Skip to main content

October 2004 - QA

Q&A's October 2004

Question 1 - Does the Catholic Church Believe in a Substitutionary Atonement?

Question 2 - Is homosexuality a chemical imbalance?

Question 3 - Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part V?

Question 4 - Adam was duped?

Question 5 - Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part VI?

Question 6 - How Should We Understand Transubstantiation?

Question 7 - Dr. Hovind's Creation Seminar Series

Question 8 - What Makes the Sun Revolve?

Question 9 - Predestination

Question 10 - Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part VII?

Question 11 - SSPX and the scapular

Question 12 - What if Siri ruled as Pope?

Question 13 - Ott's Fundamentals & Evolution

Question 14 - Book on Geocentrism

Question 15 - Follow-up question on "for many" vs. "for all"

Question 16 - The Use of "Many" or "All"

Question 17 - John 3:16 versus Appeasement

Question 18 - The CASB and Chilton's Commentary on the Apocalypse

Question 19 - Canonization and JPII PontMax?

Question 20 - Traditionalists versus Jim Gorham

Question 21 - Pope Paul VI Suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass?

Question 22 - Dummying Down the Douay?

Question 23 - IRegarding Fatima.....what is this?

Question 24 - Pope Paul VI Suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass, Part II?

Question 25 - Hahn on Ham and Maternal Incest

Question 26 - Is James Akin Dummying Down the Douay?

Question 27 - How Does the Just War Doctrine Apply to Nuclear War?

Question 28 - Dave Hunt Debate and the CASB, Vol. 2

Question 29 - Is James Akin Dummying Down the Douay, Part II?

Question 30 - Would You Recommend Scott Hahn's Tape Series on Romans?

Question 31 - Pope's Right to Forbid the Latin Mass; SSPX actually not in schism, Part II?

Question 32 - Jesus, Peter and the Keys; Scott Hahn's Tapes; the Substituionary Atonement

Question 33 - What Made You Convert to the Catholic Church Considering its Problems?

Question 34 - Justification, Part VIII

Question 35 - Justification, Part IX

Question 36 - Justification, Part X

Question 37 - Questions on the Hoge/Sungenis debate

Question 38 - Justification, Part XI

Question 39 - Justification, Part XII

Question 40 - Karl Keating

Question 41 - Justification, Part XIII

Question 42 - Geocentrism According to the Fathers

Question 43 - Interpretation of 'nakedness of your father' in Gen. 9:22

Question 44 - Pre-Resurrection Baptisms

Question 45 - Can Catholics Vote for Bush?

Question 46 - Jim McCarthy and the "Catholicism In Crisis" Video

Question 47 - Is it infallible when a pope declares someone a saint?

Question 48 - Rosary at Mass and Youth 2000

Question 49 - Sola Eclesia and James White

Question 50 - Ronald Knox's translation of the Scripture

Question 51 - Voting for a Mason?

Question 52 - Eric Svendsen and Who is my mother?

Question 53 - What is the Difference btw Baptism of Desire and Universal Salvation?

Question 54 - Alpha Course

Question 55 - Douay Rheims Updated

Question 56 - Pre-Resurrection Baptisms, Part 2

Question 57 - The Devil and the NAB

Question 58 - Mane Nobiscum Domine

Question 59 - A Question Concerning the Center of Mass Argument

Question 60 - Was Alexander VII's Decree Against Copernicus Infallible?

Question 61 - Voting for a Mason? Pt 2

Question 62 - Voting for a Mason? Pt 3

Question 63 - Voting for a Mason? Pt 4

Question 64 - Books on Creationism vs Evolution?

Question 65 - Words of Consecration

Question 66 - What if Abraham and Mary had not said Yes?

Question 67 - Truth about Homosexuality Section

Question 68 - Which Early Church Fathers Volumes Should We Have?

Question 69 - Assisting Conversion

Question 70 - Father Gruner and his Fatima Apostolate

Question 71 - Gary Hoge on Geocentrism

Question 72 - Justifying the Ungodly?

Question 73 - All Have Sinned?

Question 74 - Acts 2:38

Question 75 - John Paul II: What's a Catholic to do?

Question 76 - Douay Confraternity Version

Question 78 - CD & CASB

Question 79 - The Lord's Anointed

Question 80 - Does Pius XII's 1951 Speech Support the Big Bang?

Question 81 - Thank You For Your Work

Question 1- Does the Catholic Church Believe in a Substitutionary Atonement?

Dear CAI,
Art Sippo says in one of his articles:

Please understand that substitutionary atonement is a Catholic doctrine. We do not deny substitution.

Is this true? Is substitutionary atonement Catholic? And if so what extent does the Church believe this.



R. Sungenis: Sippo should know better. There is no place that Catholic dogma supports a "substitionary atonement." In fact, it repudiates the idea, since it stems from Luther's and Calvin's understanding of the atonement. If Sippo thinks otherwise, then it is incumbent on him to show us where in Catholic dogma it is so stated. Until then, please consult my book Not By Bread Alone, Appendices 5 and 2.


Question 2- Is homosexuality a chemical imbalance?

Mr. Sungenis,

What would you say to someone who claimed that homosexuality is the result of a chemical imbalance, much like bi-polarity or depression? Do you buy that argument? Thanks,


R. Sungenis: If I did buy that argument I would buy it as much as I buy the argument that a man's desire for his neighbor's wife was caused by a "chemical imbalance," and his actual fornication with her is also caused by the same imbalance. Certainly it can be argued that we are a combination of soul and body, and that our body sometimes has "imbalances." But whatever these "imbalances" produce in our bodies, we are guaranteed by God that we have the conscience, free will, and power of His grace to overcome any sinful tendencies these "imbalances" may produce. He guarantees this so much that He will hold us responsible for every single decision we make with our free will in the face of any "imbalances" we may have.


Question 3- Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part V?

Todd: I agree that work can be viewed in two different ways. Works being the fruit of a righteousness already given--namely Christ, and works done to obtain self-righteousness (Romans 10:3). The pool analogy has a few flaws, namely we bring the love and honor to the table first, then we are rewarded with the gift. The gospel, however, gives us the gift first, and then we bring the love and honor to the table out of gratitude in fact, grace itself means unmerited favor. you cannot merit it in a personal or legal relationship. But this all a sidetrack.

R. Sungenis: No, it's not "sidetrack" at all. It is the very analogy St. Paul uses in Romans 4:3-4, the issue of debt versus grace. It is the principle paradigm in all his writings, and the sine qua non of St. Paul's whole theology. The Jews were doing "works of the law" (Rom 3:28) and they were trying to put God in "debt" to pay them with salvation (Rom 4:3-4).

As for "flaws" in the pool analogy, the only flaw is that you are mixing up your presuppositions into the analogy. The gospel does not give us a "gift first." It comes to us OFFERING the gift of salvation. It is not given to us until we make the effort to restore our relationship to the Father by the means he has given us to do so -- his grace, not our debt. Once He offers it to you, then you accept His offer by trusting in Him that He is true to His word and then you start building the pool.

As for your statement "you cannot merit it in a personal or legal relationship," shows why you cannot understand the issues. Everyone knows that he who works gets paid. That abiding principle is precisely why St. Paul used the "debt versus grace" analogy in Romans 4. The pay is his legal "merit" for doing the work. You can call it whatever you wish (e.g., pay, merit, remuneration, wages, what is owed, what is deserved, etc) its all the same thing. A person is legally owed a compensation for the work done, regardless whether he or his employer have a good relationship or bad. The employer, whether he likes it or not, is legally bound to pay the worker. If not he will be put in jail.

Grace, however, is unmerited. It is not owed, it is not paid, it is not earned in any way. Grace is given simply from the benevolence of the giver. He is not obligated to give it to anyone. He only gives it because of his kindness, not because a law is telling him he is obligated to give. That being the case, before he gives his gift, he can determine whether the recipient really wants it and really cares about the giver. He does so by asking the recipient to have a personal relationship with him, by putting his trust in him and doing acts of love which show that the recipient is not merely seeking material reward but really wants to know the God behind the gift. This is precisely why God put Abraham through such excruciating tests before he finally gave him His blessings.

Todd: let me ask you this again: When Paul says we are justified by faith apart from works of the law is he including love, hope, obedience, and charity with faith? If he is, then how do you explain Romans 2 where Paul says it is not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law who will be justified? Paul clearly places love, hope, obedience, and charity on the law side, so how can anything else be added to faith?

R. Sungenis: I already explained this, but I'll try again. "Works of the Law" in Romans 3:28 refers to any work done on a legal basis that demands pay for the work. If we come to God demanding pay for our work, for our love, for our obedience or for whatever, then God will turn us away because He simply owes nothing to no one. That is why St. Paul says in Romans 11:35: "Who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again?"

Hence, it all depends on the relationship we have with God that will determine how he views our works. If we have come to him in faith and repentance, acknowledging to Him that He owes us nothing for our work, then God, being the kind and benevolent God He is, will accept our humility. In turn, He will then reward us for our work from His grace, not because He owes us anything.

As for Romans 2:13, those who are "justified by the law" are those who, according to Romans 2:4, have already been given the "kindness, forbearance and patience" of God that "led them to repentance," and in verse 7 are those who "seek for glory and honor and immortality." In other words, their obedience to the law has already been placed in the category of God's grace because they had established the proper relationship with Him.

They are the opposite of the Jews described in 2:5 who are "stubborn and unrepentant" and in verse 8 are "selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth," who are constantly demanding pay from God for their works. Not only that, they don't even do the kinds of works that please God, since they are continually committing "stealing, adulterating and worshiping idols" (verse 21-24).


Question 4- Adam was duped?

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

Your article " "Do the Fathers Support Scott Hahn's "Dragon" Theory?" (published in "The Remnant" Sept 30th 04) was very well written. I am not a biblical scholar, but you said in that article "The simple fact is that Adam was duped into thinking that he could be as great as or greater then God." But in 1Tim 2,14 It says "And Adam was not seduced." It has always been my understanding that Adam was not seduced, meaning that he didn't believe that he would "be as gods" or as you say "as great as or greater then God." But Adam ate of the fruit simply to please his wife Eve. This is what it says in an old catechism book I happen to have. (Religion: Doctrine and Practice. Cassilly - Loyola University Press 1942 Imprimi Potest: Charles H. Cloud S.J. Provincial of the Chicago Province. Imprimatur: George Cardinal Mundelein Archbishop of Chicago April 10 1934) Page 383 "Adam was not moved by hunger. Out of pride and a spirit of disobedience, and to please his wife, with black ingratitude he deliberately and willfully defied God and His just command, and despised His threats."

God Bless

Michael Koziolek

R. Sungenis: Michael, your suggestion certainly is possible (since the text isn't as clear as it could be). But... In my study, 1 Timothy 2:14 is not trying to say that Adam was never deceived (obviously, for whatever reason he ate the forbidden fruit, he was deceived into eating, even if he ate it only because he was trying to please Eve) but that he was not the first one deceived by the devil, but was deceived by his wife. Also, it would hard for me to imagine a scenario wherein Eve is convinced she can become a god by eating the fruit but then she somehow forgets to relay this earth shattering message to Adam.

The only other possibility I see is that Eve tricked Adam into eating the fruit by not telling him from where she got it or what the devil had told her about being a god if she ate it.

But I think Genesis 3:11 tells us that Adam knew that the fruit Eve offered him was from the forbidden tree and he decided to eat it for that very reason. I also think that it is implied that Eve told Adam to eat the fruit because that scenario is implied in Genesis 3:13 where she tells God that the devil deceived her into eating it. So it follows that Eve told Adam what the devil had told her about becoming a god, and thus Adam was deceived, in that sense. And I think this is very close to the source you have cited above.


Question 5- Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part VI?

Bob, you said work is work, and love is love. Are you telling me that Paul is referring to debt in Romans 3.28, but in Romans 2 "it is not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law who will be justified" is referring to grace? if you believe that unmerited favor can be merited in a personal relationship, that is what you believe Paul to be saying; this isn't a theological debate per se, but a logical one. Paul clearly calls love, hope, obedience, and charity as a work (whether in grace or debt) so how do you define "faith" in Romans 3.28? this is now the third email, and i want you to tell me if love, hope, obedience, and charity is included with the word pistis in Romans 3.28. when you tell me that the word "faith" is a mental assent to trust in God, are you or are you not using that definition the way Paul did in Romans 3.28? That is a simple yes/no question.


R. Sungenis: Todd, in your previous email you asked me for an interpretation of Romans 2:13. I showed you how to interpret it by examining the context in which it is placed. That context says that those who were "obeying the law" in Romans 2:13 had already enjoyed God's grace in Romans 2:4 and had repented of their sin. That means that any work they do is coming after grace has been given to them, and therefore their works are in the category of grace, not debt.

Conversely, I sent you an email prior to that and stated that the "works of the law" in Romans 3:28 were not in the category of grace, due to the context in which that verse was placed. The context is telling us that the Jews were doing works under the law and seeking to put God into debt to pay them. Thus, there work were not under God's grace, but under the law, and thus they could not be used for justification.


Question 6- How Should We Understand Transubstantiation?

Hi, Robert,

I've always thought that after the priest consecrated the host and the
wine, only their appearances remained. Although the consecrated host is
really Our Blessed Lord, the host looks feels, tastes, and smells like
bread. Replying to the man who wrote about "eating Jesus," you said
that we defecate only the accidents of the hosts. Can anybody defecate
something that's a mere appearance? I know that "accident" is another
word for "property." I just don't know whether an appearance differs
from an accident. Does it? And theologically, what's the difference
between, say, an appearance and an illusion?


God bless,

R. Sungenis: Bill, an illusion is something that looks like something else, whereas an appearance is a description or existence of something that is present. An appearance is real, where as an illusion is not real, but is a state of mind. Thus, the appearance of bread and wine is real. It is not something other than bread and wine which is appearing. What is missing is the "substance" of the bread and wine, which is the second component of its existence that we can't see.

We can compare this to a dead body. (Understand, this is only an analogy). It is a real body. It appears as a real body. But it is not what we understand as a human being any longer because the soul is absent. It is just a mass of flesh and bone. Analogously, we could say that the "substance" of the body has been removed, while the appearance of a body remains. That dead body will undergo all the normal physical effects that an animated human body would undergo.


Question 7- Baptism before the the Cross

Robert, what is the opinion of the Church on the baptism Jesus and His disciples performed in John 3:22; 4:2? Was this an efficatious baptism, and were the folks who received this baptism regenerated at this time? Or put another way, was this baptism more like the baptism of John the Baptist, that is a baptism of repentance and not regeneration?


R. Sungenis: Yes, the baptism of Jesus performed by his disciples in John 4:2 was efficacious toward salvation, whereas the baptism of John was not. That Jesus' baptism was efficacious in John 4:2 is the very reason he told Nicodemus in John 3:5 that he had to be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven, and it is why the Council of Trent can use John 3:5 as proof of the necessity of Baptism, even though, technically speaking, Jesus said those things on the Old Testament side of the cross. The Church understands these moments in Jesus' ministry as transistion periods and as a precurrsor to what would take place formally and officially after He died. It is the same reason that Jesus could institute all the rest of our New Testament sacraments even though He was technically on the Old Testament side of the cross (e.g., Confession in John 20:23; Eucharist in Luke 22:22, etc).


Question 8- What Makes the Sun Revolve?

Dear Robert, J.M.J.

How is CAI doing? Hope all is well. I finally finished the numerious tapes I bought from you a couple of months ago. I enjoyed every minute of it. Little by little I am starting to grasp (due to my own limited knowledge in science/physics) geocentrism. As I delve deeper and deeper into the subject, its starting to make sense to me. I understand that a revolving universe around the earth can produce the same effect as a rotating earth, i.e., satellites, hurricanes etc.

When you have time could you answer me one question which I am trying to clear in my own mind. If we are not rotating, what accounts for day and night. We are brought up with the notion that we spin on our axis every 24 hours and this is the reason we have day and night; at one point we are facing the sun (daylight) and one point we are not (darkness). How does that fit into the geocentrist model. Please forgive me if this is a stupid question. I am asking in a sincere desire to learn.

Take care and Our Lord bless you.

In the Sacred Hearts,
Phillip Bellini

R. Sungenis: Philip, as the universe rotates around the earth it carries the everything with it, including the stars and sun and the moon. In fact, the angular momentum of the universe is transferred to the heavenly bodies, thus making them revolve and rotate.


Question 9- Predestination

Mr. Sungenis

I'm having a hard time figuring out the Churches position of the relationship between grace and freewill. From "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr. Ludwig Ott. I get the impression that the Church teaches both that we are saved by efficatious grace alone by God and that we freely chose this???? How is this possible? Can you refer me to a comprehensive source on this paradox of faith?
Thank You
Peace in Christ

R. Sungenis: Luke, there is no source book that can clear up the apparent paradox. The Church tried it a few hundred years ago (between Suarez and Molina) but got nowhere except a lot of love loss between Christian brethren. Pius V said he was going to revisit the issue when he called a truce between the two factions, but he never did, and no pope since has addressed the issue. The closest the Church has come recently is its statement in Para 600 of the Catholic Catechism where it says that our "free response" is included in the "predestination" of God.


Question 10- Are Hope and Love on the "Faith Side" of Justification, Part VII?

i understand that, bob. what i am asking for is how do you define pistis or faith in romans 3.28? when you define faith as a mental assent to trust in God are you or are you not using that in the same sense paul did in romans 3.28? it really is a simple question.


R. Sungenis: I've already answered that faith is a mental assent to the truths God gives us; a trusting relationship with God wherein we accept all that He says about Himself, no matter how difficult. It is the same whether it is in Romans 3:28 or James 2 or Galatians 2 or anywhere else in Scripture.

In Romans 3:28, faith is contrasted with "works of the law," not works of grace. This is because the Jew was depending on his works, without true faith in God, to make him right with God. Thus, the directive in Romans 3:28 is that, of the two (that is, faith or "works of law") which one justifies? The answer is faith, since works, in themselves, seek to put God in debt. But then we learn elsewhere that it is not faith alone. It is faith with works of grace that justifies, as we find very easily in the case of Abraham. Faith puts one in the category of grace wherein his works can now be rewarded with salvation.


Question 11- SSPX and the scapular

Dear Dr. Sungenis,

I have a question that in the whole eternal scheme of things may not be that important, however it has crossed my mind now and then. Last year I was frequenting an sspx chapel, and long story short I was invested with Our Lady's Brown scapular by the priest at the chapel, I felt that I could count on this priest to do the investment rite properly. Since that time I have ceased attending the sspx chapel, mostly under pressure from my wife, however after reading your statements concerning the sspx and their status with the Church I feel I must agree with you that we must submit to the pope's official document that Arbp. Lefevere and that those who adhere to the schism are excommunicated. This brings me to my question: do I have to go through the rite again and be reinvested with the scapular again by a priest that is in communion (or at least is regularized) with the local ordinary and Rome? I guess this is an important question to me because I have a very stong devotion to Our Lady and her scapular.
Thank you in advance for your timely response.
James Holm

R. Sungenis: James, the answer is no. Since the SSPX priest are ordained, and since the Vatican has said that their office can dispense the sacraments, then must also be able to do the rites you describe above.


Question 12- What if Siri ruled as Pope?

Sts. Cosmas and Damian, Martyrs

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

Laudetur Iesus Christus! What do you think would have happened to the Catholic Church had Cardinal Giuseppe Siri ruled as Pope Gregory XVII? Would the Church have fulfilled the Blessed Virgin's requests at Fatima? Would the Third Secret of Fatima have been fully revealed by 1960? Would the Pope, in union with the Catholic Bishops of the world, have consecrated Russia, and specifically Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Would the Second Vatican Council not have been used to highjack the Church? Would there have been no Vatican-Moscow Agreement? Would the Immaculate Heart of Mary have triumphed under Siri's Pontificate?
I don't believe in the Siri Thesis but I highly admire and respect Cardinal Siri as an ardent foe of Communism like Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, Father Coughlin, Father Fahey, and Father Gruner.

Yours respectfully in Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,


R. Sungenis: John, we can't involve ourselves in prognostication, but I would say that, most likely, all the you describe above would have occurred if Siri was elected pope in place of John XXIII. Siri was one of the most dedicated men of God this Church has had in a long time.


Question 13- Ott's Fundamentals & Evolution


I am reviewing the section on creation in Ott's Fundamentals of Dogma. In chapter 2 #13 "The first man was created by God" it references the 4th Lateran and Vatican council: from Denzinger 1783 "immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation common as it were, composed of both spirit and body".

Ott goes on to say in the very next paragraph "as regards the body, its immediate formation from inorganic stuff by God cannot be maintained with certainty". Also, "In fact, noteworthy, even if not absolutely decisive palaeotological and biological grounds seem to point to a genetic connection between the human body and the highest forms of the animal kingdom."

Now I would conclude that common genetic material would point to a common designer, creator and not necessarily a common ancestor and that the word "immediate" means "made at once".

Do I perceive a definite evolutionary bias in Ott.? In view of the teaching from Lateran IV and Vatican I how does Ott makes these conclusions? What is your view on the reliability of Ott?


R. Sungenis: Walt, generally speaking, Ott is one of the best dogmaticians of the modern Church. He does have certain biases, however, and on occasion he does have very scant evidence for some of the conclusions he makes. For example, the issues of evolution, the future of Israel, the anger of God, are occasions where Ott makes personal interpretations rather than give us solid Catholic teaching or dogma. Ott lived in a day in which evolution was coming into vogue, and the contrary scientific evidence had not yet been discovered. Since then, we have found that evolution is nothing but a hoax. The fossil record is totally antithetical to the theory of evolution.


Question 14- Book on Geocentrism

Dear Sir,

I was just reading your web site concerning geocentrism. I only found out about it from a book by Malcolm Bowden called "True Science Agrees with the Bible". I'm wondering if you have finished your book about the scientific evidences for it since I am curious about it.

Thank you for your time and your web site.

R. Sungenis: David, the book is about half way completed. I hope to have it published by late 2005, just in time for Einstein's 100th anniversary of anti-geocentrism. The title will be "Galileo Was Wrong."


Question 15- Follow-up question on "for many" vs. "for all"

Hi Robert,

In reply to Paul who asked how "all" replacing "many" can be defended in the consecration, you replied that "unless the magisterium ever makes a declaration which says that the sacrifice of Calvary, represented in the words of consecration offering remission of sins, only applies to baptized members and is not offering the possibility of salvation to the whole world, then there is no recourse to condemn the usage of "all," except on practical grounds."

There is no dispute that the sacrifice of Calvary was offered to provide a possibility of salvation to all, but I think the point is that the Church has said previously that the words of consecration of the wine refers only to the fruits of the Passion, and hence the word "many" is used instead of "all." In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, issued by order of Pope St. Pius V, there is this statement:

"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."

By the way, I enjoy reading your articles and your books. God bless,


R. Sungenis: Richard, I see two problems with your suggestion. First, neither the Gospels nor Catholic dogma make a distinction between the "fruit" of the Eucharist and the other dimensions of it. Jesus clearly says, when he is speaking directly to the apostles, that the Eucharist was instituted for the "remission of sins." Matthew 26:28 says: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." We know that Jesus did not shed his blood only for a few select people. He shed it for all people. And there is nothing in the context that says the offer of "remission" is limited to the apostles and their followers. In fact, when the same word "remission" is used in other Gospel texts, it includes the offer of remission to all people (Mk 1:4; Lk 1:77; 3:3-4; 24:47Ac 2:38; 10:43).

