- For Survivors
- Resource Center
- Make a Difference
This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.
Posted on: Friday, November 20, 2020
On today’s Dr. J Show, veteran journalist, now editor of Catholic World News, Philip Lawler shares his insights on the newly released McCarrick Report, the Pope’s comments on same-sex marriage, the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops congratulating Joe Biden on the election, and the status of the Church in China. The show’s host is Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., Ruth Institute Founder and President.
Of Pope Francis’s comments on homosexual marriage, Lawler observed: “The Pope wasn’t changing Church doctrine on marriage. He can’t do that. Unfortunately, his remarks provided an opportunity for journalists to misrepresent Church doctrine.”
Lawler agreed with a November 10th Ruth Institute release questioning the propriety of Archbishop Jose Gomez, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, congratulating Biden before the votes are fully counted and certified.
Lawler said: “There was no need for Gomez to say anything. He wanted to curry favor with the man who will likely be the next president.” Morse added: “Biden promises soft-persecution of the Catholic Church and abortion under all circumstances, paid for by taxpayers.”
Regarding the report on ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s sexual abuse, Lawler noted that the report is silent on important questions, including: “How did he rise through the ranks?” and “Who helped him?” Lawler said the only member of the hierarchy who comes off badly in the report, ironically, was Archbishop Carlo Vigano, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States who blew the whistle on McCarrick.
McCarrick helped to negotiate the Vatican/China deal, whose details have yet to be made public. Morse charged, “It’s believed that the Pope will now select Chinese bishops from a list submitted by the communist regime. This comes at a time when the Church – both underground and official—faces increased persecution.”
The Dr. J Show is a weekly interview that features experts on issues relating to marriage, family and human sexuality. New episodes release every Friday.
The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization leading an international interfaith coalition to defend the family and build a civilization of love.
To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, contact email@example.com.
Posted on: Thursday, November 12, 2020
COMMENTARY: Scripture, sacred Tradition and our Catechism all agree: Sexual activity must be confined to a lawfully married husband and
Many of our friends from a variety of faith traditions have contacted the Ruth Institute regarding the recent statements attributed to Pope Francis regarding the Church’s position on civil unions for same-sex couples. I have one statement and two messages.
The statement is very simple: Pope Francis has not changed the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church.
My messages are very simple, too:
1. Do not be diverted.
2. Do not be demoralized.
Let me explain.
I can tell you with 100% confidence that Pope Francis has not changed the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church on the immorality of homosexual acts or on the true nature of marriage being the life-giving union between a man and a woman or anything else. How can I be so sure? Because he does not have the authority to change the teaching.
Every Catholic schoolchild is taught that the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. As a child, I was taught, as many of you were, that the pope can be wrong if he predicts who is going to win the World Series. As an adult, I extended that simple thought: When the pope makes personnel appointments or does foreign policy, he can be wrong, sometimes disastrously so. And, when he gives interviews to journalists with agendas, he certainly can be wrong.
In fact, there are levels of “magisterial-ness,” if you want to call it that. Some writings of the pope carry more weight than others. Look closely at this resource, which explains various levels of doctrinal authority. You will not see “random papal statements to tendentious journalists who cut and paste the pope’s words to his own liking” anywhere on the list.
But what did Pope Francis really mean to say? I have no idea. I don’t think it is productive to try to “explain” or “explain away” his latest confusing statements. I do have some thoughts about what he and those around him may be trying to accomplish.
I believe the Pope and his advisers are well aware that he does not have the authority to change the teaching. The Vatican has in effect, suggested that the teaching has changed. The Vatican held a reception honoring the filmmaker. The Vatican Press office initially ordered silence about the controversy. The following week, the Vatican Secretary of State issued a “clarification” that the average person most likely neither heard nor understood. The net result: people continue to hold the incorrect impression that the Church’s teaching has “progressed” on the matter of homosexuality.
