That is the objective. From what I can observe in my experiences, it is working well.

As well as "it leads to", "I wouldn't be at all surprised", "they are...", etc 

And what was his stated reason?

Probably because he does't debate wicked "Biblicists".

In the past Robinson has refused to debate Sungenis.

In spite of his request not to I shared this correspondence from Fr. Robinson to me with Dr. Sungenis. At the time I answered this correspondence from Fr. Robinson and explained to him exactly why I felt no obligation to honor his request.
*************************************************************************************

Fr. Paul Robinson <probinson@sspx.net>

To -------

Today at 5:34 PM

AM+DG

Dear --------,

    One of the reasons why I have waited to respond to you is my concern that you would pass my reply on to Robert Sungenis, leading him to publish my private words to you, and denounce them. In his book against me, he published our brief private email exchange, as well as an exchange that I had with a third party. I do not know how you find this behavior, but I believe it to be immoral. For that reason, I ask that you keep this correspondence between you and myself.

  I do not see any benefit at all coming from me debating Robert Sungenis. [emphasis my own] From my experience with him, he consistently misrepresents my own arguments, he takes the quotations of the Magisterium and great scientists out of context, and his entire spirit is one of self promotion, even besides his lack of honor that I have mentioned above. Thus, I believe that anything I do to assist him to promote his enterprise would be ill advised. Having a debate with him would provide him and his position more importance and attention than they deserve. It would be good press for him, but not good press for the truth, nor for me. A man is known by his debate partners; having Sungenis as a debate partner would not look good because of his extremism.

    My book only spends a few pages on geocentrism precisely because it is not an important issue. It has long been settled and there are much more important things to talk about. It is completely dishonest of Sungenis to pretend that he has any scientists or Popes of the last 200 years on his side. We know that these scientists and Popes were not geocentrists, so how can he be using their authority in his defense?

    If you want to know my views and form your own opinion, you can get my book. You have already told me that you did not plan to do so, that you could not afford it. Thus, it is hard for me to see your opposition to my book as anything more than a blind attachment to Robert Sungenis, which I do not find healthy.

    If I am not mistaken, you are also the man ......................... back in 2011. If you are a faithful of our chapels, it is important that you not pretend that geocentrism is a teaching of the Church. I am happy that you clarified, in 2011, that you words did not represent the position of the SSPX. But you must also consider how your promotion of geocentrism looks for the Church at large, when you present it as being part of Church teaching.

    This leads me to a final note, a request, namely I would ask you not to troll my Goodreads account. I have flagged your comment for moderation, as it seems to be a way to promote Sungenis's work without considering my own. Moreover, it borders on the hysterical and so does not make a good impression for your side.

I pray that you will take these things into consideration, -------, and show yourself more of a gentleman to me than Mr. Sungenis has.
God bless you,
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Fr. Paul A. Robinson
Holy Cross Seminary

From the words that are attributed to him:

"Having a debate with him would provide him and his position more importance and attention than they deserve. It would be good press for him, but not good press for the truth, nor for me. A man is known by his debate partners; having Sungenis as a debate partner would not look good because of his extremism."

Wow, the hubris of this response is off the charts ... just incredible.  It's basically saying, "Their opinion is so absurd that I don't want to dignify it with a response."  You can tell on the man's face that he's incredibly arrogant.  His derrogatory term "Biblicist" is offensive to pious ears and scadalous.  So people who back the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures are some cult-like group of "Biblicists".  Darn right I'm a Biblicist.  Sacred Scripture is written by the Holy Spirit.  I guess Robinson does't believe that ... and he really doesn't.

In terms of being "good press" for Sungenis, does Robinson fancy that he's more well known than Sungenis.  If he's well know at all, it's only because of the shocking nature of his book, promoting shameless Modernist heresy.  And why would Sungenis get "good press" from such a debate?  If Sungenis' position is so absurd, getting destroyed in a public debate would harm his positon.  In point of fact, Sungenis would mop up the floor with Robinson, and he knows it.  That's why the mention of "good press" for Sungeni's position.