Granted, it is also true that only those who actually repent of their sins are the only ones who have the blood of Christ efficaciously applied to them, and it is also true that only those who have repented of their sins can partake of the Eucharist, but that is not the context of Matthew 26:28. That verse says the blood was "shed," but there is nothing said about to whom it is yet efficaciously applied. We know Christ's blood was "shed" for all people on the cross, and this fact is precisely what Jesus is applying to the Eucharist. Unless we want to become Jansenists of Calvinists, we are going to have to conclude that the Eucharist is offered to all people, and because of the grace that flows from the Eucharist, all people of the world benefit from the graces God gives to the Church through the Eucharist.

As for the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it is not Catholic dogma. Only the Council of Trent itself is Catholic dogma. Thus, we can't base our decision of this issue on a Catechism, especially since the Catechism does not address the issue in very much detail. As for Catholic dogma, it has never made the distinction that the Tridentine catechism made. The mere fact that those who claim that "many" refers only to some people have to resort to a catechism but cannot find any support in Catholic dogma shows that their position is not proven.


Question 16- The Use of "Many" or "All"

Dear Robert,

I am confused after your latest QandA regarding the words "for you and for all" in the Novus Ordo. As a Greek, Hebrew and Latin I assume you know how specious the argument of Joachim Jeremias was: Hebrew and Aramaic had no words for "all" so Jesus had to use "many". While I am sure you know this, do you not remember reading St. Thomas's (and the Catechism of the Council of Trent and St. Pius V in an apostolic letter) commentary on the words of institution? Paraphrased, all three say that our Lord used the word "many" purposefully, i.e., as He was speaking of the fruits of the redemption. I am not trying to make the argument that this necessarily invalidates the Novus Ordo. However, you are philosophically off base in comparing Scripture's interchangeable use of the words "all" and "many" thus. Just because one passage can interchange these words, without APPARENT CONSEQUENCE, does not imply that this can be done in another unrelated passage. Three authorities - St. Thomas, the Catechism of Trent and St. Pius V - all explain why our Lord used "many" instead of "all", and until or unless a Roman Pontiff or Council gives us some philosophical sound reasons for this change, it seems we can regard this as an erroneous translation at least. Forgive me if you have said as much elsewhere, however, I am commenting on your Q&A of the last few days.

R. Sungenis: Jonathan, neither Thomas Aquinas nor the Catechism of Trent are Catholic dogma. As for Pius V, he made no mention of the meaning of "many" or "all," so he cannot be counted as an authoritative source on this particular question. The highest authority we have at present on the issue is Paul VI, for he is the one who allowed the change, and he did so on a dogmatic basis. Therefore, our apologetic should be molded around that conclusion, which is what I have done. Until if and when another pope says that "all" cannot subsitute for "many," then I will continued to use the same apologetic. We are not the authorities in these theological areas, only the pope can be the authority. Since no pope has condemned the use of "all" for "many," then we must assume it is allowed.

I am confused after your latest QandA regarding the words "for you and for all" in the Novus Ordo. As a Greek, Hebrew and Latin I assume you know how specious the argument of Joachim Jeremias was: Hebrew and Aramaic had no words for "all" so Jesus had to use "many". While I am sure you know this, do you not remember reading St. Thomas's (and the Catechism of the Council of Trent and St. Pius V in an apostolic letter) commentary on the words of institution? Paraphrased, all three say that our Lord used the word "many" purposefully, i.e., as He was speaking of the fruits of the redemption. I am not trying to make the argument that this necessarily invalidates the Novus Ordo. However, you are philosophically off base in comparing Scripture's interchangeable use of the words "all" and "many" thus. Just because one passage can interchange these words, without APPARENT CONSEQUENCE, does not imply that this can be done in another unrelated passage. Three authorities - St. Thomas, the Catechism of Trent and St. Pius V - all explain why our Lord used "many" instead of "all", and until or unless a Roman Pontiff or Council gives us some philosophical sound reasons for this change, it seems we can regard this as an erroneous translation at least. Forgive me if you have said as much elsewhere, however, I am commenting on your Q&A of the last few days.
R. Sungenis: If some do not have the "h" to represent the rough breathing, that is an oversight. If you come across any, please let me know where they are.

Question 17- John 3:16 versus Appeasement

Dear Robert,

In your book Not by Bread Alone and other articles, you always seem to imply (from my perspective) that the atonement is primarily about appeasement. Yet surely the gospel passage John 3:16, should be the primary way of understanding the atonement?: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever should believe in Him, should not perish but have eternal life."

Didn't God allow His Son to be an offering for sin as He loved us so much and didn't want His people to people to perish in Hell. Isn't that what the atonement is about primarily, as John 3:16 seems to say? Isn't appeasement and God wanting to preserve his honour secondary? Or are they interlinked?

Thanks for your time,


R. Sungenis: Tim, John 3:16 is not a dissertation on the atonement, but merely one verse giving the motive of God for sending his Son. We have to go to other passages of the Old and New Testament to find out the nature of the atonement. The book of Hebrews is a good place to start, and then that leads to many other places. Once we have amassed all the passages that speak to the atonement, then we can make our conclusions. The conclusion is that the atonement is an appeasement of the wrath of God. Only then can the love of God be poured out to us, as John 3:16 implies.


Question 18- The CASB and Chilton's Commentary on the Apocalypse

Dear Bob,

I think it [the CASB] is excellent. It fills such a void in true scripture scholarship that goes far beneath the surface level. I think the Navarre series is good but it is more for Catholics who aren’t going to going to deep into scripture. And to tell you the truth, I haven’t been overly impressed with the Haydock bible thus far. I just purchased a Catholic commentary on Holy Scripture (written in the 50’s) as well as the 2-volume set by Ferdinand Prat and I am hopeful that they will provide some great insights. I was talking to my priest after Mass today and he mentioned a commentary on the Apocalypse by D. Chilton that he said, even though it is protestant, is one of the best he has ever read. Have you ever heard of it?

Keep up the great work and I hope your set of commentary will be to Holy Scripture what Dom Gueranger’s the Liturgical Year is to the Traditional Mass.

Greg Hessel

R. Sungenis: Greg, yes, Chilton's book is one of the better Protestant efforts. I've used it many times. He avoids all the sensationalism that you see in other Protestant eschatological efforts (such as Premillennial Dispensationalism, Hal Lindsey, et al).

He is (or was, since he deceased a few years ago) an ardent Postmillennial Reformist. In other words, he is not taking the Amillennial view of the Catholic Church (which was confirmed by the Council of Ephesus). But since the Postmillennial view often overlaps with the Amillennial view, it appears as if Chilton is on the right track, but he is not.

His attempt at understanding the symbols of the Apocalypse is good, but even then, you won't find Chilton seeing the Blessed Mother in Apocalypse 12.

Chilton's "Reformist" view is often noticed in his commentary. This is a view that the Old Testament civil laws should be implemented in the New Testament, otherwise known as "Theonomy." Their goal is to "Christianize" the world by using these civil laws as a preparation for the return of Christ, which may be way off in the future.

In fact, Chilton and his followers (Rushdooney, Bahnsen, et al) believed that not until society is Christianized can Christ return. This is opposite the Amillennial view which says that, after the reign of the Church, society will become progressively worse, at which time Christ will come back in judgment.

There are other problems with Chilton, but overall he has some good "thought-starters" throughout his book for Catholic exegesis.


Question 19- Canonization and JPII PontMax?


I understand the rules concerning an ex-cathedra statement. However, is not the canonization of a deceased individual also an infallible statement. In other words, when a pope canonizes, is he not saying infallibly that this person has been saved and is spending eternity in Heaven?

My second questions is regarding the current pope. It appears to be your opinion that JPII has been a poor leader of the Church and has even been on the verge of heresy. I assume you don't believe he should be canonized after his passing, yet I don't think I am out of the Catholic mainstream when I say he probably will be. Do you think he will be, and would the fact that he would be declared a saint by the Church change your opinion of him?

God continue to bless you, your family and your work.

R. Sungenis: Dan, I personally don't think John Paul II will ever be a candidate for sainthood. Even those who like him are beginning to recognize that he has been much too lax with Church discipline, which is one of the primary tasks of a pope. The present condition of the Church, including the homosexual-pedophile scandal, can be laid right at the foot of John Paul II. And to prove his laxity, he has done virtually nothing to stop these abuses, except give speeches. This Church does not need any more speeches, it needs discipline.


Question 20- Traditionalists versus Jim Gorham

1. Robert,

I've again been debating Jim Gorham who in the past has contested some of your stuff. We've been discussing TGF's allegations of ambiguities regarding Vatican II's ecumenism. I sent this to Chris Ferrara to get his thoughts (he's been debating Gorham also) but it doesn't look good for the Traditionalist view. This LOOKS like (I could be wrong) a hole that one cannot dig oneself out of, thus I thought you might like to see it.


Jim Gorham: Matt the claim that Vatican II avoids the traditional call of return to the church is simply false. On the contrary, when one reads the document on ecumenism, the councils conclusion that authentic unity can only be achieved by a return of the protestants to holy Mother church is impossible to avoid. Lets take a look at some key passages.

R. Sungenis: I have no problem with Mr. Gorham's conclusion, since I've said it myself. In my essay on Assisi, I remarked that John Paul II could not appeal to Vatican II's teaching on prayer, since the only time the council referred to praying with non-Catholics was when it recommended praying with Protestants so that they would come back to the Catholic Church (Unitatis Redintegratio).

Gorham: This first one comes from section 24 and tells us directly what the goal of all catholic ecumenical activity is and also notes that this " HOLY OBJECTIVE "
cannot be achieved without the power of God

"The Council moreover professes its awareness that human powers and capacities cannot achieve this holy objective-the reconciling of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ."

And lest anyone be confused as to which church constitutes "the one and only church of Christ" to which as stated above all christians must be reconciled the council offers the following.

First the council notes that it was Jesus intention to found only one church, not a plurality of churches with similar teachings. It Quotes the apostle Paul to back up it's claim

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one Baptism".(6) For "all you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus".(7)

The council then tells us unapologetically that this one church established by Christ has been spread down through the centuries through the successors of Peter and the apostles. Thus the present day catholic church is that one and only church established by Christ

"In order to establish this His holy Church everywhere in the world till the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling and sanctifying.(10) Among their number He selected Peter, and after his confession of faith determined that on him He would build His Church. Also to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven,(11) and after His profession of love, entrusted all His sheep to him to be confirmed in faith(12) and shepherded in perfect unity.(13) Christ Jesus Himself was forever to remain the chief cornerstone (14) and shepherd of our souls.(15) Jesus Christ, then, willed that the apostles and their successors -the bishops with Peter's successor at their head-should preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments, and rule the Church in love. It is thus, under the action of the Holy Spirit, that Christ wills His people to increase, and He perfects His people's fellowship in unity: in their confessing the one faith, celebrating divine worship in common, and keeping the fraternal harmony of the family of God. The Church, then, is God's only flock; it is like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it:(16) for it serves all mankind through the Gospel of peace(17) as it makes its pilgrim way in hope toward the goal of the fatherland above.(18) This is the sacred mystery of the unity of the Church, in Christ and through Christ, the Holy Spirit energizing its various functions. It is a mystery that finds its highest exemplar and source in the unity of the Persons of the Trinity: the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit, one God."

The council Later states this even more strongly later in this same section 3

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God."

Matt note well this last sentence "to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God."

The council here states unequivocally that those "who belong in any way to the people of God" (an obvious reference to the protestants) need to be FULLY incorporated into that apostolic college of which Peter is the head. Again matt Note well that the council has just taught that it's God's intention that ALL christians have access to the fullness of the means of salvation which can only be found in the apostolic college of which Peter is the head. In other words the council has just taught that it's Gods intention that all christians RETURN to the catholic church. There is nothing ambiguous here, this is the ONLY way to read and and understand this passage.

This same point is made yet again in section 4. This quote follows a brief outlining of concrete actions the faithful can take in working for the restoration of unity in the body of Christ

"When such actions are undertaken prudently and patiently by the Catholic faithful, with the attentive guidance of their bishops, they promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity. This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time"

Note again Matt that the council see's the goal of those ecumenical activities as being the gathering of all christians into the unity of the one and only church (which as we have seen the council has already Identified as exclusively the catholic church) Thus this is the third time that the council has taught the goal of ecumenical activity is the return of protestants back into the church. There simply is no other way to read and understand these texts. Note also that the council has emphasized that the Catholic church is already unified as christ willed and cannot be otherwise, thus it is the other churches who have separated themselves from that unity and it is they who must be reconciled to that unity.

The councils call for the return of the Protestants is seen in the council documents elsewhere also. Check out this quote from section 11.

"The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded."

I ask you Matt, if one is presenting catholic doctrine in it's entirety without clouding its certain meaning. Would they fail to mention that the fullness of truth resides in the catholic church, guarded by the successors of Peter ?? And would that not inescapably lead to the conclusion that it is for others to return to the one true church? If the councils directive is faithfully carried out the call for a return to mother church will be impossible to avoid. The council emphasizes the same point again in section 24

"Now that we have briefly set out the conditions for ecumenical action and the principles by which it is to be directed, we look with confidence to the future. This Sacred Council exhorts the faithful to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity. Their ecumenical action must be fully and sincerely Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth which we have received from the apostles and Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed, "

Note here Matt the councils teaching that real progress toward unity can only be achieved when ecumenical action ( sharing our faith with protestants) remains faithful to the faith of our fathers. Again if one takes this teaching to heart, a call to a return to mother church will be impossible to avoid.

Matt when you say that any teaching is ambiguous, that means it can credibly be understood to mean more than one thing. Thus tell me where in this document one may credibly find a teaching which would lead one to believe that unity no longer means a return to the unity of the catholic church. In other words show me for example how Kasper may legitimately quote from this council document in order to support the idea that the church no longer calls for a return. If you can't do this , then Matt you must admit that the council was not ambiguous on this issue. I make you another challenge, you said in another email that there are ambiguities galore in this document. Show me precisely were they are, and demonstrate how they can credibly be read to allow for both an orthodox and unorthodox understanding.

R. Sungenis: The problem with Mr. Gorham's final analysis is that he is refusing to make the distinction between the teaching of Vatican II and how that teaching has been interpreted by the liberals of the modern Church, including Cardinal Kasper. Mr. Gorham also fails to see that there are other places in which Vatican II, from an exegetical/critical perspective, was either ambiguous (e.g., the issue of "for the sake of our salvation" in Dei Verbum 11, which liberals now interpret to mean that Scripture is only without error when it speaks about salvation, which is opposite the traditional teaching) or used wording that seemed a little too suggestive ( Nostra Aetate 2 says: "In Hinduism, men explore the divine mystery and express it..."; Dignitatis Humane 4 states: "They [non-Catholic religious communities] must be allowed to honor the supreme Godhead with public worship"), even though one could safely say the wording was not in "error," and that it could be interpreted in a completely orthodox manner. In fact, I have maintained that, if an interpretation of Vatican II finds itself at odds with the tradition of the Church, then the interpretation is, ipso facto, incorrect. Moreover, the liberals themselves have admitted that they purposely put ambiguous wording in Vatican II so that they could later interpret it to their liberal leanings. The quote from Schillebeeckx on this issue is well known. Unfortunately, wrong interpretations are inevitable from documents that do not contain any definitions and which are as verbosely worded as Vatican II's documents often were. I believe that God allowed these ambiguities at Vatican II just as He allowed seemingly contradictory statements in Scripture itself, for the purpose of exposing heretics. Anyone who finds himself interpreting Vatican II as contradicting any previous Catholic teaching will merely expose himself as a heretic.


Question 21- Pope Paul VI Suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass?

Mr. Sungenis, in answering some of the questions posed to you, you said that the Novus Ordo can be imposed by the Pope. Do you also say that the Traditional Latin Mass can be also forbidden? I read an article from Catholic Family News (the link is ) that it was never forbidden and priests in good standing can't be forced to say the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass by any bishop; Cardinal Stickler made this comment. Please clarify.

Paul D.

R. Sungenis: Paul, the pope could suppress the traditional mass. If he can create the Novus Ordo he can certainly demand that the traditional mass be stopped. In fact, by the very fact that John Paul II asked nine of his top cardinals whether Paul VI had stopped the traditional mass and found out by an 8-1 margin that Paul VI had not stopped it means that John Paul II understood that Paul VI had the prerogative of stopping the traditional mass but didn't choose to exercise it.


Question 22- Dummying Down the Douay?

Robert, please read this short article by Jimmy Akin regarding the Douay translation. I believe it warrants a response from CAI. The article makes some very questionable statements regarding the Douay. For example, the Vulgate was never the official translation of the Church (if not, then what was?); Trent's declaration that the Douay contains no doctrinal or moral error does not mean it is a good or accurate translation; the downplay of Jerome's access to original documents and his lacking of a "critical apparatus" for sorting through textual variants; the speed at which Jerome translated undermines the quality of the translation (even though Jerome was fluent in Latin, Hebrew and Greek); and the assertion that the liberal scholars of today, most of whom believe the Bible contains errors, have done a much better job than Jerome ever could have. Give me a break.

R. Sungenis: John, I will take a look at it and see it needs a reply. Suffice it to say, I wonder how James Akin became so adept at these issues since the last time we corresponded he was asking me the meaning of various biblical passages from the original Hebrew and Greek, which obviously he did not know at the time. Thanks for alerting us to this.


Question 23- Regarding Fatima.....what is this?

Have you seen this?

Here is the actual third secret of fatima on the Vatican web site:


The third part of the secret revealed at the Cova da Iria-Fatima, on 13 July 1917.

I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine.

After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.




To the Reverend Sister
Maria Lucia
of the Convent of Coimbra

In the great joy of Easter, I greet you with the words the Risen Jesus spoke to the disciples: "Peace be with you"!

I will be happy to be able to meet you on the long-awaited day of the Beatification of Francisco and Jacinta, which, please God, I will celebrate on 13 May of this year.

Since on that day there will be time only for a brief greeting and not a conversation, I am sending His Excellency Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to speak with you. This is the Congregation which works most closely with the Pope in defending the true Catholic faith, and which since 1957, as you know, has kept your hand-written letter containing the third part of the "secret" revealed on 13 July 1917 at Cova da Iria, Fatima.

Archbishop Bertone, accompanied by the Bishop of Leiria, His Excellency Bishop Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva, will come in my name to ask certain questions about the interpretation of "the third part of the secret".

Sister Maria Lucia, you may speak openly and candidly to Archbishop Bertone, who will report your answers directly to me.

I pray fervently to the Mother of the Risen Lord for you, Reverend Sister, for the Community of Coimbra and for the whole Church. May Mary, Mother of pilgrim humanity, keep us always united to Jesus, her beloved Son and our brother, the Lord of life and glory.

With my special Apostolic Blessing.


From the Vatican, 19 April 2000.

LUCIA REVEALS THE THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA Independently of any Creed or Religion, it is better to be prepared and be on good terms with GOD, as we never know when we will be leaving this world....


The Church has given permission to reveal to the people the last part of the message. The Blessed Virgin appeared to three children in Fatima, Portugal, in 1917, this is a proven fact, one of these children is still alive, her name is Lucia, she is a Cloistered nun and lives in a
monastery in Portugal.

Lucia disclosed the message for the first time to Pope Pius XII whom, after reading it, he sealed it and stored away without making it public. Later Pope John XXIII read it and, in the same manner as his predecessor he kept it out of the public eye because he knew that once
revealed, it will bring desperation and panic to human kind. Now the time has come, and permission has been granted from Pope John Paul II to reveal it to the children of God, in order not to create panic but to make people aware of this important message so everybody
can be prepared.

The Virgin told Lucia: "Go my child and tell the world what will come to pass during the 1950's - 2000's. Men are not practicing the Commandments that our Father has given us. Evil is governing the world and is harvesting hate and resentment all over. Men will fabricate
mortal weapons that will destroy the world in minutes, half of the human race will be destroyed, the war will begin against Rome, and there will be conflicts amongst religious orders.

God will allow all natural phenomenon's like smoke, hail, cold, water, fire, floods, earthquakes, winds and inclement weather to slowly batter the planet. These things will come to pass before the year 2010. "Those who won't believe, this is the time" your beloved mother told you "those lacking charity towards others and those who do not love their
neighbor like my beloved Son has loved you, all, cannot survive. They will wish to have died, millions are unimaginable, they will come, and there is no doubt.

Our Lord God will punish severely those who do not believe in him, those who despise him and those who did not have time for him." "I call upon all of you to come to my son Jesus Christ, God helps the world but all of those who do not show fidelity and loyalty will be destroyed".

Father Agustin, who lives in Fatima, said that Pope Paul VI gave him permission to visit sister Lucia who is a Cloistered nun (she does not leave the monastery nor is allowed to received any visitors). Father Agustin said that she received him greatly overwhelmed and told him:

"Father, our lady is very sad because nobody is interested in her prophecy of 1917, though the righteous are walking through a narrow path, the evil ones are walking through an ample road that is leading them straight to their destruction, believe me father, the punishment
will come very soon.

"Many souls will be lost, many nations will disappear from the earth. But, in the middle of all these, if men reflect, pray and practice good deeds, the world can be saved. One of all these, if men persist with its evil, the world will be lost forever.

The time has come for all to pass on the message of our Blessed Lady to their families, friends, and to the entire world. Start praying, to make penitence and sacrifices. We are at the last minute of the last day and the catastrophes are near. Due to this, many that were far from the church will return to the open arms of the Church of Jesus Christ.

The joining of the churches will result in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. England, Russia, China, Jews, Muslims and Protestants. All will return believing and worshipping God our creator, in his beloved Son and in our Blessed Mother Virgin Mary".



This war will destroy everything, darkness will fall over us for 72 hours (three days) and the one third of humanity that survives this obscurity and sacrifice, will commence to live a new era, they will be good people.

In a very cold night, 10 minutes before midnight, A GREAT QUAKE will shake the earth for 8 hours. This will be the third signal that God is who governs the earth. The righteous and those who propagate the faith and the message of the Lady of Fatima SHOULD NOT FEAR, DO NOT BE AFRAID.


Bow your heads, kneel down and ask God for forgiveness. Because only what is good and is not under the power of evil will survive the catastrophe. In order for you to prepare and remain alive I will give you the following signs: ANGUISH........AND IN A SHORT PERIOD THE
so violent that it will move the earth 23 degrees and it will return it to its normal position. Then, total and absolute darkness will cover the entire planet... All evil spirits will be mingling around and free, doing harm to all those souls that did not want to listen to this
message and those who did not want to repent. To the faithful souls, remember to light the blessed candles, prepare a sacred altar with a crucifix in order to communicate with GOD and implore for His infinite mercy.... All will be dark, IN THE SKY A GREAT MYSTIC CROSS will appear to remind us the price that his beloved Son had to pay for our
redemption.... In the house the only thing that can give light will be the HOLY CANDLES... Once lit, nothing will put them off until the three days of darkness are over. Also, you should have Holy water that should be sprinkled abundantly on windows and doors. The Lord will protect the property of the chosen ones...

Kneel down before the powerful cross of my beloved Son, pray the Rosary and after each Hail Mary you must pray the following: "Oh God forgive us our sins, preserve us from the fire of hell, take all souls to heaven, especially those who are in more need of thy mercy. Blessed Virgin Mary protect us, we love you, save us and save the world".

