The late\u00a0<\/span>Steve Hays<\/a> (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called<\/span> Triablogue<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>(now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book,<\/span>\u00a0Catholicism<\/em><\/a> \u2014 a collection of articles from his site \u2014 has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, Hays was quite \u2014 almost extraordinarily \u2014 charitable towards me.<\/span> He wrote then<\/a>:<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don\u2019t dislike him. . . . I don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything malicious about Armstrong\u2014unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it\u2019s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. . . . The term \u201capostasy\u201d carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it\u2019s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.<\/span><\/p>\n Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have \u201can evil character,\u201d<\/span> am<\/span> \u201cactually evil,\u201d <\/span>\u201cego-maniac, narcissist,\u201d \u201cidolater,\u201d<\/span> \u201cself-idolater,\u201d \u201chack who pretends to be a professional apologist,\u201d<\/span>\u00a0given to <\/span>\u201cchicanery,\u201d<\/span> one who doesn\u2019t<\/span> \u201cdo any real research,\u201d \u201ca stalwart enemy of the faith . . .\u00a0 no better than [the atheists]<\/span> Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,\u201d<\/span> with an intent to<\/span> \u201cdestroy faith in God\u2019s word,\u201d \u201cschizophrenic,\u201d \u201cemotionally unhinged,\u201d<\/span> one who<\/span> \u201cdoesn\u2019t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,\u201d<\/span> \u201chas no peace of mind,\u201d \u201ca bipolar solipsist,\u201d \u201csplit-personality,\u201d<\/span> and a<\/span> \u201cbad\u201d<\/span> man. He wasn\u2019t one to mince words! See<\/span> more gory details<\/a>.<\/p>\n I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I\u2019ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist<\/a> in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That\u2019s what I\u2019m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It\u2019s a theological discussion. This is one of many<\/em> planned critiques of his book (see<\/span> my reasons why<\/a> I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the \u201cSteve Hays\u201d section of my<\/span> Anti-Catholicism web page<\/a>, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve\u2019s words will be in\u00a0<\/span>blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n [Chapter 2: Exposition<\/strong>]<\/span><\/p>\n Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of Fantasia<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n In this post I\u2019ll comment on some representative passages in Robert Barron\u2019s Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith<\/em> (2011). [p. 59]<\/span><\/p>\n I won\u2019t get into defending Bp. Barron\u2019s words (that\u2019s for him to do), but I\u2019ll comment on some of Hays\u2019 rejoinders.<\/p>\n . . . theological vacuum in the hierarchy. So few bishops seem to be believers, even by Catholic standards. [p. 59]<\/span><\/p>\n Really? What\u2019s his evidence<\/em> for that? Hays wrongheadedly claimed that I wasn\u2019t a bona fide<\/em> orthodox Catholic, either, but rather, a weird, artificial \u201chybrid\u201d of evangelicalism + Catholicism<\/a>. This was one of his most annoying claims sent my way. So I\u2019m not inclined at all to accept his report, prima facie<\/em>, about \u201cfew bishops\u201d<\/span> being good Catholics. Of course, his burden would be to demonstrate<\/em> this, and \u2014 almost needless to say \u2014\u00a0 he didn\u2019t<\/em>. That wasn\u2019t part of the game, the way he played it.<\/p>\n Barron is an eloquent, seductive mythmaker. [p. 59]<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s \u201canti-Catholic-speak\u201d for \u201che makes good arguments, that I can\u2019t answer, so I\u2019ll immediately start in with the ad hominem<\/em> name-calling and poisoning of the well.