Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

Sneak Preview of: Father Joseph Iannuzzi EXPOSED, Part 2

Is there a secret connection between the Association of Priests, Inc. and the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity, which is not legally registered? Is there something underhanded going on here?

Click here to read Part 1 in this series.

More Dark Secrets

Unfortunately, there are more dark secrets to bring into the light. It will be necessary to face these too.

Don’t punish me for digging them up. I’m not the one who did the deeds, and I’m not the one who buried them.

In a recent post I wrote:

Since 2004 if not earlier, Fr Iannuzzi has been presenting “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity, Inc.” to the public as a legitimate incorporated entity and has been receiving payments under the name of this (supposedly) incorporated entity.

However,

By all appearances, no such entity exists. None of the … official searches return[s] an entity called “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity”. No even an inactive entity by that name turns up.

Nobody has registered “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity” (or MHT) as a “trading as” name or what is known as a “fictitious” business name. In the United States (and not just there) it is illegal to receive payments and donations under a business name that is not registered. It does not matter if the (unregistered) organisation is a nonprofit. On the contrary, receiving money—including especially donations—under the name of a nonprofit comes with its own legal and ethical responsibilities.

Fr Iannuzzi has located his unregistered nonprofit in the United States in a few ways. First, the mailing address of MHT is in Onaway, Michigan (it’s there on his website, clear as day, and it has been that way for well over a decade). Second, Fr Iannuzzi is the president of a nonprofit called “Association of Priests, Inc.” which was incorporated in 2000—and this nonprofit has had a registered branch in Michigan since 2011. In the application to do business in Michigan, under the question “The specific business or affairs which the corporation is to transact or conduct in Michigan”, the following is written in handwriting:

Retreats regarding the Divine

Writings

Pay for office products and supplies required

In the 2012 annual report of the Michigan branch, under the question “Describe the purpose and activities of the corporation during the year covered by this report”, the following is written in handwriting:

Divine Will Newsletter, Retreats, Pilgrimage, Prayer Groups, Thesis work

This statement applies from 2012 to 2017, inclusive. In the 2018 annual report the answer to (more or less) the same question is:

Saying Mass, giving talks, writing and printing religious books.

This statement applies from 2018 to the present (early 2025). These purposes/activities clearly match up with the purposes/activities of the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity (see ltdw.org).

Third, the Association of Priests, Inc., now owns a property in Paradise, Michigan. More precisely, and if I’m not mistaken, the Association is paying Fr Iannuzzi for the property in regular installments (possibly with interest) in accordance with a memorandum of land contract made in September 2012. The same property on Superior Drive was previously bought by Joseph Iannuzzi and Leo J. Iannuzzi (Joseph’s father, I believe) as “joint tenants with full rights of survivorship” on September 22, 2006 for $197,450. The address of this property is the address given for the main business or headquarters office for the Michigan branch of the Association of Priests.

Some more facts:

  • The treasurer who signs the annuals reports of the Michigan branch of Association of Priests, Inc. (all of them so far, 2012-2024) is Sally Anne Schaar from Onaway (she also signs the reports of the parent organisation, which is registered in Florida). Sally Schaar is also the person to send payments to for Missionaries of the Holy Trinity. The mailing address associated with her name—and with paying for Fr Iannuzzi’s books and/or MHT newsletter—is present on the Divine Will Era YouTube channel, on the Divine Will Era Facebook page, and on Fr Iannuzzi’s personal website. This address is PO Box 223 Onaway, MI and it has been the same ever since MHT was a thing (a thing in the mind of Fr Iannuzzi, for MHT does not exist legally or ecclesiastically, and never has).

  • The founding members of the Association of Priests, Inc, are prominent persons in the Divine Will movement in America.

  • Nonprofits in the U.S. are required to explain how their business serves the public good, and to file their application for nonprofit and tax-exempt status under a suitable category. Honesty and transparency in this area are absolutely essential to the legal and ethical functioning of a nonprofit. Ever since Association of Priests has been incorporated, this is what has been written on their official documents (their application and their Form 990s) as their “primary exempt purpose”:

To provide accomodations [sic] for priests and laity on the property owned by the Association (parsonages, hall, library, and refectory) that will facilitate worship services and assist with the world mission purposes of the Association, especially in working with the poor.

A nonprofit is legally required to demonstrate to the IRS, every year, that is has broad public support (monetary and other donations) for its primary exempt purpose. In the case of the Association of Priests, there are four glaring problems with this.

First, while this Association exists legally and on paper, it has no presence whatsoever apart from (i) the reports filed with the IRS and (ii) the knowledge that the board members have of the Association. You will not find any non-IRS related reference to the Association of Priests on the internet (there are a couple of similarly named associations in the U.S. Catholic Church, and they are not incorporated). None of the Form 990s gives a web address or a phone number for the Association. So how on earth is this nonprofit receiving broad public support (note that payments for sales does not count [for the most part], and large donations from a handful of supporters is insufficient)? Who even knows that it exists, except a small inner circle (the board, possibly a handful of others)? And how could anyone go about making a donation to the Association even if they did know of its existence?

Second, none of the donations and payments made out to MHT legally counts when it comes to demonstrating that the Association of Priests has sufficient public support to warrant its nonprofit and tax-exempt status being renewed each year. For MHT is neither a registered nonprofit nor a registered trading-as/fictitious business name. Legally speaking, it does not exist.

Third, if most of the money that the Association receives is for the sale of books and other publications, then by definition it does not have broad public support.

Fourth, the expenses of the Association do not appear to match up with the primary exempt purpose of the Association. For the years in which the Form 990s are publically available (2001-2005), the greatest expense (in the total column, and in the program services column) by far over the years was for publications, followed by travel and conferences. Does this align with the stated “exempt purpose” of the Association, which is to “provide accomodations [sic] for priests and laity on the property owned by the Association (parsonages, hall, library, and refectory) that will facilitate worship services and assist with the world mission purposes of the Association, especially in working with the poor”? It certainly doesn’t look like it.

On one hand, we have a community or organisation—or something—called the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity, which does not exist legally—yet it has a public presence and receives donations and payments. On the other hand, we have a registered nonprofit that does exist legally, called the Association of Priests, Inc. Yet it has no public presence, and as far as I can tell, nobody (or virtually nobody) pays money to Association of Priests under that name. It appear that these two incomplete things fit together perfectly—though in this case illegally—like pieces of a puzzle.

Speaking of pieces of a puzzle, consider these facts (apologies for a couple of repetitions):

  • The president of the Association from its incorporation in 2000 until now, is none other than Fr Joseph Iannuzzi.

  • The Missionaries of the Holy Trinity is the creation/invention of the same Fr Iannuzzi, and payments to the MHT are for his books and newsletters, and are said to support his ministry.

  • The treasurer of one is the treasurer of the other.

  • The stated purpose and activity of the Michigan branch of the Association of Priests lines up with the purpose and activity of MHT.

  • The founders of the Association are champions of the Divine Will movement.

  • The main expenses of the Association match up with the “ministerial” activities that Fr Iannuzzi mentions (or alludes to) on his website—publications, travel and conferences.

  • The property owned by the Association—which is also the main office of the Michigan branch of the Association—exists in Paradise, Michigan—the very same town in which Fr Iannuzzi, in 2005 and 2006, located his as-yet-nameless (and imaginary) “missionary religious community”.

*

I have provided enough information here for the reader to do his own research and fact-check all of this. In my next post I will be more forthcoming. And I will use a certain family-friendly, five-letter word beginning with F.

I’m not sure when I will be able to put the next installment out—and it will be an important one—so you might like to subscribe (see below) to receive the update as soon as it comes out.

I will leave you with a word from the Bishop of Marquette (from his email to me, dated March 14, 2025).

Fr. Ianuzzi is not a priest of the Diocese of Marquette. He does own a house within the diocese, and I hear that he comes to the diocese and stays in that house periodically. Fr. Ianuzzi is not exercising any ministry within the Diocese of Marquette, nor have I granted him faculties.

Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

Supplement to: Father Joseph Iannuzzi EXPOSED, Part 1

The OSJ Problem

More Strange Omissions

More Red Flags

From Fr Joseph Iannuzzi (2005), The Antichrist and the End Times, St Andrew’s Productions.

The OSJ Problem

It’s bizarre that Fr Iannuzzi didn’t mention his membership in the Oblates of St Joseph anywhere on this page, under the title “About the Author”? (The same point holds for the 2006 book too). Why would an OSJ priest spend a whole paragraph announcing his membership in some other nameless community on the other side of the world from where he is (presumably) incardinated (“presumably”, because it is virtually impossible to find these things out), and not mention—not even once—the religious community under which he made his solemn vows? The community of fellow religious with whom he currently lives in Rome? This is beyond bizarre. One wonders what narrative Fr Iannuzzi was attempting to create here, and for what purpose.

It’s worse than that, actually:

  • None of the following search terms turns up even once in the 2005 book or in the 2006 book: “OSJ”, “O.S.J.”, “Oblate”, “Oblates”.

  • There is no reference to Father Iannuzzi’s being an OSJ in his 2004 book, The Splendor of Creation either—even though note 328 on p.285 mentions the founder of the Oblates of St Joseph.

  • There is no reference to Father Iannuzzi’s being an OSJ in the published version (2013) of his doctoral thesis of 2012.

And yet a Google search for “Iannuzzi O.S.J.” will return plenty of recent hits (the first three pages are from 2017 to 2022) so we can only assume he is still a member of the Oblates of St Joseph.

On the other hand, who knows? There appears to be no reference to the Oblates of St Joseph on Fr Iannuzzi’s personal website. Try doing a Google search by pasting one of following strings into the search bar. You won’t find any of the four search terms at ltdw.org.

  • site: https://www.ltdw.org/ "oblate"

  • site: https://www.ltdw.org/ "oblates"

  • site: https://www.ltdw.org/ "OSJ"

  • site: https://www.ltdw.org/ "O.S.J."

What are we to make of this? Fr Iannuzzi seems to be keeping his commitment to his religious order in one compartment (assuming he is still an OSJ—it is difficult to know for sure), and his commitment to the Divine Will movement in another compartment.

But coming full circle, why did Fr Iannuzzi not present himself as an OSJ in his 2005 and 2006 books, presenting himself there as a member of some nameless other religious community instead? What is going on here? Remember that the Official Catholic Directory does list Rev Joseph Iannuzzi as an O.S.J. in 2006 (as well as in 1998 and 2007-2009).

*

One plausible explanation for why he hasn’t been presenting himself as an OSJ is that his Superiors in the Oblates of St Joseph have allowed him to promote the writings of Luisa Piccarreta and the Divine Will movement but only on condition that this is not in any way associated with his being an OSJ.

(Other ideas come to mind also: Fr Iannuzzi has left the order, he has been expelled from the order, he is taking a break from the order to discern God’s Will for his life, he is not on good terms with the order, he is steering the audience away from certain details in his life. But these are only hypotheses. And to be fair, it is entirely possible for someone in a religious order to believe that the direction that God is leading him in life is in tension with the current expectations of his order. To be sure, this could be a sign of some vice, a problem of character.)

Other Strange Omissions

The following biographical statement (complete) is from Fr Iannuzzi’s 2004 book, The Splendor of Creation: The Triumph of the Divine Will on Earth and the Era of Peace in the Writings of the Church Fathers, Doctors and Mystics:

Rev. Joseph L. Iannuzzi is a theologian and doctoral alumnus of the Gregorian Pontifical University. He was an associate exorcist to Fr. Gabriel Amorth (the exorcist of Rome), has written several books on revelation and prophecy, appeared on EWTN and was host of several television and national radio programs. Fr. Joseph is presently assigned in Rome, Italy.

In 1983 Fr. Joseph received honors in both orchestra and wrestling. In the 1983 NYSMA (New York State Music Association) the first prize was awarded to the Brentwood High School Orchestra, with Joseph Iannuzzi as one of the performing first violinists. In that same year Joseph was awarded the first place in the New York State Freestyle Wrestling Championships.

Joseph spent the next two years working as a carpenter for a national computer corporation. It was during this period that he began to hear God’s promptings. In 1986 Joseph received a wrestling scholarship to Wilkes University, PA where he pursued his studies in medicine, and worked as the column artist of the university newspaper. His wrestling career took a turn in June of 1988 when he traveled to Medjugorje, Yugoslavia where three locutions from Mary inspired him to enter the seminary.

In August of 1988 Joseph entered the seminary located next to the university in PA. In 1991 Joseph obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy from Kings University, PA, with high honors and was awarded the Kilburn Award given each scholastic year to the top graduate student of philosophy.

Joseph was sent to Asti, Italy for his novitiate year, during which period he studied Italian, Hebrew, Greek and Latin, made his profession of vows and resumed theological studies in Italian. In 1993, after obtaining a Bachelors of Arts in theology with honors from the Pontifical University for the Catholic Missions, he returned to the USA where he was ordained a priest on the Feast Day of the Holy Trinity.

In years to follow, Joseph assisted in the Scranton and Hartford Dioceses. In 1998 he was called anew to Rome, Italy and assigned as assistant pastor at the San Lorenzo in Fonte Church where he pursued his licentiate and doctorate in Sacred Theology at the Gregorian Pontifical University. The subject of his theses were respectively, “The Eschatology of the Early Church Fathers,” and “The Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta’s Theology of the Operation of the Divine and Human Will within the Deposit of Faith.” In the same academic year of his licentiate, Fr. Joseph was one of four selected students to receive a grant from the Pontifical Biblicum University of Rome to study theology in Israel.

Fr. Iannuzzi has translated six theological works from Italian to English, is the author of four books on mystical and dogmatic theology, and the initiator of international communities devoted to the advancement of the Church’s mystical tradition and to the proper theological presentation of the mystical gift of Living in God’s Divine Will.

Again, no mention of the Oblates of St Joseph. Even more curious (also amusing) is the way in which he skirts about the identity of his seminary. “In August of 1988 Joseph entered the seminary located next to the university in PA. In 1991 Joseph obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy from Kings University, PA.” King’s College is in Wilkes-Barre, PA, which indeed is only about 7.8 miles from Pittston, PA, where there is an OSJ seminary. Recall the following information from the 1998 edition of the OCD:

On p. 1152: Rev Joseph L. Iannuzzi, O.S.J. is located in Eastern Providence of the Oblates of St. Joseph, Rte. 315, R.D. 4, 18640 in Pittston, Pennsylvania in the Diocese of Scranton. The listed provincial (in the OCD, 1998, p. 1152) is Very Rev. Joseph D. Sibilano, O.S.J.; Rev. Gregory Finn, O.S.J. is 1st Councilor; Rev. Paul A. McDonnell, O.S.J. is 2nd Councilor. [This property is listed as an Oblates of St Joseph seminary here. Rev. Sibilano is currently listed as Priest in Residence, Rev. McDonnell as Rector.]

Note too that Fr Iannuzzi speaks about his “profession of vows” without mentioning which order he made his vows to.

Finally, there is something fishy about the section that I have underlined.

In 1993, after obtaining a Bachelors of Arts in theology with honors from the Pontifical University for the Catholic Missions, he returned to the USA where he was ordained a priest on the Feast Day of the Holy Trinity.

In years to follow, Joseph assisted in the Scranton and Hartford Dioceses. In 1998 he was called anew to Rome …

We know from the OCD that Joseph Iannuzzi was ordained in 1997. But in this passage, Iannuzzi not only withholds the year in which he was ordained (strangely, he refers only to a certain feast day) but arranges his phrases in such a way that the reader is led to think that he was ordained in 1993. One is given the impression that between his ordination and his being called back to Rome, there are 5 years, when in fact he was called back to Rome after 12 months of priestly service (possible less). “In years to follow”—following what? His return to the USA or his ordination in the USA? The ordering of the phrases naturally suggests the latter. If the latter, then he served multiple years as a priest in the Scranton and Harford Diocese before returning to Rome. But we know this is not true, because the OCD consistently states that he was ordained in 1997.

The following biographical statement is from early 2016; it is from Fr Iannuzzi’s Parish Mission at Mary, Queen of All Saints (St. Cecilia’s Church, Pennsauken, NJ):

In August of 1988 Joseph entered the Oblates of St. Joseph Seminary, and in 1991 he obtained a B.A. in Philosophy with high honors from Kings University …

Joseph completed his novitiate year in Asti, Italy … He made his profession of vows and began theological studies in Italian. In 1993, after obtaining a B.A. in theology with honors at the Pontifical Urbaniana University, he returned to the USA where he was ordained a priest on the Feast Day of the Holy Trinity. In years to follow, Fr. Joseph assisted his community in the Scranton and Hartford Dioceses. In 1998 his religious Community called him anew to Rome where he served as Assistant Pastor at the San Lorenzo in Fonte Church where he pursued his licentiate with summa cum laude and doctorate with magum cum laude in Sacred Theology at the Gregorian Pontifical University. The subject of his theses were respectively, “The Eschatology of the Early Church Fathers” (Licentiate), and “The Gift of Living in the Divine Will in the Writings of the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta – An Inquiry into the Early Ecumenical Councils, and into Patristic and Scholastic Theology”. … From 2006-2009 Fr. Joseph was asked to assist a Parochial Vicar of St. Paul and St. Monica Parishes in the Gaylord Diocese. With permission from his religious superiors Fr. Iannuzzi is currently offering pastoral assistance to the ecclesiastically approved Fiat Totus Tuus Religious Community Petoranello di Molise, Italy.