Pray 5 Creeds and the Rosary which is the secret to my Immaculate Heart. All those who believe in my words go and take the message to everyone, DO NOT FEAR. FEAR NOTHING DURING THE LORD'S GREAT DAY. Talk to all the souls now that there is time, those who keep quiet will be responsible for all those souls who will perish in ignorance. All those who pray humbly the rosary will have the protection of heaven and those who are bound to die I will help them die in peace and they will be holy when they enter the other world. I wish all my children to attend mass every first Friday and every first Saturday of each month, to confess and receive Holy Communion and in doing do, save the world from its TOTAL DESTRUCTION.

WHEN the earth shakes no more, those who still do not believe in our Lord will perish in a horrible way. The wind will bring gas and it will disperse it everywhere, then the sun will rise. Maybe you will survive this catastrophe. Do not forget that God's punishment is holy and ONCE IT HAS STARTED YOU SHOULD NOT LOOK OUTSIDE, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE, GOD DOES NOT WANT ANY OF HIS CHILDREN TO SEE WHEN HE PUNISHES THE SINNERS.... All this encompasses with the writings of the Holy Scriptures..... Read on the New Testament: Luke 21 - 5:121, 12:19, 20:20, 29:33, Letters of St Paul 3 -8-14, Isaiah 40, 1:5:9. You must understand that God allows all this to happen. The Pope and Bishops are now awaiting another message that speaks about repentance and prayer. Remember that Gods words are not a threat, but good news.... Please arrange to forward to all your friends so we all can have the opportunity to repent and be saved. We do not know if those receiving this message believe or not in GOD, but think that if you are receiving this message is for a reason!!

Maybe the Creator is giving us the chance to be saved, no matter what religion or creed. If you don't believe in this message at least send it to others, it costs you nothing. To all those receiving it, they can have the opportunity to judge for themselves. Remember, we can avoid a great deal if we practice the commandments that our Father God left us.

There are 10 simple things, that if we all put in practice we can obtain God's pardon.

R. Sungenis: The CDF has had the Third Secret (at least what they have released) on the Vatican website since the so-called dissemination of the Third Secret on June 26, 2000. It is nothing but a liberal disclaimer to Fatima, which I have written about in my 100-page paper. It is conspicuously missing the remaining part of the Third Secret since it stops at the Fourth Memoir:

(7) In the "Fourth Memoir" Sister Lucia adds: "In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc. ...".

The Vatican failed to give us the rest of this message -- the most important part of the Third Secret.

The person who is interpreting the CDF's remarks is apparently an over-enthusiastic Catholic who is reading all kinds of private interpretations into the Third Secret. You know once the interpreter starts giving dates ("before 2010") that it is all a fantasy of their own imagination. Prevalent also is the so-called "three days of darkness" that they have been "prophesying" for the 20 years but has not seen the light of day, to use a familiar pun. This interpreter also has most of his Scriptures wrong (e.g., Luke doesn't have 29 chapters). The interpreter even takes the Copernican view that the earth is already titled 23 degrees. All in all, it is nothing but sensationalist misinterpretation of both Scripture and Fatima, and it probably comes from the genre of the Medjugorje crowd. As Jesus said, "An evil and an adulteress generation seeks for a sign." (Mt 12:39).


Question 24- Pope Paul VI Suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass, Part II?

Thank you for answering my question. However, I believe your position to be
untenable, in light of this excerpt from a June, 2001 Catholic Family News
article by Fr. Paul Kramer:

It was the Council of Trent that solemnly declared anathema-----that is, it is a heresy-----to say that any pastor in the Church, whosoever he may be, has the power to change the traditional rite into a new rite. This is found in Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:"

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the
Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

I can't see how the Novus Ordo doesn't fit this anathema. After all, it was formulated by a Freemason, Archbishop Bugnini, with the help of 6 Protestant ministers (which is why I avoid it whenever I can, despite its validity)

R. Sungenis: Paul, you're not using the common sense God gave you. How could Paul VI approve a Mass that was condemned by the Council of Trent, with an anathema?!

If Paul VI did such a thing he would have committed the worst heresy the Church has ever known and allowed the gates of hell to prevail, and you make Jesus a liar.

If what you claim: "I can't see how the Novus Ordo doesn't fit this anathema," is true, then the Novus Ordo is an invalid Mass. Not only is it invalid, it is an abomination. So, obviously, Fr. Kramer's interpretation of the Council of Trent is wrong.

The Council is not prohibiting the Novus Ordo. It is prohibiting someone from tampering with "the solemn administration of the Sacraments," not every jot and tittle in the Mass.

Regarding the Eucharist, the "solemn administration of the Sacrament" refers to the consecration formula that confects the Eucharist, since that is the only thing in the Mass that administers the Sacrament.

The "solemn administration of the sacrament" of Baptism is the use of water along with the Trinitarian formula. For Confession it is the words of absolution. Everything else can be changed if the pope desires to do so.

Paul VI, despite what Bugnini or any Protestant minister desired, kept the consecration formula intact, even against the wishes of others, including Bugnini. END

Paul: And added to that, Pope Paul VI thanked the Protestant ministers for helping formulate the Novus Ordo; also, Jean Guitton, a friend of Pope Paul VI, said that the intention of Pope Paul VI was to create a Mass that is very close to the Calvinist "liturgy." Again, I see this as consistent with a Pope creating a new rite and unofficially suppressing the traditional rite, and thereby incurring the anathema of the Council of Trent. Sincerely, Paul D.

Paul, it makes no difference who was involved in the creation of the Mass. We all agree that the Novus Ordo is a watered-down version of the Tridentine. The question is: does the Novus Ordo fulfill the anathema of Trent? The answer to that is a resounding NO. Don't be taken in by people who are over-reacting to the crisis upon us.


Question 25- Hahn on Ham and Maternal Incest

Robert, in the book A Father who Keeps His Promises, Dr. Hahn says that Noah's son Ham committed maternal incest, and the offspring of this incestuous union was Canaan. This, he argues, is the meaning of "uncovering his father's nakedness." However, the text in Genesis 9 does not seem to support this conclusion. It appears that Canaan is already alive when Noah became drunk and his nakedness was uncovered. In my Douay Confraternity translation, the footnote says that "uncovering his father's nakedness" indicated that Ham and Canaan saw Noah naked, and laughed and ridiculed him. That is, Canaan, who was already alive, laughed at his grandfather. What is all this about Ham having relations with his mother, with Canaan the resulting offspring?

R. Sungenis: John, Scott Hahn's interpretation, I'm afraid, is another case of him reading into the Scripture what he wants to see, or as he says it in "First Comes Love," it is "reading between the lines."

Normally when someone tries to "read between the lines" his interpretation at least follows the outline given in the text. Hahn's interpretation of Genesis 9:20-27 doesn't even do that much. Hahn takes liberties with the text that are unprecedented, and he doesn't even bother to tell his reader the traditional interpretation (that Ham saw Noah naked and perhaps did something to him or did not act appropriately).

The text of Genesis 9:20-27 is clear:

1) Noah became drunk.

2) Noah uncovered himself in his tent (i.e., he was naked)

3) Ham saw Noah naked and may have done something to him (e.g., either acting inappropriately, or just leaving him there naked without covering him). The verb form used in Ham's "seeing" of Noah is the Imperfect, which implies that Ham was in the act of staring at Noah. The verb "told" in Gn 9:22 is the Hifil form, implying that Ham had secretly done something and is now revealing it to his brothers.

4) Shem and Japheth come in and, walking backward, cover Noah's nakedness. Since it is clear in the context that Noah become drunk and uncovered himself, the nakedness cannot refer to Noah's wife. In fact, the Hebrew verb for "uncovered himself" is GALAH, used in the Hitpael form, which, being reflexive, can mean ONLY that Noah uncovered himself, not someone else.

5) Shem and Japheth cover Noah while he is still asleep. Later, Noah wakes up and "comes to know" what Ham had done to him. The verb "comes to know" is the Imperfect tense, meaning that either Shem and Japheth told Noah what Ham had done, or there was some immediate sign of what Ham had done.

The words "had done to him" in Gn 9:25 use the masculine construct verb form, which means that the immoral act was done to Noah, and no one else. In addition, since Lev 18:14, 22 open the possibility of a male uncovering the nakedness of another male, then that possibility exists in the case of Noah and Ham.

There is nothing about Noah's wife, or her being raped by Ham. She is not even mentioned in the scene. The last time she is mentioned in the book of Genesis is in Gn 8:8 when the family of Noah came out of the ark. She is never mentioned again.

In fact, it would be highly irregular to assume that Noah's wife would NOT have cried out if Ham had raped her. And why would Ham be so stupid to rape his mother right in the same tent Noah occupied, while Shem and Japheth are apparently just outside the door?

Moreover, it is obvious that merely seeing Noah naked is taboo, since Shem and Japheth walk backwards to avoid that possibility. Contrary to what Hahn claims, there couldn't be any motive to take over his father's house or harem, since Ham would have had to kill Noah, not just rape his wife, for such an eventuality. Then, of course, his brother would have killed him, and his plans would have been foiled.

When the Bible wants to tell us that someone was raped it gives us graphic language. We don't have to "read between the lines" to know such hard facts, especially when the outcome of this incident has repercussions for the rest of the world, as Noah's prophecy makes quite clear in Gn 9:25-27.

The conclusion Hahn draws that "seeing the nakedness" or "uncovering the nakedness" refers exclusively to illicit sexual intercourse is wrong. "Seeing the nakedness" applies to anything of a pornographic nature, whether it is viewing someone's nakedness (e.g., voyeurism, pornography to produce a self-induced orgasm, etc), touching someone who is naked (e.g., petting, fondling, etc), or the ultimate act of coitus. Any one of those would have been an abomination to Noah.

In fact, in the very passage Hahn cites but doesn't notice (Leviticus 18), it contains a difference between "uncovering the nakedness" and "intercourse." We know this because Leviticus 18:23 says "you shall not have intercourse with any animal..." Obviously, you cannot "uncover the nakedness" of an animal because it doesn't wear clothes, and thus "uncover nakedness" cannot exclusively refer to sexual intercourse.

The same distinction between the words is noted in Leviticus 18:19 and 18:20, wherein the first says: "do not uncover a women's nakedness during her menstrual impurity," and the second says "do not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife." In the Hebrew the word "intercourse" here is literally "lying with your semen," thus making explicit and exclusive reference to the coital act, whereas "nakedness" is not exclusively coital.

The word for "uncover nakedness" is already translated literally, and it refers to any illicit exposure of nakedness, for any reason. In this way, no one would have an excuse for engaging in pornographic acts, since every area of exposing "nakedness" is covered in the command "do not uncover someone's nakedness."

In short, Hahn's interpretation is just another in a series of unproven and imaginative speculations on his part. The Remnant just carried an article titled "The Sands of Celebrity" which shows more of Hahn's exegetical errors, and there are many more yet to be exposed.


Question 26- Is James Akin Dummying Down the Douay?

Dear Sir,
Robert, please read this short article by Jimmy Akin regarding the Douay translation. I believe it warrants a response from CAI. The article makes some very questionable statements regarding the Douay. For example, the Vulgate was never the official translation of the Church (if not, then what was?); Trent's declaration that the Douay contains no doctrinal or moral error does not mean it is a good or accurate translation; the downplay of Jerome's access to original documents and his lacking of a "critical aparatus" for sorting through textual variants; the speed at which Jerome translated undermines the quality of the translation (even though Jerome was fluent in Latin, Hebrew and Greek); and the assertion that the liberal scholars of today, most of whom believe the Bible contains errors, have done a much better job than Jerome ever could have. Give me a break.

R. Sungenis: John, I have read Akin's comments on the Douay-Rheims Bible and the Vulgate translation. I would have to say that Akin's comments are quite correct. The only things I would add are the following:

In the Vulgate's favor is John Paul II's Apostolic Constituion titled Scripturarum Thesaurus of April 25, 1979 which reaffirmed the traditional elevation of the Latin Vulgate above other Catholic translations. In Scripturarum Thesaurus, John Paul II says the following:

"This New Vulgate edition will also be of such a nature that vernacular translations, which are destined for liturgical and pastoral use, may be referred to it; and, to use the words of our predecessor Paul VI, "it is permissible to think that it is a certain sort of foundation on which biblical studies... may rest, especially where libraries open to special studies can be consulted only with greater difficulty, and where the diffusion of suitable research materials is more hindered" (cf. Allocution, December 22, 1977; cf. daily L'Osservatore Romano, 23 December - 1977, p. 1)."

The other thing I would add is a comment regarding Mr. Akin's reference to Ronald Knox's translation. Akin writes:

"Ronald Knox puts the manuscript point wryly when he writes, "You cannot, I think, be tied down to the statement that Saul was one year old when he came to the throne, merely because that is the construction which the Vulgate has put on an obviously defective Hebrew original" (Trials of a Translator, 29)."

Althought it is true that the DR makes a mistake at 1 Sam 13:1 in saying "Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel" (which the King James corrects to "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel"), still, this gives the impression that Knox's translation is an example of how the art of biblical criticism or translation know-how of the 20th century is superior to Jerome's Vulgate. Barring Jerome's mistakes (which are few), his translation of the original Hebrew and Greek is so far superior to Knox's translation that it's like comparing a college text to a first grade reader. I've been through Knox's translation with a fine-toothed comb and I have never in my life seen a translator twist and distort the original text to his liking than Knox has. I would say in all candor that Knox was the first "paraphrased" Bible of the English-speaking world, outpacing the Protestant paraphrasers by about 30 years.

The other caution here is that Catholic bibles containing the Douay-Rheims are all traditionally-based publishers who are very faithful to the doctrines of biblical inerrancy and patristic-medieval traditional understanding of the biblical text. This is quite the converse with Catholic bibles such as the New American Bible. Not only is the translation often slanted to the erroneous concepts of Catholic liberalism, but the footnotes explaining the text (which appear on the same page as the biblical text) are filled with outright heresies. We have a section on our website devoted specifically to exposing these heresies.

So, for all intents and purposes, I would much rather have a Catholic read the Douay-Rheims than the New American Bible. The former will enhance one's faith; the latter will destroy it.

Again, other than these issues, Akin's analysis is very good.


Question 27- How Does the Just War Doctrine Apply to Nuclear War?

Mr. Sungenis,

Would the United States using nuclear weapons, pre-emptively or otherwise, against an enemy's cities be in direct violation of the church's just war doctrine, which holds that the deliberate military targeting of innocent civilians is always immoral? If that is the case, how should the United States respond to a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack?

Pax Christi

-- Edgar

R. Sungenis: The Just War doctrine was written long before nuclear, biological or chemical attacks were possible on a wide scale. It needs updating to account for the massive destruction caused by such weapons. The condemnation of "deliberate military targeting of innocent civilians" was based only on conventional weaponry and normal war strategies.


Question 28- Dave Hunt Debate and the CASB, Vol. 2

Hello Mr. Sungenis,

Last night I was listening to your debate with Mr. Dave Hunt, and I just wanted to say masterful job! Is it sometimes difficult to keep your cool with such people when they assert such outrages? My main reason for e-mailing; when is the next version of your Apologetics Study Bible coming out? Thank you very much for your work; God bless!

Marc Miller

R. Sungenis: Marc, thanks for the commendation! As for the CASB, I'm peddling as fast as I can, but I have three other books I'm trying to publish before I release the second volume of the CASB. I would say that the CASB, Vol. 2 won't be out till this time next year.


Question 29- Is James Akin Dummying Down the Douay, Part II?

Robert, I can see your points. But I take issue with the article because it suggests the Douay is on par with all the other translations. This is not true. The fact is, only the Douay translation was declared by a pope to be free of doctrinal and moral error (D.A.S.), and only the Douay translation was declared by a council (Trent) to be a bulwark against the Protestant heresies. The Douay has always been considered the unofficial translation of the Church for these reasons. Moreover, Akin says that Jerome did not have access to all the manuscripts that we have access to today, but he fails to mention which ones Jerome did not have access to (is he referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls? If so, that neither helps nor hurts his thesis). The article makes it sound like our scholars today have just as much as Jerome did. The tradition has always emphasized that Jerome was closer to the original manuscripts as well as more conversant with the idiosyncrasies of Greek and Hebrew linguistic construction than scholars 20 centuries removed. I personally use the RSV-CE for apologetics (because it jives what what's in the Protestant translations), but who can argue with the elevated status of the DR for biblical study and devotional reading within our Catholic tradition. God bless.

R. Sungenis: John, I agree with your concerns. I prefer the DR over modern translations for the same reason. But since Akin was coming from the perspective of preferring modern translations over the DR, I thought his treatment of the DR was at least fair, rather than resorting to bashing the DR, as many do today.


Question 30- Would You Recommend Scott Hahn's Tape Series on Romans?

Mr. Sungenis,

I just wanted to thank you again for your work, and I have one more question; other than his "works of the law" interpretation, would you recommend Dr. Hahn's tape set on the book of Romans? God bless!

Marc Miller

R. Sungenis: I wish I could, Marc, but unfortunately, I can't. Hahn's misconception of the "works of the law" infects his entire exegesis of Romans and St. Paul. In fact, I don't think Hahn knows what the basic conflict is in the book of Romans. As long as he keeps entertaining the liberal/modernistic exegetical paradigm that Romans is a contest between the ethnic foundations of Jews and Gentiles, rather than the theological paradigm of grace versus works (which is the paradigm we find in the patristic consensus; the councils of Orange and Trent; Aquinas and the medievals; and the 1992 Catholic Catechism), he is going to miss the thrust of St. Paul's argument. This is precisely why I have been harping on this issue for the last ten years. In addition to that is Hahn's misconception of Original Sin in the Garden of Eden, which will infect both his intretation of Romans 5 and 7, as well as his misconception that "Israel" is in the loins of the Gentiles which will infect his understanding of Romans 9-11. The only safe interpretation Hahn might have of Romans is chapters 12-16.


Question 31- Pope's Right to Forbid the Latin Mass; SSPX actually not in schism, Part II?

Sorry, Mr. Sungenis! I got a bit carried away. I agree that the Pope has the
legal right to forbid the Traditional Latin Mass, but he does not have the
moral right, unless he can show how the Novus Ordo is overall superior to
the Traditional Latin Mass, IMHO. Anyway's, priests, in the event that the
Traditional Latin Mass is forbidden, can use the argument that the
Traditional Latin Mass is immemorial custom. After all, all the orthodox
liturgists agree that the traditional Roman Rite is the oldest Christian
rite in existence.

R. Sungenis: Agreed. It would not be a good moral decision, at all. In fact, being an "immemorial custom," the pope would have a hard time justifying his decision on a canonical basis. I think he would have to rewrite canon law to do so, and even then he would have a hard time. I think this is precisely why the TLM has not been abrogated.

Also, I read in the Summer 2004 issue of The Latin Mass, when Bishop Fellay of the SSPX was interviewed, he explicitly stated, that despite the wording of the official documents from the Vatican that imply the SSPX to be in schism, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos had said to him that they were neither schismatics nor heretics and the situation is just that of regularizing a canonical situation (like that of Campos). He also stated that normally, if a priest in schism receives Holy Orders, when he comes back into the Church, he cannot use his powers, yet the SSPX priests, when they get out of the order, Rome allows them to use their powers of the priesthood.

R. Sungenis: The pope can make any exceptions he chooses. Apparently, he decided to allow them to offer the sacraments while maintaining their schismatic status. As for Cardinal Hoyos, it makes little difference what he says. In fact, it makes no difference. He simply does not have the authority to decide this issue. This is the pope's move alone, because he is the one who issued Ecclesia Dei. But I don't think this issue will be addressed by this pope. I think we will have to wait until the next pope tackles the issue.


Question 32- Jesus, Peter and the Keys; Scott Hahn's Tapes; the Substituionary Atonement

Mr. Sungenis,

I just have a couple of questions. I'm aware that you contributed to Jesus, Peter, and the Keys; since becoming more traditional so to speak, would you still recommend that book? Also, even though I imagine that you wouldn't endorse Romans, would you recommend any of Dr. Hahn's tape sets? And finally, are there any articles around that explain the Catholic view of the atonement vs. substitutionary, etc.? Thank you very much for your work and
God bless!


R. Sungenis: Yes, I recommend Jesus, Peter and the Keys very highly. My views of the papacy have not changed one iota. It is only the personal opinions of John Paul II that bother me. As for Hahn's tapes, you have to tell me which ones you have in mind. In any case, I would take anything he says about the Catholic faith with a grain of salt. As for articles on the atonement, the only thing I can suggest off the top of my head is to look in the index or footnotes of my book Not By Bread Alone. I hope that helps for now.


Question 33- What Made You Convert to the Catholic Church Considering its Problems?

Mr. Sungenis,
What was it that happened to make you decide to step over and become Catholic. I know you probably had all the apologetics for Catholicism but with the upheaval and discord in the Church itself that is so prevalent how did you do it? Was there a moment? How did you know you were being lead by the Holy Spirit? Does Jeus not teach us to judge fruit, and I'm not talking past fruit?

The fruit looks pretty bad right now. And far as God excepting the
Sacrifice of the Mass now I don't know how He feels with all the sin not repented. There are plenty of places in the OT where God does not except it. There is nothing wrong with the sacrifice but with the lack of shame, it becomes a stench.

Again what was the moment?

R. Sungenis: LS, I've answered this before on our QA board. You might want to search the last couple of month's answers for it. In short, it is mainly the dogma of the Catholic Church that persuaded me. The Fathers planted those seeds by their study of Scripture, the popes and councils codified that knowledge and made it infallible. That is it in a nutshell. There is no other Church that even comes close to that cohesiveness. I'm not worried about how bad the Church may be due to the faithless individuals that partake in it. The Church will survive despite them, as Jesus promised in Matt 16:18. Moreover, Satan is going to attack where the truth is, so I'm not surprised to see him working overtime in the Catholic Church.


Question 34- Justification Part VIII

just when I thought you didn't want to answer because I felt you finally saw your contradiction you right: R. Sungenis: I've already answered that faith is a mental assent to the truths God gives us; a trusting relationship with God wherein we accept all that He says about Himself, no matter how difficult. It is the same whether it is in Romans 3:28 or James 2 or Galatians 2 or anywhere else in Scripture.

In Romans 3:28, faith is contrasted with "works of the law," not works of grace. This is because the Jew was depending on his works, without true faith in God, to make him right with God. Thus, the directive in Romans 3:28 is that, of the two (that is, faith or "works of law") which one justifies? The answer is faith, since works, in themselves, seek to put God in debt. But then we learn elsewhere that it is not faith alone. It is faith with works of grace that justifies, as we find very easily in the case of Abraham. Faith puts one in the category of grace wherein his works can now be rewarded with salvation.

But in your book, you write that love, hope and obedience are added to Romans 3.28 when you write, "On a purely grammatical basis, the phrase 'faith alone" denotes that faith is the only instrument, while the statement 'faith apart from works of the law--whatever they are--are the only thing that cannot be coupled with faith for justification." Then you add, "Paul in Galatians 5:6 seems to make an inseparable bond between faith working through love." By the same token, Paul never says "faith working through works of the law." Yet when I ask you to tell me what is love, hope and obedience if not works of the law, and you say, "Yes,[love, hope and obedience are works of the law} and that is what I have said and written. But when I catch you on this blatant contradiction, you tell me I don't understand the difference between grace and debt! And I know anyone reading to this, will see the contradiction because a contradiction if fundamentally unintelligible, and I doubt anyone can accurately describe to me what in fact, Robert Sungenis is saying because anyone will know that love, hope and obedience are works of the law under debt OR grace, (romans 2.13). i'll let you clarify yourself and tell me what i dont understand, but i feel to the careful reader, i have made my point: you cannot argue with someone who doesnt see a contradiction, all you can do is let the reader see it.