\u201d<\/p>\n His biblical prooftexts for Catholicism detach the text from the original meaning, and reattachment it to \u201cdevelopment\u201d. [p. 59]<\/span><\/p>\n This is the usual boogeyman of development of doctrine<\/a>, that anti-Catholics, virtually to a person, can\u2019t bring themselves to understand. They invariably claim that it\u2019s a rationalization, after the fact, of \u201cdistinctive Catholic\u201d doctrines.<\/p>\n Once theology is cut off from the sacred text, it takes on a life of its own, in ever-bolder flights of fantasy. . . . No longer constrained by the reality of revelation, it goes wherever imagination takes it. [p. 59]<\/span><\/p>\n I couldn\u2019t agree more; but I think this is rampant among Protestants, not Catholics. These are the folks whose two \u201cpillars\u201d of belief are sola Scriptura<\/em> and sola fide<\/em>: neither of which is taught in the Bible at all. The more honest among them are now openly admitting, particularly, that sola Scriptura<\/em> isn\u2019t taught in the Bible, but that it doesn\u2019t matter<\/em>; they will accept it anyway as one of their primary premises. In other words, it\u2019s one of many extrabiblical Protestant traditions of men. So for Hays to project this shortcoming onto Bp. Barron and Catholics generally, is the height of irony.<\/p>\n The exercise has a snowball effect, as seminal errors accumulate and magnify. [p. 59]<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed it does, and this sort of effect is one of the reasons that Protestants keep dividing and forming yet more denominations, into the many thousands. Catholics have a magisterium and system of authority that makes it clear what the Catholic Church believes, and what every Catholic is duty-bound to accept.<\/p>\n In some ways, Barron\u2019s book is a throwback to Chateaubriand\u2019s The Genius of Christianity<\/em>. An apologetic heavy on aesthetics. Catholicism is too pretty not to be true! [p. 59]<\/span><\/p>\n A clever demeaning insult . . .<\/p>\n \u201cIcon\u201d is a loaded word that\u2019s acquired connotations it didn\u2019t have in Pauline usage. So Barron\u2019s rendering is anachronistic. [p. 60]<\/span><\/p>\n It simply means \u201cimage.\u201d Hays himself had written a little bit before: \u201cSt. Paul referred to Jesus as \u201cthe icon of the invisible God.\u201d<\/span> That\u2019s Colossians 1:15. Most translations render the Greek eikon<\/em> there as \u201cimage.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSacramental\u201d is another loaded word that\u2019s foreign to Paul\u2019s statement. [p. 61]<\/span><\/p>\n Not at all. The broadest meaning of \u201csacrament\u201d is \u201cgrace conveyed by matter.\u201d The incarnation is clearly a means of that. God in becoming flesh<\/em> brought about the possibility of salvation for all men. The physicality of that is sacramental. Protestants themselves talk about being \u201csaved by His blood,\u201d etc. That\u2019s profoundly sacramental<\/em>: akin to talking about His sacred heart or the immaculate heart of Mary. The New Testament refers to \u201can expiation by his blood\u201d (Rom 3:25), \u201cjustified by his blood\u201d (Rom 5:9), \u201credemption through his blood, . . . according to the riches of his grace\u201d (Eph 1:7), and \u201chim who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood\u201d (Rev 1:5). That\u2019s sacramentalism, folks.<\/p>\n Bp. Barron wrote eloquently (and quite biblically) about the Annunciation. Hays shot back:<\/p>\n Instead of Joseph Campbell\u2019s The Hero with a Thousand Faces<\/em>, we now have The Heroine with a Thousand Faces<\/em>. Why not go full Hindu and declare Mary the White Goddess with multiple avatars? Why not throw in Tinker Bell and Glenda the Good Witch while he\u2019s at it? [p. 60]<\/span><\/p>\n This is too ridiculous and asinine to reply to at all. But it\u2019s classic Hays mockery and deliberate straw-manning and caricature. It\u2019s also blasphemous, which can apply to persons and things beside God<\/a>. Hays doesn\u2019t address<\/em> the points that Bp. Barron makes. He simply dismisses them with a smirk and a deluded anti-Catholicism that is relentlessly and willfully blind. This was, sad to say, a constant feature of his anti-Catholic apologetics or unreasonable facsimile thereof, as I will note throughout this series.