In response to this, my questions are as follows:

  • Again, why did Fr Iannuzzi not mention that he was ordained in 1997 (as per the Official Catholic Directory)? Why did he skirt about this fact by referring only to the year in which he returned to the USA, and the feast day on which he was ordained (not the year)?

  • Why did Fr Iannuzzi not mention his one year in the Diocese of Marquette? According to the OCD, and contrary to the biographical statement above, Fr Iannuzzi was not in the Gaylord Diocese in 2006. [The 2006 edition, p. 727: Joseph L. Iannuzzi O.S.J. is listed as Temp. Parochial Admin of Holy Redeemer Parish, Menominee, Michigan, in the Diocese of Marquette; and as Temp. Parochial Admin of Holy Spirit Catholic Church, also in Menominee.]

  • Recall that the source I spoke to who is connected with the Companions of Christ the Lamb, said this in passing about Fr Iannuzzi: “In the Marquette Diocese, there were some struggles with parishioners.” Is this why Fr Iannuzzi preferred to leave his one year in Marquette (at Holy Redeemer and at Holy Spirit, both in Menominee) out of his biographical statement?

In any case, one wonders why Fr Iannuzzi is so careful to skirt about certain historical details in his life, and why he felt the need to “massage” the narrative in certain ways.

More Red Flags

The passage quoted from the “About the Author” section in the 2005 and 2006 books already raises a number of red flags, even on a first reading. This is further confirmation that something is not right (to say the least).

First, why the ambiguous, non-informative reference to a “missionary religious community”? (“Fr. Joseph is member of the missionary religious community located in the Diocese of Marquette, MI that enjoys the ecclesiastical approval of his local bishop and the added endorsements of two bishops of the Detroit Diocese.”) If this religious community exists, and is in such good standing, having the “ecclesiastical approval” of no less than three bishops as Fr Iannuzzi claims, then why not give the actual name of the religious community? Bona fide members of genuine religious communities in the Catholic Chuch would not act like this—why would they? They do not hide such basic information from their audience as the name of their own community while they are proudly announcing their membership in that same community! This is extremely odd behaviour. Truly bizarre.

In the next sentence, Fr Iannuzzi does the same thing again. He refers to an “international association” and to “the missionary community” in very generic terms.

As an international association that promotes the Church’s mystical tradition, the missionary community provides solo-wilderness retreats at the CCL (Companions of Christ the Lamb) spiritual center that spans well over 1,000 acres of verdure in the village of Paradise, MI.

Iannuzzi wants his audience to associate him with a certain religious community—but at the same time, he is unwilling to provide further information about it. Indeed, he is not even willing to provide a means (a name, an email address, a website) by which people can enquire further and fact-check. Not even in a footnote. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Fr Iannuzzi wants the audience to think of him as part of some wonderful religious community that is doing God’s work, but does not want the audience to enquire further. How many red flags do you need?

I assume that the name of this religious community is not so holy that it is forbidden to mention it!

If this missionary religious community exists, then surely, it would welcome enquiries from people who would like to know more about it. The community, or someone who represents it, would be more than willing to provide information about the community to interested people, especially those discerning whether they might join. And yet, Fr Iannuzzi doesn’t provide any contact information. Indeed, the reader isn’t given the name of the community!

Notice again how Fr Iannuzzi is very careful to give out some bits of information, and not others. He is willing to speak about the Companions of Christ the Lamb, mentioning them here by name, and also giving their location—but he is careful not to mention the name of his own community. His disclosure of information is very selective, and it is selective in a way that is very odd, to say the least. Indeed, it looks suspicious.

Here is another example of a vague, non-descriptive reference: Fr Iannuzzi claims that his nameless religious community has the “added endorsements of two bishops of the Detroit Diocese.” Wonderful! So which two bishops do you mean, Father? There are a number of them. Is it too much to provide names, so we can check whether your claims are true? If you’re worried about the word count, or space on the page, just use a footnote! As things stand, it would be necessary to work out who the bishops of the Archdiocese of Detroit are (or were at that time) and then ask each of them, one by one, whether Fr Iannuzzi’s claim is true. It certainly seems that this was Fr Iannuzzi’s intention: to make it difficult to fact-check his claims. Giving enough information (“information”) to make a positive impression, but not enough information to enable the audience to fact-check his claims with relative ease.

In 2005, the year in which this book was published, the local bishop in Marquette was Bishop James Garland (bishop of Marquette from 1992-2005). There is no valid reason for not mentioning Garland by name—not if Gardland had indeed given Iannuzzi’s non-descript community his “ecclesiastical approval.” Think about it. If you wanted to reassure your audience that the religious community you were part of had the approval of your local bishop, and the endorsement of two other bishops in Detroit, then you would be eager to mention the names of the three bishops who had given their approval—assuming, of course, that they had. At the very least, you would provide this information in a footnote. And again, you certainly wouldn’t be withholding the name of your religious community!

I looked up all bishops in the Archdiocese of Detroit, Michigan in the year 2004 and/or 2005 (Fr Iannuzzi’s book on the Antichrist was published in 2005; I am being generous by including the previous year).

  • His Eminence Adam Joseph Maida (born 1930) was made Cardinal in 1994. He served as Archbishop of Detroit from 1990-2009. He retired in 2009.

  • + Thomas Gumbleton (born 1930, deceased 2024) served as an auxiliary bishop of Detroit from 1968-2006. He resigned in 2006 (it is said that the Vatican forced him to resign).

  • + Earl Boyea (born 1951) served as an auxiliary bishop of Detroit from 2002-2008. He is now Bishop of Lansing.

  • + John Quinn (born 1945) served as an auxiliary bishop of Detroit from 2003-2008. He retired in 2022.

  • + Francis Reiss (born 1940) served as an auxiliary bishop of Detroit from 2003-2015. He retired in 2015.

No less than four men were serving as a bishop in Detroit in 2005—five if we include the Archbishop/Cardinal. This makes it more difficult to fact-check Iannuzzi’s claim that his international “missionary religious community” enjoyed the “added endorsements of two [unnamed] bishops of the Detroit Diocese” at that time. At least, it presents an obstacle or deterrent to fact-checking from the perspective of someone reading Iannuzzi’s book.

Finally, I question the appropriateness of a priest inviting people to “solo-wilderness retreats”. At the very least, the choice of words is worrying. It is bad optics in this day and age. There are actually two alarm bells in this case. The first alarm is obvious—it looks like an opportunity for sexual abuse. The second is less obvious, and concerns the possibility of creating a cult-like following. A common strategy of cult leaders is to separate people from others in order to initiate them into a “new” spirituality. The followers submit themselves receptively to guidance of one guru—the spiritual master or theological “expert”—who specialises in the new spirituality.

Dr Brendan Triffett

Quick links to other posts:

Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

Father Joseph Iannuzzi EXPOSED, Part 1: What you need to know about the elusive “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity”.

In this post I ask which Diocesan-approved “missionary religious community” Fr Iannuzzi was talking about when he claimed in 2005 (and again in 2006) to be a member. There are three possibilities:

  • (i) He was talking about the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity—in which case he was lying, or extremely deluded.

  • (ii) He was talking about some other religious community—in which case he was lying, or extremely deluded.

  • (iii) He didn’t have in mind any religious community—in which case he was lying, or extremely deluded.

The outcome is the same in any case. It is hard to see how the reputation of Fr Iannuzzi could recover from this.

And this is only half of what I uncover in Part One of this special report.

An email from the Bishop of Marquette confirms my suspicions.

In 2005 Fr Joseph Iannuzzi, OSJ published a book through St Andrew’s Productions called Antichrist and the Endtimes.

Inside the book, under “About the Author”, Fr Joseph Iannuzzi describes himself as follows (my emphasis in bold):

Fr. Joseph is member of the missionary religious community located in the Diocese of Marquette, MI that enjoys the ecclesiastical approval of his local bishop and the added endorsements of two bishops of the Detroit Diocese. As an international association that promotes the Church’s mystical tradition, the missionary community provides solo-wilderness retreats at the CCL (Companions of Christ the Lamb) spiritual center that spans well over 1,000 acres of verdure in the village of Paradise, MI. Those interested in making solo-wilderness retreats to deepen their union with God’s Divine Will may contact Fr. Joseph at soulofjesus@juno.com.

This photo of a page from a hard copy of the book is sufficient proof. But to confirm it for yourself online click here. Then put the first of the following search phrases into the search bar and press enter. Repeat for the 3 other search terms. You’ll see the whole of the paragraph in question, in four overlapping samples.

  • “Joseph is member”

  • “local bishop”

  • “CCL (Companions of Christ”

  • “village of Paradise”

The same paragraph appears again in “About the Author” in Fr Iannuzzi’s 2006 book, Proper Catholic Perspectives: On the Teachings of Luisa Piccarreta (also St Andrew’s Productions):

All three paragraphs are the same as in the 2005 book, except now there is a mailing address rather than an email address: P.O. Box 12, Paradise, MI 49768. I will return to this point.

The font style for the address is different for some reason. There is no online preview of the book that includes this section, so the reader will have to confirm the accuracy of the screenshot for him/herself by consulting the book (the Kindle version is very cheap). I’ve provided an extra screenshot below.

The quoted passage raises a number of red flags, and many things don’t add up. I will go into those details later (toward the end). Suffice it to say that I was sufficiently motivated to reach out to the Diocese of Marquette. I contacted the Director of Vocations on March 12. I asked him about Fr Iannuzzi and his “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity” (notes in square brackets were not in my original email):

Dear Rev. Ben Hasse

My name is Dr Brendan Triffett and I'm doing some research on different Catholic religious communities in the Diocese of Marquette.

I am getting conflicting information about a community called "Missionaries of the Holy Trinity". In a few places online I noticed that Fr Joseph Iannuzzi says he is the initiator of this community and that it exists in the diocese of Marquette.

https://stthomasaquinassociety.org/speakers/iannuzzi-joseph-l-father/

https://deaconjohn1987.livejournal.com/4102916.html

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8147445-fr-joseph-is-member-of-the-missionary-religious-community-located-in-the-diocese-of

There is also a reference to the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity on Fr Iannuzzi's webpage [see here], about a third of the way down. He accepts payments under the name of this community.

Also here

https://www.ltdw.org/newsletter-subscription---publication-orders.html

In his 2005 book on the Antichrist he writes this about himself

(you can find it written out here https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8147445-fr-joseph-is-member-of-the-missionary-religious-community-located-in-the-diocese-of )

[Here I cite the quoted passage (the blue text above)]

It seems to me that this community doesn't exist, however. I contacted [redacted] … said there is no such community [redacted] and that Fr Iannuzzi just owns a house somewhere down the road in Paradise, Michigan.

The fact about the house checks out

https://nuwber.com/person/563a9409a219445d525f5333

https://www.michiganresidentdatabase.com/person/104151419/joseph-iannuzzi

https://www.governmentregistry.org/find/joseph-iannuzzi

[Redacted] said some things about Father Iannuzzi that worried me. The person I contacted [redacted] did not want [his/her] name revealed for fear of retaliation from Fr Iannuzzi! They also said that Fr Iannuzzi has been active in the ArchD. of Detroit [my mistake: I should have said the Diocese of Gaylord] and in the Diocese of Marquette and that he [Fr Iannuzzi] had some difficulties with parishioners but [my source] didn't say anything else.

So now I'm curious whether Fr Iannuzzi's "Missionaries of the Holy Trinity" ever had the "approval" of the bishop of Marquette, or any bishops of Detroit. I am very dubious, given all of the above.

Thank you for your time

Dr Brendan Triffett

I was honoured with a prompt response from the Bishop of Marquette, Most Reverend John F. Doerfler:


Dear Dr. Triffett:

Greetings in Jesus Christ.

No such community called the “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity” has ever been approved by the Diocese of Marquette, and to the best of my knowledge there is no such community by that name acting without diocesan approval within the Diocese of Marquette.

Fr. Ianuzzi is not a priest of the Diocese of Marquette. He does own a house within the diocese, and I hear that he comes to the diocese and stays in that house periodically. Fr. Ianuzzi is not exercising any ministry within the Diocese of Marquette, nor have I granted him faculties.

I hope that this addresses your question.

For information regarding any religious communities that have been approved by the Church, I would recommend that you consult the Official Catholic Directory: https://officialcatholicdirectory.com/OCD/home

 

Sincerely in Christ,

+John F. Doerfler

 

Most Reverend John F. Doerfler, STD, JCL

Bishop of Marquette

1004 Harbor Hills Drive

Marquette, MI 49855

906-227-9115

jdoerfler@dioceseofmarquette.org

In seven points, then, Bishop Doerfler kindly clarified the situation for me. In his words,

  1. No such community called the “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity” has ever been approved by the Diocese of Marquette,

  2. and to the best of my knowledge there is no such community by that name acting without diocesan approval within the Diocese of Marquette.

  3. Fr. Iannuzzi is not a priest of the Diocese of Marquette.

  4. He does own a house within the diocese,

  5. and I hear that he comes to the diocese and stays in that house periodically.

  6. Fr. Iannuzzi is not exercising any ministry within the Diocese of Marquette,

  7. nor have I granted him faculties.

Let’s return to that crucial statement that Fr Iannuzzi made about himself in two of his books in 2005 and 2006:

Fr. Joseph is member of the missionary religious community located in the Diocese of Marquette, MI that enjoys the ecclesiastical approval of his local bishop and the added endorsements of two bishops of the Detroit Diocese.

If this statement was true in 2005, then in 2005 Fr Iannuzzi must have been a member of some “missionary religious community” that

  1. was located in the Diocese of Marquette, Michigan,

  2. enjoyed the ecclesiastical approval of the Bishop of Marquette,

  3. enjoyed the added endorsements of two bishops of the Archdiocese of Detroit [I’m not sure why Iannuzzi spoke of the “Diocese” rather than the “Archdiocese” of Detroit], and

  4. was not called, and is not called, “the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity”.

The first three conditions are taken from Fr Iannuzzi’s own statement. The fourth condition is there because we now know that the Diocese of Marquette has never approved a community called the “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity”.

In 2005, the year in which Iannuzzi’s book on the Antichrist was published, the local bishop in Marquette was Bishop James Garland (installed November 11, 1992; retired December 13, 2005). Alexander Sample was bishop of Marquette from 2005 to 2013; he was succeeded in 2014 by the current bishop of Marquette, + Doerfler. But there is no need to contact Garland or Sample to ask if either of them gave the “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity” their ecclesiastical approval. If either of them had, Bishop Doerfler would certainly have it on record. Hence Bishop Doerfler wrote “No such community called the ‘Missionaries of the Holy Trinity’ has ever been approved by the Diocese of Marquette”.

*

Let’s take a step back. Which “missionary religious community” was Fr Iannuzzi talking about when 2005 (and again in 2006) he claimed to be a member? There are three possibilities:

  • (i) He was talking about the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity—in which case he was lying, or extremely deluded.

  • (ii) He was talking about some other religious community—in which case he was lying, or extremely deluded.

  • (iii) He didn’t have in mind any religious community—in which case he was lying, or extremely deluded.

I explore each of these three possibilities below [Options (i), (ii) and (iii)]. The outcome of my analysis is that there is no way to avoid the following conclusion: When Fr Iannuzzi made this statement about himself in 2005 and again in 2006, he was either lying or extremely deluded. It is hard to see how the reputation of Fr Iannuzzi could recover from this.

Option (i): Fr Iannuzzi was talking about the “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity”

If Fr Iannuzzi was talking about MHT (the “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity”) then either he was lying when he made this statement in his 2005 book, or he was extremely deluded when he made this statement in his 2005 book. It is worse than that, because this statement was published 20 years ago, and Fr Iannuzzi has never retracted it. (Indeed, he repeated it again in his 2006 book). So either Fr Iannuzzi has stood by this lie for 20 years, or he has been extremely deluded for 20 years about the ecclesiastical validity/approval of MHT.