If you look up pictures of the two, Robinson greatly resembles de Chardin physically ... similar shape of head.

Here's Laisney exposed for numerous outright lies in his book against "Feeneyism".

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/is-feeneyism-catholic-francois-laisney-sspx/

 

If I were the head of the SSPX I wouldn't allow such an attitude for one second.

And yet he is a functioning priest in Colorado and is invited time and again on the SSPX News Youtube channel. But if a priest were to express the possibility of the Holy Roman See being vacant like +Lefebrve spoke of, they will castrate you.

From Father Robinson's letter, a couple things stand out.

1) his assertion that Sungenis (and presumably other Catholic "Biblicists") take the Magisterium "out of context".  That's the chief tactic of the Modernists, to claim that the "context" causes things to mean the opposite of what they actually say.  You have to properly "interpret" the words "all" and "is" (per Clinton) to know the true meaning.  Talk about a form of Gnosticism, where people like Robinson fancy that they hold the key to true interpretation.  In point of fact, the Church has taught repeatedly that it's the Church Fathers who held that key to proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the Fathers are unanimous that Robinson is wrong.  Implicitly this means ... the Fathers were just idiots, and we can thank Lyell and Darwin for setting everything straight.

2) geocentrism makes the Church look bad.  90% of all the Church's doctrine makes the Church "look bad" to those who hate the Church and who hate the truth.  One could debate Geocentrism among Catholics.  I understand that.  BUT ... what REALLY makes the Church "look bad" and Traditional Catholicism "look bad" is this arrogant attitude about Sacred Scripture where he effectively holds that the Sacred Scriptures are filled with error ... but pay no attention to it because the Sacred Scriptures didn't "intend" to teach about science.  This makes the Church look bad to the PROTESTANTS who actually believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.  This gives the Prots more ammunition against Catholicism as being a false religion, a perversion of Christianity, and presents a huge stumbling block against the conversion of Protestants to the Catholic faith.  His use of the term "Biblicist" in a derogatory manner borders on blasphemy against the Sacred Scriptures, as does his attribution of error to them.  In a world filled with heresy and unbelief, he would do well to praise and encourage those faithful who revere the Inspired and Inerrant Word of God, rather than undercutting, undermining, and deriding them ... while bolstering the science of the admittedly-Bible-hating Lyell and Darwin.  Instead of defending them against the assaults of the infidels and heretics, he throws in his lot with the enemy to attack the sheep and the flock of Christ, thus betraying his vocation.  Father Robinson needs to be laicized and intructed to go marry some ex-Novus-Ordo nun.  Robinson is a traitor, having joined forces with the enemies of the Church and of God in their assault against the faith of the sheep.  On the issue of the jab, Robinson also refused to come to the aid of the faithful against those who were trying to force the immoral jab on them, by simply signing a letter attesting to their consciences being opposed to it ... something which even a few Novus Ordo prelates did.  We had +Schneider working with a group set up specifically to issue these letters.  Yet we have this "Traditionalist" taking sides with Gates and Schwab against the faithful, the sheep entrusted to his care, whom he is obliged to defend.

What's next, Robinson, that you'll start claiming that transgederism and sodomy are OK because to say otherwise would make the Church "look bad"?  Where do you draw the line?

Not only does this false shepherd open the gates for the wolves to come in and decimate the sheep, but Robinson puts on his wolfskin and joins in the assault himself.  Robinson, the priesthood was not given to you to exalt your name or your ego, but to care for and defend the sheep.  You are a traitor to your vocation by joining forces with the enemy to attack the sheep.

Look, Robinson, even if you THINK you're right, what are you trying to accomplish by attacking the simple faithful?  Keep your brilliance to yourself and do not disturb their faith, when it is so much under attack already these days.  During the discussions about Galileo, St. Robert Bellarmine at one point stated that if heliocentrism could be proven, even then the Church had to be very cautious about how it should be presented to the faithful without undermining their faith in the Sacred Scripures.  But Robinson doesn't give a crap about that.  He just wants to make a name for himself by putting his genius on display.