Dr. Robert Sungenis is a renowned Catholic speaker, producer, and best-selling author. He has over 30 years of experience in scriptural exegesis and theological debates.

Robert is an avid author, publishing over 40 books that defend the Catholic faith. He has produced films such as The Principle and Journey To The Center Of The Universe. These films explain new scientific discoveries showing Earth to have a special location.

Founder, President of
Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc.

Robert has appeared on EWTN, CNN, and many other media outlets. Through his tireless efforts and vast knowledge, many souls are being saved.

He is the founder of CAI, a lay apostolate dedicated to serving the Church by defending its teachings. 

Pope and Me Picture_edited.jpg

Dr. Sungenis with St. Pope John Paul II, 2002

​ Robert holds advanced degrees in Theology and Religious Studies from George Washington University; Westminster Theological Seminary; and Calamus International University. He is also the chairman of Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC in West Hollywood, California, which produces movies for scientific and religious audiences. He is the executive producer of the movie, The Principle, which appeared in AMC and Regal Cinemas in October 2014. Robert is also the executive producer, writer, and director of the movie, Journey to the Center of the Universe, which was released on DVD in September 2015. Robert has appeared several times on EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network): Mother Angelica Live (1998), Living Your Life Abundantly (1998-2001), Bookmark (1997-1998), and The Journey Home (1997). In 1999-2001 he wrote and hosted a 16-part weekly series for EWTN titled Not By Faith Alone, a lecture series on his best-selling book by the same title; and wrote and hosted an 18-part weekly series, Not By Scripture Alone, a lecture series on his best-selling book by the same title. In August 2002, he appeared on CNN television to defend the Catholic Church’s stand opposing female priests against feminist Rea Howrath. In August 2006 he was the featured guest on The Today Programme on the BBC discussing modern cosmology with Bro. Guy Consolmango of the Vatican Observatory. In 2006 Robert was featured as a key commentator in the documentary film about Fatima, Heaven’s Key to Peace, produced by The Fatima Center. In 2015 Robert was interviewed on the Mexican television stations ESNE TV and Televisa about his movies. He has appeared as a featured guest on various radio programs, including Catholic Answers Live; Al Kresta Live; The Andy Anderson Show (WMCA, New York); The Dick Staub Show (WYLL, Chicago), Off the Shelf (Ignatius Press); Right Here-Right Now; Putting it on the Line; The Bible Christian Hour; The Mark Dankoff Show; In the Spirit of Chartes, and many other radio programs. Since 1995 he has written articles for The Remnant, Latin Mass Magazine, Christian Order, Catholic Family News, Our Sunday Visitor, Catholic Faith and Family, The Coming Home Journal, Envoy Magazine, This Rock and The Kolbe Center, and reviews of his books appear in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Touchstone Magazine and Salon.com. For 10 years from 2003-2013, Robert was a featured writer for the magazine, Culture Wars. His January 2008 article: “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?” led the US bishops to excise an error about the Mosaic covenant from the 2006 United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, which was approved by the Vatican in 2009. In 2002, Robert was a lecturer for the Kolbe Center in Rome, where he met and talked with Pope John Paul II. In his beginnings, in 1994 he produced and hosted The Catholic Answer Man radio program, which the Baltimore archdiocese paper The Catholic Review featured in October 1994. Robert was inducted into the Who’s Who Among Professionals in 1996, and nominated as “Envoy of the Year” in 1998 by Envoy Magazine. Robert was covered as a front-page story of the Oakland Tribune in August 1994 and featured in Christianity Today (October 1994) and Charisma Magazine (September 1994). Robert has contributed to the following books: Surprised By Truth (Basilica, 1995); Jesus, Peter and the Keys (Queenship, 1997); The Catholic Answer Book of Mary (Our Sunday Visitor, 2000); The Consecration of Russia (Hometown Publications, 2013).

Watch Robert's Show

Geocentrism 101- CROP TRANS An Introduction into the Science of Geocentric Cosmology - 6th

Geocentrism 101
An Introduction into the Science of Geocentric Cosmology - 6th Ed.

How do you cram over five hundred years of science and history into a small book of just over 200 pages and not only make it easy to read but as understandable as Reader’s Digest? Well, that feat has been accomplished by author Robert Sungenis in an easy-to-carry paperback book on a 6 x 9 frame. Whereas his massive three volume set, Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, now in its 12th edition, is over 2400 pages long, the best and boldest of that famous set has been distilled down for you into less than one tenth the size. The title is, Geocentrism 101: An Introduction into the Science of Geocentric Cosmology, and is hot off the presses from CAI Publishing, Inc. We call it Geo 101, for short. Although the cover says that the book is “Recommended for High School, College and Adult,” in actuality it is for anyone who has had a hunger to know what all the fuss is about concerning modern heliocentric versus geocentric cosmology. And believe me, it is a real page-turner! If you were ever reticent to read a book because there were too many words per page, or because it had a tiny eye-straining font and very few pictures and diagrams, well, never fear, Geo 101 is here! For its simplicity alone Geo 101 will become the “go-to” book for many years to come. Whereas the average paperback novel has over 500 words per page, Geo 101 has an average of 200, and all of that is in a big 12-point font so that even your far-sighted grandfather or even the partially blind can read it! As for pictures, believe it or not, there are 450 of them, which amounts to an average of two per page. Many of the pictures are photocopies of the pages of the books from which various quotes of famous scientists have been extracted, so that you, the reader, can see for yourself what the author actually said and the context in which he said it. Nobody will accuse you of taking things out-of-context!