In an attempt to defend Fr Iannuzzi, one might claim (a) that Bishop Doerfler is mistaken about Fr Iannuzzi and MHT, (b) that Doerfler is lying about Fr Iannuzzi and MHT or (c) that Doerfler never sent that email to me. But nobody in the right mind is going to believe (a) or (b). As for (c), the reader is free to check with + Doerfler by contacting the Diocese of Marquette. It is hardly in my interest to post a fake email from + Doerfler, given how easy it would be to expose such an email as a fake.

*

Note that I am not the first to uncover this alarming discrepancy between the truth and Fr Iannuzzi’s false claims about “MHT”. The same discovery was made a year ago in March 2024, by Emmett O’Regan, a doctoral student in theology at Trinity College, Dublin. From his biographical statement:

I am currently a Ph.D candidate studying Catholic theology at the Loyola Institute, Trinity College Dublin. I graduated at Queen's University Belfast with a First Class honours degree in Divinity in 2006, where I won the theology prize scholarship offered by the Institute of Theology. I also won the Sean O'Riordan scholarship at the Loyola Institute, Trinity College Dublin in 2019, and graduated with a distinction in a MPhil in Christian Theology in 2022. I also won the Loyola Trust Ph.D scholarship in 2020, and an Irish Research Council postgraduate scholarship in 2022.

O’Regan has two peer-reviewed articles published in Theological Studies (2003, 2004) and a third one in Nova et Vetera (2005).

I paste below an email exchange between O’Regan and Bishop Doerfler. Emmett’s name had been redacted by the time the information reached me, but since receiving it I have confirmed with Emmett that he is the author/recipient and that he’s happy for me to publicize the exchange. The emphases (bold, italic, underlined) are from the original email.

Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 12:24 PM
To: Bishop Doerfler <jdoerfler@dioceseofmarquette.org>
Subject: To the Most Reverend John Doerfler, Bishop of Marquette

March 16, 2024

·  Office of the Bishop

·  Most Rev. John F. Doerfler

·  Bishop of the Diocese of Marquette

Dear Bishop Doerfler,

I have been listening to Rev. Joseph Iannuzzi, STB, M. Div., STL and STD, Ph.D, as he is a speaker that can be found in many places on the internet, and has various books available. However, his own websites and that of his community lead me to some confusion. 

The first website shows a retreat center in your Diocese with the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity in Paradise, MI:

      "The Missionaries of the Holy Trinity is an ecclesiastically approved community whose goal is service to Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament and to his most Holy Will. Our Mother House is located in Paradise, MI nestled in 1,000 acres of land, and overlooking the great Lake Superior. We offer public spiritual retreats and seminars on the gift of Living in the Divine Will. Our instructors are theologians that are authorized by the proper ecclesiastical authorities to properly instruct the faithful on the teachings of the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta. The spiritual center comprises a large and beautifully hand-crafted wooden chapel with the Blessed Sacrament that is dedicated to the Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha, a spacious two-level dining hall, over 10 retreat houses and over 1,000 acres of peaceful verdure that is perfect for meditating the gift of Living in the Divine Will. All retreatants can explore the endless trails and hermitages in an ambience of quiet and solitude for the advancement of union with God's Will. As a Public Association, our community has received authorization from the local bishop to have the Blessed Sacrament in the chapel and at the housing sites, where there is morning and evening prayer, daily holy hours and Eucharistic Adoration. Mass is celebrated daily and confessions are always available. Our priests and vowed members offer healing services, bible study programs, catechetical instructions, spiritual retreats and advanced courses in Catholic spirituality, mysticism and ecology." (link below)

While it was easy to find where to donate, or to order books, it was impossible to find the retreat center or any information about the community of Priests and lay persons. Nor could information be found on your diocesan website, or the Michigan Catholic Conference website. 

Additionally, Rev. Joseph Iannuzzi could not be found on either official website. Is Rev. Iannuzzi a Priest of your diocese, as well as the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity? Can you or your office lead me to the retreat center mentioned? Below are a few links for your review.

https://www.ltdw.org/uploads/2/5/1/5/25153387/newsletter_46.january-may_2014.pdf

(newsletter yearly US $20 or $30 international)

MISSIONARIES OF THE HOLY TRINITY

P.O. BOX 8484

CRANSTON, RI 02920

Website: http://sojmj.com/Trinity/Start.htm

“The Missionaries of the Holy Trinity is a community dedicated to the kingdom of God on earth through Eucharistic adoration, spiritual works and intercessory prayer for priests. The Missionary community is comprised of over 60 priests and hundreds of laypersons…”

Donate page: Donate to

Missionaries Of The Holy Trinity

Living In The Divine Will

LTDW2016

https://www.paypal.com/donate?token=aUzFshOLoftymhPSZ8OJ0HwiTz8cOXDg9zqRzRofbBdU8K0S0ezBW554K6XkfTkK2ZWcELG14Myzi-lc

Fr. Iannuzzi's main website: https://www.ltdw.org


Thank you, your Excellency. 

You remain in my prayers.

 -----------------------------

The response from Bishop Doerfler:

From: Bishop Doerfler <jdoerfler@dioceseofmarquette.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 2:44 PM
 To the Most Reverend John Doerfler, Bishop of Marquette

Dear:

Greetings in Jesus Christ.

Thank you for writing with your questions.

The information on the website is false, which makes me seriously question the legitimacy of “The Missionaries of the Holy Trinty.” There is no such association in the Diocese of Marquette that either I or my predecessors have approved. Fr. Joseph Ianuzzi is a religious order priest, not a priest of the Diocese of Marquette, and many years ago he served in one of our parishes for a time. Since he is not priest of the Diocese of Marquette, I cannot speak to his current whereabouts or status. 

There is a retreat center in the Diocese of Marquette with about 1000 acres near Paradise, Michigan, and it is similar to what is described on the website. However, it is owned and operated by a different association, the Companions of Christ the Lamb. The Companions of Christ the Lamb have received diocesan approval. 

I hope that this addresses your questions.

May you have a blessed Holy Week and Easter.

 

Sincerely in Christ,

+John Doerfler

 

Most Reverend John F. Doerfler

Bishop of Marquette

1004 Harbor Hills Drive

Marquette, MI 49855

906-227-9115

jdoerfler@dioceseofmarquette.org

The behaviour uncovered in this email exchange, and confirmed by my own email exchange with the same Bishop Doerfler, is sickening. It involves Fr Iannuzzi finding a thriving Catholic community and retreat centre (The Companions of Christ the Lamb) in Paradise, Michigan, and falsely advertising it as his own retreat centre (“our Mother House”), all in the name of seeking “God’s Divine Will.” It looks more like he’s imposing his own will onto an unsuspecting group of Catholic priests, brothers and volunteers, whose prayers and obedience—and no doubt their blood, sweat and tears—had built up this community and retreat centre from scratch physically and spiritually over the years. Who does that? What level of entitlement must someone have to even think of doing such a thing? To re-imagine an innocent pre-existing community, re-conceiving it in one’s own image, appropriating it as part of one’s own (imaginary) spiritual empire, and advertising this false image in an online scam, all for the sake of “God’s Divine Will”—never mind what the members of Companions of Christ the Lamb might think about this.

Remember that Bishop Doerfler himself was witness to the false statements linked to in the email exchange. “The information on the website is false … There is a retreat center in the Diocese of Marquette with about 1000 acres near Paradise, Michigan, and it is similar to what is described on the website. However, it is owned and operated by a different association, the Companions of Christ the Lamb. The Companions of Christ the Lamb have received diocesan approval.”

My reaction (nausea) and my discoveries have been confirmed by an email exchange I had with someone connected with the CCL retreat center (he/she shall remain anonymous) [my emphasis in bold]:

There is an awful lot about Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi that is not exactly as he would appear to make it in things he posts and representations he makes. He did serve for a period of time in the Gaylord diocese in Michigan and also in the Marquette Diocese. In the Marquette Diocese, there were some struggles with parishioners. Father Iannuzzi has a house in Paradise, Michigan very close to where the Companions of Christ the Lamb have their Rectory and Formation Center. The CCL retreat center is about 16 miles by road to the west from that area. In some of the posts Father Iannuzzi has put online, he seems to imply that he in some way has a relationship with the companions of Christ the Lamb and its retreat facility. That is not the case.

With regard to your personal situation with Father Iannuzzi, several of us have had several experiences here [....] He is very aggressive in defending his reputation when people question his status in the church and that of his organization you mentioned [i.e., the “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity”].

I pray especially for him every day because, although he is quite a learned person, he is extremely insecure. Even as a mature adult having to reference his musical skills, wrestling skills, etc. Any mature adult should be well beyond needing to do that kind of thing.

This person told me that he/she does not want any further confrontation with Fr Iannuzzi—”Only, just to pray for him and wish him well.”

*

Here are some images from the Companions of Christ the Lamb Facebook page (open to the public):

“Companions of Christ the Lamb” appears in the Official Catholic Directory under “Associations of the Faithful” in the Diocese of Marquette from 2008 onwards (in 2007 it was listed under “Miscellaneous”, which is a bit unfair). From 1996 onwards there are a few priests listed as having a formal connection to CCL. The Companions of Christ the Lamb have received Diocesan approval.

*

Back to the bad news. There is more damning evidence to look at. Remember the P.O. Box advertised in the “About the Author” section in Fr Iannuzzi’s 2006 book? As it turns out, that does not belong to a Joseph Iannuzzi, and it never has. In truth, “P.O. Box 12, Paradise, MI 49768” is the private mailing address of Companions of Christ the Lamb, Inc. This is the private PO Box where the officers of this registered nonprofit (CCL, Inc) receive their business mail. Here are twelve (12) publically available official documents, plus two reliable official websites, to prove this beyond all doubt:

After performing the search here, click on either of the two names (for the same entity) for more information. The Registered Office Mailing Address, and the address given for the 6 officers/directors of the corporation, is PO BOX 12 PARADISE, MI 49768 USA.

https://opencorporates.com/filings/593026621 or click here for the original link to the file at LARA - Corporations Division.

Is it possible that Fr Iannuzzi happened to also have access to the same post office box? Surely not. Why would the Companions of Christ the Lamb, Inc, give access to their business PO Box to an outsider? And Fr Iannuzzi is an outsider, as far as this nonprofit is concerned. It is easy to prove this. First go here. Look through the “Key Employees and Officers” immediately displayed at the end of the 2023 section. Do the same for all the years down to 2010. No mention of an “Iannuzzi” in those records. Scroll down further to consult the years 2001-2009, inclusive. For these years you’ll have to open the Form 990s. Look in the sections that mention (i) current officers, directors, trustees and key employees, (ii) former officers, directors, trustees and key employees that received compensation or other benefits and (iii) employees and independent contractors. You will not find a single mention of “Iannuzzi”. Recall also what I found in an earlier post (about 3/4 of the way down the article):

I searched opencorporates.com for “Joseph Iannuzzi” under “officers”. Thirteen items were found, two in Canada, the rest in the US … The only entity associated with Fr Joseph L. Iannuzzi is ASSOCIATION OF PRIESTS, INC. …

I was also able to search for other addresses associated with Joseph Iannuzzi in Michigan (Paradise in particular), based on his known (and publically available) address history. Fr Iannuzzi has been president of Association of Priests, Inc., since its incorporation in 2000. The addresses that he has put down on the Form 990s over the years are as follows:

  • 2000-2005: St Matthews Church, 1773 Blanding Bvd, Jacksonville FL 32210

    • There is no “Joseph Iannuzzi” in the Official Catholic Directory in these years (see below)

  • 2006: 1016 10th Avenue Menominee MI, 49858 [Holy Spirit Church, Menominee]

    • This agrees with the data in the Official Catholic Directory (see below)

  • 2007-2014: 20811 Washington Avenue, Onaway MI 49765 [St Paul Church, Onaway]

    • The OCD lists Rev. Iannuzzi as residing here from 2007-2009, inclusive (see below). In the years 2010 to 2014, Fr Iannuzzi would have been mostly in Rome.

  • 2015-2025: [address redacted], a house in Paradise, MI.

Based on this data, we can find PO Boxes associated with the same Joseph Iannuzzi in Paradise, Michigan (and indeed anywhere in the U.S.). There is a strong association with PO Box 92, Paradise. (To confirm this, search for “PO Box 92 Iannuzzi Paradise”.) But there is no association with PO Box 12, Paradise. (Search for “PO Box 12 Iannuzzi Paradise”.) Unsurprisingly, there is a strong association between PO Box 12 Paradise and the Companions of Christ the Lamb. (Search for “PO Box 12 Companions of Christ the Lamb”. Alternatively, try “Diocese Marquette PO Box 12”). For good measure, consult this page at the Catholic Diocese of Marquette.

Clearly, “PO Box 12, Paradise, MI 49768” has “Companions of Christ the Lamb” written all over it—and the connection goes back to 2001, if not further. In stark contrast, this address has no connection with Joseph Iannuzzi whatsoever, apart from the (obviously false) statement he made in his 2006 book.

By the way, a Google search using the following string ["Companions of Christ the Lamb" "Iannuzzi"] does not return any results apart from

  • a quote from Fr Iannuzzi’s 2005 book

  • critical comments on Fr Iannuzzi by Emmett O’Regan

  • a real estate site that incidentally has the CCL property and Fr Iannuzzi’s property on the same page.

Objection. Could it be that the reference to PO BOX 12, Paradise in the 2006 book is an honest mistake—a misprint?

Response. We know that it is not, for these reasons:

  1. It is highly unlikely that an honest mistake would connect Fr Iannuzzi with the Companions of Christ the Lamb retreat centre so conveniently—that a misprint would just happen to fit in with and confirm Iannuzzi’s intended narrative.

  2. Fr Iannuzzi was not connected with PO BOX 92 until 2009 at the earliest (see the whitepages.com).

  3. Fr Iannuzzi does not publicise PO BOX 92. He has never given PO BOX 92 Paradise as an address to send order forms and/or cheques to. The address consistently associated with his “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity” fund/fraud is PO BOX 223 Onaway (also in Michigan).

  4. It would be easy to fix a misprint in the electronic version of the book.

  5. It’s unlikely that a misprint like this would go unnoticed. Keep in mind that the addition of the PO BOX in place of an email address is the only difference between the 2005 and 2006 versions of the “About the Author” section in the two books.

  6. There are other addresses that Fr Iannuzzi could have used legitimately in 2005 and 2006.

Objection. Perhaps the Companions of Christ the Lamb allowed Fr Iannuzzi to write down the CCL PO BOX as his own mailing address. Perhaps they were happy to receive mail on his behalf. Perhaps they gave him permission to write their PO BOX down as if it were his own. Perhaps they even gave him permission to do this in his 2006 book.

Response: Some of that might be credible if Fr Iannuzzi had some sort of relationship with the CCL. But the situation is quite the opposite. For Fr Iannuzzi was either lying about his relationship with the CCL, or he was extremely deluded about it—this much has already been established, but more evidence and arguments will be provided below (and keep in mind that the CCL do not want to have anything to do with Fr Iannuzzi.)

There is no way to avoid the shocking conclusion: Fr Iannuzzi had the audacity to write down the private PO BOX of the Companions of Christ the Lamb and present this mailing address as his own, in order to give his readers the impression that he had some relationship with the CCL. What sort of person behaves like this? This is not an unfortunate mistake made in the heat of the moment, but a calculated decision.

Image source: medium.com.

You have to ask yourself: Is this a priest we can trust? Is it wise to be taking theological instruction or pastoral/spiritual guidance from someone who is willing to go to these lengths to get what he wants and bring his own designs to fruition? Indeed, does anyone really want the Divine Will movement to be associated with a “champion” and “leader” who acts like this? If Fr Iannuzzi is allowed to remain in his prominent role, and people in the Divine Will movement continue on as if everything is fine in Divine Will Land (because “nobody’s perfect”, after all), what message does that send? How would this look to a rational outsider?

Let me be clear: the damning evidence that I’ve uncovered here—the two emails from Bishop Doerfler, the paragraph from the “About the Author” section in two of Fr Iannuzzi’s books, the false mailing address given in the 2006 book, Fr Iannuzzi’s deceptive “appropriation” of the CCL retreat centre to suit his own fantastic narrative about himself and his ministry—none of this is hypothetical. It makes no difference whether, in that all-important statement of his (first in his 2005 book, again in his 2006 book), Fr Iannuzzi had the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity in mind (first option), some other religious community in mind (second option) or no religious community in mind (third option). These facts are now written down in permanent ink. They remain on the page, even as our investigation moves forward.

Checking with the Official Catholic Directory

In his email response to me, Bishop Doefler kindly pointed me toward the Official Catholic Directory.

For information regarding any religious communities that have been approved by the Church, I would recommend that you consult the Official Catholic Directory: https://officialcatholicdirectory.com/OCD/home

On the “about us” page (https://officialcatholicdirectory.com/OCD/about-us) the OCD is described as follows:

The Official Catholic Directory is the most authoritative Catholic reference resource available today. Every edition provides Clergy and Non-Clergy members with the most up-to-date personnel changes, new appointments and assignments, and updated contact information for all 210 (arch) dioceses in the United States and the hundreds of (arch) dioceses around the world.