R. Sungenis: Todd, I'll ignore your attempt at laughter and ask you to consider this: you are confusing the issue because haven't understood what I have said to you, and you seem bent on finding a "contradiction" to satisfy yourself.

There is no contradiction, that is, if you will understand what is being said.

"Works of the law" is the phrase St. Paul uses to designate any kind of work that someone does under the law, a category devoid of grace.

Love, hope, obedience, etc are actions that can either be done under the law or under grace.

If they are done under law, they cannot merit anything with God because God doesn't pay people a legal wage.

If love, hope, obedience, etc are done under God's grace (a grace relationship that is attained by putting faith in God), then God will reward the love and obedience by providing salvation for the individual doing them.

Finally, Galatians 5:6 is speaking about the instance in which the individual is under God's grace, therefore, he is adding love to his faith under God's grace (not under law), and thus God can reward him with salvation.

In fact, St. Paul himself makes the very distinction I am giving you, since he says in Galatians 5:4: "You who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." The antithesis is between trying to be "justified by law" as opposed to being "justified by grace."

It's really very simple. I hope that clarifies the situation for you.


Question 35- Justification Part IX

Bob, all you have done is show that Romans 2 and Romans 3 texts are not a contradiction. The law of non-contradiction states that love cannot be non-love at the same time and the same relationship, so you tell me, "see, they are not in the same relationship. but one under debt and another under grace" as if a change in relationship rendered a change of terms. You know that intuitively when you tell me." law is law, and love is love." When James, for example, says that we are not justified by faith alone, but by works, HE understands where love, hope and obedience are. When I ask you to define faith in Romans 3.28, you tell me that yes, it means a mental assent to trusting God, but not faith alone. So when i ask you to show me anything that can be added to faith that is not a work of the law, you turn around and tell me faith, hope and obedience, when you already just told me they were works of the law! you see, Bob, a contradiction cannot be understood, as it is unintelligible.

R. Sungenis: No, Todd, you got it wrong again because the premise with which you are working is misplaced.

Your premise is: "The law of non-contradiction states that love cannot be non-love at the same time and the same relationship, so you tell me, "see, they are not in the same relationship. but one under debt and another under grace" as if a change in relationship rendered a change of terms."

I didn't mention anything about "non-love," so your attempt at creating a "contradiction" with "love" is futile.

I said "love," period. I said love, obedience, hope, work or whatever, can be viewed from two different perspectives, grace or law.

I gave you the example of you digging a swimming pool for me. One scenario is when you dig the pool under a legal contract and demand payment, the other is when you do it based on the goodness of your heart because of our personal relationship, without demanding payment.

The work doesn't change. The only thing that changes is how the work is viewed and remunerated.

The change in the way the work is viewed depends on whether the person doing the work has first established a faith-relationship with the person for whom he is doing the work.

If there is no faith-relationship established first, then his work will neither produce a relationship nor put him in favor with the person to whom he does the work. All it will give him is payment for the work done.

St. Paul says one cannot come to God on that basis because no one can God in debt to pay for work done.

As for James and Romans, if love, hope, work, etc, is performed under grace, not law, then it is accepted by God, and is added to faith so as to please Him completely, and thereby God justifies that individual.

James already established the distinction between grace and law in James 2:12-13 when he spoke of acting under the "law of liberty" as opposed to the law which gives "judgment without mercy."

It is the same reason James says in verse 10 that, if one wants to put himself under law (rather than mercy, grace) then he is obligated to obey the whole law.

This is the precise same thing Paul said in Galatians 5:3 ("he is under obligation to keep the whole law") if one chooses to be justified by law as opposed to grace.

Everything is consistent.

May God give you wisdom.


Question 36- Justification Part X

Bob, again, I agree that work of the law can be viewed under two relationships-one under debt, and one under grace, but that does not mean that work ceases to be work. The definition of work remains the same.

R. Sungenis: That's right, Todd. As I said a few times before "work is work."

So when I ask you to show me something that can be added to faith that is not a work of the law, you cannot tell me love, hope, and obedience like you did in page 5-7 of your book. love, hope and obedience may change under grace and debt, but what cannot change is whether they are a work of a law or not.

R. Sungenis: "Works of the law" is a phrase Paul uses only with refernce to work done under the law. The phrase is used seven times in the New Testament, always in the same sense, that is, work done under law, not grace.

For example, if I told you can paint the airplane blue in the air, but not on the ground, I am not saying that blue becomes green in the air. Blue remains blue and works of the law remain works of the law. Therefore, when you say that paul in romans 3.28 is using faith to mean a mental assent to trusting in God you are saying that paul teaches faith alone in romans 3.28. When i ask you to show me anything that can be added to faith that is not a work of a law, you cannot add love, hope, and obedience because under grace OR law, they remain what they are, namely love, hope and obedience.


R. Sungenis: No, that's not how it works, or how I explained it to you. Love, hope, obedience, work, etc, are general terms for human actions. Depending on our relationship with God, they will be done and categorized either under grace or under law. If under grace, they are rewarded with salvation; if under law then they are demanding payment, and therefore will be rejected.


Question 37- Questions on the Hoge/Sungenis debate

Feast of St. Nicholas of Tolentino
Dear Mr. Sungenis,
I read with fascination and deep interest, your “dialogue” with Mr. Hoge re geocentrism. I am by no means hostile to your view but am still searching for the truth.

To help you with some feed back, I wanted to give you my impression of these two dialogues now on your website, so that you could better know what questions your other readers might be having too.

First and least important to the pursuit of truth: it seems to me that the admissions of the modern physicists re the fact that each theory equally explains the appearances is true but I was under the impression that they referred only to the theory of the movements without regard to explaining the causes of the movement. Thus, they would never say that they merely prefer the heliocentric model but both have equal causal explanations. It is my impression that they would say that the geocentric model is greatly inferior when considering how the heavens actually move based on the forces acting upon the universe. Your comments?

R. Sungenis: "They" don't know what causes the forces. They don't know what causes gravity or inertia, the two most important forces in the universe. All they have are mathematical formulas that show bodies are interacting in precise ways.

Second, if there were huge masses opposite the sun but at a huge distance from the earth, to counterbalance the gravitational pull of the sun upon the earth, why would those huge masses at a huge distance not greatly skew the center of mass of the universe? That is, at the huge distance (whatever it is) at which the masses are, which counterbalance the sun’s gravitational pull on the nearby earth, this would greatly move the center of mass away from the sun (and earth). In other words, it seems to me that the earth cannot be at both the center of mass of the universe and at the same time be at a gravitational balance point if the earth is near a large gravitational pull such as exerted from the direction of the sun. Your comments?

R. Sungenis: First of all, you're assuming that the sun has a tremendous gravity pull. We don't know that unless we know what gravity is. Second, the universe is not isotropic with regard to its distribution of stars. As such it could have easily been designed to have different forces in different locations to compensate for the different positions of the sun.

Third: I did not see that you replied to Mr. Hoge about why we don’t SEE any movements in the heavens shifting mass to counterbalance the sun’s change of position with respect to the earth. Your comments? Even if we assume these massive bodies were black and not seen, what sort of movement would they have and what would be the geocentric theory’s explanation of the cause of this movement?

R. Sungenis: Already noted above.

Fourth: I read your interchange in as thoughtful a manner as I could, but I do not know what Newton’s bucket experiment is. What is it? My reading of the Principia was over 20 years ago….

R. Sungenis: Newton spun a bucket with water in it. After a few seconds, the water begins spinning at the same rate as the bucket. As it spins, the water curves up the side of the bucket, thus, some force is making the water concave. If you stop the bucket from spinning, the water continues spinning and the water surface remains concave for some time afterward. Question: if it can't be the bucket which is making the water concave, what is? It can't be the earth, because the bucket is on the earth. It can't be the bucket, because the bucket has stopped. The only other answer is something away from the earth.

Fifth: What would be the explanatory cause of the sun’s orbit in a helix?

R. Sungenis: The same the causes the universe to wobble and precess -- an uneven distribution of matter.

Ever since going through Ptolemy and Copernicus myself in the early 1980s, I have appreciated your statement that both models can equally explain the appearances. However, regarding the true way these bodies actually move, we need to actually examine and attribute causes, it seems to me, of these movements.

Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ, King of Nations!

John Pfeiffer

R. Sungenis: Understood. As I said, "they" don't have explanations for the cause of the forces. We do. The major force is the angular momentum of a spinning universe.


Question 38- Justification, Part XI

well, Bob, you write in your book, "works or works of the law are contractual terms connoting an impersonal employee/employer relationship." (page 17). Then when you get to James you write, "It is not only to advance the truth that works justify an individual....." (page 167). Funny, didn't you just say that "works" is a contractual term? I mean, Bob, I could go on forever with your contradiction.

R. Sungenis: There is no contradiction, Todd. You don't see the words "works of the law" on page 167, do you? That is because the whole thrust of page 167 is that James is speaking about works done under grace, not law. As for "works," it, in itself, is not contractual. It is the system in which the work is done that can be contractual or personal. Work is work, remember?


Question 39- Justification, Part XII

Paul says "for it is not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law who will be justified," Paul clearly places obedience, love, etc., on the law side. please take a moment and try to understand your dilemma, because I don't think you see it yet . R. Sungenis: Yes, and that is what I have said and written.


R. Sungenis: There is no dilemma, Todd. The only dilemma is the one you're trying to create to escape the inevitable. There is no dilemma because obedience to the law does not mean one is under the law. As Christians, we obey the law because, as St. Paul said, "it is good, righteous and holy" (Romans 7:12; 13:9-10). Once we have repented of our sins and accepted God's grace, we obey the law within God's grace, and He rewards us for that obedience. This is precisely why I told you to look at the context of Romans 2:4-5, and stop taking Romans 2:13 out of its context. Yes, and that is what I have said and written.

Thank you for your contributions, Todd. You are giving us a wonderful opportunity to explain and clarify these issue for all interested parties.


Question 40- Karl Keating


I know its none of my business, but I checked out this link keating-genisis-print.htm.

Wow, an article like that surely took you to infamous heights. It was truly well composed and organized. I personally am not a young earth advocate, but I really liked the article. My concern is what the deal with Keating is. I guess I never was truly aware of his ...."deal" is the only word that comes to mind. I mean I was recently discussing such things with someone online, and they told me that they didn't want to hear Keating's name. I had to ask why, and apparently there was a Catholic Apologist that worked for Keating in the early 1990's...I think. His name was Gerry Matics (please forgive the spelling). I don't know much of the story, all my friend told me that there was some bitterness towards Matics from Keating and that Karl was publicly denouncing the apologetical efforts of Gerry.

My friend was very passionate about her dislike of Keating. It seemed very odd to me because I had never before witness such behavior in this person.

Anyway, in recent months as I have been chatting at the Catholic Answers forums, I have noticed that many of the participants, including Keating, imbibe in some of the harshest "acid rhetoric" I have ever encountered. Wo be to the one who disagrees with Catholic Answers.

I just had to write you about this.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Yours in Christ Jesus,


R. Sungenis: Thom, Karl Keating will certainly not get my vote for the best Catholic Christian of the year. That is all I can say, otherwise I may fall into sin just talking about him.


Question 41- Justification, Part XIII

just so we are clear: love, hope and obedience are not law terms, they are human actions. and when james uses the term "works" he is not refering to works of the law, although you just quoted paul as saying that the law is righteous and holy, but rather works of obedience to the law under grace, "Once we have repented of our sins and accepted God's grace, we obey the law within God's grace, and He rewards us for that obedience." you just keep telling me that love, hope, and obedience are law terms, although you deny it.

R. Sungenis: No, you got it wrong, Todd. I didn't say that love, hope and obedience are law terms. I said they are human actions. I said God's law's are good, righteous and holy, in and of themselves.

Here's what you need to understand: It is the "system of law," the contract, the old covenant, the legal framework, or whatever you want to call it, that cannot be the basis upon which someone is justified.


Question 42- Geocentrism According to the Fathers

Dear Robert,

Thank you for all your work at CAI. I sent you an e-mail which was rather lengthy, so i wanted to simplify my request. I have searched through my extremely limited recourses on the writings of the Fathers, and I can't find references to Geocentricity. Can you provide references where the Fathers state unequivocally that the Earth is the center of the Universe? thanks and God bless,


R. Sungenis: Most of the references are going to be related to the specific verses that teach Geocentrism. For example, Joshua 10:11-14 is a big one with the Fathers. If you look up what they said about the verse, they are unanimous that it taught geocentrism/geostatism. Other than that, there are various other quotes from the Fathers on the issue. I have a long list of them, but I am saving them for my book, Galileo Was Wrong.


Question 43- Interpretation of 'nakedness of your father' in Gen. 9:22

Please review the attachment and respond. I depend upon your work a great deal and much appreciate it. Thank you for your accepting the responsibility for this career. God be with you.


"Scott Hahn depends upon the interpretation of the expression, "the nakedness of your father," found in the RSB, JB and Torah editions by relating the expression found in Genesis 9:22, to the same expression in both Leviticus 18:6 and 20:11 in order to correctly understand what act Ham committed. The context of the expression in Leviticus reveals the basis of Hahn's interpretation. He then uses Genesis 49:3-4 and 1 Kings:13-25 to divine why Ham should so act. Hahn asserts Ham is stealing his brother Shem's lawful inheritance before their father Noah has died. There is nothing in the commentaries I can find that asserts it was customary for the inheritor to claim possession of the former patriarch's power and wealth by engaging in sexual intercourse with one of the wives or concubines of the former patriarch. However, there appears to be two stories (witnesses) for this interpretation of Ham's behavior. In Genesiss 49, Reuben, son of Jacob and in 1 Kings 2, Adonijah, son of David are asserted attempting the same thing but without success.

Of course, there is no explanation offered why neither Noah nor Shem offered any protest. It makes sense that Noah should curse the result of Ham's act, Caanan, rather than Ham. Its interesting that Shem's inheritance, the land named for Ham's son Caanan, is ultimately given to Shem's descendants at the Caananites cost, the evident result of Noah's curse. The whole story is very compelling but it depends upon a) interpretation of the phrase, "the nakedness of your father" and b) the alleged custom of claiming the inheritance by sexual act with the wife or concubine of the former patriarch. How can these matters be clarified?"

R. Sungenis: They can be clarified by not "reading into" the Hebrew expression. Granted "uncovering the nakedness" can indeed refer to sexual intercourse, but the problem is that sexual intercourse is not the ONLY interpretation. And that was made clear by the fact that the Hebrew has a special phrase for sexual intercourse ("lying with semen") when it wants to limit the act ONLY to sexual intercourse. The major problem, of course, is that Genesis 9 says nothing about Noah's wife. The text is clear, from the use of the specific Hebrew words, that the nakedness was Noah's, not anyone else's.

Some of these translations think they know better than the original languages. This is why it is imperative to translate the words as they appear and not by what we think the author is trying to say. This is precisely why Jerome's Vulgate is so good, because Jerome took no liberties with the Hebrew or Greek text, but translated faithfully, word-for-word, what he saw in the original.

Another case in point for demonstration purposes in translating is 1 Cor 7:1. The literal translations will render it as "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman." (KJV, ASV, DR, RSV, NASB, NRSV, NJB, NAB)

But some change it to: "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." (NIV, NLT).

The Greek word is "haptomai" which literally means "touch," but can also be used in the context of sexual intercourse or even marriage. So the translator has to make a decision: Does he interpret the word literally as given, or does he interpret the word to what he thinks St. Paul is saying? Well, if he interprets it as sexual intercourse or marriage, then he eliminates mere touching as a possible meaning. Considering the excitement that can come to a man by the mere touch of a woman, what translator would want to be caught sanctioning a man to touch a woman?

Sometimes this distinction is very important, as we know, for example, from the story of the Garden of Eden. "Touch" is an important word, since it was distinguished from "eating" the fruit (cf. Gen 2:16-17; 3:3). Likewise, the Israelites were told not even to "touch" the mountain that Moses walked upon (Ex 19:12-13). There are many of these kinds of distinctions in Scripture.

As for Genesis 49:3-4, this is another instance of Hahn reading into the passage what he wants to see. So Reuben went up to his father's bed, and perhaps he seduced his mother. So what? Where is this interpreted as Reuben seeking to take over his father's power and wealth? All it tells us is that the sin of incest is as old as the hills. St. Paul had to deal with it in the New Testament as well (1 Cor 5:1-7). In fact, by the very fact that Hahn cannot show us one instance in Scripture where raiding the harem results in a usurpation of reign means that he has no proof for his thesis.

As for Adonijah in 1 Kings 2:19f or Absolom in 2 Sam 16:21f, the text is clear here that these two men were seeking to take David's nurse and rape his concubines, respectively. We don't have to read between the lines. But making a connection between these texts and the texts dealing with Noah and Ham is pure speculation. David was in the throes of political anarchy because of one very important fact: Adonijah and Absolom are fulfilling the judgment God pronounced on David that his concubines would be raped by his next of kin. This was due to the sin of murder and adultery that David committed in the Bathsheba/Uriah affair (2 Samuel 12:10-12). It was fulfilled to the exact prediction of God.


Question 44- Pre-Resurrection Baptisms

Robert, in a question regarding whether the baptisms in John 4:2 were efficacious, you said:

"Yes, the baptism of Jesus performed by his disciples in John 4:2 was efficacious toward salvation, whereas the baptism of John was not. That Jesus' baptism was efficacious in John 4:2 is the very reason he told Nicodemus in John 3:5 that he had to be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven, and it is why the Council of Trent can use John 3:5 as proof of the necessity of Baptism, even though, technically speaking, Jesus said those things on the Old Testament side of the cross."

This is your opinion, and it is certainly an acceptable one. But no where does the Church officially teach that these baptisms were efficacious for salvation. It is just as plausible to conclude that they were not, and that these people would have to be re-baptized. Jesus may very well be describing only what will be required in the future, especially since He had not yet sent the Holy Ghost. We also do not learn of the Trinitarian formula until post-Resurrection. My point here is that you seem to be certain about your answer, but nothing in Catholic teaching makes it so certain.

Trent uses John 3:5 as a proof for the necessity of water baptism, but this does not mean that the pre-cross baptisms were efficacious for salvation. It just means that one must be born of water and Spirit to be saved.

You also said:

"The Church understands these moments in Jesus' ministry as transition periods and as a precursor to what would take place formally and officially after He died. It is the same reason that Jesus could institute all the rest of our New Testament sacraments even though He was technically on the Old Testament side of the cross (e.g., Confession in John 20:23; Eucharist in Luke 22:22, etc).

There is no proof that Jesus instituted all (or any) sacraments on the Old Testament side of the cross. Yes, He could have. But it is equally plausible, and maybe even more plausible, that He did not, since He had not yet sent the Holy Ghost who brings about the efficacy of the sacraments. As I said, Christ gave the formula for baptism after His Resurrection. Also, notwithstanding what you wrote above, Christ gave the power to administer confession to the apostles after the Resurrection. I would even say that the institution of the Eucharist was given, not on the Old Testament side of the cross, but at the very moment Christ inaugurated the New Testament, since the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice of the cross are one and the same sacrifice. This is why at the institution of the Eucharist Christ uses the phrase "New Covenant" for the first time.

I don't want to be trite, but the answer is not as simple as you have made it appear.
God bless.

John Salza

R. Sungenis: John, thank you for you commentary on my answer. Although I understand your objections, I maintain the following:

1) Jesus did, indeed, institute all of the sacraments, according to Church teaching. Paragraph 1114 of the Catechism says "‘Adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consensus...of the Fathers,' we profess that ‘the sacraments of the new law were...all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord.'"

The Council of Trent, Canon 1 on the Sacrament in General states: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or that there are more or less than seven...or even that anyone of these seven is not truly and strictly speaking a sacrament, let him be anathema." (Denz 844).

2) The Council of Trent distinguished between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus, saying, "If anyone shall say that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ, let him be anathema." Since the baptisms of Christ in John 4:2 were not the baptism of John but were indeed a baptism performed by Christ, through his disciples, then the distinction of Trent holds here. To say that a baptism performed by Christ is not efficacious would amount to imputing to Christ a function without substance.

This is why the Catechism goes on to say, in reference to His institution of the Sacraments, in para 1115: "Jesus' words and actions during his hidden life and public ministry were already salvific, for they anticipated the power of his Paschal mystery."

3) That the baptism of Christ in John 4:2 was efficacious toward salvation, and the prototype of baptism in the New Testament, is supported by the fact that the other sacraments instituted by Christ before His death were also efficacious.

For example, when Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist by saying "This is my body..." the bread was, at that time, transubstantiated into His flesh, and the wine into His blood. The apostles partook of the first Eucharist at that time.

In the same way, when Jesus said in John 20:23 "Receive the Holy Spirit," the Holy Spirit, at that time, came upon the apostles. Although there would be a formal inauguration of these same sacraments after Jesus rose from the dead, this does not discount the fact that they were efficacious when Jesus uttered the sacramental words.

4) There is nothing in the text to suggest that the Trinitarian formula was not used in John 4:2. Matthew 28:18-19 was merely the final directive of Jesus to administer baptism, but it does not mean that it was only after then that such a baptism would be administered.

5) Further confirmation that a "baptism in the name of Jesus" was understood as a legitimate baptism is noted in the distinction between the baptism of John and being baptized in the "name of Jesus" in Acts 19:1-5, the latter being accepted as the final baptism of the Ephesians.


Question 45- Can Catholics Vote for Bush?

Dear Michael (Forrest) ,
I have frequently run across these specific criticisms of Pres. Bush. If you have time, would you read them carefully and respond? It may be of some interest to your readers. God's blessings.

In Jesus, Mary & Joseph,

Michael Langlais

Bush Backs Private Security Firm Implicated in Child Prostitution
by Michael A. Hoffman II

October 12, 2004 -- What do Christian voters have to say concerning the Bush administration's involvement in child prostitution?

President Bush has awarded security contracts in Afghanistan for the protection of US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, to DynCorp, which is owned by the Texas-based CSC corporation.

DynCorp is a private security firm whose employees hired child prostitutes while working in Bosnia a few years ago. Rather than face local justice or courts-martial, DynCorp shielded the perpetrators and sent them back to the U.S. where they are protected from prosecution and punishment.

