You might think so, but no. This didn't make it into my original two part quote, but was there before I pruned it down. Looking at it again, it is 10,000 characters in its own right. I omitted it because this was about John C Wright lying about the contents of Scripture, not about Catholicism. But since we've gone there... Quote from Sungenis, part 3: Wright: As Roman Catholic, I am not bound to affirm that every non-scholarly flatfooted literal reading in translation of every passage of the Bible, taken out of context, means what the non-scholar says. Sungenis: And it is precisely the modern Roman Catholics like Mr. Wright who are the most guilty of ignoring the Church’s tradition and its literal interpretation of Scripture, quite unlike the traditional Roman Catholics who died as martyrs rather than read Scripture non-literally. The literal reading of Scripture is the very reason that Roman Catholicism believes in such things as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, since our forefathers weren’t afraid to take Matthew 26:26 very literally (“This is my body. Take and eat”). So let’s give Mr. Wright a Catholic education. The fact is, according to Catholic doctrine, Mr. Wright is bound to accept all Scripture as inspired by God and to be interpreted literally, unless there is a good and sufficient reason not to do so (see Providentissimus Deus below by Pope Leo XIII). But I can assure you that after reading his attempt at scientific investigation, Mr. Wright provides no such sufficient reason. In fact, he will make us go the other way. Like most modern Catholics, Mr. Wright is under the false impression that he can, willy-nilly, eliminate any literal reading of the Bible he desires if modern scientists say something to the contrary. Wrong. Bible interpretation must be literal unless it can be proven, scientific or otherwise, that a literal interpretation is not possible; and that we must look to the consensus of the Fathers when we make our interpretations. Let’s look at the teaching: In 1965, Vatican Council II reiterated the Church’s teaching on the authority of the Fathers: Of course, Mr. Wright tries to justify his ignoring of the literal interpretation by his usual demonization, namely, “every non-scholarly flatfooted literal reading.” Notice the term “flatfooted.” The dictionary defines it as follows: flat·foot·ed ADJECTIVE 1. having flatfeet. 2. taking or showing an uncompromising stand in a matter; firm and explicit: a flatfooted denial. 3. clumsy or plodding; maladroit: flatfooted writing. 4. catch one flatfooted to catch one unprepared; surprise: The amount of the bill caught us flatfooted. In other words, if Mr. Wright does not personally agree with a particular literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g., that plants came before the sun) he calls it “flat-footed” and “non-scholarly.” It means that Mr. Wright has bought into modern atheistic science’s belief that the universe came into existence by a Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago, which is typical of most modern Catholics. But they believe such nonsense without the slightest evidence, much less proof. In the end, whatever modern science says it believes, Mr. Wright takes this as positive proof against whatever the Bible says, ipso facto. Interestingly enough, science is supposed to be about empirical proof, but the Big Bangers and the evolutionists admit they have no proof. As Richard Lewontin candidly admitted: So the “science” that Mr. Wright believes in is not really science; rather, it is a philosophical presupposition disguised as science.