Features Include:

E-mail and website information for Catholic institutions, where available

Thoroughly updated (arch) diocesan entries, confirmed and approved by each (arch) diocese

A map detailing Catholic (arch) diocesan and province boundaries in the United States

Listings for Religious Orders of Men and Women as well as Missionary Activities* and Foreign Missions*

An Index that lists priests alphabetically for easier and faster access

…

*Available in Digital Flipbook format only

Fortunately, the OCD for previous years is open (legally, and for free) for public viewing at www.archive.org. I was especially pleased to discover that the documents have been OCR scanned, so that word searches are possible. Here are the links to 23 currently available editions, starting from 1995:

SEARCHING FOR THE MISSIONARIES OF THE HOLY TRINITY

“Missionaries of the Holy Trinity” does not appear at all in any of these 23 editions of the OCD. Each time the search found no results, I made sure the search function was working by searching for “Kennedy”; this gave over 100 accurate results every time. I also tried searching for “Missionaries” to see if any of the highlighted results is part of “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity”. In the OCD (all available editions from 1995 onwards) there are only three approved communities (i.e., three communities that appear in the OCD) that begin with “Missionaries of the Holy”. These are: Missionaries of the Holy Spirit, Missionaries of the Holy Family, and Missionaries of the Holy Apostles.

These results confirms the two statements made by Bishop Doerfler:

  • March 16, 2024 (to Emmett O’Regan): “The information on the website is false, which makes me seriously question the legitimacy of ‘The Missionaries of the Holy Trinty.’ There is no such association in the Diocese of Marquette that either I or my predecessors have approved.”

  • March 12, 2025 (to Brendan Triffett): “No such community called the ‘Missionaries of the Holy Trinity’ has ever been approved by the Diocese of Marquette, and to the best of my knowledge there is no such community by that name acting without diocesan approval within the Diocese of Marquette.”

SEARCHING FOR FR JOSEPH IANNUZZI

“Iannuzzi” was my search term. There is a Rev Joseph Iannuzzi, O.S.J. listed in the OCD in the years 1998, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 (the years highlighted in blue).

1995-1997

The only “Iannuzzi” listed in the OCD in this period is Deacon William P. Iannuzzi, in the Diocese of Camden.

1998

The 1998 edition, p. 803: Rev Joseph L. Iannuzzi, O.S.J. is located at St Sebastian, an Italian speaking parish in Middletown, Connecticut in the Diocese of Norwich.

On p. 1152: Rev Joseph L. Iannuzzi, O.S.J. is located in Eastern Providence of the Oblates of St. Joseph, Rte. 315, R.D. 4, 18640 in Pittston, Pennsylvania in the Diocese of Scranton. The listed provincial (in the OCD, 1998, p. 1152) is Very Rev. Joseph D. Sibilano, O.S.J.; Rev. Gregory Finn, O.S.J. is 1st Councilor; Rev. Paul A. McDonnell, O.S.J. is 2nd Councilor. [This property is listed as an Oblates of St Joseph seminary here. Rev. Sibilano is currently listed as Priest in Residence, Rev. McDonnell as Rector.]

On p. 1791: Joseph L. Iannuzzi, O.S.J. appears in the list of diocesan and religious priests in the U.S. The year of his ordination is given as 1997.

(On pp. 186, 187 and 190, William P. Iannuzzi is listed as a permanent deacon in the Diocese of Camden.)

1999-2005

I was unable to access years 2001-2003. The only “Iannuzzi” in the OCD in the others years in this period is Deacon William P. Iannuzzi, in the Diocese of Camden.

2006

The 2006 edition, p. 727: Joseph L. Iannuzzi O.S.J. is listed as Temp. Parochial Admin of Holy Redeemer Parish, Menominee, Michigan, in the Diocese of Marquette; and as Temp. Parochial Admin of Holy Spirit Catholic Church, also in Menominee.

On p. 1804, Joseph L. Iannuzzi, O.S.J. appears in the list of diocesan and religious priests in the U.S. The year of his ordination is given as 1997.

(On p. 218, William P. Iannuzzi is listed as a retired permanent deacon in the Diocese of Camden.)

2007-2009

The 2007 edition, pp. 499-500: Joseph Iannuzzi, O.S.J. is listed for St Monica Catholic Church, Afton, Michigan, in the Diocese of Gaylord and as “Admin.” at St. Paul Catholic Church, in Onaway, in the same Diocese (the two locations are 14 miles / 14 min drive apart). He also appears in the list of diocesan and religious priests in the U.S. (p. 1848):

The 2008 edition, pp. 501-502: The same as above. He is included in the list of diocesan and religious priests in the U.S. (p. 1872).

The 2009 edition, pp. 507-508: The same as above. He is included in the list of diocesan and religious priests in the U.S. (p. 1876).

2010-2021

I was unable to access the 2017 edition. For the other years, the only “Iannuzzi” in the OCD is Deacon William P. Iannuzzi, in the Diocese of Camden.

*

Recall once more that Fr Iannuzzi claimed in 2005 that he is a “member of the missionary religious community located in the Diocese of Marquette, MI that enjoys the ecclesiastical approval of his local bishop and the added endorsements of two bishops of the Detroit Diocese.” (He made the same claim again in 2006, but we put that aside for a moment). We have already seen that this contradicts two statements given by the Bishop of Marquette. Another fact to consider here is that in the years 1999, 2000, 2004 and 2005 (I couldn’t access data in the years 2001-2003) Fr Iannuzzi was not recognised as a priest by any bishop or diocese in the entirety of the United States. In these years, according to the Official Catholic Directory, “Joseph Iannuzzi” does not exist as a priest with faculties anywhere in the United States, and he does not exist as a priest in good standing anywhere in the United States.

Another curious thing about this situation is the fact that in 1998 he was listed as recognised priest (in Middletown, CT) and was listed as a resident of the Eastern Providence of the Oblates of St. Joseph (in Pittson, PA). After that, there is no traceable connection between Fr Iannuzzi and the Oblates of St Joseph in the U.S.A.—not even in those years (2006-2009) in which he was serving as a priest in the U.S.A. (Michigan). He is not currently listed in the Directory of Oblates in the U.S.A., and there are no archived versions of this directory in which he is listed—and archive.org goes back as far as December 19, 2013 for this website, with 142 captures in total covering every year between then and now.

*

A statement from Fr Iannuzzi himself in September 2012 sheds light on this situation:

September 2012. Rhodes.

My name is Reverend Joseph Leo Iannuzzi, from Rome, Italy where I’ve been studying for the last twenty one years, interspersed with pastoral assignments abroad. I recently finished a doctoral dissertation at the pontifical university in Rome entitled, “The Operation of the Divine and Human Will in the Writings of the Servant of God, Luisa Piccarreta – an Inquiry into the Early Ecumenical Councils and Patristic and Scholastic Theology”.

Taken from https://ww3.tlig.org/en/news/fr-joseph-iannuzzi-speaks-on-why-the-tlig-messages-are-so-important/.

The original interview is accessible at https://tligradio.org/library/ (click on “Other Clergy” for the talk given by Fr Iannuzzi in Rhodes 2012). The date given for this talk (toward the end of 2012) is confirmed by the fact that Fr Iannuzzi did complete his doctoral thesis in 2012.

“The last twenty one years” means: from September 1991 to September 2012, give or take a month or two. So we can safely say that Fr Iannuzzi lived in Rome in the years 1992-2012 “interspersed with pastoral assignments abroad” (in his words). From the Official Catholic Directory, we know that the only “pastoral assignments” of his that were recognised by the Church in the U.S. were the ones in 1998 (Middletown, CT), 2006 (Menominee, MI), and 2007-2009 (Onaway, MI).

So how could Fr Iannuzzi truthfully claim in 2005 (or perhaps in 2004 when writing his book on the Antichrist), that he is “member of the missionary religious community located in the Diocese of Marquette, MI that enjoys the ecclesiastical approval of his local bishop”? How could a priest living in Rome at the time be committed to a community located in Paradise, Michigan, in the year prior to his pastoral assignment in the United States, in Menominee, Michigan? Menominee, which is over 200 miles away (a 3.5 hour drive) from Paradise, Michigan? And how could he be committed to that community while also being committed to the Oblates of St Joseph in Rome (we know that, after 1998, he was never recognised as an OSJ of the United States)? And how could he be a committed member of a community in Michigan knowing that he has long-term committments in Rome—not just to the Oblates of St Joseph, but to his ongoing studies in Rome? For just after he announces his membership in this elusive “missionary religious community” in Paradise, Michigan, in the very next paragraph he states that he is “presently completing a dissertation on the writings and doctrines of the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta at the Pontifical University of Rome”—and it wouldn’t be until 2012 that this was completed!

Here is that page again, for the reader’s convenience.

THE OSJ PROBLEM

While we’re at it—and I’m not sure why I didn’t notice this earlier—isn’t it bizarre that Fr Iannuzzi didn’t mention his membership in the Oblates of St Joseph anywhere on this page, under the title “About the Author”? (The same point holds for the 2006 book too). To read more about this and other strange omissions from Fr Iannuzzi’s biographical statements, see the Supplement to this post (first two sections). One wonders why Fr Iannuzzi is so careful to skirt about certain historical details in his life, and why he felt the need to “massage” the narrative in certain ways.

*

But let’s get back to our main line of argument. Recall those three possibilities I mentioned before:

Which “missionary religious community” was Fr Iannuzzi talking about when he claimed to be a member of it in 2005 (and 2006)? There are three possibilities:

(i) He was talking about the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity.

(ii) He was talking about some other religious community.

(iii) He didn’t have in mind any religious community.

The facts uncovered in this section—the two statements made by the Bishop of Marquette, the absence of “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity” from the Official Catholic Directory in the years 1995-2021, and the absence of “Joseph Iannuzzi” from the Official Catholic Directory in the years 1999-2005—all of this confirms and reinforces the statement I made earlier:

If Fr Iannuzzi was talking about “MHT” (the “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity”) then either he was lying when he made this statement in his 2005 book, or he was extremely deluded when he made this statement in his 2005 book. It is worse than that, because this statement was published 20 years ago, and Fr Iannuzzi has never retracted it. So either Fr Iannuzzi has stood by this lie for 20 years, or he has been insane or extremely deluded for 20 years about the ecclesiastical validity/approval of “MHT”.

Option (ii): Fr Iannuzzi was talking about some other religious community.

In 2005 (the publication year of the book in which Fr Iannuzzi made his questionable statement) and the year before that (2004), the following information is given in the Official Catholic Directory under “Institutions Located in the Diocese” [pp. 722-23 for the 2004 edition; pp. 725-26 for the 2005 edition]. The relevant subheadings are highlighted in blue; for these sections all the available information is provided below.

INSTITUTIONS LOCATED IN THE DIOCESE

[A] Elementary Interparochial Schools

[B] Endowment Funds

[C] General Hospitals

[D] Homes for the Aged

[E] Convents and Residences of Sisters

  • [2004, 2005] Provinciliate of the Sisters of St. Paul de Chartres (Marquette)

  • [2004, 2005] Monastery of the Holy Cross (Iron Mountain)

[F] Retreat Houses

  • [2004, 2005] Marygrove Retreat Center (Garden City)

[G] Newman Clubs

[H] Miscellaneous

  • [2004, 2005] St. Vincent De Paul Society (Marquette)

  • [2004, 2005] Missionaries of the Liturgy (Menominee)

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTES OF MEN REPRESENTED IN THE DIOCESE

  • [2004, 2005] The Capuchin Friars (Detroit, MI)—O.F.M.Cap.

  • [2004, 2005] Franciscan Friars (Cincinnati, OH)—O.F.M.

  • [2005] Jesuit Fathers & Brothers, New England Province—S.J.

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTES OF WOMEN REPRESENTED IN THE DIOCESE

  • [2004, 2005] Congregation of the Sisters of Saint Agnes—C.S.A

  • [2004, 2005] Discalced Carmelite Nuns—O.C.D.

  • [2004, 2005] Dominican Sisters [two groups]—O.P.

  • [2004] Franciscan Clarist Congregation (India)

  • [2004, 2005] Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity—O.S.F.

  • [2004, 2005] Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Sisters of Loretto)—I.B.V.M.

  • [2004, 2005] School Sisters of Notre Dame—S.S.N.D.

  • [2004, 2005] Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet—C.S.J.

  • [2004, 2005] Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres—S.P.C.

  • [2004, 2005] Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary—L.H.M.

  • [2004, 2005] Sisters of the Precious Blood—C.PP.S.

  • [2004, 2005] Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis (Peoria, Illinois)—O.S.F.

DIOCESAN CEMETERIES

NECROLOGY

*

Click here to consult the section called “Institutions Located in the Diocese [of Marquette]” in the 2000 edition of the OCD (p. 693). Everything is the same as in 2004, except that in 2000 (1) Missionaries of the Liturgy are not listed, (2) The Franciscan Clarist Congregation (India) is not listed, (3) Sisters of St. Joseph (Concordia, Kansas) are listed and (4) Missionary Sisters of the Immaculate Conception are listed.

*

In the years 2000, 2004 and 2005 there were only 3 religious institutes represented in the Diocese of Marquette of which a Catholic man (adult male) could possibly have been a member, namely: the Capuchin Friars (O.F.M.Cap), the Franciscan Friars (O.F.M.) and the Jesuits (S.J.). The remaining 14 religious institutes represented in the Diocese in these years were (and still are) religious institutes for women. We can safely assume that Fr Iannuzzi did not believe that he was a member of one or more of these religious institutes for women.

Did Fr Iannuzzi believe that he was simultaneously a member of the Oblates of St Joseph and a member of … the Capuchin Friars? The Franciscan Friars? The Jesuits? On top of that, did he honestly believe, for example, (1) that the religious order of the Capuchins “provides solo-wilderness retreats at the CCL (Companions of Christ the Lamb) spiritual center that spans well over 1,000 acres of verdure in the village of Paradise, MI”, (2) that he (Fr Iannuzzi) represents the Detroit Capuchins at the CCL spiritual center and (3) that he is authorised by them to give “solo-wilderness retreats” on their behalf to help people “deepen their union with God’s Divine Will”? Or did he believe, instead, that he was a representative member of the Franciscan Friars from Cincinnati, OH? Or of the Jesuits from the New England Province?

None of these hypothetical possibilities is even minimally plausible. If Fr Iannuzzi honestly believed any of this—especially the part about being an OSJ and a Jesuit / Capuchin / Franciscan simultaneously—then he must have been seriously deluded at the time. Two other facts contradict the claim that Fr Iannuzzi was a member of some other religious community (not the “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity”, and not the Oblates of St Joseph) in 2004 or 2005. First, Fr Iannuzzi has never mentioned the name of this “other” religious community of which he was/is supposedly a member. Second, Fr Iannuzzi has explicitly associated himself with the “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity” consistently and continually—from 2004, in fact, all the way up to the present. In an earlier post I wrote:

Keep in mind that Fr Iannuzzi has referred to the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity since 2014 (if not earlier). Fr Iannuzzi is listed as a speaker at the 17th Annual Conference of the Saint Thomas Aquinas Society in 2014 in the Diocese of Colorado Springs.

https://stthomasaquinassociety.org/speakers/iannuzzi-joseph-l-father/

https://stthomasaquinassociety.org/conferences/17th-annual-conference/

“Fr. Joseph is the initiator of the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Community devoted to the advancement of the Church’s mystical tradition and to the proper theological presentation of the mystical gift of Living in Gods Divine Will.” See here.

From this page on Fr Iannuzzi’s website it is clear that Missionaries of the Holy Trinity receives payments for publications and donations.

We know that Fr Iannuzzi has referred to Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc since August 31, 2024 at the latest—and indeed, that he publically dated the document in which he refers to this entity as March 7, 2024.

…

Important update to this post …. It turns out that Fr Iannuzzi had already referred to “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc.” in two of his books in 2004 (The Splendor of Creation) and 2005 (Antichrist and the End Times), respectively. So from 2004 onwards he has been receiving payment under this (apparently non-existent) incorporated entity.

There is a further update: “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc.” is referred to in Fr Iannuzzi’s 2006 book (Proper Catholic Perspectives) and in his 2013 thesis publication.

Objection: What if Fr Iannuzzi had in mind the Oblates of St Joseph?

Response: Then he was either lying or deluded about the Oblates of St Joseph, which does not have a presence in Paradise, Michigan, and no such presence can be found from 1998 onwards (see the OCD, and enter https://osjusa.org/about-us/oblates/ into a search at archive.org). Moreoever, if the Oblates of St Joseph were connected with the CCL retreat center, then why didn’t Fr Iannuzzi mention the Oblates by name?