DynCorp employee Ben Johnston lost his job for speaking out concerning DynCorp and child prostitution. Johnston later told Congress, "DynCorp is the worst diplomat our country could ever want overseas," yet "committed Christian" George W. Bush continues to award his pedophile Texas buddies lucrative contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by the Constitution Party: Peroutka for President

(Note a second article accused Bush of actually supporting everything from the homosexual agenda to abortion)

M. Forrest:
I have read these complaints and many others like them. They are not completely without merit. In fact, Bob Sungenis and I recently co-wrote a piece on this issue that will appear in The Remnant's next issue. We agree there are limits to making moral compromises and we may be fast approaching those limits.
However, a few questions are not answered by this first accusation (regarding Dyncorp) : 1) Where are the facts that we can independently verify? 2) Are they claiming that Bush was fully aware of this situation, if in fact it did exist, and consciously chose to support this company regardless? It is one thing to be unaware of such a thing, it is another to consciously sanction it. While it is no doubt very bad, if completely true, it is naive and unfair to argue that a president should know every detail about these kinds of situations. I believe it is humanly impossible. 3) If one were to insist on only doing business with companies that haven't done or supported something outrageous, we would basically lead an Amish life. Most every company out there right now supports institutionalized sodomy, the butchering of unborn children, contraception, pornography etc. Drugs? Forget about them. Just about all drug companies have their hand in something totally unacceptable. Phones? Verizon, ATT, MCI, Sprint and the rest also have the same problem. And if you go to a third party retailer, say, like Siena or Lifeline, do you avoid the problem? Not exactly. My understanding is that these companies, while ethical and moral themselves, do not own the phone lines and have to pay fees to the big guys who do in order to use them.
And again, while I may like the Constitution Party personally, they have ZERO chance of winning. This is a simple fact. A vote for them is clearly at the service of John Kerry and all liberal Democrats. And as imperfect as GWB is, on the pressing moral issues of the day, he would either maintain the legislative status quo (where it is currently reasonably acceptable....federal support only for adult stem cell testing, against cloning, etc) or move the legislative status quo in a more positive direction (abortion, homosexual marriage). He has also shown an openness to arguments from Catholic moral teaching. John Kerry would move ALL of the most serious moral issues of the day from the status quo to a WORSE position. Furthermore, the fact that he touts himself as Catholic is even more scandalous and detrimental.
I will say this, however. If the American bishops led in the way that they could , they could potentially tell all Catholics that they may NOT vote for anyone who sanctions ANYTHING that the Church has clearly deemed morally essential. And if they were serious, and actually enforced it, and taught clearly (rather than being a slave to 501(c)3 status....i.e. money) then Catholics could potentially change the dynamic and make parties like the Constitution Party actually viable. (Yet, where does the Constitution Party stand on contraception? Divorce and Remarriage? Pornography? etc, etc. I'm not sure.......)
Unfortunately, such is not the case. Individual Catholics must deal with the current reality. If those who are faithfully Catholic abstain or vote for the Constitution Party, all this will accomplish is the election of an arguably more evil candidate than Bill Clinton (which is really saying something!). While I deeply respect a Catholic's right to make such a choice, and would never accuse such a one of sin or anything approaching it, I consider it to be imprudent. I feel for the Constitution Party and would like them to succeed, eventually (or someone like them) . But timing is everything, and now is simply not their time ....the reality is plain enough to see. Every vote is precious, we saw what happened in the 2000 election.
Let's pray that our bishops, or the Holy Father, take a strong lead in the near future. Let us also work tirelessly in between elections so that we have better choices next time! We can never accept the status quo, as though George Bush and others like him are the "best we can do". This would be a grave, grave error. We must use wisdom, the carrot and the stick when necessary to move candidates away from a culture of perversity and death to one of chastity and life.

God bless,
Catholic Apologetics International
Personnel Director


Question 46- Jim McCarthy and the "Catholicism In Crisis" Video

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

I have recently read your conversion story in Sruprised by
truth. Thank you for contributing to a very excellent

My attention was caught by the mention of James G.
McCarthy's video. I am certain that this is the same
video that my mother gave me to read as I was choosing to
enter the Catholic Church. I am curious as to what, if
any, results have come of your conversations with Mr.
McCarthy and if he has had any change of heart. If you
are still discussing with him, I am willing to pray for
his heart and mind to be open to the Truth.

God Bless you in your ministry,
Yvonne Sampson
Dimondale, MI

R. Sungenis:Yvonne, Mr. McCarthy is about the most vehement anti-Catholic I have ever come across. The last time I saw him was in 1992 in my living room in Oakland California in which he stayed two hours to try to convince me not to become a Catholic. We dealt mostly with the idea of sola scriptura. After the two hours he said: "Well, I see this is going nowhere," and proceeded to find his way out the door. The last attempt at contacting him was about in 1996-1997 when I sent him a letter to his home in San Leandro California, whereupon I received the letter back from the postmaster a few weeks later with a notice on it that said "Refused: Return to Sender." As far as I know, he is still as anti-Catholic as he was before. I and a few friends had actually caught a blatant fabrication in his video and wrote to him about it. He was forced to redo the video at considerable expense to himself. Gary Michuta has recently written a book titled "The Gospel According to James McCarthy" that you might be interested in reading.


Question 47- Is it Infallible When a Pope Declares Someone a Saint?

Dear Sirs,

When a pope declares someone a saint that does mean that they are infallibly declared to be in heaven? Also is it possible that some popes made mistakes in declaring some person's to be a saint.

For example when Mother Teresa becomes a saint, is this really going to be a good thing for the church? Ok, admitedly she did many virtous things, but she said many herectical things as well, particularly on the salvation of those from other religions.

Therefore what is infallible when a pope declares someone a saint?


R. Sungenis: Yes, when a pope declares someone a saint it is infallible. Mother Teresa's mistaken notions of who will be saved will not forbid her from becoming a saint. Being a saint does not mean one is sinless or right on all doctrine; it means one had devoted his/her life to God in an extraordinary way. St. Catherine became a saint, but she had some doctrinal problems as well.


Question 48- Rosary at Mass and Youth 2000

Dear Sir,

I was wondering what you think of praying the rosary before the blessed sacrament? I have heard people say that this is wrong, but Youth 2000 do this in their retreats often.

What do you think of Youth 2000, are they doing a good job of leading young people closer to God. Many young people seem to be going on their retreats.



R. Sungenis:There is no time in which prayer is not good, even at Mass. As for Youth 2000, they need to get back to our traditional faith.


Question 49- Sola Eclesia and James White

Dear Sir,

I am really confused about certain things. How can the church declare for example that is a mortal sin to go to a protestant church or read a protestant bible in the baltimore catechism and now all of a sudden it isnt a sin anymore?

Or another example, it used to be definite mortal sin for someone who commited sucide. Now the church says that we should now consider all the factors before making such pronoucements and hence a funeral could be given to such a person.

But isnt this ludicrous? A form of Sola Eclessia as James White calls it? If this is taken to its logical conclusion doesnt this mean that God changes his mind on what is a sin and what isnt according to the way that that Catholic Church sees fit?

I am writing this because I have heard this argumentation come from James White and wonder how us Catholic's should respond to this.

Kind regards,


R. Sungenis: The Church can change its disciplines, but it will never change its dogma. It used to be a sin to eat meat on Friday, but that is no longer the case, as long as some other act of good will is performed. In the same way, in Acts 15 it was declared by Peter and the Apostles and Bishops to be against Church teaching to eat meat offered to idols, and therefore it would have been a sin. But later in 1 Corinthians 8, 10 and Romans 14, St. Paul relaxed that discipline, stating that it was acceptable to eat meat offered to idols, as long as it was not done in front of a weak brother who might fall into sin. The same principle applies to the cases you list above. The only question remaining is whether changning the disciplines is a wise thing to do. If the Church finds out they are not wise, she can restore them the way they were before. As for suicide, the Church has always had conditions put on the severity of it. That is nothing new in Church teaching.

As for James White, stay away from him. He is the son of the father of lies (John 8:44).


Question 50- Question About Papal Audience


I first want to thank you for the personal assistance
you gave me a few years ago in responding to some
Protestants' objections to Catholicism.

This inquiry is a little different. I am planning a
trip to Rome next March with my family and would like
to try to arrange or least attempt to arrange an
audience with the Pope. I know how to arrange tickets
to the regular Wednesday audience, but how do arrange
the chance to shake the hand of the Pope like you did?
That would be a thrill for my family and would be a
real highlight of our trip to the Vatican .... but I
don't know where or with whom to get started.

Thanks again,

R. Sungenis: Martin, that is not as easy as it looks. You have to know someone who knows the pope or his secretary, or you have to be a special group that has made pre-arrangements to visit with the pope as a group. I would suggest writing to the Vatican and asking them. Or perhaps you might want to contact our papal nuncio's office in Washington to see what they recommend. Sorry I can't be of more help.


Question 51- Voting for a Mason?

Mr. Sungenis,

I saw that Mr. Forrest, in his answer to whether we can vote for Bush, neglects to mention that both he and Kerry are part of the Masonic Order of Skull and Bones. How can we, in good conscience, elect another Mason? So many Presidents have been Masons, and it seems to get worse all the time, with another Mason elected. The choice between Bush and Kerry is just 2 sides of the same coin. Sure, Bush seems more favorable to pro-life and banning gay marriages, but he's still a liberal at heart. Making exceptions to abortion for rape and the life of the mother doesn't seem to have a big effect on the rate of abortions per year. Also, Laura Bush seems to be definitely influencing her husband's policies, seeing that she is pro-choice. I understand Mr. Forrest's argument, but the "lesser of two evils" is still evil, particularly in regard to Freemasonry.

Paul D.

R. Sungenis: Paul, I'm going to let Mr. Forrest answer this question for you. I have sent him a copy of your question.

Dear Paul,
As we are seeing in these days especially, labels do not necessarily mean much. I will defer to St. James: show me your faith, and I'll show you my works. Kerry is a Catholic who acts like a Mason (or worse) . Bush is a Mason who acts more like a Catholic. Clearly, if Bush is still a Mason, he is as much a Mason as Kerry is a Catholic. I know many individuals that consider these groups as social clubs and nothing more (again, including Kerry and those like him, apparently). While these groups espouse things that are clearly evil and wrong, one's objective moral culpability is not so easily determined (and here I am obviously NOT referring to the Catholic Church and John Kerry, but only groups like the Masons).
Additionally, remember that Bush underwent a serious change of course in his life. People can be involved in many things, especially when they are young, only to move away from them when they mature (or even later in life). He publicly expresses his faith in Jesus Christ while continuing to give serious, practical evidence of this belief. And while Catholics know that he is short of the fullness of true Catholic faith, certainly, this is not the mark of a practicing Mason.
Regarding Laura Bush, even that appears to have changed. She has indicated a change of heart on the abortion issue, especially as her husband is attacked for supporting the right to life.
Don't misunderstand me. Bush is hardly perfect and I would love someone like Peroutka to actually be a viable candidate. Yet, even Peroutka hasn't addressed issues that are equally evil like divorce and remarriage, contraception, etc. While there is a danger of compromising too much, for too little gain, there is also a danger in allowing perfectionism to paralyze us, to render us impotent in the ongoing struggle. The difficulty is in the discernment of which is the case.
However, I disagree with you that Kerry and Bush are basically the same from a Catholic perspective. On the critical moral issues that are "up for grabs" in our day, Bush would move things in the correct direction. Kerry would move them dramatically in the wrong direction. In my opinion, Archbishop Burke has written well on this particular aspect recently (moving issues in the right direction, even if the ultimate target intended is not perfect, vs. moving them in the entirely wrong and evil direction).
So, while I genuinely respect and honor one's right to vote for Peroutka (or a "write-in") and acknowledge that this could possibly be better "in God's eyes", I maintain that voting for Bush is a very valid alternative under the current circumstances and may also be the wiser choice "in God's eyes". Personally, I favor the latter, but this is my personal opinion. This is clearly a prudential judgment, not one of black and white doctrine and dogma. We really could use the guidance of the Pope. But that does not appear to be likely any time soon.

God bless,
Michael Forrest
Personnel Director

P.S. Let me provide you with information on all the practical things Bush has done etc. to save innocent lives:

List of President Bush's pro-life efforts & accomplishments From Fr. Peter West (Priests for Life):

Below is a list of President Bush's pro-life efforts and accomplishments in
regard to protecting children in the womb and promoting the sanctity of
life. I include some accomplishments in other areas but mostly focus on his
pro-life record. This list is by no means comprehensive. When considering
other issues much more could be added to the list of positive things that
Bush has done since he has been in office.

I started to compile this list shortly after the President was inaugurated
after hearing from many, who consider themselves pro-life, that Bush was not
really pro-life. I disagreed and began compiling this list. I had no idea
when I started that it would be so long.

Some may ask if President Bush is so pro-life why hasn't abortion ended.
President Bush has not had an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court
Justice. Also, in practically every effort to protect the unborn President
Bush has been opposed mostly by pro-abortion Democrats.

Is President Bush perfect? No. Do I agree with him on everything? No. But I
look at his overall record and consider the alternative. Senator Kerry is a
pro-abortion extremist. He has pledged to only appoint pro-abortion judges
to the Supreme Court who will uphold Roe vs. Wade.

I plan to vote for President Bush for re-election and I hope you will do the

Fr. Peter West

January 22, 2001 President Bush Reinstates Mexico City Policy (bans use of
U.S. money for organizations that promote abortion overseas)

March 22, 2001 President Bush Helps Dedicate Pope John Paul II Cultural

"The Pope reminds us that while freedom defines our nation, responsibility
must define our lives," the President said. "He challenges us to live up to
our aspirations, to be a fair and just society where all are welcomed, all
are valued, and all are protected. And he is never more eloquent than when
he speaks for a culture of life. The culture of life is a welcoming culture,
never excluding, never dividing, never despairing and always affirming the
goodness of life in all its seasons."

March 28, 2001 Reuters reports "Bush issues abortion rule order, outflanks

April 17, 2001 President Bush Restricts RU-86 Funding and Close White House
Feminist Office

April 24, 2001 Bush Bans Sex Films from Air Force One

April 25, 2001 President Bush appoints Fatherhood proponent

April 30, 2001 Proclamation - National Day of Prayer

May 16, 2001 U.S. House Backs President Bush in Denying Funds to Overseas
Groups That Promote Abortion Legalization

May 17, 2001 Bush Administration Begins Effort to Put Pro-Life Advocates on
International Panels
Source: Washington Post

May 21, 2001 Further Analysis Shows Bush's First Judicial Picks Promising
Source: Pro-Life Infonet

May 26 Bush Overrules Powell on Nominee Appoints Pro-lifer to Important
State Department Post

June 1, 2001 Bush Won't Issue Gay Proclamation, Opts Out of Gay Pride Day
Source: Associated Press

June 21, 2001 Bush Supports Strongest Pro-Life Ban on Human Cloning
Source: Associated Press

July 6, 2001 Bush Administration Awards Abstinence Grants to CPCs, Pro-Life

August 13, 2001 Bush Would Veto Any Funding of Additional ESCR

August 16, 2001 Attorney General John Ashcroft recently warned that less
than 10 % of judges nominated by Bush have even had a hearing before the
Democratically led Senate Judiciary Committee

August 28, 2001 Bush Won't Back Down to the United Nations on Abortion
Source: Reuters

October 15, 2001 Bush Administration Awards Adoption Awareness Grants- HHS
Press Release

November 7, 2001 White House and Lawmakers Fight Pro-Abortion Amendments

November 7, 2001 Democratically Led Senate Attempts to Weaken Pro-Life
Policies Are Blocked by Veto Threats and Pro-Life Lawmakers

December 5, 2001 Bush Selects Pro-Life Ex-Gov to Head Republican Party

December 10, 2002 Changes in the White House (from the Patriot's Herald)

January 31, 2002 Bush Administration Proposes Coverage of Unborn Children in
Health Insurance

February 26, 2002 President Bush's Remarks at St. Luke's Catholic Church

September 27, 2002 Bush Administration Finalizes Coverage of Unborn Child in
Health Insurance

January 18, 2002 Bush Declares Sanctity of Life Day January 20, 2002

January 22, 2002 Remarks By President Bush in Phone Call to March For Life

January 20, 2002 President Bush Seeks Increased Abstinence Funding
Source: Associated Press

January 31, 2002 Bush Administration Classifies Developing Fetus as Unborn
Child Source: Associated Press

States may classify a developing fetus as an "unborn child" eligible for
government health care, the Bush administration said Thursday, giving
low-income women access to prenatal care and bolstering the arguments of
abortion opponents.

February 1, 2002 President Bush has chosen an advocate for the aging who
once worked with Mother Teresa to head his revamped effort to provide
federal funds to religious charities. See the interview with Jim Towey in
Crisis Magazine

February 2, 2002 President Bush's Sincere Appreciation For Prayers Said For

February 26, 2002 The President's Welfare Reform focuses on families,
abstinence and work

March 6, 2002 Bush's National Institute of Health Nominee Supports Complete
Ban on Human Cloning
Source: Washington Post, Baltimore Sun

March 14, 2002 Democratically led Senate quashes Nomination of Pro-Life
Judge Charles Pickering

April 8, 2002 President Bush Will Speak to Pro-Life Leaders Wednesday
Source: National Right to Life News

April 10, 2002 President Bush's Remarks in Opposition to Human Cloning

April 11, 2002 President Bush Calls on Senate to Back Human Cloning Ban

April 11, 2002 UN Decides Against Cairo+10, Fears Bush Administration
Source: Friday Fax

May 2, 2002 Proclamation National Day of Prayer

May 2, 2002 Bush Administration Opposing Abortion at UN Child Conference
Source: Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute

May 23, 2002 Pro-Life Judge D. Brook Smith confirmed for Third Circuit Court
of Appeals

May 26, 2002 Atheist loses bid to halt Bush's faith references

May 31, 2002 Crisis Magazine Editor Evaluates Bush's Relations With U.S.

July 9, 2002 Pro-Abortion Groups Attack Bush Judicial Nominee- Priscilla
Source: Reported by Associated Press

July 22, 2002 Bush Administration Withholds UNFPA Money
Source: Associated Press

July 24, 2002 Bush Announces Initiavtive to Encourage Adoptoin of Children
in Foster Care

July 29, 2002 Bush Inherited a Weak Economy: By January 2001 when Bush took
office Nasdaq tumbled 46% off its peak and the GDP had decelerated to 1.9%
in the quarter just ended from 5.7% just six months earlier.
Source: Editorial in Investors Business Daily

August 5, 2002 Bush Signs Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
Source: National Right to Life Committee

September 17, 2002 NARAL Opposes Michael McConnell's Nomination to the Tenth
Circuit Court Of Appeals
Statement of NARAL President Kate Michelman

October 3, 2002 Democrat-Controlled U.S. Senate Kills Pro-Life Bills Favored
by President Bush and Passed by U.S. House

* The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965), passed by the House on
July 24, 2002, 274-151.

* The Weldon-Stupak-Brownback legislation to ban all human cloning,
including the cloning of human embryos (H.R. 2505, S. 1899), passed by the
House on July 31, 2001, 265-162.

* The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503), a bill to recognize as a
legal victim any unborn child who is injured or killed during commission of
a federal crime, passed by the House on April 26, 2001, 252-172.

* The Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 476), to make it a crime to take a
minor across state lines for a secret abortion, if this abridges her parents
¹ right to be involved under their home-state law, passed by the House on
April 17, 2002, 260-161.

* The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 4691), to prohibit state and
local governments from discriminating against hospitals and other health
care providers for refusing to participate in abortions, passed by the House
on September 25, 2002, 229-189.

October 6, 2002 President Bush Building Strong Pro-Life Record
Source: Boston Globe

October 14, 2002 White House staffers gather for Voluntary Bible Study
Voluntary Meetings
Source: USA Today

October 17, 2002 Germany Attacks Bush Administration Position Against All
Human Cloning
Source: Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute

October 29, 2002 Pro-Abortion Group and Senator Daschle jointly appeal for
pro-abortion Senate- Reported by National Right to Life
Source: Email Sent From NARAL

October 29, 2002 Pro-Abortion Group opposes nomination of Dr. W. David Hager
to chair the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.
Hager is a member groups like Christian Medical Association and Physicians
Resource Council for Focus on the Family Source: California Abortion Rights
Action League

October 30, 2002 Bush Directs Advisory Committee to Protect Human Embryos
Source: Associated Press,Washington Post

October 31, 2002 Pro-Life Groups Applaud Bush Decision on Human Embryos
Source:Cybercast News Service

November 1, 2002 Bush backs away from reproductive health pact
Source: Knight Ridder Newspapers

November 8, 2002 Bush Administration Fights for UN to Oppose All Human
Source: Reuters

November 8, 2002 Bush Right to Oppose Abortion at International Meetings
Source:Population Resource Institute

November 14, 2002 White House Pressures Congress to Keep Military Abortion
Source: Pro-Life Infonet

Novermber 18, 2002 Pro-Abortion Senators May Filibuster Pro-Life Judicial
Source: NY Times, National Review

November 19, 2002 Senate Approves Pro-Life Judicial Nominee
Source:Associated Press

November 19, 2002 Bush Administration Opposition Continues to Derail Fake
UN Cloning Ban
Source: Associated Press

November 21, 2002 Bush Nominee for FDA Panel Says RU 486 Unsafe
Source: Cybercast News Service

November 25, 2002 Abortion Advocates Bash Bush's Pro-Life Foreign Policy
Source: Cybercast News Service

November 26, 2002 Don't Believe the Media Portrayal of Bush as Not Pro-Life
Source: by Paul Weyrich Cybercast News Service

November 27, 2002 Radicals Attack Bush Because of UN Pro-life Stance
Source: Austin Ruse of Friday Fax

December 3, 2002 Ralph Neas of the Pro-Abortion Group People For The
American Way President Bush for Nominating Pro-Life Judges Source: People
For the American Way

December 9, 2002 Bush Administration Cracks Down on Illegally Imported
Abortion Drugs
Source: Associated Press

December 10, 2002 Bush May Nominate Pro-Life Supreme Court, Appeals Court
Source: New York Times, U.S. News and World Report

December 12, 2002 Bush Srongly Condemns Racism While Promoting Faith Based
See the President's Remarks at

December 12, 2002 Congressional Letter Supports Bush Opposition to
International Abortion Advocacy
Source: Pro-Life Infonet

December 15, 2002 UN Population Summit Begins, Bush Administration Battles
Abortion Advocates
Source: Associated Press, Knight Ridder Newspapers

December 17, 2002 Bush Admin. Called 'Heroic' For Opposing Abortion At
Population Summit
Source: Cybercast News Service

December 20, 2002 The chairman of President Bush's bioethics council , Dr.
Leon R. Kass of the University of Chicago, accused Stanford University
today of trying to conceal the true nature of its stem cell research plan.
Source: Associated Press:

December 26, 2002 Bush Admin Appoints Pro-Life Doc to FDA Panel
Source: Associated Press

December 27, 2002 US Attacked for Pro-life Stance at UN Conference in
Source: Friday Fax

December 31, 2002 Abortion Opponent Is Named to Panel On Women¹s Health
Source: Associated Press

January 3, 2003 Pro-Abortion Groups Hope Bush Won't Renominate Owens
Source: Associated Press

Lt Col. Rick Jones HQ USAF/ILMY speaks about meeting Bush at the Pentagon:

January 7, 2003 Bush Renominates Pro-Life Judicial Candidates
Source: Associated Press

Planned Parenthood Attacks Bush on Pro-Life Record
Source: Planned Parenthodd's Website:

January 14, 2003 President Bush Declares Sanctity of Human Life Day
Source: Associated Press Also see:

January 22, 2003 Bush Addresses Pro-Lifers Assembled For March For Life

January 22, 2003 Bush Admin Diverts UNFPA Funds to Maternal Health Programs
Source: Reuters

January 25, 2003 Abortion Advocates Attack Another Bush Pro-Life Judicial
Source: Los Angeles Times

January 27, 2003 Pro-Abortion Feminist Majority Opposes Bush¹s Latest
Pro-Life Woman Judicial Nominee
Source: Feminist Daily News Wire:

January 28, 2003 President Bush Calls for Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion and
Human Cloning in His State of the Union Address Source: Pro-Life Infonet
See also:
"By caring for children who need mentors, and for addicted men and women who
need treatment, we are building a more welcoming society - a culture that
values every life. And in this work we must not overlook the weakest among
us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of birth, and end the
practice of partial-birth abortion. And because no human life should be
started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high
standard for humanity and pass a law against all human cloning."