Geocentrism for Dumskies and Smart Kids, 2nd ed-TRANSPARENT_.png
GWW Book Volume I-TRNSPARENT.png

Geocentrism for Dumskies and Smart Kids | 2nd ed.
by Robert Sungenis

Have you ever heard something similar to these words? “Geocentrism, you say? Preposterous! Everyone knows the Earth revolves around the sun! There have been all kinds of experiments that prove it so! Even the Catholic Church admitted, finally, that Galileo was right in the pope’s 1992 speech! Newton showed us that the smaller body, the Earth, must revolve around the larger body, the sun, even as Galileo saw moons circling Jupiter. There is no question the Earth must revolve around the sun. Ask any scientist today and he’ll tell you the Earth revolves around the sun. You’d have to be a real quack to doubt it. You aren’t a quack, are you?” But if everyone can be so sure the Earth revolves around the sun, why do the following famous scientists state or suggest otherwise? Physicist, Albert Einstein: “…to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result.” Lincoln Barnett (foreword by Albert Einstein): “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” Stephen Hawking: “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” Astronomer, Fred Hoyle: “…we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to await the present century.” Physicist, Hans Reichenbach: “It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value.” Physicist, Dennis Sciama: “Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical as sumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation.” Physicist, I Bernard Cohen: “There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets…move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.” Physicist, Arthur Lynch: “Descartes is, however, doubly interesting to us in the discussion of Relativity, for at one time when the Inquisition was becoming uneasy about his scientific researches, he gave them a reply that satisfied them, or perhaps he merely gained time, which was long, while they were trying to understand its meaning. He declared that the sun went around the Earth, and that when he said that the Earth revolved round the sun that was merely another manner of expressing the same occurrence. I met with this saying first from Henri Poincaré, and I thought then that it was a witty, epigrammatic way of compelling thought to the question; but on reflection I saw that it was a statement of actual fact. The movements of the two bodies are relative one to the other; it is a matter of choice as to which we take as our place of observation.” Physicist, Henrick Lorentz: “Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…” Phys. Wolfgang Pauli: “The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion…”10 Physicist, Henri Poincaré: “We do not have and cannot have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation.” Phys. Ernst Mach: “Obviously it matters little if we think of the Earth as turning about on its axis, or if we view it at rest while the fixed stars revolve around it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another.”12 Phys. Julian B. Barbour: “Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and, if so, in what particular sense.” Physicist, Henri Poincaré: “A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” Physicist, Albert Einstein: “The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: ‘the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.” Physicist, Isaac Newton: “In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and an other force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun….Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system.” Science historian, Martin Gardner: “The ancient argument over whether the Earth rotates or the heavens revolve around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no more than an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference. Obviously, the most convenient choice is the universe. Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference.” Philosopher, Bertrand Russell: “But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two statements: ‘the earth rotates once a day’ and ‘the heavens revolve about the Earth once a day.’” Astronomer, J. L. E. Dryer: “…the Earth-centered system… is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.” Physicist, Lawrence Krauss: “But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.” Physicist, Richard Feynman: “I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice born of a sequence of overthrows of geocentric ideas.…It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is extraordinary…To avoid embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity.” Physicist P. C. W. Davies: “It has always been realised, however, that a redshift of light can have another causegravity. When light climbs away from a massive gravitating object it loses energy, a depletion which shows up as a loss of frequency (colour shift). This explanation for the galactic redshift has always been ruled out because it is asymmetric: light falling towards a mass acquires a blueshift. As we see only redshifts whichever direction we look in the sky, the only way in which this could be consistent with a gravitational explanation is if the Earth is situated at the centre of an inhomogeneous Universe.” Science Writer, Kitty Ferguson: “It is possible to describe the entire universe using any chosen point as the unmoving center—the Earth will do very well—and no one can prove that choice is wrong….no one can prove that the Earth moves.” Astronomer, Phil Plait: “I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct.” Physicist, Timothy Clifton: “To entertain the notion that we may, in fact, have a special location in the universe is, for many, unthinkable. Nevertheless, that is exactly what some small groups of physicists have recently been considering