I can think of two possible explanations for why they might do this. First, they are positioning themselves as heroes to the gay-friendly world media, by appearing to move the mean old, nasty, out-of-touch Catholic Church out of the darkness and into the Modern Sunlight. You could think of this as a bright shiny object that attracts everyone’s attention.
Meanwhile, they divert attention from the clergy sexual abuse cover-up, including the newly-released but long-delayed McCarrick Report. While the release of this report is an important step, many questions remain. It focuses on how people above McCarrick in the ecclesial ladder missed the numerous red flags. But so far absent is the all-important question of the networks of people below McCarrick. People who owe their careers and other benefits to McCarrick may still have secrets, still be causing problems, and may still be flying under the radar. I do not know how to get to the bottom of something like this. But that makes it all the more important that we remain vigilant.
This is why my first message to faithful Catholics is: Do not be diverted. Take every opportunity to steer the conversation back to our insistence that the Vatican continue becoming more transparent. Do not allow another confusing papal statement to change the subject away from this important topic.
The second possible explanation for this latest episode of Vatican-induced doctrinal confusion is to demoralize the remaining faithful Catholics who love the Church’s teachings and are trying to defend them. The sexual revolutionaries would love to completely take over the Catholic Church and put an end to our resistance to their ideology. As we all know, the Church’s ancient teaching is one of the last remaining bulwarks against the continued crimes of the Sexual Revolution.
This brings me to my second message: Do not be demoralized.
Demoralizing one’s opponents is an important aspect of psychological warfare. Do not give them the satisfaction of being discouraged or upset. Do you have a right to be angry? You bet. Is it in your interest to be discouraged? Absolutely not.
Catholics who wholly embrace Catholic teaching may find it painful to realize that the Church, the bride of Christ, has been corrupted by the worst sort of sexual revolutionaries. I agree. It is painful. It is also a fact. However, we are not alone. Pretty much every profession and every sector of society, and yes, pretty much every church, has been corrupted by the Sexual Revolution.
The Church’s teaching is good and true. Scripture, sacred Tradition and our Catechism all agree. Sexual activity must be confined to a lawfully married husband and wife. This teaching belongs to all of us. The Pope has a responsibility to defend it. So does every bishop and every priest. And so, dear friends, do we as baptized Catholics. We have every right and responsibility to defend the teaching. If the hierarchy refuses to defend the teaching, it is all the more important that we do so.
Remember: Pope Francis does not have the authority to change Church teaching. He knows this. The media’s barely-concealed glee that the Catholic Church is ‘progressing’ is a distraction. We should work together to get the conversation back where it belongs, which is that the Vatican needs to be fully transparent about clergy sex abuse and harassment, and the role that homosexuality among the clergy plays in this.
Everything else is a distraction. In the immortal words of the late great Pope St. John Paul II: Be not afraid!
Posted on: Saturday, July 11, 2020
“They may not be household names, but they have crucial information and first-hand experience about what the Sexual Revolution has done to individuals and society,” said Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., President of The Ruth Institute, in describing the speakers for the upcoming Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution, July 17-18 in Lake Charles, LA.
“Our speakers include professionals who have worked with these issues for years, and survivors who can bear witness to the trauma of a movement sold as liberation that’s resulted in the physical and spiritual enslavement of millions,” Morse said.
The speakers include:
Dr. Paul Church – a practicing urologist for over 35 years and Asst. Professor of Surgery at the Harvard Medical School who was fired for challenging his colleagues to tell the truth about the health consequences of LGBTQ behavior.
Sue Ellen Browder – a former Cosmopolitan journalist who’s appeared on hundreds of radio and television shows (including Oprah, The Today Show and EWTN) and is the author of the recently published Subverted: How I Helped the Sexual Revolution Hijack the Women’s Movement.
Tracy Shannon -- When her husband of 15 years left her to live as a woman, she decided to combat the new sexual morality. As Director of MassResistance Texas, she’s fought Drag Queen Story Hours in libraries across the state.
Fr Paul Sullins, Ph.D. – Senior Research Associate of the Ruth Institute and a retired sociology professor who’s done pioneering work on the impact of same-sex parenting on children and the relationship between clergy sex abuse and homosexual ordination within the Catholic priesthood.