Objection: What if Fr Iannuzzi had in mind the Companions of Christ the Lamb?

Response: Then again, he was either lying or deluded. In the discussion above, there is an abundance of evidence showing that Fr Iannuzzi has never been a member of the CCL. On top of that, all U.S. priests who are connected with he CCL are listed as such in the OCD. Father Iannuzzi is not.

To conclude this section:

  • There is no way that, in 2004 or 2005, Fr Iannuzzi could have been a member of some “other” religious order (not the Oblates of St Joseph, and not the “MHT”) that was both recognised by the Diocese of Marquette and represented therein.

  • If in his 2005 statement, Fr Iannuzzi was referring to some “other” religious order, then either he was lying, or he was seriously deluded.

  • It is far more likely that, when he made his 2005 statement, Fr Iannuzzi had in mind the (non-existent, non-endorsed, non-recognised) “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity”. Assuming, of course, that he had in mind some concrete religious community (real or imaginary) with a name (real or imaginary).

Option (iii): Fr Iannuzzi didn’t have in mind any religious community.

A religious community cannot exist in the abstract. Every religious community is a concrete community, located in time and space, with a name.

If someone says he’s a member of a religious community, but is simply unable to give an answer as to which religious community he has in mind, then it is virtually certain that he is lying. The other possibilities are (i) delusion, (ii) cognitive dysfunction (e.g., severe memory failure) and (iii) there being some valid reason for keeping the identity of the community a secret. We can imagine an historical scenario in which (iii) is relevant (e.g. persecution in China), but this does not apply in Fr Iannuzzi’s case. Nor does (ii) apply.

So if Fr Iannuzzi didn’t have in mind any religious community when he made his statement in 2005 (and again in 2006), then in this case too, he was either lying or he was deluded.

The other possibility is that he did have a religious community in mind (real or imaginary) but was reluctant (rather than unable) to give its name. This of course raises red flags. Why on earth would he be reluctant to give the name of his community, yet willing to announce his membership in that community?

More Red Flags

The passage quoted from the “About the Author” section already raises a number of red flags, even on a first reading. This is further confirmation that something is not right (to say the least). For details, read the last section of the Supplement to this post.

Conclusion

There are six main points to take away from this thorough investigation.

(1) When in 2005 (and again in 2006) Fr Joseph Iannuzzi claimed to be a member of some nameless “missionary religious community” that (i) is connected with the Companions of Christ the Lamb in Paradise, MI and (ii) “enjoys the ecclesiastical approval of his local bishop”, he was either lying or extremely deluded.

We asked which “missionary religious community” Fr Iannuzzi was talking about when he claimed in 2005 (and again in 2006) to be a member. We saw that there are three possibilities:

  • (i) He was talking about the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity—in which case he was lying, or extremely deluded.

  • (ii) He was talking about some other religious community—in which case he was lying, or extremely deluded.

  • (iii) He didn’t have in mind any religious community—in which case he was lying, or extremely deluded.

The outcome is the same in any case. It is hard to see how the reputation of Fr Iannuzzi could recover from this.

(2) The behaviour uncovered in two email exchanges with Bishop Doerfler is sickening. It involves Fr Iannuzzi finding a thriving Catholic community and retreat centre (The Companions of Christ the Lamb), and falsely advertising it as his own retreat centre (“our Mother House”), all in the name of seeking “God’s Divine Will.” Who would do such a thing? To re-imagine an innocent pre-existing community, re-conceiving it in one’s own image, appropriating it as part of one’s own (imaginary) spiritual empire, and advertising this false image in an online scam, all for the sake of “God’s Divine Will”—never mind what the members of Companions of Christ the Lamb might think.

(3) As part of this scheme, Fr Iannuzzi even had the audacity to write down the private PO Box of the Companions of Christ the Lamb and present this mailing address as his own in his 2006 book, in order to give his readers the impression that he had some relationship with the CCL.

(4) We also uncovered some worrying discrepancies and omissions in a number of Fr Iannuzzi’s biographical statements [see the Supplement to this post]. It appears that he didn’t want the audience to know:

  • the year of his ordination (1997) or the fact that he was called back to Rome just one year after that (1998)

  • the fact that in 2006 he served in the Diocese of Marquette, at a parish in Menominee, Michigan

  • the fact that he is a member of the Oblates of St Joseph.

(5) While he has sometimes referred to his membership in the OSJs from 2010 onwards (I found one reference, though it was indirect), there is a consistent pattern of Fr Iannuzzi not referring to himself as OSJ or as in any way connected with the OSJs [see the Supplement to this post]. One notices this pattern in his four latest books (2004, 2005, 2006, and his published thesis in 2013), on his current website, on the older version of his website, and in biographical statements connected with his presentations.

(6) Father’s Iannuzzi’s biographical statement in his 2005 and 2006 books already raises a number of red flags [See the Supplement to this post].

Final Word for Part One

These points—the first three especially—seriously call into question (a) the suitability of Father Joseph Iannuzzi as a theological and spiritual/pastoral leader in the Catholic Church and (b) the prudential judgement of those in the Divine Will movement who might choose to ignore these findings and “continue on as usual”—covering for their leader, expressing their allegiance, continuing to depend on his teaching and guidance, pretending that all is well.

Dr Brendan Triffett

Make sure to:

Quick links to other posts:

Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

In response to Michael James Farrow’s latest video on the Divine Will Era channel.

In response to my objective intellectual critique of Fr Iannuzzi, he [Michael James/Farrow] launched an attack against me, and then I defended myself with equal force. Arguably, I used less force. Because I didn’t make up lies about anyone. He is not the victim here.

From the stories people are telling me, and judging from his latest video, Michael Farrow is not used to people fighting back. He wasn’t expecting this. It appears to me that, for strategic reasons, he has “flipped” into being the vulnerable victim. I’m not saying that there was no moment of soul-searching remorse or sorrow in his video whatsoever. Things are never that simple, never that black-and-white. Humans are complex. What I am saying is that I am dubious, and that it would be naive to take his vulernable speech at face value. Actions are what count. And he has not issued an apology. He has not removed the slanderous comments about me and others from the Divine Will Era Facebook page. He continues to block my attempts to defend myself in the comments.

Based on his latest video, it looks as if Michael Farrow (Dr “Michael James” from the Divine Will Era channel) might be positioning himself for a particular narrative that he will soon tell his audience in order to explain or excuse his behaviour and make himself look like the victim.

He said (1) that in the past (many years ago, I assume) someone had sent a threatening letter to his workplace in response to his podcast. He said (2) that there are dangerous religious people out there, implying that we need to take measures to keep ourselves safe.

He talked about (3) how there might hypothetically be a website out there telling his family, friends and coworkers that he is a “loser”. He says he hasn’t achieved much in the academic world and he linked this with his being, in the minds of others, too obsessively religious or something like that.

I’ve never stood over Michael James/Farrow saying that he is a “loser”. I did say that he was a coward for attacking me under a fake name—””Michael James” rather than Michael Farrow. In response to his ad hominem attack (and Fr Iannuzzi’s ad hominem attack) on the “low academic rating” of the University of Tasmania, I applied objective international standards comparing my university with his. Let me just say that Rowan University didn’t come out of this comparison very well. I also compared his area of expertise and thesis topic with mine. I showed how my research interests and acheivements make me far more qualified to get involved in theological discussions compared to him.

In response to my objective intellectual critique of Fr Iannuzzi, he launched an attack against me, and then I defended myself with equal force. Arguably, I used less force. Because I didn’t make up lies about anyone. He is not the victim here.

From the stories people are telling me, and judging from his latest video, Michael Farrow is not used to people fighting back. He wasn’t expecting this. It appears to me that, for strategic reasons, he has “flipped” into being the vulnerable victim. I’m not saying that there was no moment of soul-searching remorse or sorrow in his video whatsoever. Things are never that simple, never that black-and-white. Humans are complex. What I am saying is that I am dubious, and that it would be naive to take his vulernable speech at face value. Actions are what count. And he has not issued an apology. He has not removed the slanderous comments about me and others from the Divine Will Era Facebook page. He continues to block my attempts to defend myself in the comments. Both on Facebook and on the YouTube page. Here is a screen shot taken around 5:09 PM Sydney time, 10th March 2025 (today).

If Farrow is genuinely becoming more “human” and “vulnerable”, I welcome that. That is—or it would be—a laudable step toward justice and reconciliation. But let’s keep in mind that narcissistic abusers are known to do exactly the same thing. They become more human and vulnerable and remorseful and tell their sob stories and make a great performance of all that in order to get their victims back on side. And then they go back to the same old patterns, the same abusive behaviour.

What am I saying? Am I saying that Farrow is a narcissist? No, I am not saying that. I said that narcissistic bullies/abusers do X. Does it follow from this that whoever does X is a narcisstic bully/abuser? No. To think in that way is to commit a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent).

But Farrow’s audience might be inclined to commit the same logical fallacy, for a different conclusion. Their argument or thought-process would go like this.

People who are genuinely sorry (or sympathetic/humane/good) sometimes do Y. Let Y stand for: express their vulnerable side with outbursts of sorrow and/or remorse and narratives about the tragic and painful elements in their lives. The argument / thought-process then proceeds as follows:

(1) People who are genuinely sorry do Y.

(2) Farrow is doing Y.

Therefore

(3) Farrow is genuinely sorry.

The argument is invalid. There is a logical error. For the argument to be valid, it’s necessary to change the first premise as follows.

(1*) Only people who are genuinely sorry do Y.

(2) Farrow is doing Y.

Therefore

(3) Farrow is genuinely sorry.

But this altered version of the first premise is false, and so the argument is unsound. (For an argument to be sound, there has to be no logical errors AND all the premises have to be true).

Returning to my point. I’m not saying that Farrow is a narcissist, or that he isn’t sorry, or that it’s all a deceptive performance. What I’m saying is that I’m not convinced that Farrow is genuinely sorry for what he has done, and that nobody else should be either. Farrow needs to convince me—and everyone else—of his sincerity with his ACTIONS. Anyone can tell stories and show emotions and make themselves vulnerable. Even the most cruel and unrepentant of abusers can do this. And they are very good at it.

Right now, all around the world, even as we speak, thousands of victims of ongoing abuse are being duped by their abusers as they (the abusers) give another highly-refined performance of vulnerability. “Things are so difficult for me. Can’t you see how tragic my life has been? I’m in so much pain, honey. “This time it will be different”. “I am so sorry for what I did. It will never happen again.”

This is a concrete illustration of a more general point. I’m not suggesting that Farrow treats his family like this. Not at all. For all I know, Farrow could be the best family man ever. He could be a better father than me. I am in no position to comment on that. Nor would I ever want to. My observations are directed only at the “Michael James” on screen. The “Michael James” who has committed slander against me. The “Michael James” who has now put out a video of himself speaking vulnerably about his sins and foibles, his struggles and his difficult situation. I’m hardly in a position to make any judgements about the whole person. God alone is able to do that.

Nor am I in a position to say how much of this is mere performance. My point is that I’m not taken in by it, and that nobody should be. Actions count the most. As I pointed out already, his slanderous post is still up there on the Divine Will Era Facebook page. He has never reached out to me in person. The two communications I have had from him were obviously the work of some bot.

Some of Farrow’s words give me the impression that in future he might attempt to construe me as doxing or harrassing or threatening his family members. For that reason, I’ll share with you here the single email I sent to Professor JeanMarie Farrow, his sister, whose email address is easy to find on the university website (she has a prominent position there). I haven’t contacted anyone else in Michael’s family. I don’t even know who they are, and I don’t want to. I am not somebody who would act recklessly or harrass or threaten people. Never. In NO WAY DO I ACCEPT OR CONDONE THAT SORT OF BEHAVIOUR. I made that very clear in a previous post on the 7th of March:

I will demonstrate now that Michael James from the Divine Will Era YouTube channel (and Facebook group) is Michael James Farrow from Rowan University, NJ.

Note first that I DO NOT ENDORSE, ENCOURAGE, SUPPORT OR CONDONE THE ACT OF HARRASSING, STALKING OR INTIMIDATING ANYONE. Quite the opposite. I would be horrified if anybody were to do such a thing. I am not “doxing” anyone because the information provided here is neither private nor sensitive. For example, no personal addresses or phone numbers are provided (I don’t even have this information, nor do I want to). Besides not revealing any sensitive information, I don’t even have any reason to think that someone might want to harm or harrass Michael Farrow. There are politically-related contexts in which extreme prudence is required, for example, when an extremist group such as Antifa might be motivated to harm or harrass a certain individual. But that doesn’t apply here. There is no reason to think that Michael Farrow, in particular, might be a potential target for an extremist group. Initially I didn’t even think of adding this paragraph because the target audience of my posts is Catholics who have some interest (positive or negative) in the Divine Will movement. It never crossed my mind that anybody in my target audience would even consider harrassing, stalking or intimidating another human being.

The email that I sent is as follows:

Dear Professor Jean-Marie Farrow

My name is Brendan Triffett. I'm concerned for your brother Michael. Please hear me out.

I live far away from you in Australia.

I'm sorry that I had to bring you into this--he won't respond to me. I couldn't think of another way.

I know that Michael runs the Divine Will Era Facebook group and YouTube channel under a different name, Dr Michael James. He works as a sort of assistant to Fr Joseph Iannuzzi. … worked out his real identity in a few different ways. Michael dedicated his thesis to you--that's how I made the link to yourself.

Michael has done something quite serious--defamation of my character through large email lists and on a public Facebook site. In a big way, saying that I went to a school of low academic level, and other things that simply aren't true. As far as I can tell, he does many of the things he does because Fr Iannuzzi pressures him to. I've been looking at the Divine Will Era group and the behaviour of this priest for some time now. I've been writing about it lately on my blog.

I've come to the conclusion that the group under Fr Iannuzzi behaves in a cult-like way.

I have a strong suspicion that Michael has come under the psychological influence of Fr Iannuzzi in a bad way [redacted reference to someone else]. Basically, Michael is doing the dirty work for Fr Iannuzzi. Michael is on the frontline, publishing lies about me (and anyone else who dares to question Fr Iannuzzi) and participating in defamation and things like that. I believe Fr Iannuzzi is behind it all. It's very unhealthy. If I'm right, then you should be concerned about Michael.

I did try to reach out to Michael. I said in an email that I'm only trying to expose the deception and bullying behaviour of Fr Iannuzzi. I said that I don't want him to get in the firing line, and that I don't want him getting involved. He didn't respond to me, and he didn't listen.

Things are escalating, Professor Farrow. It's a volatile situation. Michael could easily land himself in a lot of trouble. It could affect his reputation too. This is not my goal. But it could well be the fall out.

I'm not going to back down on Fr Iannuzzi. It looks like Michael is going to continue to act as Fr Iannuzzi's attack dog. 

I don't know what else to say. I've done all I can to warn him. I'm now appealing to you to talk him around. I don't have any other avenues. If he just walks away, and stops acting as Fr Iannuzzi's agent, he won't be in the line of fire any more. If he retracts his slander, I'll leave him alone. I won't hold a grudge or pursue that side of things any further. I have nothing to gain if Michael gets hurt.

As I said, I do really think that Michael is caught up in a cult, or something like it.

If you'd like to contact me anonymously, or from another email address, please quote [redacted]

Sincerely,

Dr Brendan Triffett
monokosmos.com

As I’ve said before, reconciliation is possible. As I’ve said before, my email inbox is always open (but I won’t have a conversation with a bot). But it’s not possible when someone refuses to own what they did, apologise and make amends. It doesn’t help when the guilty person is under pressure to keep their followers happy and not disappoint them. And under pressure to keep up the appearance that all is well in Divine Will Land.

That’s what I’m going to call it, as long as there is denial and delusion. Divine Will Land. So many people off with the fairies, floating about in a lovely religious cloud and a magical wand of wishful thinking—continuing to think the best about everyone in their own club, about everything in their peaceful inside world, continuing to defend and cover for and believe in their leaders, ignoring all the evidence that points in the other direction.

How long until they wake up and return to reality?

Dr Brendan Triffett

Quick links to other posts:

Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

Fr Joseph Iannuzzi, we need answers, NOW. The two incorporated entities you refer to DO NOT EXIST*.

*According to (1) OpenCorporates.com which searches for all business entities (including not-for-profits) internationally in 307 jurisdictions, (2) the IRS Tax Exempt Organisation Search, (4) The Official EU Business Register Search (includes not-for-profits), (3) the official data from the Italian Chambers of Commerce at https://italianbusinessregister.it/en/home (includes not-for-profits) (4) Advanced UK Company Search at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/advanced-search (includes not-for-profits), (5) ABN (Australian Business Number) look up (includes not-for-profits), (6) Canada’s Business Registeries (includes not-for-profits).