<\/p>\n As long as he\u2019s going to indulge in unbridged allegory, why stop there? What about the six stone water pots? Let\u2019s tease out their numerological import. And the composition of the water pots. The stone must have some emblematic significance. And the third day. [p. 61]<\/span><\/p>\n There are all sorts of symbolism and non-literal multiple meanings in Holy Scripture. Protestants hold to this just as Catholics do; they simply ignore or underemphasize it when it applies to Mary. The Protestant Meyer\u2019s NT Commentary<\/em><\/a>, for example, noted:<\/p>\n Not stated as explanatory of the Jewish\u00a0custom<\/span>, but as vividly describing the exact circumstances, yet not with any symbolic significance (six, Lange thinks, was the number of poverty and labour).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Maybe Hays would mock that<\/em> observation (were he here to respond and willing<\/em> to do so)? Is that<\/em> indulging in \u201cunbridled allegory\u201d<\/span> and outrageously \u201ccut off from the sacred text\u201d <\/span>too<\/em>? Ian Paul, adjunct professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, noted that<\/a> \u201cmany readers\u00a0interpret the\u00a0six<\/em> stone water jars symbolically.\u201d These included St. Augustine, whom he cites, observing, \u201cNow the six water-pots signify the six ages, which were not without prophecy. And those six periods, divided and separated as it were by joints, would be as empty vessels unless they were filled by Christ. Why did I say, the periods which would run fruitlessly on, unless the Lord Jesus were preached in them? Prophecies are fulfilled, the water-pots are full; but that the water may be turned into wine, Christ must be understood in that whole prophecy\u201d (Tractates on John 9.6<\/a>).<\/p>\n The 1939 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/em> has an article on \u201cType\u201d, which states<\/a>:<\/p>\n The Bible furnishes abundant evidence of the presence of types and of typical instruction in the Sacred Word. The New Testament attests this fact. It takes up a large number of persons and things and events of former dispensations, and it treats them as adumbrations and prophecies of the future.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The article cited the Dutch Reformed theologian Jan Jacob van Oosterzee (1817 \u2013 1882):<\/p>\n That the Old Testament is rich in types, or rather forms in its totality one type, of the New Testament, follows necessarily from the entirely unique position which belongs to Christ as the center of the history of the world and of revelation. As we constantly see the principle embodied in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, that the higher species are already typified in a lower stage of development, so do we find, in the domain of saving revelation, the highest not only prepared for, but also shadowed forth, by that which precedes in the lower spheres.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course, the reason Barron resorts to allegory, absent any textual clues, is because there\u2019s not nearly enough at the \u201cliteral level\u201d of the Gospels to justify Catholic Mariology. [p. 61]<\/span><\/p>\n So he claims<\/em>; but he does not argue and demonstrate<\/em>, per his usual modus operandi<\/em>. I provide tons of biblical arguments<\/a> for Catholic Mariology. And I wrote a book that gave a hundred biblical arguments<\/a> illustrating the utter absence of sola Scriptura<\/em> in the Bible. Hays was aware of my apologetics work, but he couldn\u2019t trouble himself to try to systematically refute it. He only had time for caricaturing my Catholic belief and then launching a hundred childish personal attacks my way.<\/p>\n Throughout the book he says the church is the \u201cmystical\u201d body of Christ. What does that mean? Where does he get that from Scripture\u2013or does he? [p. 61]<\/span><\/p>\n It comes from the Scriptural use of \u201cBody of Christ\u201d: \u201cyou are the body of Christ and individually members of it\u201d (1 Cor 12:27), \u201cHe is the head of the body, the church\u201d (Col 1:18), \u201cthe church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all\u201d (Eph 1:22-23), \u201cthe church, his body\u201d (Eph 5:23), \u201cwe are members of his body\u201d (Eph 5:30), \u201chis body, that is, the church\u201d (Col 1:24). That\u2019s a mystery, or non-literal, or mystical, if you will. \u201cMystical\u201d isn\u2019t a biblical word, but it comes from the same root as \u201cmystery,\u201d which is<\/em> a biblical word, mysterion<\/em> (Strong\u2019s word #3466<\/a>). It appears 27 times in the NT. Catholics, by the way, regard Protestants as part of this Body of Christ, by virtue of their regeneration in the sacrament of baptism. That\u2019s not just ne saying this, or Vatican II. The Council of Trent taught it<\/a> in the 16th century.