Dr. Michelle Cretella MD. – a pediatrician and full-time Executive Director of the American College of Pediatricians. Dr. Cretella is one of the world’s most outspoken critics of the gender ideology in pediatrics and the author of “Gender Dysphoria in Children and Suppression of Debate” in the Summer 2016 issue of Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Luis Ruiz – wounded in the 2016 Pulse Night Club shooting in Orlando, in which 50 died and 58 were injured. While hospitalized, he learned he was HIV-positive, causing him to reevaluate his life, leave the homosexual lifestyle, and return to the church in which he grew up. He now shares his message with audiences across the country.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. -- founder of the Ruth Institute, a global non-profit organization that defends the family at home and in the public square and equips others to do the same. She was a campaign spokeswoman for California’s winning Proposition 8 campaign, defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. She has authored or co-authored five books and spoken around the globe on marriage, family and human sexuality. Her latest book is The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and Why the Church was Right All Along. She earned her Ph.D. at the University of Rochester, taught economics at Yale and George Mason Universities and was named one of the “Catholic Stars of 2013” on a list that included Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI.
Click here for the complete program for the 2020 Summit.
Click here to register to attend in person or by live streaming.
Posted on: Wednesday, June 17, 2020
As part of its 2020 Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution (July 17-18), the Ruth Institute will offer exclusive training at its “It Takes a Family to Raise a Village” Ambassador’s Conference on July 17, 8:30 AM to 4 PM, in Lake Charles, LA.
Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., explained, “We’ll train leaders and activists to counter the more toxic aspects of the Sexual Revolution -- to help them expose and oppose an ideology masquerading as a social justice/health campaign.”
The topics to be covered include:
Understanding the Global Sexual Revolution: Christian Anthropology, History and Social Systems – Building a society around Christian anthropology promotes human rights and human flourishing. Presented byDr. Morse.
Medical Tragedies of the Sexual Revolution – Traditional Christian Sexual Morality promotes good health. Presented by Dr. Michelle Cretella, MD, Executive Director, American College of Pediatricians.
Social Science Evidence about the Sexual Revolution – Social science research about post-abortion trauma, same-sex parenting and children’s needs for their parents. Sophisticated social science research supports Traditional Christian Sexual Morality. Presented by Fr. Paul Sullins, Ph.D.
Human Rights Catastrophes of the Sexual Revolution: Population Control and Demographic Winter – Deviations from traditional Christian Sexual Ethics cause long-term, large-scale problems. Presented by Don Feder, JD.
Morse added: “The training will make participants knowledgeable and impassioned advocates for traditional Christian morality in the face of the Sexual Revolution.”
Participation at the Ambassador’s Training is by application only and can be applied for here.
The Summit will also include the Ruth Institute’s 3rd Annual Awards Dinner (July 17, 6:00 PM) and the main program (July 18, 8:30 AM).
Previous releases on the Survivors Summit:
All sessions will take place at Treasures of Marilyn’s in Lake Charles, LA.
Posted on: Tuesday, June 02, 2020
The Ruth Institute will hold its Third Annual Awards Dinner and Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution on July 18, in Lake Charles, LA. Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., said, “This Dinner and Summit will take those who’ve suffered from the Sexual Revolution from victimhood to healing, empowerment and activism.”
The event will be held live, in accordance with the gradual reopening guidelines for the state of Louisiana. Morse said, “We are not cowering in fear, wondering whether we will have a future. We will comply with all public health guidelines in place at the time. But we want the public to know that we at the Ruth Institute are filled with hope for the future. We will act as if we have a future.”
The Awards Dinner Friday evening kicks off the festivities. The Institute will give awards for activism and public witness, including a keynote address on How the Sexual Revolution Hijacked the Women’s Movement. The Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution on Saturday includes these sessions:
Surviving Childhood Sexual Abuse – Statistical analysis and strategies for healing, including testimony from survivors of childhood sexual abuse, including clergy sexual abuse.