The two incorporated entities in question are The Divine Fiat Incorporated and Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Incorporated.

OpenCorporates covers all the other searches anyway; these were double-checks.

There is one The Divine Fiat Inc in Australia. We will get to that.

*According to (1) OpenCorporates.com which searches for all business entities (including not-for-profits) internationally in 307 jurisdictions, (2) the IRS Tax Exempt Organisation Search, (3) The Official EU Business Register Search (includes not-for-profits), (4) The European Union Transparency Register (includes not-for-profits), (5) the official data from the Italian Chambers of Commerce at https://italianbusinessregister.it/en/home (includes not-for-profits), (6) Advanced UK Company Search at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/advanced-search (includes not-for-profits), (7) ABN (Australian Business Number) look up (includes not-for-profits), (8) Canada’s Business Registeries (includes not-for-profits). The two incorporated entities in question are The Divine Fiat Incorporated and Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Incorporated.

Note that OpenCorporates covers all the other searches anyway; the other searches are double-checks, even triple-checks.

Note that there is one The Divine Fiat Inc in Australia. We will get to that.

*

I’ll get to the point. The first thing you need to know is that there are at least two versions of an uploaded pdf document on the “International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors”. This document (two or more versions) was posted on www.ltdw.org, the website of Fr Joseph Iannuzzi. After we look at the changes made to the document we’ll look at the status of the two incorporated entities mentioned in the later version of the document: The Divine Fiat Inc. and Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc.

First, let’s look at a past version of a pdf that has been posted to www.ltdw.org. This “capture” of the website by web.archive.org was taken on April 15, 2024 (look in the top right hand corner).

https://web.archive.org/web/20240415113209/https://www.ltdw.org/uploads/2/5/1/5/25153387/international_cenacle_of_divine_will_instructors.pdf

On page 2 it says (I’ve added bold for emphasis):

By virtue of the Vatican’s appreciation of the duty, ministry and personal responsibility of the individual theologian, and of the profound need of the faithful, there has been established the “International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors,” comprised of Church-qualified Catholic theologians, priests and laity. This initiative offers a timely response to the clarion cry of the thousands of Christians worldwide who have requested a unified and sound theological presentation on Luisa’s writings.

Scroll down to page 3 and read the middle paragraph, especially the first sentence. The parts in blue change between the two versions of the document.

Established under the auspices of an international incorporation statues, bylaws and articles of incorporation, the “International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors” remains at the service of the Church to help ensure, through theological contributions and personal witness, sound instructions on Luisa’s writings, several of which enjoy multiple Magisterial seals of approbation, the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. To this end the International Cenacle has welcomed the Doctor of Sacred Theology of the Pontifical University of Rome who has translated Luisa’s writings contained in his approved doctoral dissertation, Fr. J.L. Iannuzzi, STL, S.Th.D. His expertise in the fields of dogmatic and spiritual theology will help enrich priests and laity alike. At present the International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors has grown to approximately 3,000 members and 150 priests, all of whom foster a deep desire of fidelity to the Magisterium and of obedience to Church authorities. At this juncture we presently have several Church-qualified theologians and priests from various countries who have unified their time and talents to offer us instructions, but no lay instructors thus far. We foresee “qualified” lay instructors who are educated by the International Cenacle theologians and priests in Magisterial teachings and in Luisa’s doctrines and who are elected by the board. These will be sent out to teach the Good News throughout the world with translators at their disposal.

On page 4:

We maintain that upholding the purity of the doctrine contained in Luisa’s prophetic revelations is not limited to promoting them, but it extends to exemplifying them in action through one’s personal witness.

(I won’t comment on this quote—not in this post).

On page 5:

More information will follow.

International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors

March 7, 2024.

We turn now to a later version of the document, uploaded no later than August 31, 2024.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240831074629/https://www.ltdw.org/uploads/2/5/1/5/25153387/international_cenacle_of_divine_will_instructors.4.17.2024.pdf

The passage already quoted from page 2 remains the same. There is a significant change in the middle paragraph on page 3, however. Here is the first sentence of the new middle paragraph:

In service agreement with and pursuant to art. 8 of the Constitution of The Divine Fiat Inc. and to chapter 4 of the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc. Statutes, the “International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors” remains at the service of the Church to help ensure, through theological contributions and personal witness, sound instructions on Luisa’s writings, several of which enjoy multiple Magisterial seals of approbation, the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.

Compare this to the first sentence in the April 15, 2024 version:

Established under the auspices of an international incorporation statues, bylaws and articles of incorporation, the “International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors” remains at the service of the Church to help ensure, through theological contributions and personal witness, sound instructions on Luisa’s writings, several of which enjoy multiple Magisterial seals of approbation, the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.

“Established under the auspices of an international incorporation statues, bylaws and articles of incorporation” has been replaced with “In service agreement with and pursuant to art. 8 of the Constitution of The Divine Fiat Inc. and to chapter 4 of the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc. Statutes”.

From no later than August 31, 2024, then, this official document referred to two incorporated entities (presumably not-for-profit): The Divine Fiat Inc. and Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc. The current (March 9, 2025) version of the document remains the same as the August 31, 2024 version.

Let’s turn now to the very end of the document in the August 31, 2024 version (page 5).

Note that the highlights and different coloured texts are there in the uploaded document. I simply took a screen shot of the document “as is”.

The document ends as follows:

International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors

The Divine Fiat Incorporation

March 7, 2024

My own info: (DFI arts. 3; 4; service agreement required; contract for a legal arrangement).

The very last sentence (“My own info …”) is not my note or my addition. It is there in the document! The two lines in blue are the two added lines. Compare with the previous version of April 15, 2024:

More information will follow.

International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors

March 7, 2024.

To repeat, the current uploaded version of the document (at March 9, 2025) is no different to the one uploaded no later than August 31, 2025.

There are a few concerning things about these changes.

First, both of the documents are officially dated “March 7, 2025”, despite the fact that two legally significant alterations were made to the document well after March 7.

Second, the presence of a “note to self”—a reminder that a service agreement is still required, along with a contract for a legal arrangement for the Divine Fiat Incorporation. Was this “note to self” accidentally included in the uploaded document? Did someone upload the wrong version of the document, or forget to delete the note? What’s going on here?

Third, the fact that NO further information is given (not even in the footnotes) about the two incorporated entities mentioned: The Divine Fiat Inc. and the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc. (Who are the directors? Who is on the board? Where can we find out further information?) The reader is not even told which country the incorporated entities belong to. Worst of all, there is no identifying business entity or not-for-profit number given. Why the secrecy?

At this point it is only natural to ask: Do these entities even exist? I will return to that question. It is DECISIVE in this post.

What IS this International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors?

I have similar concerns about this enigmatic “International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors”. No further information is provided in the document (not even in the footnotes). Who are these approximately “3,000 members and 150 priests”? Is there a website or an email by which we can get further information? Can we at least have the name of these priests and their locations? Do one or both of the incorporated entities oversee the Cenacle? What is the legal relationship between the three entities? What is the relationship between Fr Iannuzzi and each of the three entities? Who is the “we” who is speaking in the document? It is Fr Iannuzzi alone? Or is there an official board who signed off on the document—a board that does not reduce to one person, Fr Iannuzzi? If so, who are these board members? What is the structure of the Cenacle? Does it receive money? What is done with the received money? Is there documentation showing how the money is used? Is the Cenacle registered as a non-for-profit? In which country? (The same questions, of course, should be raised for The Divine Fiat Inc. and Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc.) Again, why the secrecy?

On page 3 it is written: “To this end the International Cenacle has welcomed the Doctor of Sacred Theology of the Pontifical University of Rome who has translated Luisa’s writings contained in his approved doctoral dissertation, Fr. J.L. Iannuzzi, STL, S.Th.D.” So, was there a board who signed off on this acceptance/inclusion/welcoming of Fr Iannuzzi into the Cenacle? Was there a vote? Who exactly did the welcoming? Did Fr Iannuzzi, speaking on behalf of the International Cenacle, officially welcome himself into the International Cenacle? Did he perform some ceremony in the privacy of his own home to welcome himself into the Cenacle? Did he present himself with a document and drink a glass of champagne to himself? What exactly happened? How does it all operate? Where are the founding documents, the rules, minutes of meetings, and so forth? Once again, why the secrecy?

THE DIVINE FIAT INC. and THE MISSIONARIES OF THE HOLY TRINITY INC. apparently DO NOT EXIST!

I went to https://opencorporates.com/ and signed up for a free account. Anyone can do this, along as you aren’t working for a corporation, company, government department or regulatory authority (see terms of use here):

OpenCorporates Ltd is a public-benefit company whose mission is to make company data more accessible, for the benefit of society.  We do this by making company data available via our websites, our API, and our other data products (together, “OpenCorporates”). We want you to use our data, for a public purpose, for journalism, for academic research, and also commercially, however, subject to these Terms of Use as set forth below (the “Terms”). 

We offer free access to our company data through this website to the general public (for personal use only and not for the benefit of a corporation or company), and in addition, our other data products to: journalists, NGOs and academics who are conducting public benefit research (each a “Permitted User”). For the avoidance of doubt, financial institutions, corporations, government departments and regulatory authorities are not Permitted Users.  If you are not sure whether or not you qualify as a Permitted User, please contact us. Determination as to whether you or your organisation is deemed a Permitted User is in our sole discretion ...  

From the “purpose” page of opencorporates:

Legal entities are the atomic elements behind the entire business world – and increasingly every other part of our lives too.

How many contracts did you enter into this week — either explicitly or by agreeing to an end-user license agreement, or by installing an app on your phone?

Each of those contracts was with something with legal personality – almost always a "legal entity". 

Legal entities are also the conduits for all large-scale criminal activity, from enabling corruption, organized crime and money laundering to their use in fraud, tax evasion and undermining democratic institutions.

OpenCorporates was conceived to make this underlying dataset more visible, more accessible and more usable – for everyone, from journalists to banks, citizens to corporations, NGOs to law enforcement.

…

OpenCorporates was founded in 2010 to transform corporate transparency, specifically by making legal-entity data more accessible, more usable, and better quality too.

This isn’t just hyperbole; it’s written into our articles of association, and so we have a legal obligation to do it. We're also a certified B Corp, recognised for our high standards of performance, accountability, and transparency.

Legal entities are the fundamental structures that underpin the entire business world, and in a highly connected digital world, the whole of society too. 

Which is why it’s vital that the data that defines them – their  existence, ownership, activities and beneficiaries – is not just public, but connected in a single unified dataset, available for all.

…

For over 10 years we have lead the cause for open data. We've built a data platform to provide a single unified view of the company universe. Data that’s trusted, rich and open to all. Here are a few highlights.

Here is a stack of 6 screen shots to give you an idea of how prestigious, widely-used, and internationally-recognised OpenCorporates is:

This is what Wikipedia says in its entry on OpenCorporates :


OpenCorporates is a website that shares data on corporations under the copyleft Open Database License. The company, OpenCorporates Ltd,[b][3] was incorporated on 18 December 2010[2] by Chris Taggart and Rob McKinnon, and the website was officially launched on 20th.[4]

Data is sourced from national business registries in 140 jurisdictions, and presented in a standardised form. Collected data comprises the name of the entity, date of incorporation, registered addresses, and the names of directors. Some data, such as the ownership structure, is contributed by users.[5][6]

In 2011, the site won third place in the Open Data Challenge.[7] Vice President of the European Commission Neelie Kroes said the site "is the kind of resource the (Digital) Single Market needs and it is encouraging to see that it is being built."[8] The project was represented on the European Union's Core Vocabularies Working Group's Core Business Task Force.[9]

In early 2012, the project was appointed to the Financial Stability Board's advisory panel on a Legal Entity Identification for Financial Contracts.[10]

In July 2015, OpenCorporates was a finalist in both the Business and Publisher categories at the Open Data Institute Awards.[11] It was announced as the winner of the Open Data Business Award due to work with promoting data transparency in the corporate sector.[12]

The service has been used to study public procurement data,[13] online hiring market,[14] to visualize and analyze company data,[15][16][17] to analyze tax havens, and illicit activities of companies.[18]

Searching for DIVINE FIAT INC.

Here is everything that turns up when “DIVINE FIAT” is put in the search bar for Companies in all 307 jurisdications around the world (see here for the list of jurisdictions):

It is important to note that

  1. Nonprofit entities are listed

  2. The search is not case sensitive

  3. Inactive entities are listed along with the active ones

  4. The search has no difficulty finding matches of very small nonprofits in less populated countries (which is what the 6th entry is—see below)

  5. The search encompasses the fields “company name” and “other names”

  6. The only entry that might match the one mentioned in the International Cenacle document is the Australian one, listed last.

The Divine Fiat Incorporated, with ABN (Australian Business Number) 20107012384, has a governing document that can be viewed here. The “responsible people” listed are Catherine Batten, Lorna Lyons, Peter Dwyer and Xavier Crimmins (see here). “The role of a 'Responsible Person' is an important one for registered charities. Generally, a charity's Responsible People are its board or committee members, or trustees.” It was first registered in 20 February 2020.

Could this be the same entity mentioned in the International Cenacle Document? Recall that page 3 of the later version of the document says:

In service agreement with and pursuant to art. 8 of the Constitution of The Divine Fiat Inc and to chapter 4 of the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc. Statutes, the “International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors” remains at the service of the Church to help ensure, through theological contributions and personal witness, sound instructions on Luisa’s writings, several of which enjoy multiple Magisterial seals of approbation, the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.

So let’s see if we can find an article 8 of the constitution of this entity, and see whether things fit. The governing document (found here) has five parts. The first two parts have 12 numbered sections in total (see below). [Part 3 is “The commitee”, Part 4 is “General meetings”, Part 5 is “Miscellaneous”.]

  1. Definitions

  2. Membership generally

  3. Application for membership

  4. Cessation of membership

  5. Membership entitlements not transferable

  6. Resignation of membership

  7. Register of members

  8. Fees and subscriptions

  9. Members’ liabilities

  10. Resolution of disputes

  11. Disciplining of members

  12. Right of appeal of disciplined member.

Section 8 reads as follows:

8 Fees and subscriptions

(1) A member of the association must, on admission to membership, pay to the association a fee of $1 or, if some other amount is determined by the committee, that other amount.

(2) In addition to any amount payable by the member under subclause (1), a member of the association must pay to the association an annual membership fee of $2 or, if some other amount is determined by the committee, that other amount:

(a) except as provided by paragraph (b), before the first day of the financial year of the association in each calendar year, or

(b) if the member becomes a member on or after the first day of the financial year of the association in any calendar year—on becoming a member and before the first day of the financial year of the association in each succeeding calendar year.

Let’s see if things makes sense if we assume that the International Cenacle document refers to this Section 8. Accordingly I have inserted the underlined parenthetical note:

In service agreement with and pursuant to art. 8 of the Constitution of The Divine Fiat Inc [namely, the determination on Fees and Subscriptions requiring members to pay $1AU upon admission and $2AU every financial year of their membership] and to chapter 4 of the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc. Statutes, the “International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors” remains at the service of the Church to help ensure, through theological contributions and personal witness, sound instructions on Luisa’s writings, several of which enjoy multiple Magisterial seals of approbation, the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. To this end the International Cenacle has welcomed the Doctor of Sacred Theology of the Pontifical University of Rome who has translated Luisa’s writings contained in his approved doctoral dissertation, Fr. J.L. Iannuzzi, STL, S.Th.D. His expertise in the fields of dogmatic and spiritual theology will help enrich priests and laity alike. At present the International Cenacle of Divine Will Instructors has grown to approximately 3,000 members and 150 priests, all of whom foster a deep desire of fidelity to the Magisterium and of obedience to Church authorities. At this juncture we presently have several Church-qualified theologians and priests from various countries who have unified their time and talents to offer us instructions, but no lay instructors thus far. We foresee “qualified” lay instructors who are educated by the International Cenacle theologians and priests in Magisterial teachings and in Luisa’s doctrines and who are elected by the board. These will be sent out to teach the Good News throughout the world with translators at their disposal.

