’s to speak first etc. Let me know if you have any creative ideas. I’m flexible with most of this stuff, unfortunately there is always two sides to deal with. It’s not always perfectly fair though Brother. We do the best we can, that’s all we can do.”

Give me a break! It’s going to be a “sticky” issue! I guess that it’s quite “sticky” for them to be fair. Then the debate coordinator tries to tell us that it’s not really an advantage to speak last. Okay, then why the objection to our speaking last? Why won’t he even flip a stinking coin to see who speaks last? The answer is because he knows that it is an advantage and his statement above is simply a lie. And the truth comes out when the debate coordinator admits that things are “not always perfectly fair.” Yes, we discovered that in a major way, unfortunately. And his admission that “it’s not always perfectly fair” further contradicts his attempt to say that it’s no advantage to speak last.

6. Some other points

After we responded voicing our concerns and the things which would need to be changed in the debate proposal if we were to do the debate (including the debate resolution or title), Bob Sungenis’s debate coordinator responded again via e-mail:

“Some very good points here Brother, I agree, I don't want a boring debate either, but, you're leaving out some very specific and important facets of this topic. To start with, John Paul II is not the "head" of the Catholic Church; he is the "Vicar" of Christ, a very, very important distinction, one that I know you would agree with. Maybe the Prot's would say "head", but not a Catholic. It minimalizes the sacred office this debate is going to discuss. It would do a disservice to the institution of the Papal Office if done improperly. I'm sure you wouldn't want that.”

This was in response to our suggested debate title of: John Paul II is not the head of the Catholic Church or John Paul II is the head of the Catholic Church. Bob Sungenis’ debate director is trying to correct us, telling us that a Pope is not the “head” of the Catholic Church, and that perhaps only a Protestant would say that. He says that to refer to a Pope as the “head” of the Church minimalizes the Sacred Office and would do a disservice to the institution of the Papal Office. We responded as follows:

MHFM: “Scott, you are completely wrong here. Vatican I defined as a dogma that the Pope is the "head" [Denzinger 1826] of the Catholic Church. Whoever told you that the Pope is not the "head" doesn't know what he is talking about. Perhaps you need to read that Council, as you have said that such a title attributed to the Pope implies Protestantism and minimalizes the sacred office.”
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Chap. 3: “… the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church…” (Denzinger 1826)

After we wrote this e-mail back to him, correcting him on the Pope being the “head” of the Church, Sungenis’ debate director opted out of any coordination of the debate, not surprisingly. That was the end. We sent a final e-mail to Bob Sungenis and Charles Coloumbe explaining the problems we had with Mr. Keller, and that we were open to debating with a different person coordinating it. Mr. Coloumbe told us that he was contractually obligated to only debate with Mr. Keller coordinating it, and Mr. Sungenis did not respond.

But his debate coordinator was so uninformed that he accused us of acting like Protestants and minimalizing the Sacred Office by referring to a Pope as the “head” of the Church, when that is exactly what a Pope is. It’s obvious that someone told him (perhaps even Mr. Sungenis or Mr. Coloumbe) that Christ, not the Pope, is the head of the Church. And he or they failed to realize that Christ and the Pope form a single head (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).

So what is one to think of Bob Sungenis’ statement that the debate with the Dimond Brothers didn’t work because the Dimonds “wanted to run the show from start to finish”? The fact is that nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that if we debated Bob Sungenis or anyone else on the John Paul II issue they would be resoundingly defeated without any doubt. This is simply because we are right on this issue and the truth is on our side. Antipope John Paul II is utterly indefensible. In the process of trying to defend that John Paul II is the Pope, Mr. Sungenis would be forced to admit to the audience that John Kerry is a Catholic; that Hans Kung (who denies the Divinity of Christ) is a Catholic; that one can be a Catholic and reject the Council of Trent; that one can be a Catholic and hold that we shouldn’t convert Jews and Eastern Schismatics; that there is no unity of Faith in the Catholic Church at all, according to him; that the Catholic Church teaches that it is lawful to give sacraments to non-Catholics, etc. And that would be just the very beginning. Those who are of good will, who love God and the truth more than men and for whom adherence to the truth is the number one priority, would see the truth that Antipope John Paul II is not the Pope, while those of bad will would not be convinced – just like the Protestants who believe in Justification by faith alone still believe in it after reading James 2:24.

-Bro. Michael Dimond, O.S.B.

- Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.