Source: Press Release from the National Right to Life Committee

January 30, 2003 Pro-Abortion Democrats Block Aid to Women in Afghanistan
Source: Friday Fax

Source: Press release from the U.S. Department of Education

February 1, 2003 Pro-Abortion Groups Urge Filibuster of Bush Judicial
Source: National Right to Life

February 6, 2003 Bush Will Veto Spending Bill That Doesn't Ban Abortion
Source: Washington Times, Washington Post

February 11, 2003 Senate Democrats Say They Can Block Bush Judicial Nominee
Source: Associated Press

February 12, 2003 The new guidelines, part of President Bush's No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, will affect schools across the country.

The guidelines state:Students may express their beliefs about religion in
homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from
discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.
Source: Courier Post Online

Max Lucado with President Bush (Bush says he feels stronger than ever
because of all the people praying for him:

February 17, 2003 Bush may tap California Supreme Court Justice Janice
Rogers Brown, a conservative judge who ruled against affirmative action and
abortion rights, if a spot opens on the U.S. Supreme Court
Source: Newsweek

February 17, 2003 President Bush May Deny AIDS Funding to Pro-Abortion
Source: Associated Press

Why and How the Military Salutes President Bush Source: The Patriot's

February 26, 2003 White House condemns "human embryo farms" amendment
Source: National Right to Life

February 26, 2003 President Bush Urges Congress to Vote for Pro-Life Cloning
Ban Source: Pro-Life Infonet

February 27, 2003 California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
Urges Senators to Oppose Bush's Pro-Life Nominees to U.S. Court of appeals:
Miguel Estrada and Jeffrey Sutton
Source: email from California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League

March 4, 2003 Paige lauds Stanford school-reform plan

Education Secretary Rod Paige yesterday applauded a report by a Stanford
University think thank that calls on federal and state governments to
"explore additional forms of school choice, pushing far beyond the
boundaries of within-district public school choice."
Source: Washington Times

March 5, 2003 Newsweek Profiles Bush as Most Religious President of Recent
Source: Newsweek

March 11, 2003 Bush Administration Issues Statement Supporting
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Source: Pro-Life Infonet

March 13, 2003 Senate G.O.P. Holds Firm as Vote on Abortion Nears
Source: New York Times

March 13, 2003 Senate Passes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban by Wide Margin
Source: Pro-Life Infonet

March 13, 2003 Bush Pro-Life Judicial Nominee Texas Supreme Court Judge
Priscilla Owen May Receive Vote Soon
Source: Associated Press

March 24, 2003 Bush Administration Provides Record Funding for Abstinence
Source: Washington Times

March 20, 2003 Another Bush Pro-Life Judicial Nominee - Carolyn Will Be
Smeared By Liberals
Source: Traditional Values Coalition

March 27, 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee Confirms Bush Pro-Life Judicial
Nomineee - Priscilla Owen
Source: Associated Press

March 31, 2003 California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
Urges Senator Feinstein to Oppose Bush's Pro-Life Nominee to the Court of
the Appeals - Judge Carolyn Kuhl
Source: email from California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League

April 8, 2003 California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
Urges Senators to Oppose Bush Pro-Life Judicial Nomineee - Priscilla Owen
Source: email from California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League

April 12, 2003Touching Story About Bush Praying For Wounded Troops on Visit
to Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C. Source: and

April 10, 2003 Senate Committee Will Vote This Month on Next Bush Pro-Life
Judicial Nominee - Carolyn Kuhl Source: Pro-Life Infonet

April 10, 2003 President Bush Nominates Another Pro-Lifer for Judicial
Spot - Alabama's Pro-Life Attorney General Bill Pryor Source: Mobile

April 15, 2003 God-Free School Zones U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige is
under fire for defending religious freedom OpinionJournal.Com

April 15, 2003 President Cites the "Power of Prayer" in POW Safety
Returning from Camp David on Sunday, President Bush was asked after
gettingoff the helicopter what role faith and prayer had in the rescue of
the POWs and in comforting their families. He said, "A lot of them told me
they had been sustained by prayer, been comforted by the Almighty during
what had to have been very difficult times. They told me that they felt
their prayers had been answered. Prayer is powerful Source:
Presidential Prayer Team []

April 17, 2003 Schumer: Catholics Need Not Apply: Ken Connor President of
Family Research Council Criticizes New York Senator Chuck Schumer for
Opposing Bush's Catholic Pro-Life Judicial Nominees

April 17, 2003 President's Easter Message
For Christians, the life and death of Jesus are the ultimate expressions of
love, and the supreme demonstrations of God's mercy, faithfulness, and
redemption. Since Christ's miraculous Resurrection on Easter, more than
2,000 years ago, Christians have expressed joy and gratitude for this
wondrous sacrifice and for God's promise of freedom for the oppressed,
healing for the brokenhearted, and salvation.
For the full message see:

April 18, 2003 Another Judge Comes Under Attack Summary: Pro-abortion
Democrats now have another Bush judicial target to smear: Leon Holmes.
Source: A Note From Traditional Value Coalition's Executive Director Andrea

April 19, 2003 Bush Admin Allows States to Insure Unborn Children Through
Source: Pro-Life Infonet

April 22, 2003 The Constitution Be Damned: Democrats try to impose a
religious test on judges.
Source: Pro-Life Infonet

April 24, 2003 Bush's Pro-Life Judicial Appointments Need Your Help
Source: Pro-Life Infonet

Over the last few months, the Pro-Life Infonet has reported on several
pro-life nominees President Bush has appointed to various judicial

Some of these nominees have track records of upholding pro-life legislation
or publicizing their view that Roe v. Wade is bad law. Others have pledged
to uphold the rule of law and not legislatie from the bench -- attributes
that call for respecting the right of state legislatures to pass laws that
limit abortion.

Below is an overview of eight judicial nominees that deserve your support
and backgrounds on them and their nominations:

Miguel Estrada -- Nominated for the Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington
D.C., the second highest court unde the Supreme Court and a stepping stone
to a later Supreme Court appointed, Estrada was brought to the Senate floor
earlier this year. He does not believe that the Constitution guarantees a
right to abortion. Some senators are blocking Estrada's confirmation vote
by engaging in a filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN)
failed in four attempts to cut off debate (known as cloture), garnering only
55 of the 60 votes needed. It is unclear whether he whether he will try
again. Tell your Senators to stop the filibuster.

Jeffrey Sutton -- Sutton was nominated for the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals, and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. The
full Senate began consideration of the Sutton nomination before the Easter
recess, but did not vote. They will resume debate on Tuesday, April 29th
and probably vote that same day. The pro-abortion Religious Coalition for
Reproductive Choice joined other organizations in a letter which says, in
part, "Jeffrey Sutton's ... confirmation to a lifetime position on the
federal bench threatens to dismantle the important gains that have been
critical to women's success and we urge you to reject his nomination."

Priscilla Owen -- Nominated for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Owen was
approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in March in a straight party-line
vote. As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Owen frequently voted to uphold
Texas' parental notification statute and refused to allow teen girls to have
abortions without their parents' knowledge. Unable to get opponents to
agree not to filibuster Owen, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has
been indefinite about when he will seek a confirmation vote, but it may be
in early May.

John Roberts -- Roberts was nominated for the Circuit Court of Appeals for
Washington D.C., and was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in
February. As a Justice Department official in the 1990s, he argued that Roe
v. Wade was wrongly decided and actively promoted efforts to get that
decision overturned. In one brief he argued that pro-life protesters
outside abortion businesses did not discriminate against women. He
supported a pro-life measure prohibiting federally-funded family planning
facilities from referring for abortions. The Roberts nomination has not yet
come to the Senate floor, but could come up in May.

Deborah Cook -- Cook was nominated by President Bush for the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals, and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in
February. As an elected justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Cook's candidacy
was endorsed by Ohio Right to Life. Her nomination is expected to come to
the Senate floor in May.

Carolyn Kuhl -- Nominated for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The
Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet to act on her nomination, but is
expected to do so in May. As a Justice Department official in the 1980s
Kuhl aggressively argued for the outright reversal of Roe v. Wade. As an
attorney in private practice in the early 1990s she represented a pro-life
physicians group and argued in support of limiting abortion referrals at
federally-funded family planning facilities.

Charles Pickering -- He has been nominated for the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet brought him in for a
hearing, but is expected to do so in May. He once chaired a national
Republican initiative that approved a plank for the party platform decrying
the Roe v. Wade decision "as an intrusion into the family structure," and
calling for a right-to-life amendment to the constitution. His son Chip
Pickering is a pro-life Congressman from Mississippi.

J. Leon Holmes - Holmes has been nominated for the Federal District Court in
Arkansas. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet acted on his
nomination, but could do so in May. He is a strong pro-life advocate and
the former president of Arkansas Right to Life.

TWO VICTIMS" Source: National Right to Life

April 28, 2003 Pro-Abortion Feminists criticize female court picks
Source: Washington Times:

April 30, 2003 Bush Selects Another Pro-Life Appeals Court Nominee
Extending his streak of picking pro-life advocates, or those willing to
uphold pro-life legislation, for important U.S. Appeals Court positions,
President Bush on Monday nominated Claude Allen to the Richmond-based U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
Source: Washington Post, Richmond Times Dispatch

(Allen helped draft Virginia's parental notification law and supported a
pro-life law requiring abortion facilities to give women information about
abortion's risks and alternatives 24 hours prior to performing an abortion.
Similar laws in other states have significantly reduced the number of

May 1, 2003 Democrat Senators Block Bush's Pro-Life Judicial Picks Source:
Associated Press

May 5, 2003 Senate Approves Pro-Life Judicial Nominee, Continues Filibuster

Judicial nominee Deborah Cook, denied even a hearing let alone a vote by the
previous Democratic-led Senate, won confirmation on Monday from the
Republican-controlled Senate.

Cook was nominated by President Bush for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February.
As an elected justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Cook's candidacy was
endorsed by Ohio Right to Life, and she cast a pro-life vote in one case
that reached the state's top court.

On a largely party-line vote of 66-25, the Senate approved Cook's nearly
two-year-old bid to elevate the Ohio Supreme Court justice to the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The court would handle appeals of
legislation, including pro-life bills, from Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and

Also on Monday, Republicans tried and failed for a fifth time to stop a
Democratic filibuster of another long-stalled judicial nominee, Miguel
Source: Reuters, CBS News

May 19, 2003 Pro-Abortion National Organization of Women Opposes Pro-Life
Bush Judicial Nominee Judge Leon Holmes Source: NOW's

May 5, 2003 Bush Administration Deserves Credit for Abstinence Victory

The White House got personally involved in last week's passage of
pro-abstinence amendments to a global AIDS bill and the result was good news
for pro-life advocates.

Pro-family groups were delighted last week when two abstinence-friendly
amendments were attached to an otherwise disappointing Global AIDS bill. Now
they're finding out what turned the tide: The White House did some
heavy-duty lobbying.
Source: Focus on the Family

May 16, 2003 Senate Will Reconsider Another Pro-Life Judicial Nominee Soon

Republicans plan in coming weeks to take up the nomination of pro-life U.S.
District Court Judge Charles Pickering of Mississippi, who likely faces a
filibuster on the Senate floor by Democrats.

Judge Pickering's nomination to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals was
spiked last year on a party-line vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee,
which was controlled by Democrats at the time. President Bush renominated
him in January.

Pickering once chaired a national Republican initiative that approved a
plank for the party platform decrying the Roe v.
Wade decision "as an intrusion into the family structure," and calling for a
right-to-life amendment to the constitution. His son Chip Pickering is a
pro-life Congressman from Mississippi.
Source: Washington Times

June 12, 2003 Bush Judicial Nominee Pryor Condemns Abortion in Senate

President Bush's latest Appeals Court nominee Bill Pryor told the Senate
Judiciary Committee Wednesday that abortion is "murder" and that the court
case legalizing it is "the worst abomination in the history of
constitutional law." Source: Washington Times

June 12, 2003 The Judicial Nominee Who Wouldn't Back Down - Bill Pryor
Source:Byron York columnist for National Review Online

June 12, 2003 Catholic Bishops' Spokesman Testifies at Presidential
Today the President's Council on Bioethics heard testimony on the values and
principles that ought to govern policy on human embryo research. Richard
Doerflinger, Deputy Director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of
the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, was among the expert
witnesses for the meeting.
Source: Pro-life Infonet

June 12, 2003 Pro-Abortion Groups Create Coalition to Oppose Pro-Life

Nine pro-abortion groups, including NARAL Pro-Choice America and the
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, have formed a joint
not-for-profit organization aimed specifically at opposing a potential
Supreme Court nominee who does not support abortion. Source: Roll
Call, Wall St. Journal

July 20, 2003 Foes Halt Vote on School Vouchers; Democrats Reject Senate's
D.C. Bill
Source: Washington Post

July 21, 2003 Pro-Abortion Democrat Senators Stall Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Source: LifeNews.Com

July 22,2003 Bush Administration Renews Support for Zero UNFPA Funding
Source: LifeNews.Com

July 22, 2003 Bush Administration Signals Zero for UNFPA
Source: Population Research Institute Weekly Briefing

July 23, 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Pryor Nomination,
Filibuster Likely Source: LifeNews.Com

July 27, 2003 Bush Nominates Pro-Life Black Woman to Nation's Second Highest Source: LifeNews.Com

July 29, 2003 Senate Rejects Vote on Owen for Third Time
Washington, DC ( -- For the third time, members of the Senate
rejected an attempt to close off debate and take a vote on one of President
Bush's pro-life judicial nominees.Pro-abortion Senators were able to deny
the 60 votes needed to stop debate on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to
the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals. The 53-43 vote proved, once again,
that a majority would back Owen's confirmation if debate could be stopped.
All Republicans were in favor of the vote to end debate and were joined by
Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) and pro-life Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). Presidential
candidates John Edwards (D-NC), Bob Graham (D-FL), John Kerry (D-MA), and
Joe Lieberman (D-CT) were not present for the vote.
Owen is opposed by abortion advocates because she voted to uphold a Texas
parental notification law that prohibited teenage girls from having
abortions without the involvement of their parents.

July 30, 2003 Senate Votes Against Cloture on Estrada Nomination Source: LifeNews.Com

July 31, 2003 Bill Pryor Becomes Latest Victim of Senate Filibuster Source: LifeNews.Com

July 31, 2003 ADF Special News Alert: Thank You Mr. President for Supporting
Source: Alliance Defense Fund

August 6, 2003 Knights of Columbus Condemns Treatment of Catholic Judicial
Nominees Source: LifeNews.Com

August 6, 2003 Minnesota Plan to Cover Unborn Children Receives Bush
Administration Approval Source:
LifeNews. Com

August 10, 2003 Group Will Spend $75M to Defeat Bush, Elect Pro-Aborts in
2004 Source: LifeNews.Com

Washington, DC ( -- A new political group, funded by
billionaire George Soros and run by a former employee of a leading
pro-abortion organization, plans to spend $75 million in grassroots activism
to target pro-life President George W. Bush for defeat in 2004.

August 10, 2003 Civil Rights Leader Quits NAACP Over Bush Judicial Nominees Source: LifeNews.Com

August 13, 2003 Presidential Commission Discusses Regulation of In Vitro
Fertilization Source: Austin Ruse,
President of the Culture of Life Foundation

August 14, 2003 Catholic Theologian Michael Novak Praises President Bush Source: National Review

August 27, 2003 Bush Administration Defunds AIDS Program Over Abortion
Group's Participation Source:

August 27, 2003 State Department Defunds British Abortion Provider Source:
New York Times

August 29, 2003 State Department Defunds Large Abortion Provider Source:
Friday Fax

August 29, 2003 Bush Orders United States Agency for International
Development to Stop Funding Organizations That Promote Abortion Source:
Copy of Memo From the White House

September 1, 2003 Bush Administration Expands Pro-Life Mexico City Policy Source: LifeNews.Com

September 5, 2003 Bush Orders State Department To Stop Funding Foreign
Abortion Groups Source: Friday Fax

September 5, 2003 Miguel Estrada Withdraws Name From Consideration Source: LifeNews.Com (This shows the
importance of electing pro-life Senators who will vote to end the Democrats
filibuster of President Bush's pro-life judicial nominees.)

September 6, 2003 Pro-Abortion Democratic Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
introduces measure to overturn the Mexico City Policy Reinstituted By
President Bush (The Mexico City Policy prevents our federal tax dollars from
being used to promote abortion overseas.) Source: LifeNews.Com

September 18, 2003 Bush Administration Pursues Total Human Cloning Ban at
U.N. Source: LifeNews.Com

September 28, 2003 Department of Health and Housing Services Gives $100
million in Bonuses to States for Reducing Abortions
HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson today announced the award of $100 million
in bonuses to four states (Maryland, Colorado, Wyoming, Texas), the District
of Columbia and the Virgin Islands for achieving the nation's largest
decreases in out-of-wedlock births between 1998 and 2001. Source:

October 1, 2003 Bush Administration Denies UNFPA Funding Again Source: LifeNews.Com

October 2, 2003 Pickering Nomination Approved by Committee, Moves to Full
Senate Source: LifeNews.Com

October 3, 2003 Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry (D-MA) Says
Bush Judicial Appointments Would Hurt Abortion Rights Source:

October 3, 2003 President Bush Proclaims Oct. 12-18 Marriage Protection Week
President Bush said:
³Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the
continued strength of our societyŠMarriage is a union between a man and a
woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of
marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good
parentsŠResearch has shown that, on average, children raised in households
headed by married parents fare much better than children who grow up in
other family structuresŠWe must support the institution of marriage and help
parents build stronger familiesŠ²
Source: White House

Weapons of Mass Destruction for People with Short Memories!!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line?" - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb. 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb., 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons
of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by
Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy
Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the
cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that
will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President
Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored
the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D,
MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),
Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd
(D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA),
Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct. 10,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm
and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA),
Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
Miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

October 6, 2003 FDA Investigating Holly Patterson's RU 486 Abortion Death Source: LifeNews.Com

October 26, 2003 President Bush's Bioethics Commission Warns of
Human-Animal Babies Source:

November 7, 2003 President Bush Proclaims November National Adoption Month
/releases/2003/11/20031107-12.html Source:
White House

July 23, 2002 President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush announced
a new initiative to increase public awareness and encourage Americans to
consider adoption of children in foster care.

Helping Children and Building Families Through Adoption

President Bush announced a new public service advertising campaign,
featuring First Lady Laura Bush and actor Bruce Willis, to encourage
Americans to adopt children in foster care. The President also tapped Bruce
Willis to serve as a national spokesperson for children in foster care.

The President also announced the creation of the first federal and only
national web site that focuses on waiting children ­ ­
that will reduce the geographic barriers and waiting time needed to connect
children from across the country with adoptive families. In its first year,
it will feature pictures and profiles of over 6,500 children from 46 states
who are available for adoption, as well as a database of approved adoptive
Background on Today¹s Presidential Action

More than 130,000 of the 565,000 American children in foster care, ranging
in age from toddlers to teenagers, are waiting to be adopted. On average,
these children have been in foster care for almost four years. Most of these
children have special needs that limit their ability to be adopted, such as
being part of a sibling group that wishes to stay together, belonging to a
particular ethnic group, or having physical or emotional challenges. These
children are adoptable; in fact, in 2000, over 50,000 children in foster
care were adopted. But recruiting a family that can meet the special needs
of a particular child can be challenging, especially when the right family
may live in a different state or county.

President Bush believes that every child in America deserves to live in a
safe, permanent and loving family. Today, the President announced:

Adoption Public Service Advertisement (PSA): The adoption PSA will feature
the First Lady and actor Bruce Willis. It will also highlight a new website
and toll-free number for interested families to receive adoption information
and be referred to their State adoption specialist. Additionally, President
Bush has asked Bruce Willis to serve as a national spokesperson for children
in foster care.

First Federal Adoption Web Site and Internet Photolisting:,
an Internet adoption photolisting service, will help connect waiting
children from across the country with loving adoptive families. The site
provides prospective adoptive parents with a private, secure place to
communicate interactively with other families and adoption experts -
especially useful for families living in rural areas. Social workers will be
able to follow inquiries from families approved to adopt and respond to them
instantly through the site. AdoptUSKids is an initiative of the Children's
Bureau of the Department of Health and Human Services, and it is currently
operated by the National Adoption Center.
President Bush¹s Commitment to Promoting Adoption

Promoting adoption and supporting families who adopt: On January 17, 2002,
the President signed the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment Act to
help States provide services to promote adoption for children in foster care
and provide post-adoption support to families so that they can stay strong
and their children reach their potential. The President's FY 03 budget
strongly supports the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program with an
increase of more than $130 million over FY 02 levels.

Adoption Tax Credit: The tax relief bill that the President signed last year
permanently extends and increases the adoption tax credit from $5,000 per
child to $10,000 per child for qualified adoption expenses. For special
needs adoptions, it increases the credit from $6,000, for qualified adoption
expenses, to $10,000, regardless of expenses.

October 25, 2003 President Bush Proclaims Protection From Pornography Week
Source: White House

October 28, 2003 President Bush Says Restoring Terri's Feeding Tube Was
Right Decision Source: LifeNews.Com

October 31, 2003 Pro-Abortion [Democratic] Lawmakers Filibuster Pickering
Nomination Source: LifeNews.Com

November 3, 2003 Bush Administration Still Pushing for UN Cloning Ban,
VoteThursday Source: LifeNews.Com

November 5, 2003 President Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of
2003 Source: LifeSite News also see

Priests for Life on Partial-birth Abortion: 'We Have Turned A Corner'

November 5, 2003 Pro-Abortion Groups Start Ad Campaigns Blasting President
Bush Source: LifeNews.Com

November 6, 2003 Democrats Filibuster Pryor Nomination, Judiciary Approves
Brown Source: LifeNews.Com

November 7, 2003 President Bush Shows Strong Pro-Life Beliefs in Private
Meetings Source: LifeNews.Com

November 7, 2003 Pro-Abortion Democratic Senators Again Filibuster
Judicial Nominees. Sen. Majority Leader Frist Announces All Night
Session Next Week to Force Pro-Abortion Democratic Senators to defend
their filibuster. Source: Marie Tasy, Legislative Director of New Jersey
Right to Life

November 7, 2003 President Bush targeted for defeat by one of the richest
men in world George Soros Targets President Bush Source: Marie Tasy,
Legislative Director of New Jersey Right to Life

See also: [Pro-Abortion] Billionaire Soros Overthrows Georgian Gov't - Sets
Sights on Bush & Croatia Source:
See also the Zenit report and the Globe coverage:

Billionaire De-Populationist George Soros Donates $10 Million to Defeat Bush

November 7, 2003 President Bush Proclaims National Adoption Month Source:
White House

November 11, 2003 Bush Administration Seeks to Speed Up Partial-Birth
Abortion Lawsuits Source: LifeNews.Com

November 12, 2003 Senate Will Hold Marathon Debate on Pro-Life Judicial
Nominees Source: LifeNews.Com

November 13, 2003 Senate Debates Pro-Life Judicial Nominees, Bush Demands
Vote Source: LifeNews.Com

November 14, 2003 Millionaire Plans to Spend $12 Million to Defeat Bush in
2004 Source: LifeNews.Com

November 17, 2003 [Colin] Powell reveals he teaches sexual abstinence to

November 18, 2003 Pro-Abortion Groups at UN Criticize Bush Resolution
Promoting Women Source: LifeNews.Com

November 19, 2003 First Lady Laura Bush Backs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

November 25, 2003 The new Health Savings Accounts (HSA) provision included
in the Medicare bill just passed the Senate 54-44 and soon will be signed
by the President. The new law will go into effect January 1, 2004. All 250
million non-elderly Americans will now have access to a Medical Savings
Account, and one that is far more attractive than the Archer MSAs that were
enacted in 1996. Source: Mike O'Dea of CHRISTUS MEDICUS FOUNDATION

November 25, 2003 Discovery of Internal Memos Details Opposition to
Pro-Life Judges
The memo asks senators to oppose former Bush judicial nominee Miguel
Estrada because "he has a minimal paper trail [meaning that nothing has
been unearthed that can be used to question his character], he is Latino,
and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court

November 25, 2003 U.S. economic growth revised up
GDP grew at a blistering 8.2 percent pace in the third quartrer, faster than
originally thought.
Source: CNN Money

December 5, 2003 THE GROWING IRAQI SUCCESS STORY by Rod D. Martin,
Vanguard of the Revolution
One example from the story: "So, too with health care. The Coalition has
delivered more than 22 million vaccination for Iraq's children, while
pharmaceutical distribution has risen from 700 tons in May to 12,000 by
October. All of Iraq's 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open,
and doctors' salaries are more than eight times higher than under Saddam's
Ba'athist regime."