Surviving Pornography Addiction – Understanding pornography as a public health crisis, and offering strategies for protecting children.
Surviving the LGBT Sub-Culture – Including health and psychological risks commonly associated with same-sex sexual activity and gender dysphoria.
Morse added: “Last year’s Survivors Summit was an overwhelming success. This year, we’ll be hearing expert input and testimony from survivors on a new range of issues associated with the Sexual Revolution.”
“The Ruth Institute is the only organization fighting for the family and exposing the interconnectedness of such diverse issues as divorce, pornography, sexual abuse, gender dystopia, the LGBT movement and the sub-cultures it’s spawned.”
Morse concluded, “Our Third Annual Awards Dinner and Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution will be about healing, hope and unity.”
The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization leading an international interfaith coalition to defend the family and build a civilization of love.
Jennifer Roback Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies are Destroying Lives.
To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Posted on: Thursday, May 28, 2020
Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., said the United Nations’ attempt to make language more politically correct is “another advance for the Sexual Revolution and a further descent into barbarism.”
A UN bureaucrat recently tweeted that we need to make language more “gender-neutral” by eliminating the words “husband” and “wife” and substituting “spouse.” Morse noted, “Who controls the language controls the debate.”
“I warned ten years ago during the marriage debates that a necessary consequence of removing the gender requirement from marriage would be de-gendering marriage,” Morse said. “No more ‘husband and wife,” only gender-neutral ‘spouse’ or ‘partner.’”
Morse asked how far this will go. “This process also includes replacing the words ‘father and mother’ to the gender-neutral ‘parent.’ The words ‘son’ and ‘daughter’ become the generic ‘child.’ The end goal of the Sexual Revolutionaries is to remove all references to sex from law and custom.”
Regarding the UN tweet: “There was never a vote to switch from husband and wife to spouse, not even in the UN, where such a vote might have passed,” Morse said. “And there was certainly never a popular referendum on the question. Very few of the ordinary people who supported same-sex marriage had any idea that they were de-gendering marriage. Proponents of the Sexual Revolution are adept at infiltration and subversion of unaccountable bureaucracies.”
Morse urged: “Don’t let them get away with it. Once we start purging the language of gender-specific words, there’ll be no end to it. Each victory
will whet the Revolutionary appetite for more. Today’s gender-confused children are, in part, a consequence of our gender-confused law and language.”
Posted on: Wednesday, March 18, 2020
Educating yourself is the first step in fighting the effects of the sexual revolution in your life and among loved ones.
The Ruth Institute is hosting its Third Annual Awards Dinner and Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution, and you're invited.
Learn how to confront and survive trends in transgenderism, the LGBT subculture, the pitfalls of population control, post-abortion trauma, same-sex parenting, childhood sexual abuse, and more.
The summit will include various sessions loaded with information. Have you ever wondered, for example, how pornography is affecting people’s lives? The Summit’s class “Protecting Our Children from Our Pornified Culture” will open your eyes. These and other facts about pornography will be discussed:
For this and many other well-researched presentations, save the date:
July 17-18, 2020
Posted on: Monday, October 14, 2019
Writing in Public Discourse, the Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, Fr. Paul Sullins, a Senior Research Associate with the Ruth Institute, analyzed a new study which conclusively refutes the notion that some people are born homosexual. (“Born That Way” No More: The New Science of Sexual Orientation, September 30, 2019.)
Ruth Institute Founder and President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. commented: “In this article, Fr. Sullins continues his important work debunking the myths of the Sexual Revolution. Previous highlights include the myth of ‘no difference” between children of same sex parents and mother-father couples and the myth that clergy sex abuse in the Catholic church has nothing to do with homosexuality in the Catholic priesthood. Now Fr. Sullins is among the few who are willing to draw out the conclusions from this latest study: homosexuality cannot be genetically innate. There is no gay gene.”