<\/p>\n Even if we wish to play along with the maternal metaphor, children outgrow their parents, so \u201cin a very real sense,\u201d the church should outgrow Mary. [p. 61]<\/span><\/p>\n Right. By the same token,\u00a0 God is called our Father, so are we supposed to outgrow Him<\/em>, too (following the paternal metaphor?).<\/p>\n Once again, notice the wild leaps of logic. Does kecharitomene<\/em> actually mean \u201cfull of grace\u201d? or is that reading the Vulgate back into the Greek? This is substituting tradition for what the text actually says. [p. 61]<\/span><\/p>\n The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson thought it did:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cHighly favoured\u201d (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of\u00a0charitoo<\/em>\u00a0and means endowed with grace (charis<\/em>), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate\u00a0gratiae plena<\/em>\u00a0\u201cis right, if it means \u2018full of grace\u00a0which thou hast received\u2018; wrong, if it means \u2018full of grace\u00a0which thou hast to bestow\u2018\u201d (Plummer).\u00a0<\/span>(Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/em>, Vol. II, 13)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Kecharitomene<\/em>\u00a0has to do with God\u2019s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root,\u00a0charis<\/em>\u00a0(literally, \u201cgrace\u201d). Thus, in the KJV,\u00a0charis\u00a0<\/em>is translated \u201cgrace\u201d 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene<\/em> in Luke 1:28 as \u201cfull of grace\u201d and that the literal meaning was \u201cendued with grace\u201d (Word Studies in the New Testament<\/em>, Vol. I, 259).<\/span><\/p>\n Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as \u201cto endue with Divine favour or grace\u201d (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words<\/em>, Vol., II, 171). Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can\u2019t avoid the fact that kecharitomene<\/em> (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to \u201cdivine favor, that is, God\u2019s grace\u201d (The Roman Catholic Controversy<\/em> [1996], 201).<\/p>\n In context, Mary is favored by God to be messiah\u2019s mother. Gabriel can\u2019t refer to someone as the object of divine favor unless they were immaculately conceived? Because Catholic Mariology is so underdetermined by Scripture, Catholic theologians must inflate the few references to Mary in the NT. [p. 61]<\/span><\/p>\n Here is the relevant biblical argument:<\/p>\n For St. Paul, grace (charis<\/em>) is the antithesis and \u201cconqueror\u201d of sin (emphases added in the following verses):<\/span><\/p>\n Romans 6:14<\/strong>: \u201cFor sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.\u201d (cf. Rom 5:17, 20-21; 2 Cor 1:12; 2 Timothy 1:9)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We are saved by grace, and grace alone:<\/p>\n Ephesians 2:8-10<\/strong>: \u201cFor by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God \u2013 not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.\u201d (cf. Acts 15:11; Rom 3:24; 11:5; Eph 2:5; Titus 2:11; 3:7; 1 Pet 1:10)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:<\/p>\n 1. Grace saves us.<\/p>\n 2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It\u2019s a \u201czero-sum game\u201d: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:<\/span> 1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.<\/p>\n 2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:<\/p>\n 1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God\u2019s grace.<\/p>\n 2. To be \u201cfull of\u201d God\u2019s grace, then, is to be saved.<\/p>\n 3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).