December 5, 2003 Bush Administration Pushes UN to Reconsider Human Cloning
Ban Delay

December 08, 2003 Bush Signs Sweeping Medicare Bill

WASHINGTON ‹ Recognizing the efforts by seniors groups in helping him
deliver a three-year-old campaign promise, President Bush signed a
comprehensive bill Monday that marks the first major overhaul of the nearly
40-year-old federal Medicare program.
"With the Medicare Act of 2003 (search), our government is finally bringing
prescription drug coverage to the seniors of America," Bush said before
signing the 10-year, $395 billion legislation. "With this law, we're giving
older Americans better choices and more control over their health care so
they can receive the modern medical care they deserve."

December 20, 2003 Libya agrees to halt arms programs US, Britain secure
pledge for inspections Libya agrees to halt arms programs
Source: Boston Globe

January 2, 2004 NGO Calls on Pro-abortion Europe to Counter "Christian"
White House Source: Friday Fax

January 7, 2004 Pro-Abortion Group Criticizes Bush's Pro-Life "Christian"
Foreign Policy

January 9, 2004 President Unveils School Choice Incentive Fund
At a meeting this afternoon with leaders of Catholic education, President
Bush said he will call on Congress to establish a $50 million national
choice incentive fund "to help more parents to send their children to the
school that is best for them, no matter what kind of school it is."

The White House transcript of the president's remarks is available at
Source: Council for American Private Education (CAPE)

January 9, 2004 President Bush Celebrates Catholic Education Source: Martin
Gillespie Director of Catholic Outreach Republican National Committee

January 13, 2004 Bush Plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Promotion of Marriage
Source: New York Times

January 16, 2004 President Bush Declares Sunday, January 18, 2004 Sanctity
of Human Life Day Source: New Jersey Right to Life

January 16, 2004 President Bush nominates [pro-life] Charles Pickering to
Federal Bench President Sidesteps Obstructionst U.S. Senators including N.J.
Senators Corzine and Lautenberg Source Associated Press:
Bush installs controversial judge on court
(from New Jersey Right to Life )

January 16, 2004 President Bush Uses Recess Appointment to Confirm
See also: FRC [Family Research Council] Praises Recess Appointment of
Charles Pickering to Federal Bench

January 20, 2004 President Bush Supports the Federal Marriage Amendment in
his State of the Union address
Source: New Jersey Coalition to Defend Marriage

January 21, 2004 Housing Starts Increase Residential construction
activity picked up in December, helping to make all of 2003 the best year
for home builders in a quarter-century and underscoring the critical role
the sector played in the economy's resurgence.

The Commerce Department reported today that housing construction increased
by 1.7 percent last month from November _ ending 2003 on a high note. For
all of last year, the number of housing units that builders broke ground on
totaled 1.85 million, up from 1.70 million in 2002.

The total for 2003 marked the strongest performance since 1978, when housing
construction came to 2.02 million.
Source: Associated Press

January 21, 2004 George Bush Stands Up for Marriage
Source: Alliance Defense Fund

January 21, 2004 President Bush Wants Abstinence Program Funding Tripled
by 2005 Source:

January 22, 2004 President Bush Calls March for Life Participants
"Above all, we must continue with civility and respect to remind our fellow
citizens that all life is sacred and worthy of protection. I know as you
return to your communities you will redouble your efforts to change hearts
and minds, one person at a time. And this is the way we will build a
lasting culture of life, a compassionate society in which every child is
born into a loving family and protected by law."
Source: White House

January 29, 2004 UNFPA Permanently Loses $59 Million
..... For the past two years, the Bush administration has, in fact,
determined that UNFPA supports forced abortions in China, and is therefore
ineligible for US funding. A high ranking congressional staff member told
the Friday Fax that the current bill follows this same procedure, and "since
Kemp-Kasten has not changed, and since UNFPA¹s actions in China have
not changed, we fully expect the administration to take the same action it
has taken for the past two years regarding UNFPA." Source:
Friday Fax

January 29, 2004 Pro-Life Groups Say President Bush's Record Strong,
Deserves Re-Election

February 2, 2004 NRL PAC announces endorsement of President Bush Source:
Press Release issued by the National Right to Life Political Action
Committee For further information, call Laura Echevarria, 202-626-8825,
send e-mail to, or visit the NRLC website at

February 3, 2004 Congress Reallocates UNFPA Money, Abortion Funding
Battle Continues
Citing the UN Population Fund's (UNFPA) failure to convincingly show that
it is not participating or condoning coercive family planning and abortion
programs in China, Congress has permanently reallocated the $56 million
earmarked for the UNFPA over the past two years to other programs.

The money will now go to programs to improve maternal health and combat sex

We commend the Bush Administration for its continued strong enforcement of
the Kemp-Kasten Anti-Coercion law -- a law that was completely disregarded
during the Clinton Administration, Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director
for National Right to Life Committee, told Any agency that
collaborates in China's brutal compulsory abortion program should not
receive U.S. taxpayer funds.

February 4, 2004 Statement by President Bush Regarding the Deplorable
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruling
Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply
troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If
activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only
alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally
necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
Source: White House:

February 9, 2004 Abortion Advocates Ready to Defeat Bush, Support John Kerry

February 10, 2004 Bush's Pro-Life View on Abortion Gives 4% Advantage Over
John Kerry

A new national poll by Rasmussen Reports shows that President Bush gains a
four-point advantage over likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry
because of his pro-life views on abortion.

February 10, 2004 NARAL Launches 25M Fundraising Campaign to Elect Abortion
The pro-abortion group NARAL has launched a campaign to raise $25 million to
defeat pro-life
President George W. Bush and elect pro-abortion candidates to Congress.

February 11, 2004 President Bush Plans to Back Federal Marriage Amendment
Source: Washington

February 11, 2004 Bush Administration Seeks Partial-Birth Abortion Records
to Defend Ban

February 12, 2004 UNESCO Pledges End to Support and Promotion of Abortion
UNESCO¹s Director-General has just issued a memo directing all UNESCO
offices in the world no longer to support or promote abortion in any way,
insisting that abortion is outside the scope of UNESCO¹s mission.

This dramatic policy change started with a report in the Friday Fax last
October 31. That report initiated an internal UNESCO investigation and the
eventual admonishment from the Bush Administration.
Source: Friday Fax

February 13, 2004 Bush repeats support for school vouchers Source:
Associated Press

Source: National Right to Life

February 20, 2004 President Bush Selects Another Pro-Life Judge [William
Pryor] Through Recess Appointment Source:

February 24, 2004 President Bush Backs Gay Marriage Ban Amendment Source:
Associated Press

President Bush will back a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in
an attempt to halt same-sex unions like the thousands that have been allowed
this month in San Francisco, his spokesman said Tuesday.

"He has always strongly believed that marriage is a sacred institution
between a man and a woman," White House press secretary Scott McClellan

February 27,2004 Bush administration criticizes China on religious rights
Source: Catholic News Service

February 27, 2004 Bush Administration Subpoenas More Partial-Birth Abortion

February 2004 Encounter With President Bush at Church

March 1, 2004 Bush Appoints More Pro-Life Bioethics Council Members, Kerry

March 11, 2004 Bush Administration Considering Warning Labels On Condoms
Source: Associated Press

The Bush administration is considering requiring warning labels on condom
packages noting that the contraceptive devices do not protect users from all
sexually transmitted diseases.

March 8, 2004 President Bush's Encounter With Woman at Church

March 11, 2004 Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, a devout
Catholic, spoke via satellite to a crowd of over 500 people at the
Franciscan University of Steubenville

March 13, 2004 Religious, Anti-Abortion Groups Among the Winners as
Abstinence-Only Funding Increases
Source: Associated Press

March 19, 2004 Bush Administration Calls Strong Families Key for
The Bush Administration continues to break new ground at the UN on defending
life, faith, family and national sovereignty. They deserve our thanks,
praise and support, even from those good European pro-lifers who do not
support the American effort in Iraq.

We report today on the public face and voice of the Bush Administration on
family issues at the UN, Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey. She and her team,
including Ann Corkery, are amazing.
Source: Friday Fax

March 23, 2004 Women's Abortion Signs Get Better Reception at President
Bush's Rally
Orlando, FL -- After campaign staffers for Democratic presidential
candidate John Kerry destroyed their signs saying their abortions hurt them,
Rebecca Porter and her friend Cindy decided to try their luck with the signs
at a rally for President George W. Bush. The difference was amazing.
Source: LifeNews

March 26, 2004 Bush, the World Beater: The president¹s economy is the best
out there.
Source: National Review Online

April 1, 2004 President Bush Signs Unborn Victims of Violence Bill That
Kerry Opposed
Source: National Right to Life

April 2, 2004 What Has Gone Right in Iraq

April 2, 2004 Abortion Advocates Complain at UN that Universal Right to
Abortion is Stalled
Abortion advocates met last week to complain that the global advance
for abortion on demand has been stalled because of ongoing opposition from
the Bush Administration and the Catholic Church.
Source: Friday Fax

April 2, 2004 President Bush's Bioethics Council Releases Assisted
Fertility Report
A landmark report issued by the President's Bioethics Council has raised new
questions about the regulation of potentially life-threatening reproductive

April 5, 2004 President Bush Criticized for Abstinence Funding Commitment

April 5, 2004 Unborn Victims Bill Only a Frist Step In Protecting All
Pregnant Women Source:

April 9, 2004 President's Easter Message Source: White House

April 23, 2004 (Pro-Abortion) Magazine Mocks President Bush as Pawn of
(Pro-Life) Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute

April 21, 2004 Vice President Cheney Defends President's Strong Pro-Life at
National Right to Life Awards Dinner

April 26, 2004 Bush Administration Scraps Agency's Plans to Back
Pro-Abortion Conference

Washington, DC ( -- Just one day after a few hundred thousand
abortion advocates gathered in the nation's capital, the Bush administration
is pulling the plug on a federal agency's plan to support an international
conference that is backing abortion.

April 27, 2004 Karen Hughes(Bush's Adviser)Comments About Pro-Abortion

"I think after September 11, the American people are valuing life more and I
think those are the kind of policies the American people can support,
particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really, the
fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we
value every life."

April 29, 2004 Strong Economic Growth Continues in the First Quarter of 2004

March's increase in employment was the largest in almost four years.
308,000 new jobs were created in March - the largest monthly increase since
April 2000 - and 759,000 jobs have been added over the last 7 months.
Additionally, there was a cumulative upward revision of 87,000 jobs for the
previous two months, showing that more jobs were created in January and
February than initially thought.

The household survey puts the increase in employment even higher at 978,000
over the last 7 months.
The national unemployment rate was 5.7% in March - far below its peak of
6.3% in June 2003, and below the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

Over the past year, the unemployment rate has fallen in 44 of the 50 states.
Initial unemployment claims have remained at levels consistent with strong
job growth.

May 3, 2004 Photograph shows President Bush jogging with a serviceman who
lost a leg in Afghanistan.
See photograph at:

May 6, 2004 Concerned Women For America Praises FDA for Rejecting
Morning-After Pill Bid

May 17, 2004 NIH Letter Affirms Bush Position Against Funding Destructive

May 17, 2004 Bush renews call for same-sex marriage ban

May 17, 2004 President Bush Hits Pro-Life Themes in Commencement Address

May 18, 2004 Nerve gas sarin is found in Iraq bomb
Source: Washington Post
(Bush was right about weapons of mass destruction)

I will continue to update this list.


Question 52- Eric Svendsen and Who is my mother?

Dear Robert Sungenis,

Have any Catholic apologists, written any books in response to Eric Svendsen
book: who is my mother? Why have so many protestants endorsed his book if it
is in serious error? What do you think of the book?

I simply write this, because I am fed up of all the taunts we Catholic's
have to put up with, that no one can write a scholarly response to this book.

I hope you debate him someday,


R. Sungenis: Dave, the person who had done the most work on this is John Pacheco of the Catholic Legate. I worked with John on this for a little while, especially regarding the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity. Look up Catholic Legate on your search engine and you'll find it on the Internet. In the meantime, we have several articles on our website concerning the Svendsen issues (or they are waiting to be restored to our new website).


Question 53- What is the Difference btw Baptism of Desire and Universal Salvation?

Can you explain the difference between Baptism of Desire and universal salvation?

R. Sungenis:Yes, there is no such a thing as "Universal Salvation," since Scripture, Tradition and Church dogma are clear that not everyone will be saved. Baptism of Desire (which is more technically phrased in Latin as "Desire of Baptism") is the doctrine that someone can be justified if, without receiving actual water baptism before they die, he/she has desired to receive Baptism in their mind and will. Whether this "desire" must be explicit (verbalized to the Church) or implicit (held in one's conscience only) the Church has not defined as yet.


Question 54- Alpha Course

Dear CAI,

Robert Sungenis once wrote a critique on the Alpha Course and I was wondering
if this is still available on line to read, as I cant find it on the CAI
website anymore?



R. Sungenis: Dave, I am sending a note to my webmaster to put this back up for you.


Question 55- Douay Rheims Updated

Dear CAI,

Is there a complete Douay Rheims bible available today without the archaic
language? I want to use a good bible translation when proclaiming God's
word in the mission work I am involved in, but the Douay Rheims bible I
have seen available would make it very hard for me to preach from, with all
the thou's and thee's and the people would find it hard to follow.

I believe that you are producing a complete Douay bible without the thee's
and thou's, but I need something now to use. If there is nothing else
available, could you tell me when you expect your COMPLETE bible to be ready
for sale.


R. Sungenis: Dave, there is no DR today without the archaic language. Our CASB series won't be complete until about 2017.


Question 56- Pre-Resurrection Baptisms, Part 2

Hi Robert. I found some support for the position that the John 4:2 baptisms were efficacious for salvation. The Catechism of the Council of Trent provides:

Baptism Instituted At Christ's Baptism

"With regard to the former, it is clear that this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord when, having been baptized by John, He gave to water the power of sanctifying. St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Augustine · testify that to water was then. imparted the power of regenerating to spiritual life. In another place St. Augustine says: From the moment that Christ is immersed in water, water washes away all sins. And again: The Lord is baptized, not because He had need to be cleansed, but in order that, by the contact of His pure flesh, He might purify the waters and impart to them the power of cleansing.

A very strong argument to prove that Baptism was then instituted by our Lord might be afforded by the fact the most Holy Trinity, in whose name Baptism is conferred, manifested Its divine presence on that occasion. The voice of the Father was heard, the Person of the Son was present, the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove; and the heavens, into which we are enabled to enter by Baptism, were thrown open. (My emphasis.)

Should anyone desire to know how our Lord has endowed water with a virtue so great, so divine, this indeed transcends the power of the human understanding. Yet this we can know, that when our Lord was baptized, water, by contact with His most holy and pure body, was consecrated to the salutary use of Baptism, in such a way, however, that, although instituted before the Passion, we must believe that this Sacrament derives all its virtue and efficacy from the Passion, which is the consummation, as it were, of all the actions of Christ."

So the CCT addresses the very question we have been pondering. While this is not definitive Church teaching, it does show the mind of the Church on the matter.

In light of this, I would raise the following for consideration. The CCT is referring to John 1:32 where John the Baptist recounts his baptism of Jesus and the presence of the Blessed Trinity. So it appears that John had already baptized Jesus by the time we get to John 3:5 and 4:2. I then wonder why John continued to baptize in John 3:23 at the same time the apostles were baptizing in John 3:22. If John knew what the CCT teaches about Christ's baptism, wouldn't he have quit his baptisms? He wasn't competing with the apostles for disciples. John even says in John 3:30, "He must increase, but I must decrease." I find it an interesting (but relatively unimportant) question. John could have been transitioning his disciples to Jesus through a pre-baptism ritual washing, as opposed to cutting them off cold. Also, our understanding of the sequence of when John's baptisms actually occurred could also be off. In any event, I am going to stop here and dig into something else of greater import!

R. Sungenis: John, thank you for the information from the Catechism of Trent. As for why John was continuing to baptize, I think at that point (John 3:23) John was baptizing in the name of Jesus, as opposed to what he was doing in John 1:28. This only makes sense, because John would have had to known the import of the Baptism of Jesus once it was performed. Consequently, those in Acts 19 were probably Jews who had received John's pre-Christ baptism (John 1:28).


Question 57- The Devil and the NAB

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

Thank you for a fast response. How interesting, and sad.

And, if I could trouble you for one more response, what is
the guy dressed up like the devil on your website about?

Ok, one more question...Is Catholic Apologetics Intl. an
organization you founded?

Yvonne Sampson

R. Sungenis: Yvonne, the devil is there to tell the people what version of the Bible is his favorite -- the one with the most errors and heresies in its footnotes, which is the Catholic New American Bible.

Yes, I founded CAI back in 1993.


Question 58- Mane Nobiscum Domine

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

Below is a quote from the recent APOSTOLIC LETTER MANE NOBISCUM DOMINE
by John Paul II. A few concerns I have:
1. He states, "most evident dimension of the Eucharist is that it is a meal."
2. Rather than saying the Eucharist is itself a sacrifice, he says the "Eucharistic meal also has a profoundly and primarily sacrificial meaning."

Should I be concerned over these things?

Joseph Pietras

R. Sungenis: No, I wouldn't be concerned, since it is both a meal and a sacrifice.


Question 59- A Question Concerning the Center of Mass Argument

Dear Robert,

I like the converted WWII posters btw.
I have been debating geo-centricity with a friend of mine, and I lack
the scientific knowledge to answer my friend who insists Geo-centricity
can not function according to Newtonian physics. He makes the following
reply to your arguments which i forwarded to him:

Sungenis has made the same mistake as you. You can set the earth up in the center of mass of the universe but its not going to stay there.

Let me put it this way, the only way the mass of other objects is
going to counteract the sun's gravitational pull and make the sun
rotate around the earth is if a very very big object (or group) in
the opposite direction from the sun is ROTATING EXACTLY AROUND THE EARTH so that it is always opposite the sun. The only thing that can
make this happen (given a stable earth) is an even bigger object (or
group) ROTATING EXACTLY AROUND THE EARTH always exactly behind the sun (from our perspective) bigger and farther away than the sun or
the first one. But the only way that can happen is... you guessed it
: a third and even bigger one blah blah blah to infinity.

What would you reply to this? Thanks and God bless,


R. Sungenis: Ryan, it's really very simple. The distribution of matter in the universe is not isotropic, and it is in constant precession due to that distribution. As such, there is always the proper counterbalancing force against the sun, since the sun is in front of a different part of the universe every part of the year.


Question 60- Was Alexander VII's Decree against Copernicus Infallible?

Thank you for the speedy reply. I appreciate you giving your time to
help. BTW, is Alexander VII's bull on the subject infallible? God bless,

Ryan Grant

R. Sungenis: No, it is not infallible, but it is about as high up the ladder toward infallibility as is possible, since it was a papal bull with his signature, and which confirmed two previous decrees by popes and their sacred congregations from 1616 and 1633, respectively. Alexander's papal bull is so far up the ladder of authority that it would take a subsequent papal bull to nullify it, but no such subsequent statement has been made by any pope since Alexander VII.


Question 61- Voting for a Mason? Pt 2

Dear Michael (Forrest) ,
This relates to the Bush/Kerry question.
You list many laws or orders signed by Pres. Bush to curtail taxpayer funded abortions. Is there an estimate as to how many lives have been saved by these orders, versus the number of innocent lives (I think of children and civilian non-combatants) killed in Afghanistan and Iraq in the recent conflict?

M. Forrest: To my knowledge, there are no official, trustworthy statistics to establish either number. I have seen estimates ranging from 4,500 to 15,000 civilians killed in the hostilities (depending on what wants to "prove", apparently). Regarding the number of children saved by the president's policies and views against abortion, that would be a guess. I'm not aware of any statistics on that, and frankly, I don't know how they could reasonably be established with any degree of accuracy. But it would seem logical, in my opinion, that the number would not be insignificant. There are anecdotes like the one at to give you an idea about some of the practical effects of his policies.

I would suggest that we need to remember that the nature of the battle against abortion is not unlike the battle we once waged against slavery. Just as progress against slavery could not always be measured in how many slaves there were at a particular time, I do not believe we can sufficiently measure the progress made against abortion in such a way. While it is good that common-sense things are being enacted or considered (parental notification, partial-birth abortion ban, tax credits for adopting, Mexico City policy, not funding UNFPA, etc) the ultimate battle is one for the hearts and minds of the American people.

I believe that, just as in the case of slavery, a rhetorical war is already being waged and people are being affected, sometimes subtly, sometimes quite overtly. Things need to reach a "tipping point", and the polls show we are moving steadily in that direction. When that happens, things that were previously unlikely or impossible will become possible, and they may then move very rapidly. That is the hope, at least.

Having a president who speaks positively of the pro-life position and makes it clear that it is not a position of anger and hate towards women, a president who is willing to move forward in those areas that he believes are able to be won, is very important. This keeps the argument moving in the right direction, even if Bush is obviously flawed. I think the The Cold War is also another analogy to consider. While Reagan quite appropriately received a lot of credit, several previous presidents kept the pressure on the Soviet Union and helped to cause its eventual failure, even though we couldn't always perceive the visible results in the West at the time.

Finally, it is also important to remember that the Church's teaching on abortion and war are different in their essence. There IS such a thing as a "just war", and the Church teaches that it is legitimately within the purview of elected leaders (not Church officials) to decide whether or not to fight (CCC 2308-2310) . The teaching on "just war" involves a subjective application of many criteria. In war, there will always be civilian casualties. And while not nearly perfect, the U.S. has certainly endeavored to keep innnocent casualties to a minimum. Some very well-respected and faithful Catholics believe the war in Iraq was justified. Other just as well-respected Catholics believe it was not.

Conversely, there IS NO SUCH THING as a "just abortion". There is no room for Catholics to legitimately disagree on this, nor is the issue at the discretion of the elected government. The teaching is unequivocal. (CCC 2270-2272) .

God bless,
Michael Forrest


Question 62- Voting for a Mason? Pt 3

"TF" writes:
I have a question for Mr. Forrest regarding Bush, the Bonesman: You seem to imply that Bush has renounced his membership in the Skull and Bones but in fact the last time he was asked about the Order, as it is sometimes called, earlier this year by Tim Russert on Meet the Press, he refused to answer and changed the subject instead -- just as a good Bonesman is supposed to do. Incidentally, Russert asked Kerry the same question and received an almost identical non-answer. Would not a man who "underwent a serious change of course in his life" (presumably for the better) take this opportunity to renounce his membership in this shadowy society?