The study was released last month by a team of scientists at MIT and Harvard. Fr. Sullins writes that they found “that the effect of the genes we inherit from our parents (known as ‘heritability’) on same-sex orientation was very weak.” But “a person’s developmental environment which includes diet, family, friends, neighborhood, religion and a host of other life conditions – is twice as influential on the probability of developing same-sex behavior or orientation as a person’s genes are.”
As Fr. Sullins reports, the study notes, “'There is certainly no single genetic determinant (sometimes referred to as the gay gene in the media)' that causes same-sex sexual behavior.”
Morse adds: “The study, whose conclusions Fr. Sullins describes incisively and with clarity, will have a huge impact in a number of areas, including anti-discrimination cases, and bans on behavior modification therapy.”
More on “Born That Way” No More: The New Science of Sexual Orientation:
thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/09/57342/ and papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3464342
Fr. Sullins, who was an Episcopalian priest, is now a married Catholic priest; he earned a Ph.D. from Catholic University in 1997.
Besides his work for the Ruth Institute, the Rev. D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D., is a Research Professor of Sociology and Director of the Leo Initiative for Catholic Social Research at the Catholic University of America. He has written four books and over 150 journal articles, book chapters and research reports on issues of faith and culture, including “Is Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse related to Homosexual Priests,” in the National Catholic Bioethics quarterly, Winter 2019.
Posted on: Tuesday, September 03, 2019
The findings of a study of the genetic basis of homosexuality published last week in the journal Science explode the false narrative that being gay is an innate condition that is controlled or largely compelled by one's genetic makeup.
Rebutting decades of search by LGBT scientists for a "gay gene", the study's first author flatly concludes "it will be basically impossible to predict one’s sexual activity or orientation just from genetics”.
This is putting it gently.
The study found that a person's developmental environment--the influence of diet, family, friends, neighbourhood, religion, and a host of other life conditions--was twice as influential as genetics on the probability of adopting same-sex behaviour or orientation. The genetic influence did not come from one or two strong sources but from dozens of genetic variants that each added a small increased propensity for same-sex behaviour.
A genetic arrangement based on a large number of markers across the genome means that virtually all human beings have this arrangement, or large portions of it. In other words, not only did the study fail to find some controlling gene for gay identity, it also established that gay persons are not genetically distinct from all other human beings in any meaningful sense.
Gay persons, we might say, have a perfectly normal human genome.
Proponents of LGBT normalization, which includes the publishing journal and mainstream media reporters, have tried to put the best face on this result. As if the issue were tolerance of gay people's lifestyle choices, the New York Times quotes one of the authors saying, “I hope that the science can be used to educate people a little bit more about how natural and normal same-sex behaviour is”. LGBT activists declared that the study "provides even more evidence that being gay or lesbian is a natural part of human life".
Indeed, the study found that genetic propensity for same-sex behaviour is not very different from that of 28 other complex traits or behaviours and is related to a propensity for other risk-taking behaviour such as smoking, drug use, number of sex partners or a general openness to new experience.
But the longstanding and emphatic claim of gay activists in law and public policy has not been that same-sex activity reflects upbringing or lifestyle factors, but is an inborn difference that is discovered, not developed; a distinct and fixed element of a person's nature that is unchangeable.
Emotionally and sexually, same-sex orientation is not a matter of who persons choose to become, they have claimed, but who they already are.
A linchpin of the evidential basis for the US Supreme Court decision sanctioning same-sex marriage, for example, was that same-sex orientation reflected an "immutable nature [which] dictate[d] that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment." (Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, p. 4).
And the point of conflict for tolerance today is not so much for people who want to identify themselves as gay or lesbian, but for people who want, for themselves personally, to avoid or resist such an identification.
On the grounds that they would be denying their immutable nature, numerous legislative and judicial efforts are currently underway to outlaw voluntary therapy for or deny the legitimacy of adults who experience some level of same-sex attraction but do not want to engage in same-sex relations or identify themselves as gay or lesbian.