<\/p>\n 4. The Bible teaches that we need God\u2019s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.<\/p>\n 5. To be \u201cfull of\u201d God\u2019s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.<\/p>\n 6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.<\/p>\n 7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.<\/p>\n 8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. It is highly unlikely that any evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.<\/p>\n In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.<\/p>\n The Bible never says Mary is the ark of the covenant. That\u2019s another example of Catholics building on a false premise. [p. 62]<\/span><\/p>\n It does<\/em>, in effect, through several analogies<\/a>.<\/p>\n In John\u2019s Gospel, Jesus is the true temple. But in Catholic Mariology, Mary replaces Jesus. [p. 62]<\/span><\/p>\n She does no such thing, according to our teaching. This is simply Hays\u2019 emotional anti-Marianism and unbiblical \u201ceither\/or\u201d dichotomies. Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid wrote, against this false notion:<\/p>\n Jesus shares his other unique roles in lesser ways with Christians.<\/p>\n 1) Jesus is the Creator of all things (John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, Heb 1:1-2), yet when it comes to creating human life Jesus shares this role with men and women, mediating his creatorship through us via sexual intercourse . . . [making] his role as Creator dependent in a way on human action.<\/p>\n 2) Jesus is the shepherd of his flock the Church (Jn 10:16), yet he shares his shepherdhood in a subordinate way with others, beginning with Peter (Jn 21:15-17) and extending it later to others (Eph 4:11) . . . Jesus says he\u2019s the only shepherd (Jn 10:11-16), yet this seemingly exclusive statement doesn\u2019t conflict with him making Peter shepherd . . . or with his calling others to be shepherds as well (Eph 4:11). Peter emphasizes that Jesus shares his role as shepherd with others by calling Jesus the chief shepherd . . . (1 Pet 5:4). Note also that the Greek construction of John 10:16 . . . is the same as 1 Timothy 2:5 (. . . one mediator . . .). The apostles and their successors the bishops, are truly shepherds also.<\/p>\n 3) Jesus is the high priest of the New Covenant . . . (Heb 3:1, 4:14-15, 5:5-10, 7:15-26, 8:1, 9:11). But the Bible also says Christians are called to share in Christ\u2019s priesthood (1 Pet 2:5-9; Rev 1:6, 5:10, 20:6).<\/p>\n 4) Jesus is the supreme judge (Jn 5:27, 9:39; Rom 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10; 2 Tim 4:1), yet Christians are called to share in Christ\u2019s judgeship. They will be judges in heaven, even judging the angels (Matt 19:28; Lk 22:30; 1 Cor 6:2-3; Rev 20:4).<\/p>\n 5) Jesus is the sovereign king of the universe (Mk 15:32; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 15:3, 17:14, 19:16), but he shares his kingship with all Christians, who in heaven will wear crowns, sit on thrones, and reign as kings alongside Jesus \u2013 but always subordinate to him . . . (see also Matt 19:23; Lk 22:30; Rev 1:6, 3:21, 5:10).<\/p>\n 6) Jesus forgives our sins and reconciles us to the Father (2 Cor 5:18-21), but he calls us to share in various ways in his ministry of forgiveness and reconciliation (Matt 9:5-8, 18:18; Jn 20:21-2; Acts 2:38; 2 Cor 5:18-20; James 5:14-15) . . .<\/p>\n Each Christian is called to share in these roles in subordinate ways. The principle of sharing in Christ\u2019s roles extends, in the form of intercessory prayer, to Christ\u2019s mediatorship as well.\u201d (\u201cAny Friend of God\u2019s is a Friend of Mine\u201d<\/a>, This Rock<\/em>\u00a0[now Catholic Answers Magazine<\/em>], Sep. 1992, 7-13; quote from 10-12; numbers added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is true even regarding salvation and distribution of grace<\/a>, according to many biblical passages: particularly from St. Paul. Mary can help distribute God\u2019s grace and salvation? No problem at all<\/em>, teaches Paul in many passages. Paul conveys not the slightest inkling or hint that any of this usurps God\u2019s sole prerogatives.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty-one books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/05\/WhoreOfBabylon2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n