Perhaps you are not aware that the Skull and Bones initiation includes many ceremonies with satanic overtones, including:

1. The chanting of the words "The devil equals death. Death equals death."
2. A "resurrection" ceremony where the initiate rises from a coffin within
which he performed acts I shall not repeat in this forum. This is the
initiate's "born-again" experience.
3. The initiate is made to drink blood from a skull.
4. The initiate kneels before three figures: a devil with horns, a black
knight and a mitered Pope whose foot rests upon a stone skull.

Again I ask, why wouldn't a man professing to be a Christian renounce his past participation in the above when directly asked about it? If he thinks Skull and Bones is a "social club and nothing more," why does he not say so?


M. Forrest: First, speaking of things that are unnecessarily secretive, why the initials and not your full name? I'm not particularly enamored of anonymous letters and charges.

Be that as it may, regarding whether or not I meant to imply that George Bush has formally renounced his membership in "the Order", I only indicated that his governmental actions don't strike me as those of a Mason (if Skull and Bones is truly Masonic, which is uncertain). I see evidence of a man who has changed his ways, beginning with battling and overcoming an addiction to alcohol. He continues to express publicly that it was his faith in Jesus Christ that saved him. He prays and reads the Bible daily. He is more "with the Catholic Church" on the crucial moral issues of the day than most Catholics and has put those moral beliefs into practice (although not as much as I would like, certainly). These exterior things logically lead me to believe it likely that either he was never genuinely a follower of the philosophical/quasi-religious precepts of Skull and Bones, or, if he ever was, he has since ceased to be.

One may not hold to an organization's beliefs while still desiring the benefits of the social ties, connections etc. and I strongly suspect this is precisely the case with George Bush (and John Kerry.....both in relation to his membership in Skull and Bones AND his "membership" in the Catholic Church). If you know anything about "the Order" (and most fraternities), then you also know there is a tremendous bond of personal loyalty between members. They also share all of their personal "skeletons" with one another during the initiation process and thereafter. This may also tend to explain why one would not want to go public with much of anything...who knows what embarrassing personal information might "anonymously leak out" afterwards by members who felt betrayed.

Anyone who has ever been in a college fraternity of any sort recognizes these things. They are not entirely alien. As a former fraternity member, I can tell you that we engaged in some very strange rituals and initiations that I shake my head about today. They even seemed silly to me back then. But I still would tend to resist sharing secrets of the fraternity with non-members...not because of some misplaced faith in the tenets of the fraternity, but out of respect for my fellow fraternity brothers and the experiences we went through together. (And, for those partial to conspiracy theories, by this, I am NOT claiming my former fraternity was on the order of Skull and Bones.)

Again, do I intend to excuse Skull and Bones itself? NO, I have serious objections to it and consider ANY group that plays with quasi-religious symbolism and ritual to be wrong and potentially dangerous (and there are many, many of these groups beside "the Order"). But frankly, in light of George Bush's reputation at the time, it doesn't surprise me that he would join such a group. In fact, a former member publicly revealed: "you only joined it for the free alcohol in the first place."

You also wrote: "If he thinks Skull and Bones is a 'social club and nothing more,' why does he not say so?" First, please reread what I wrote. I did not assert that this was certainly the case with George Bush. I wrote only that it is true for some individuals I know. Therefore, one should not assume that members of such groups are strict and fanatical adherents to all of that group's particular tenets. Second, I believe George Bush HAS in fact said essentially this. The following is from an interview with Walter Isaacson:

Isaacson: "But you [George Sr and George W.] sure shared a lot of the same upbringing: Andover, Yale, even Skull and Bones. Did you have any qualms, say, about joining an elite secret club like Bones?"

Bush: "No qualms at all. I was honored. I was fairly nonchalant. I didn't view it as a great heritage thing. I didn't take it all that seriously."

Regarding the 5 rituals that you mentioned:
1) The first one doesn't strike me as particularly Satanic. "The Devil Equals Death. Death Equals Death". Frankly, a Catholic could agree with that in good conscience. Nothing expressly exalting the Devil that I can see there.

2) I was already aware of the "resurrection" from the coffin while unclothed and covered in mud. I am also aware of the sharing of sexual secrets etc. Clearly, the resurrection from the coffin is offensive and wrong to the extent that it parallels THE resurrection. But expressly and undeniably a part of Satanic worship?

3) Drinking blood from a skull is certainly objectionable and also sick, imo. But I cannot say that this really proves that the ritual itself is "Satanic". I am not aware of any proof of prayers/incantations to Satan in this context. If you have express proof, by all means, bring it forward. That would certainly be important. (Note: the "blood" is not really blood, but gatorade).

4) Regarding your assertion that "the initiate kneels before three figures: a devil with horns, a black knight and a mitered Pope whose foot rests upon a stone skull", this does not square with my own research. A former member writes: "there is somebody dressed as the devil, somebody dressed as Don Quixote, somebody who is dressed as a pope who has one foot sheathed in a monogrammed white slipper resting on a skull, and the other knights are dress as alumni or patriarchs. In part of that ceremony, the neophytes must kiss the pope's foot, drink quote, unquote, blood from the eurich, which is a skull container and the initiation ends when the initiator is shoved to his knees in front of Don Quixote." I see nothing about kneeling in front of the Devil, as if in worship, as you seem to imply. I see that the initiate actually kisses the Pope's foot. That doesn't strike me as Satanic. And then the initiate is "shoved to his knees in front of Don Quixote." I agree that kneeling in front of Don Quixote is very strange, but I don't see anything overtly Satanic about that, either. If you want to prove that this is, in fact, Satanic, I'll think you'll need more information than this.

There are many other charges I have read about Skull and Bones that also do not seem to square with the record of George Bush:

Charge #1: Skull and Bones promotes abortion, eugenics and population control. George Bush has opposed these things.
Charge #2: Skull and Bones works inexorably toward the "New World Order". THIS certainly sounds like John Kerry to me, but not George W. Bush. How is the United States to be a "first among equals" in this supposed New World Order when we have ticked off so many important nations (at least they are in relation to a New World Order) by directly contravening their wishes?

Charge #3: "The members of "the Order", due to their narrow WASP upbringing, view with particular suspicion the maneuverings of Zionist Israel and its affluent, influential lobby in the United States." This one certainly does not fit George Bush, as many of those against Bush (with conspiracy theories of their own) claim just the opposite, that he is "in Israel's hip pocket".

Honestly, this topic is beginning to seem a bit like an Oliver Stone movie to me. Is it possible that George W. Bush is secretly a Satanist who has fooled just about everyone, including the abortion industry, the eugenics movement, and the embryonic stem-cell lobby (all of which SHOULD be natural allies rather than enemies)? I suppose it's possible (really). But I don't find it to be the most plausible explanation. And in light of everything that is at stake.....things that I KNOW for a fact are at stake.... personally, I'm not going to put enough weight on this particular issue to sway me from voting for least not with what I've found so far.

I repeat: I respect those who differ with me. You could be right. But that is not my best judgment at this time. Am I an enthusiastic and unequivocal Bush supporter? Absolutely not. And I hope I've been crystal clear about that.

God bless,
Michael Forrest


Question 63- Voting for a Mason? Pt 4

Yes, you would be right if I based my voting decision solely on Skull and Bones membership. Very good point. But I had decided long before I knew anything about them that I would never vote for Bush. Actually I gave up on the entire Republican party many years ago. I believe they've suckered pro-lifers for too many years now. There are, of course, many good Republicans but they won't be allowed anywhere near the top of the party. S&B is just icing on the cake -- or should that be the last nail in the coffin? -- for me.

You made lots of good points and I concede that I could be too harsh on Bush and even S & B in this matter, but as I said, it's not central to my opposition to Bush. At the same time, I suspect Skull and Bones is much more devious than most would have us believe. They're always around when there's wars to profiteer on, drugs to be smuggled, and new weapons to be invented (like the A-bomb). It's a sordid history. Wish I had time to discuss more with you but I've got loads to do.

M. Forrest: Thanks for the clarification, ***. If this is just "another nail in the coffin" for you, so to speak, then that at least makes more sense, imo. I'm aware of much of the history (either speculative or fairly well researched) of S&B and I agree it is not wonderful at all in many respects. Yet, on balance, I personally can't essentially sideline myself to the advantage of such an objectively manifest apostate and perpetrator of evil like Kerry by voting for a non-viable third party. I believe such a protest is like spitting into the wind, unfortunately, at least at this point in time.

Without the strong, clear leadership of our Shepherds, individual sheep are not likely to accomplish much in such situations.

God bless,
Michael Forrest


Question 64- Books on Creationism vs Evolution?

Hello Robert,

can you recommend any books on the subject of creationism vs. evolution and
the age of the earth?

Thanks, and keep up the good work,

R. Sungenis: Sean, I would start with Gerry Keane's "Creation Rediscovered." It is written by a dedicated Catholic whom I know personally.


Question 65- Words of consecration?

Dear Mr. Sungenis:

A couple of weeks ago I participated in a mass at a Catholic parish that I do not regularly go to. The priest's words over the consecration of the bread were fine. However, at the consecration of the Blood, the priest used the following words which I quote below:
"When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: ' Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. ' Then He said to them: ' Do this in memory of me.' "

The words used by the priest: "Then he said to them" over the wine, I think, do not belong in the consecration. I know this is particularly nitpicky, but I have to know if I should write a letter to the priest to urge him to be more careful. It is partially my responsibility, after all, if the priest did not perform the consecration properly. Am I off base? Did the bread become the Body? Did the wine become the Blood? Or neither? Thank you very much for the wonderful work you do.


Ted Vicknair

R. Sungenis: Ted, yes, a consecration was perfomed. As long as the proper words are said and the intent is present, the Eucharist is confected. An incidental addition by a priest, although not the best representation of the words, does not alter the power of the other words that were said. You might want to write to your priest, however, and let him know that you were disturbed at his attempt at narration, and that you would prefer he just stick to the approved text.


Question 66- What if Abraham and Mary had not said Yes?


How much importance can we place on Abraham's decision to carry out God's request to sacrifice Isaac, as well as Mary's decision to be the Mother of God? Would God have found other people or other ways to carry out His plan of salvation, or were their decisions pivotal in God's plan? Thank you for all of your work.


R. Sungenis: Hypothetically speaking, the answer is yes. Just as we would have had no curse of sin and death if Adam had not sinned, so we would have had alternate plans if Abraham and Mary had chosen otherwise. It would not have been sin for Mary to decline the request, and therefore her Immaculate Conception would not have been affected (and it would not have been sin if Abraham declined to offer Isaac).


Question 67- Truth About Homosexuality Section?

Dear Robert,

I have been combing your website with great interest, and I am amazed
and impressed by all that I have found there, which has re-wet my
theological appetite that dried up while I was teaching in Catholic
As I was reading through your section in the science articles on the
"Scientific evidence against Homosexuality" and was fascinated by the
abundance of information, confirming what I already knew and learning
new things I hadn't.
However, one thing did disturb me, namely the graphic nature of the
material and the lack of any warning above the section as to this fact.
I personally am unaffected by it, and as I said I am thankful for the
presentation of the material. However I am thinking of those less
capable of reading this material without becoming physically ill. I
just thought I would mention that. God bless,
Deus sit semper tecum,


R. Sungenis: Ryan, I will forward your suggestion to the author of the article and our webmaster. Perhaps they can make the appropriate changes. Also, I'm very happy to be informed that our website has spurred your theological juices once again! May God bless you in your pursuit of knowledge.


Question 68- Was Alexander VII's Decree against Copernicus Infallible?


I need help from someone who is familiar with the current editions of the complete writings of the Early Church Fathers. (Scribner’s 38 Volumes) As you probably already know, they are in print by Hendrickson Publishers and they are currently available for the all time low price of only $200 from Christian Book I have some reservations about these because I heard the that the commentary is non-Catholic and sometimes anti-Catholic.

I also found them on CD ROM from Logos Bible Software ($200 also) in a Catholic and Protestant Edition. The tech guy from Logos said the only difference between the Catholic and Protestant edition is that they removed some of the “front matter” and notes (“as to not offend the Catholics” as he put it) from the Catholic edition. Apparently, they are theologically biased. He said even though you are Catholic, “I still recommend the Protestant edition because it is much more comprehensive.”

My main goal is to be able to search them efficiently and have a topical index. And be able to find scripture references. Which apparently, you can do with the Logos edition.

Right now, I have the Early Church Fathers CD ROM from Harmony Media, which contains all of the writings, but there are no introductions, translator’s notes, or commentary. And there is no topical index. All of the searches are done with key words or phrases. It can be pretty cumbersome at times.What do you use and what do you recommend for me?Thanks for you help.

In Christ,

Derek Bonnell, M.I.

R. Sungenis: Derek, I use both. First, it is good to have the Eerdmans set (38 volumes) because, since there are occasional Protestant-biased footnotes, you would want to know what they say. There is nothing like an author putting a footnote in his writings to object to an opponents views, since this tells you that the opponent may have a strong point that needs addressing. In other words, don't pass up the $200 offer for that set. As for Harmony Media's volumes, there simply is no subsitute for using their word searches. It is much better than trying to use the indexes of the Eerdmans set.


Question 69- Assisting Conversion


I am wondering what your thoughts are concerning the best way to evangelize "modern" women. Many times in my work as a teacher I encounter intelligent, capable, highly-educated Catholic women who have been thoroughly indoctrinated with the tenets of modernism and feminism (often this occurs at well-known Catholic universities). Invariably these women resent the Church's male hierarchy, the prohibition of women priests, the refusal to recognize homosexual marriage, the need to confess sins to a priest, etc. With so many of them I sense a deep longing for God, but also an embedded hostility to the Church. Where do you begin with these women? I'm certainly not an apologist, but I'd like to do or say something to lead them in the right direction. Do you have any suggestions?


R. Sungenis: Yes, Andrew. Start with the question: "I just bet you would really like to settle down with a nice man and have children, wouldn't you?" If they say "yes," then you have an open door.


Question 70- Father Gruner and his Fatima Apostolate

St. Hilarion, Abbot
St. Ursula and Her Companions, Virgin-Martyrs

Dear Mr. Sungenis,

I am a regular subscriber of The Fatima Crusader. What do you think of Father Nicholas Gruner and his work? And what do you make of the accusation that Father Gruner and his Fatima Apostolate are in schism?

Respectfully yours in Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,


R. Sungenis: John, Fr. Gruner is not in schism. He is the victim of certain faithless Vatican hierarchs who are determined to shut him up because he has been faithful to the Fatima message whereas they have rejected it. Gruner has been cleared so many times from their fabrications it's not even worth talking about anymore. If you want to know the machinations the Vatican has perpetrated on the Fatima message, read my 100-page paper on our website. It verifies everything Fr. Gruner has said on this issue. God be with you.


Question 71- Gary Hoge on Geocentrism

Hoge said,
So even if the stars were heavier in a given direction, the sun would only be located opposite that direction at one time during the year. Six months later, the sun would be located in the same direction from the earth as the heavier side of the shell of stars, and that would skew the center of mass back toward the sun.

Actually as the sun and the stars travel around the earth together, every day, (not six months) wouldn't the balance always remain the same? Wasn't hoge confusing both systems.

R. Sungenis: Philip, there are a few things that need to be said.

First is that, if Hoge keeps insisting that it is not possible to have a proper balance between the stars and the sun to keep the earth motionless in the center, then Hoge is disagreeing will all the major physicists today who, adopting Relativity, maintain that any point in the universe could be considered at rest while everything else is moving around it. He would also be against the non-Relativists who, even though they prefer heliocentrism, admit that, kinematically and mathematically speaking, there is no difference between heliocentrism and geocentrism. In essence, the very systems that Hoge must rely upon, is the very system that supports geocentrism. I don't know how many times I've told this to Hoge, and proven it by quotes from today's scientists, but he simply dismisses it.

Second, Hoge would also have to hold that God Himself would not be able to find the right balance of forces between the stars and the sun.

Third, Hoge has previously argued that the stars are "too far away" to have an effect on the sun and earth, yet here he is arguing that they do have an effect. Obviously, he likes to eat his cake and have it, too.

Fourth, Hoge keeps thinking in a linear fashion without taking into consideration that, if we argue from a geocentric framework, the universe is in a wobble, and thus the sun is traveling through an ecliptic that is anything but linear with respect to the stars. The path that it cuts outs in the stellar ecliptic would be the precise path needed to balance the forces between the stars and the sun. As such, the stars would have to be strategically placed in the universe. No doubt this is implied in such Scriptural passages as Psalm 147:4: “He determines the number of the stars, he gives to all of them their names,” or Isaiah 40:26: “Lift up your eyes on high and see who has created these stars? He who brings out their host by number, He calls them all by name; by the greatness of His might, and by the strength of his power, not one is missing.”


Question 72- Justifying the Ungodly?

Mr. Sungenis,

I'm not sure how to understand what you wrote in your article about R.C. Sproul in light of Romans 4:5 and 5:6 which speak of God justifying the ungodly. If God justifies the ungodly, then how is it that logizomai refers "to what someone is thinking as a mental representation of the reality they are witnessing"? This seems to be saying that we are indeed righteous, and thus, God would be justifying the righteous and not the unrighteous. Thanks for your help!

God Bless

R. Sungenis: Harold, "ungodly" is the condition we are in before the "logizomai" takes place, so to speak. After we are turned from "ungodly" to "godly," God looks upon us as "godly" not because He puts a label on us but because He has changed us substantively. Hence we are "reckoned" (logizomai) as "godly" because we are "godly."


Question 73- All Have Sinned?

Mr. Sungenis,

I understand how Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned without distinction
(Jew or Gentile), not without exception, but how is a Catholic to understand
1 John 1:8, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the
truth is not in us"? This verse does not seem to be in the same type of
context as Romans 3:23 which seems to make this a strong verse to use
against the immaculate conception. Your help is much appreciated!


R. Sungenis: Harold, the context of 1 John 1:8 is a context that already admits to be dealing with those who know and have acknowledged they are sinners. Thus, it is only to them that he is writing. Mary is not a subject of discussion in 1 John, so she cannot be used as a proof or disproof of any exegesis of the passage.


Question 74- Acts 2:38

Good morning, Robert,

Discussing baptism with a co-worker, I of course brought up Acts 2:38, and he maintained that the word 'for' ('for the remission of your sins') meant they were to be baptized because their sins had already been forgiven. I had never heard this argument before, so I did a little research, and it seems pretty popular. I found one concordance that said "For" (as used in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works."

So I was wondering, is there any support at all, in the Greek, for this second view?


R. Sungenis: Jim, first of all, even if that were the correct grammatical reading, it would not "violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works," since Baptism is an act performed under the auspices of God's grace, not a legal contract of debt (Romans 4:3-4). Protestants misunderstand St. Paul's condemnation of works. They keep insisting it refers to ANY work done at ANY time, whereas Paul insists that it refers to "works of law" or works in which the doer tries to put God in debt to pay him. Once one turns to God in faith, he is now under God's grace. Works that he performs in that state of grace are not debt-based. They are rewarded on the basis of grace. Thus, Baptism is a work performed in grace, not debt.
As for Acts 2:38, the verse begins with the Greek PRESENT tense command to "Repent." Thus, the sins are not those which were forgiven in the past, but those which are presently going to be forgiven. When the word "for" (Greek: eis) is then used, there is no break in the flow of thought. That is, the repentance, the Baptism, and the forgiveness of sins are all occurring at the same time. Moreover, there is absolutely no indication in Scripture, that people are baptized for sins that were forgiven in the past. Every reference to baptism and forgiveness shows us that the two are simultaneous.


Question 75- ("This sentence [or these sentences] have been removed by request of R. Sungenis")


Question 76- Douay Confraternity Version

Robert, my parents gave me their old Douay-Rheims Bible (D.R. for Old Testament, and the Confraternity translation for the New Testament). As you know, the Confraternity is a translation of the Challoner version to make the English more reader friendly. I think it is also based on the Clementine. The book has the Imprimatur of Cardinal Francis Spellman, in the year 1950.

What do you think of the Confraternity translation - is it an improvement on the Challoner? Also, is this old Bible a "collector's edition," or can I write notes in it and mark it up like my other Bibles?

R. Sungenis: John, if it's not a collector's edition now, it could be in the near future. The Confraternity edition (1942) was the last revision of the Douay-Rheims, so it is the best we have of the DR. I would put my marks in pencil. They hold up rather well, if the pencil is sharp. Keep a sharpener by your side. :)

Question 78- CD & CASB

Hi Robert,

I am very glad with the CASB I’ve just received. It is very clear. Thanks so much for your work.

I am sending this e-mail just to notifying you that, in the package I received the CASB, I couldn’t find the ‘Apologetics CD’. When you get a chance, I would appreciate if you send it to me.

Moreover, I want to help you as a patron in our new project CASB II with my small $100.00 gift. I guess you still have my credit card, so please go ahead and charge it in the amount of $110.00. The extra 10.00 dollars is your TIP, Robert.

Thanks Robert,

Take care,

Mauro Cesar do Carmo.

R. Sungenis: Mauro, thank you for your great generosity! As for the CD, we sent that in a separate package. I'm surprised you haven't received it. If you don't receive it in a few days, let me know and we'll send out another one.


Question 79- The Lord's Anointed

you wrote:

"We, however, are not in authority to say he is a heretic, since that is a canonical term given by only the highest authority. If we cross that line, then God will discipline us."

I will take that as an admonition and an instruction for behavior and thinking. Only God can determine the precise status of HIS Prime Minister, right? So, whereas a King may be King by Divine Right (empirical), and although he may be a scoundrel (normative), we are FORBIDDEN to touch the Lord's anointed.

God bless you and thanks for your website.


R. Sungenis: Yes, indeed. The example of David not seeking to "touch the Lord's anointed" is the same example I use. David killed a man who transgressed that stipulation. God bless you. Keep the faith.


Question 80- Does Pius XII's 1951 Speech Support the Big Bang?


My computer hard drive has had to be
swapped out several times in the past
2-3 months. This has left me without a
sound card. Therefore, it is not possible
at this time to hear your debate with
Stephen Hawking. However, in his book,
"A Brief History of Time," he noted the following:

Many people do not like the idea that
time has a beginning, probably because it
smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic
Church, on the other hand, seized on the big
bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced
it to be in accordance with the Bible. (pp. 46-7)

Are you aware of such proclamation?

Yours in Christ and His beleaguered Church,

Bill Crofut

R. Sungenis: Yes, Bill, I'm aware of it. Hawking is reading into the document both that it was sanctioning the Big Bang and that the document was official. Pius XII's address was written by someone from the Pontifical Academy of Science, and then Pius XII read it to the PAS. The PAS writer made reference to the idea that the universe could be billions of years old, but did not mention the Big Bang specifically. Also, this PAS address has no authority in the Catholic Church, so it is not an "official" teaching of the Church, and never could be.


Question 81- Thank You For Your Work

I have been studying your materials on justification, both on your website and your books, particularly Not by Faith Alone. I have learned a tremendous amount from you. I am writing to say "Thank You" for what you are doing to educate Catholics about the Faith in regard to Justification.
Please keep up the good work,
Tom McBride

R. Sungenis: Tom, thank you so much. I hoped the dialogue with "Todd" helped also. As I told Todd, he did us a big favor in voicing his objections, since it just gives us another opportunity to explain, from Scripture, the Catholic view of Justification. God be with you.