It doesn’t fit at all, does it? Now in the Preamble (Objectives and Purposes of the Assocation) found on page 6 of the governing document, we see the following:

The objectives of the Divine Fiat Inc. a not-for-profit incorporated entity, are to:

A. Live, promote and protect the writings and ideals of Luisa Piccarreta, The Little Daughter of the Divine Will (“Luisa”);

B. Present and distribute promotional material explaining the objectives and activities of The Divine Fiat, and wherever possible, all other such things that advance the purpose of the Divine Fiat;

C. To provide access to Divine Will writings and resources, ensuring that all teachings and promotions are faithful to Luisa’s Divine Will writings, to Sacred Scripture and Magisterial teaching;

D. To coach and guide Priests and lay-group cenacle leaders as facilitators and leaders in the evangelisation of the Divine Truths contained in Luisa’s writings;

E. To promote and foster new and existing Divine Will Cenacle Groups throughout Australia and New Zealand; and

F. To gather and disseminate authenticated Divine Will information.

It would make more sense if Fr Iannuzzi’s International Cenacle document had referred to objectives A to D (especially C and D). This is the closest thing in the governing document to the purpose of remaining “at the service of the Church to help ensure, through theological contributions and personal witness, sound instructions on Luisa’s writings, several of which enjoy multiple Magisterial seals of approbation, the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.” The fact that the only section in the governing document that resembles an “art. 8 of the Constitution” is a section on subscription fees, of all things (!)—combined with the fact that there is no reference to objectives A to D—makes it all but certain that this entity can’t be the “The Divine Fiat Inc.” we are looking for.

Moreoever, it is clear that The Divine Fiat Inc. that is registered in NSW, Australia, has no grand international design; it exists to “promote and foster new and existing Divine Will Cenacle Groups throughout Australia and New Zealand” and nowhere else. This is to be expected, given that its human resources include no employees, and exactly one volunteer (as I said, it is a very small entity).

Finally, if Fr Iannuzzi was referring to this Australian non-for-profit, what was stopping him from giving more information, such as the ABN?

By all appearances, then, “The Divine Fiat Inc” that the International Cenacle document refers to, does not exist.

Just to make sure, I tried another route. I searched opencorporates.com for “Joseph Iannuzzi” under “officers”. Thirteen items were found, two in Canada, the rest in the US:

The only entity associated with Fr Joseph L. Iannuzzi is ASSOCIATION OF PRIESTS, INC. Father Iannuzzi is listed as president and director of the primary nonprofit entity and agent of the one branch listed.

Triple Checking, Quadruple Checking …

All the other business searches turned out no matches for “The Divine Fiat” besides that one incorporated entity (the Australian one) in searches that cover Australia:

Searching for MISSIONARIES OF THE HOLY TRINITY INC.

Keep in mind that Fr Iannuzzi has referred to the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity since 2014 (if not earlier). Fr Iannuzzi is listed as a speaker at the 17th Annual Conference of the Saint Thomas Aquinas Society in 2014 in the Diocese of Colorado Springs.

https://stthomasaquinassociety.org/speakers/iannuzzi-joseph-l-father/

https://stthomasaquinassociety.org/conferences/17th-annual-conference/

“Fr. Joseph is the initiator of the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Community devoted to the advancement of the Church’s mystical tradition and to the proper theological presentation of the mystical gift of Living in Gods Divine Will.” See here.

From this page on Fr Iannuzzi’s website it is clear that Missionaries of the Holy Trinity receives payments for publications and donations.

This is the order form that pops up when you click on the the pdf icon. The link is provided below.

https://www.ltdw.org/uploads/2/5/1/5/25153387/newsletter_order_form_-_8-5-14.pdf

There is proof that the “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity” has been receiving payments for years, in the United States (Rhode Island)—but who are they, exactly? Which individuals are members of these “Missionaries”? Is there a board? Who is on the board? Where are the financial statements? How is the money being used and where is the documentation for that—IRS Form 990? Where is the financial transparency? Why has this organisation never been registered as a nonprofit entity?

All the business searches mentioned turned out no matches for “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity”:

Take note of this important information about not-for-profits in the US, from https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/ethics-accountability/financial-transparency-and-public-disclosure-requirements :

As tax-exempt public charities, charitable nonprofits embrace the values of accountability and transparency as a matter of ethical leadership, as well as legal compliance.

Leaders of charitable nonprofits know that financial transparency will help preserve the important trust community members and donors place in a nonprofit. Additionally, and no less importantly, conduct that is accountable and transparent earns employees' trust and creates a positive workplace culture.

Earning trust through financial transparency and accountability goes beyond what the law requires, but let’s start there: nonprofits are required to disclose certain financial information to the public upon request, and board members must have access to financial information in order to fulfill their fiduciary duty to the nonprofit.

What must a nonprofit disclose to the public?

Tax-exempt nonprofits are required, upon request, to provide copies of the three most recently filed annual information returns (IRS Form 990) and the organization's application for tax-exemption (which includes correspondence between the organization and the IRS related to the application). To demonstrate a commitment to transparency and to make it easier for those seeking financial information to view these documents, many charitable nonprofits post these documents on their websites.

Learn more about the IRS public disclosure requirements.

Public disclosure of the Form 990-T (IRS)

Copies of IRS 990, 990-PF, 990-EZ, and 990-N returns for charitable nonprofits are available to the public on the IRS website. Forms 990-T filed by 501(c)(3) organizations are also available. (IRS)

https://queenofthedivinewill.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Mary-Co-Redemptrix-in-the-writings-of-Luisa-Piccarreta.pdf

In this document (toward the end) it says

To all friends and devoted followers of Luisa.

Most, if not all of you, have been receiving our newsletter for nearly 15 years. During this period, there have been 9 postage increases and 7 paper increases. While it remains our goal to continue to bring you the Church-approved teachings on the Divine Will at a very low cost, the paper and postage increases are necessitating an increase in the annual subscription fee. Beginning January of 2014, the annual Domestic Subscription fee will be $20.00 and the International Subscription fee will be $30.00. At present, we are renewing our website, frjoetalks.info, with updates including a Q&A forum with answers provided by Church theologians from Rome who possess a doctoral degree in the fields of Dogmatic and/or Mystical Theology; pages dedicated to the Rounds in Creation, to the Hours of the Passion, to the upcoming national and international Divine Will Retreats and Theological Seminars, to Guidelines for Divine Will Prayer Groups, etc. Last but not least, we are planning a 2014 pilgrimage to Europe. We wish to spend one week in Europe visiting the famous shrines of your choice. In our desire to accommodate you, we kindly ask you to circle below the season, country and sites you wish to visit. Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi, STD, Ph.D. continues to remember all MHT members and subscribers in Masses celebrated from the altars of Rome. We thank you for your continued support.

May God bless you, MHT Board Members

So there is a board. But who is on the board?

We know that Fr Iannuzzi has referred to Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc since August 31, 2024 at the latest—and indeed, that he publically dated the document in which he refers to this entity as March 7, 2024.

Why did Father Iannuzzi suddenly begin referring to the Missionaries of the Holy Trinity as an incorporated entity in March/August of 2024, yet there are still no public records of an entity with this name? From August 2024 until now (March 9, 2025) there are 7 months. That is more than enough to time for searchable systems to update and include this new incorporated entity. Two or three weeks is more than enough.

*

Important update to this post on March 11, 2025. It turns out that Fr Iannuzzi had already referred to “Missionaries of the Holy Trinity Inc.” in two of his books in 2004 (The Splendor of Creation) and 2005 (Antichrist and the End Times), respectively. So from 2004 onwards he has been receiving payment under this (apparently non-existent) incorporated entity.

MORE INFORMATION TO FOLLOW.

I’ve said quite enough for this post. Catholics all around the world deserve answers from Fr Iannuzzi. Urgently!

*

If there are any inaccuracies of fact in this report, and this can be demonstrated to me, I will amend the report. If Fr Iannuzzi or anybody representing any of the organisations/entities reported on here would like to come forward with clarifying information or context, I will gladly post it.

Dr Brendan Triffett

Quick links to other posts:

Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

A brutally honest response to Dr Michael James Farrow—Part 1.

I prove that the true identity of Dr Michael James from the Divine Will Era channel is actually Dr Michael James Farrow. Farrow graduated from Rowan University, New Jersey, in 2019. So “Michael James” has been deceiving the Divine Will audience about his surname for years. The research area of Farrow’s thesis is diversity and inclusivity in education. This has nothing to do with Catholic theology. Rowan University is not even in the top 1000 universities in the world. Unlike my own university, the University of Tasmania, which consistently ranks around 300.

The same defamatory comment (and the rest of it) was also circulated in a large email list. Apparently Fr Iannuzzi has no qualms about committing slander. Nor does Dr “Michael James” have any qualms about publishing the slanderous comments that Fr Iannuzzi came up with and passed on to him.

You want to play that game? Are you sure? You’re going to end up looking very silly.

You’re locked in then?

Okay. Let’s play.

The first thing I will do is reveal Dr Michael’s full name. James is his middle name, not his surname. Farrow is his surname. All these years this man has been deceitfully implying that his surname is James, when in fact it is Farrow. When someone writes two names following the title “Dr” everyone knows what that means: the two names are first name and surname. That is the universal convention. Nobody ever gives their title followed by first name and middle name and nothing else. Michael knows this. He knows perfectly well how everyone in his audience naturally understands “Dr. Michael James”. For one reason or another, he has presented himself falsely as “Michael James”, and he has done this for a number of years.

Don’t tell me that Fr Iannuzzi didn’t know this. Think about it, folks.

In this post I will prove that “Michael James” is Michael James Farrow, with an abundance of undeniable evidence. I have every right to do this because he has participated in defamation. On top of this, people have the right to know the real identity of the spineless coward who wants to remain anonymous while engaging in character assassination (against others too, not just me), while standing on high moral ground—high ground, where his hypocrisy has now become visible for all to see.

I warned Michael on more than one occasion. I didn’t want this to happen to him. I was concerned about him. I am concerned. Because in my judgement, he has let himself be controlled/influenced by Fr Iannuzzi in a bad way, and for a long time. However, Michael rejected all my offers. I pleaded with him to walk away, to get out of the line of fire. To stop being Fr Iannuzzi’s attack dog. He refused. He made his choice.

If you think that my “pulling out all the stops” and fighting back against the one—the two—who have slandered me is unjust, or an offence against charity, then frankly, you have a warped view of justice and charity. That sort of warped thinking is what enables abusers at home and abusers in the Church and gives more power to bullies. It is what makes possible the formation of cults and other disordered communities and relationships. If after these posts you think I’m doing this simply for myself (though I have every right to) or that I’m merely acting emotionally, then you haven’t understood a thing. I might have the occasion to explain this more another time—but this three-post series will go a long way already.

In the second post of this series I will prove that my university, the University of Tasmania, is the very opposite of a “low ranking” institution. I will then compare the world ranking of the University of Tasmania with the world ranking of Rowan University, which is where “Michael James” did his postgraduate studies. The University of Tasmania ranks around 300 in the world. Rowan University doesn’t even make it to the top 1000. [Muted trumpet embarrassing failure sound from Wheel of Fortune—wha, wha, whaaaaaaaa.] Oh, and it’s no less “secular” than UTAS.

Dr Michael James Farrow. Let me apply to you, the same standards that you and Father Iannuzzi applied to me. Your university, Rowan University, whose world rating is so low their PR team advised them not to mention it on their self-promotion page—the best they can manage is to say that it’s the third-fasted growing university in the whole of the United States [wha, wha, whaaaaa]; they did manage to get Rowan U in a Top 100 in the Nation list by using the rather contrived category of “national public research university and best value”—your university put your thesis under the category of interdisciplinary and inclusive education. Now that is as far away from theology as New Jersey is from Tasmania. And we can thank God for that. May inclusiveness studies never become the handmaid of theology.

I suppose I should also mention that my PhD is in philosophy, which is “the handmaid of theology”—and that I studied the incredibly sophisticated thought of a highly renowned Christian theologian (Professor John Milbank) from a philosophical viewpoint, and that I was required to understand the theological debates over nature and grace (de Lubac versus Garrigou-Lagrange), and the theological epistemology of Hans Urs von Balthasar, and compare Milbank’s epistemology with that of Aquinas, and explore the themes of gift and participation in Milbank and Aquinas. When you consider all this, it turns out that I am far more qualified for the role of “theologian” compared to Dr Michael James, the one who organises the Divine Will Era group. The one upon whom Fr Iannuzzi so much relies.

In my third post in this series I will say some things that need to be said. I reflect at a more general level on

  • true vs false religion

  • corruption in the Church

  • corruption in spiritual movements within the Church

  • the necessity of shaking things up, waking people up, stepping up and speaking out when there is corruption.

I relate all these themes to the Divine Will movement as it currently exists. I pull no punches.

*

I will demonstrate now that Michael James from the Divine Will Era YouTube channel (and Facebook group) is Michael James Farrow from Rowan University, NJ.

Note first that I DO NOT ENDORSE, ENCOURAGE, SUPPORT OR CONDONE THE ACT OF HARRASSING, STALKING OR INTIMIDATING ANYONE. Quite the opposite. I would be horrified if anybody were to do such a thing. I am not “doxing” anyone because the information provided here is neither private nor sensitive. For example, no personal addresses or phone numbers are provided (I don’t even have this information, nor do I want to). Besides not revealing any sensitive information, I don’t even have any reason to think that someone might want to harm or harrass Michael Farrow. There are politically-related contexts in which extreme prudence is required, for example, when an extremist group such as Antifa might be motivated to harm or harrass a certain individual. But that doesn’t apply here. There is no reason to think that Michael Farrow, in particular, might be a potential target for an extremist group. Initially I didn’t even think of adding this paragraph because the target audience of my posts is Catholics who have some interest (positive or negative) in the Divine Will movement. It never crossed my mind that anybody in my target audience would even consider harrassing, stalking or intimidating another human being.

Commencement Video

See the 2019 Rowan University Commencement for the College of Education here.

Watch and listen from 1:28:56 to 1:29:21. The link I just shared will take you to the location you need to watch from.

Any of the videos on the Divine Will Era channel featuring “Dr Michael James” can be compared to Michael James Farrow on the above video. Clearly it is the same person.

Below I’ve taken some screen shots of Dr Michael James from the Vatican & Aliens YouTube videos series, Part 1. For comparison I’ve collated a number of screen shots of Michael James Farrow in his 2019 Commencement ceremony at Rowan University (from the video linked above).

o

Michael James Farrow’s employment at Farleigh Dickinson University, NJ.

The image above is an April 19 2024 snapshot of the following website, recorded by Internet Archive (Wayback Machine). Look at the top right for the date.
The original web address is https://www.fdu.edu/program/graduate-certificate-ma-certified-teachers-literacy-reading-specialist-nj-state-certificate/

This address has to be put into the search bar at

https://web.archive.org/

And then click on 2024, then the April 19 button.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240401000000*/https://www.fdu.edu/program/graduate-certificate-ma-certified-teachers-literacy-reading-specialist-nj-state-certificate/

This will take you to https://web.archive.org/web/20240419001523/https://www.fdu.edu/program/graduate-certificate-ma-certified-teachers-literacy-reading-specialist-nj-state-certificate/ — which is where the image of Dr Michael James from Divine Will Era is found. Compare the backgrounds too. Same religious painting, and what looks like the end of a guitar.

Coursicle Listing for Education at FDU

https://www.coursicle.com/fdu/professors/M.+Farrow/

M. Farrow is listed as a professor presenting courses at FDU. In particular: EDU 6763 – Theoretical Foundations of Lit and EDU 6767 – Sem in Rdng Actn Res & Ldrshp. It says “Recent Semesters Teaching: Spring 2024, Fall 2023.”

The snapshot that includes the image of Dr Michael James was taken by the Wayback Machine on April 19 2024 – which is right in the middle of Spring 2024, which matches up with the information about M. Farrow teaching an education subject at FDU in Spring 2024.

If you scroll down on that snapshot you see the subjects listed.

EDU 6763 and EDU 6765 are listed there clearly: and these are the subjects listed under M. Farrow at https://www.coursicle.com/fdu/professors/M.+Farrow/

*

The video of the commencement ceremony is already proof that Michael James is Michael James Farrow. Solid proof.

But there is a second, independent collection of evidence proving the same thing. From web.archive.org we have an image of a man who is clearly the same person as Dr Michael James from the Divine Will Era Facebook page and YouTube channel. He is clearly presented on the FDU website as the presenter of an education subject. We also have independent evidence that there is a Michael Farrow who is one and the same as Michael James Farrow, M. J. Farrow and Michael J. Farrow (see the next section). We know that there is a Michael J. Farrow who, in his thesis, on page iv., expressed gratitude (in the Acknowledgements) to his sister JeanMarie Farrow. JeanMarie Farrow is an employee (program advisor/director) at the same university (FDU) where her brother Michael Farrow has worked as a professor, and in the same department (Education).

https://www.fdu.edu/news/faculty-staff-update-in-memoriam-welcome-12/

“The University welcomes new full-time and part-time employees who joined FDU as of February 3, 2023.” The list includes JeanMarie Farrow as “assistant professor, education (Metro)”.

Click on the next link to search for Farrow at FDU:

https://www.fdu.edu/?s=farrow&sa=Search&siteurl=fdu.edu%2F&ref=&ss=

https://www.fdu.edu/program/graduate-certificate-ma-certified-teachers-literacy-reading-specialist-nj-state-certificate/
About 2/3 down this page a testimonial says:

“I have found this degree to be easy to navigate, as well as a program that sets all candidates up for success. The program’s advisor, Dr. JeanMarie Farrow, is consistently available to address my concerns”.