In the very jurisdictions where persons with same-sex orientation are now free to identify as gay and to engage in same-sex marriage, LGBT ideologues are working to deny the same persons the freedom to decline to identify as gay and to engage in opposite-sex marriage, on the premise that they would thereby be doing violence to who they really are.
This study pulls the rug out from under such thinking.
If gay and lesbian persons are genetically normal, what basis is there for considering them a distinct, protected class subject to preferential treatment under the law or for prohibiting other genetically normal persons from refusing to engage in same-sex behaviour?
The study finds that most persons with the identical genotype as gay or lesbian persons (by an approximate ratio of 2 to 1) end up, for various reasons of social environment or development or personal principle, not engaging in same-sex relations. Shouldn't such persons have equal freedom and legitimacy to do so?
In a free society that values personal autonomy, it is not an appropriate function of law to penalize personal lifestyle choices, no matter how vehemently some may disagree with them or politically incorrect they may be. If it ever did make sense on the premise that gay persons were born that way, in the absence of such a compelling genetic difference, it is impossible to reasonably maintain that tolerance of homosexual behaviour requires intolerance of heterosexual behaviour.
In light of these implications, some of the scientists involved in the study, who are themselves gay, have publicly opposed its publication. Strikingly unaware of their own bias, they expressed concern that the study findings would be "misconstrued" to "advance agendas of hate".
In less heated language, they are concerned that it might be interpreted in ways with which they disagree. For them, the benefits of increased understanding of human behaviour in this area did not outweigh the perceived negative political implications of the findings for the expression of gay identity.
The lead authors of the study, some of whom are also gay, are to be commended for resisting the impulse to suppress scientific evidence for the sake of political expediency. Although sadly often violated today, the conviction that the dissemination of evidence and ideas should not be censored by political considerations is fundamental to modern science.
While we can dispute, hopefully with mutual respect, who may be being hateful to whom in their interpretation of the results, in the end we will all find our best modus vivendi on the basis of policy and law that reflects solid objective evidence, honestly presented, as this study exemplifies.
Or as a wise man once said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free".
Rev. D. Paul Sullins recently retired as Professor of Sociology at the Catholic University of America, Washington DC. He is a Senior Research Associate of the Ruth Institute. Dr. Sullins is a leader in the field of research on same-sex parenting and its implications for child development. He has written four books and over 100 journal articles, research reports, and essays on issues of family, faith, and culture.
Posted on: Monday, February 26, 2018
Dear Dr. J:
My brother just announced he would be getting married to his boyfriend. They have been together for approximately ten years. My parents and brothers
raised their glasses to his plans and seem to be congratulating them. As a Roman Catholic with my principles of natural family and natural marriage,
how should I react about him getting married and what should I do when he invites me to his wedding?
Should you go to the wedding? In a word, no, you should not. They may ask you, "Would you go to the wedding of a divorced person who was remarrying?" The correct answer is, "No, I would not. They are entering publicly into an adulterous union. I would not go." If they reply, "But you went to Uncle Harry's second wedding and didn't say a word," the proper answer is, "I was wrong to do that. I should not have gone."
The longer-term question is: how do you maintain good relationships with these people and other family members who are going along with their plans to marry? This is the larger challenge.
Take every opportunity to show them love and compassion. Include your brother and his friend in activities whenever you can do so in good conscience. For instance, you can have them over for dinner, or go out to a show with them. These are not intrinsically "coupled" activities. You should invite them whenever you can. If they say no, that is ok. You have done your part. You can send them each birthday cards or Christmas cards.
If they want to argue with you about why you didn't go to the wedding, I suggest you decline to participate. Ditto if they want to argue about related topics, like the Church’s teaching on sexuality, unless you have reason to think they are sincerely interested in what you have to say. If they just want to argue, your answer is a polite, "No thanks."
Keep praying for them. Your time with the Lord will gradually reveal other specific ways in which you can show love to your brother. Eventually, the
Lord may show you an opportunity to explain the Church’s teaching in its fullness. Or maybe the Lord will place someone else in your brother’s
life who can share it with him.
Thank you for your question.