Their research interests overlap, are in the same area of research, and they have published articles together (see the links below).

This is abundant evidence here establishing—a second time—that Dr Michael James from the Divine Will Era group is the Michael James Farrow identified and described in this post.

Add to this the fact that FDU and Rowan University are both in New Jersey, about 110 miles apart (2 hours drive).

Published work of Dr Farrow

M.J. Farrow, Michael Farrow, Michael J Farrow and Michael James Farrow all refer to the same author at Research Gate and at APA Psychnet.

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Michael-J-Farrow-2199437514

Here five (5) co-published articles are listed. Three are co-authored with Jeanmarie Farrow. Two articles have Michael James Farrow listed as first co-author. Two articles have him listed as fourth co-author. One article has him listed as second co-author. Both articles that he is first co-author in are published in the research area: diversity studies in education. One is published in the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. The other is published in the Journal of Childhood Studies.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-71777-001

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fdhe0000342

https://sites.rowan.edu/president/_docs/12.08.2021-bot-open-meeting-minutes.pdf

Michael Farrow’s Area of Research: Interdisciplinary and Inclusive Education

https://sites.rowan.edu/president/_docs/12.08.2021-bot-open-meeting-minutes.pdf

On p 42 Farrow is listed as an Adjunct.

“Farrow, Michael PhD, EdD Interdisciplinary & Inclusive Ed 09/01/2021-06/30/2022”*

https://sites.rowan.edu/president/_docs/12.8.21-audience-copies.pdf

On on p 48 Farrow is listed as an Adjunct.

“Farrow, Michael PhD, EdD Interdisciplinary & Inclusive Ed 09/01/2021-06/30/2022”*

*”PhD, EdD” in the context of the two cited documents is a broader category (made for administrative purposes) into which Farrow’s postgraduate degree falls. He doesn’t hold both degrees. He holds an EdD (Doctor of Education), not a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy).

It’s my understanding that an EdD is more practically oriented, involving a method of research called “action research” and geared toward the transformation of local educational practices and spaces, whereas a PhD (in any subject, including Education) is more purely theoretical. I hold a PhD in philosophy—literally, a Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy.

The next post [in this series] will be a direct response to the absurd and recklessly slanderous claim that the University of Tasmania is an institution of “low academic rating”. Ironically, and rather humorously, Fr Iannuzzi’s attempted put-down misses me entirely and hits his personal assistant “Dr Michael James” instead. It’s likely that he wasn’t counting on anybody discovering and publishing Michael James’ true identity.

In other words, Fr Iannuzzi’s defamatory action was based on his over-confident assumption that nobody will know who Michael James really is, and that from this strategic position of anonymity—combined with Iannuzzi speaking and acting indirectly, through an anonymous mediator—that they would remain unassailable.

I am pulling this castle down. Actually, I am blowing it up, one section at a time (obviously this is a metaphor; I’m no Guy Fawkes). If you’re into that sort of thing—watching old and unsafe buildings get demolished through implosion—you might like to subscribe.

*

I suspect that Fr Iannuzzi has never been hunting out bush with other men. One of the first things you learn is never to shoot forwards until the rest of your team is safely out of your line of sight. Preferably, behind the horizontal line upon which are you standing. And for this you need to know the location of all your men. At all times. No shooting until all men are accounted for. Fr Iannuzzi did not check the location of his partner before shooting at me. Because as it turns out, Farrow’s mediocre American university (Rowan U) has a low academic rating, not the University of Tasmania. (Both are “secular”. However, the content and context of my PhD are intimately related to theologians and theological/metaphysical themes—though the method of the thesis is philosophical. The same cannot be said for Farrow’s thesis or specialised area of research.)

Fr Iannuzzi obviously didn’t check to see whether Michael Farrow might be in his line of slight.

Pun intended.

Dr Brendan Triffett

Quick links to other posts:

Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

My response to Dr Michael James’ false accusations and ad hominem attacks.

The title speaks for itself.

Dr “Michael James” writes, in an email about me but not addressed to me (and I wasn’t cc-ed or blind cc-ed):

Thank you for your email, in which you relate that misguided individuals [four names redacted by me] have circulated a baseless email against the Vatican-accredited theologian Fr. Iannuzzi whose good standing, faculties and theological expertise are in full force and backed by Rome. This email is but the latest futile effort among rogue individuals with no church backing seeking to play the role of the theologian, while embarrassing themselves.

A “baseless” email? My critique is meticulously researched, documented and very carefully thought out. Look at the article. The evidence is overwhelming. By all appearances, from which ever angle you look at it, looks like Fr Iannuzzi is “totally busted” as they say. And what you have failed to recognise is that it’s possible to look at the strength of an argument on a purely philosophical basis.

At the very least, people deserve an explanation for what appears to be the case. Just as people would expect and deserve an explanation if it appeared that a priest was misusing the parish finances or spending time inappropriately with a parishioner. What would be the appropriate response of a parish priest if someone, in good faith, were to raise honest questions and meticulously document his case, after it appeared that the priest was misusing the parish finances? Or after it appeared that the priest was abusing his power in the area of personal relationships?

Think about that for a moment. Suppose a priest is completely innocent but through some unusual circumstance or bizarre accident it appeared that he was engaging in questionable behaviour. Imagine now if that same priest (or someone speaking on his behalf) were to begin his response with ad hominem attacks, which is what has happened here! Imagine if he were to refuse to take the questions seriously! Imagine if he were to refuse to explain the appearances! Imagine if he were to simply dimiss the accuser on the basis of his own authority! Do you understand how bad that would look? Sit down and think about this for a while. Discuss this with Fr Iannuzzi. Are you sure this is the type of response that you and Fr Iannuzzi want to go with? Because it looks bad. Very bad.

In contrast to my meticulous documentation, Fr Iannuzzi has given zero evidence that there is theological support for his belief in aliens in multiple Church Father and Doctors of the Church. Zero. And this despite claiming that there is such evidence on more than one occasion. If you are so confident that this critique of mine is “baseless”, I expect that either you or Fr Iannuzzi will be able respond to my critique, pointing out where my arguments are invalid (this article here explains what that means) and/or which premises are false. I look forward to seeing your substantive response.

How have I “embarrassed” myself? Which particular blunders have I made? And why are you making these general and vague claims? Why don’t you be more specific? You’ve made an accusation against me but provided no evidence. I did the exact opposite. If anything, I went overboard in providing evidence, and was careful with my use of language. It is a sin against justice to make a baseless and vague accusation against someone and to circulate it widely. A vague accusation made against me makes it impossible for me to defend myself. There’s nothing concrete for me to respond to—and yet the accusation lingers, unjustly. I never did such a thing to either of you. How dare you resort to this dirty tactic. And this after I made a special effort to reach out to you personally, in good faith. I didn’t want you to get involved in this and I told you that.

(On a lighter note, I had to chuckle about the words “full force”. Fr Iannuzzi’s theological expertise is in “full force”. What does that even mean? That the Vatican unilaterally decides, by fiat, that Fr Iannuzzi is a theological expert? Can they also remove someone’s expertise by fiat? I didn’t realise the Vatican had such power! I might humbly request the Vatican to grant me the status of being an “expert” in an area I have done no reading in. University level mathematics is the area of expertise I’d like to be given. I shall go to the Vatican and ask for it, just like Scarecrow asked the Wizard of Oz for a brain. That would save me a lot of trouble. As long as the Vatican doesn’t remove this “full force” from me arbitrarily—though just a bit of it (partial force only) might be good enough for my purposes.)

This email was written by a loose cannon by the name of Brendan – whom Fr. Iannuzzi informed me has attended a secular school of low academic rating in Tasmania – seems affiliated with Countdown to the Kingdom …

Okay, stop right there. Another vague and baseless accusation. What do you mean by “loose cannon”? That I’m not careful in my assessments of things? If that’s your impression, look again how carefully I have documented everything and proceeded in my arguments. Consider that this has been over a year in coming. Or is it that I am insubordinate in relation to my parish priest? My archbishop? Do you even know their names? Do even know which parish I’m in, and who my archbishop is? I’ll have you know that I’m critical of certain rogue priests and “loose cannons” in the Church—in some cases I’m sympathetic to their cause, and I try to understand things from their point of view, but schismatic insubordination is never the answer.

I’ve never been a fan of the “recognise and resist” movement against Pope Francis. I’ve even written against it in an informal way, though I do sympathise with the situation of traditionalists. So I’m at a loss as to what you mean. Do you mean that Fr Iannuzzi has supreme theological teaching authority over me personally, over here in Australia, and that I have no right whatsoever to raise questions? I’m confused by this. Who do you think Fr Iannuzzi is? The Pope speaking ex cathedra? I think you’ll find that canon law (for example, Can. 212) allows lay people to raise questions in good faith and to participate in honest intellectual enquiry. That’s not to say that Fr Iannuzzi hasn’t got a higher level of theological training. Indeed he has. But what do you think follows from that? Infallibility? An automatic Vatican approval of everything that proceeds from his mouth? Hardly. He can still make mistakes. Also,

Canon 208 From their rebirth in Christ, there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality regarding dignity and action by which they all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ according to each one’s own condition and function.

I’m not sure what ecclesiology you subscribe to, but it doesn’t sound Catholic to me. It sounds closer to the organisation of a cult movement. I don’t mean that your “followers” see it that way, or even act that way. I mean that your language suggests it. By all means, respond to my critique in an honest and manly way, as Catholic academics normally would. There’s no need to make baseless accusations and resort to ad hominem attacks again. I wouldn’t recommend it either, from a PR point-of-view. I mean, people might begin to wonder whether you have any substantive response at all!

Oh, and I have no affiliation with Countdown to the Kingdom. Nice try. The old guilt-by-association trick. (Again, why do you feel the need to resort to these dirty tactics? You are digging a hole for yourselves.) And remember:

Canon 220 No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.

I have being playing the ball, you have resorted to playing the man. Tread very carefully.

I’ll have you know, I have become increasingly critical of all these private revelations going round. I had the suspicion early on that this Fr Michel Rodrigue is quite nuts. Lovely guy, charming, maybe even holy, but also probably quite nuts. Speaking more generally, I have come to despise these clickbait YouTube videos about how many days we have left until we enter the enter times (reminds me, I need to unsubscribe from some of these feeds). In my first post on this website I explained that this was my approach to “private revelation”. It seems that you completely missed that. Here it is again for your convenience: “For years I saw [Fr Iannuzzi] as someone who had both spiritual depth and psychological balance. I appreciated his warnings to steer clear of false prophets and opportunists who run ‘false doomsday websites’, sometimes for financial gain. I agreed with Father that the fear and disturbance that these sorts of websites typically encourage are not from Our Lord.”

I’ve been innoculated against that sort of thing after being caught up in it a little when I was much younger. Then there were the failed prophecies, the adjusting of prophecies, updated prophecies to keep people hanging, then the exposure of that Maria Divine Mercy woman, then the failed prophecies of that mentally unwell Charlie the “next right step” guy—and after all that I well and truly learned an important lesson. It makes my blood boil to see people selling online these spiritual concoctions which are supposed to protect you from various diseases, including Covid. Yeah nah, as we say here in Australia. So let’s put that particular false accusation aside, shall we?

It looks like you were throwing a few accusation out there, hoping that one would hit its target. If that’s what you were doing, then shame on you. It’s sinful and you ought to apologise. Both of you. You really are digging a hole for yourselves.

… that has been denounced by two Catholic bishops.

Irrelevant, as I’ve just explained.

*

It is obvious that this email is intended to 1) promote a dissident book by Dan O’Connor

Nope. That might be “obvious” to you but it’s certainly not what I was doing. I am a distinct person. I have my very own intellect. (If you need theological evidence of that, recall that in 1270 the bishop of Parish condemned the view of Averroes that “there is numerically one and the same intellect for all men”.) I make my own independent judgements and decisions. My method and approach is different to that of Professor O’Connor. I simply looked at the arguments and evidence that Fr Iannuzzi provided for his claims about aliens—or the lack thereof, as the case may be. I proceeded philosophically. I didn’t argue that aliens don’t exist, or that you shouldn’t believe in them. I looked at Fr Iannuzzi’s arguments and the strength of the evidence. And what I found was frankly quite embarrasing, from an intellectual perspective. To be honest, I’m actually a little bit surprised that you’ve still got those three videos up there, testifying to Fr Iannuzzi’s incompetence (or deception?) in this particular area of “research”. No doubt Father is more than competent when he needs to be, in other areas. Just not in this one.

… who appears more obsessed with manipulating the vulnerable with alien myths from apocryphal texts, e.g., Book of Enoch, etc., than Church teaching,

… says the one who hosts a video interview which contains positive references by Father Iannuzzi to ancient astronaut theories that belong on the laughable (yet strangely entertaining!) Ancient Aliens series. Are you not aware that Zecharia Sitchen, whom Fr Iannuzzi cites approvingly in your video interview (you gotta laugh) is a completely debunked pseudo-scientist and conspiracy theorist whose ideas are loved on the Ancient Aliens series? Are you not aware that in that same interview Fr Iannuzzi talks about the Nephilim and promoted the theory that they (or other giant races living at the same time) are a hybrid of fallen aliens and humans, and that Satan’s plan was to alter human DNA in this way? And now you want to point the finger about not promoting the Book of Enoch and other apocryphal texts? You do realise how the Book of Enoch comes into all this, don’t you? [Edit 28th February 2025: It was off the mark for me to bring Enoch into this. The point is simply about “alien myths” and alternative myths and texts. The ancient astronaut narrative which Fr Iannuzzi adapts from pseudo-archeologist Sitchen, Fr Iannuzzi’s strong emphasis on the bloodline of Noah being kept pure from hybrid corruption, and his unusual speculation that a third of the stars of Revelations 12:4 refers to a third of all rational beings including ETS—this is where the hypocrisy is. If anybody is pushing alternative “alien myths” on a vulnerably receptive audience it is Fr Iannuzzi.]

An image shown in the “Vatican and Aliens” video series, Part 3. It appears at 12:27 and 15:25. It depicts ancient astronauts from outer space making contact with a figure from the Old Testament (possibly Moses). Around 15:25 Fr Iannuzzi speculates that alien beings used ancient technology to create a hybrid race in Old Testament times, and that this was Satan’s attempt to contaminate the human bloodline (to alter our DNA) in order to prevent the preservation and supernatural elevation (in Christ) of human nature. Except for the Christological element and the battle between Christ and Satan, there are many similarities here with the theories of Zecharia Sitchen.

Is this a case of confusing the other party by blaming others for what you yourself are doing? I’ve recently learnt about that one.

Manipulating the vulnerable? Go back to my article about how Fr Iannuzzi has apparently withheld crucial evidence about the Church Fathers and lied about Dionysius of Rome, and tell me again about manipulating the vulnerable!

and 2) protect the power of individual Divine Will group leaders over their followers.

False dichotomy, obviously. A blatant non sequitur. (For goodness sake!) You think I’m trying to give individual DW group leaders some guru or cult-leader status just because I’m crtiquing one “Vatican-endorsed theological expert”? Really.

This power grab is a “manipulation” …

What power grab? Who am I manipulating? I’m trying to empower vulnerable Catholics to make their own mind up on the basis of evidence. Argument. Documentation. By contrast, you want it all covered up, apparently, and you are spreading false information, baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks. And I note that, so far, you still haven’t provided any substantive response to my critique.

… that was sharply criticized in the Vatican’s Dec. 3, 2024 letter that exposed these very leaders for their dissident teachings. It stated “After the death of Luisa Piccarreta, there was an uncontrolled proliferation of her writings – often translated and manipulated with heterodox interpretations – and movements, associations and Divine Will Groups, at times characterized by devotions inconsiderate to the Servant of God that have spread throughout the world.”

Oh yes, that did happen and still is happening. Look, I’m against dissident teachings and heterodox interpretations and all that. What’s your point though? Is it that: if Fr Iannuzzi is questioned or critiqued in any way, then ipso facto there will be an uncontrolled spread of heterodox interpretations of Luisa? Do you mean to say: the Divine Will movement depends on Fr Iannuzzi remaining at the helm, all by himself, peerless and untouched by mere “mortals”—the “plebs” who have less than two PhDs in total? Those mere mortals like me who “merely” attended a secular university in their home city (never mind that my PhD supervisors were world-class scholars and that my doctoral thesis looked at the thought of a world-class contemporary theologian who cites a mind-boggling range of philosophers and theologians from the ancient world and all periods of Church history, and that my thesis compared his theories to the metaphysics of Aquinas, and then also engaged with Continental philosophy)? If that’s how the Divine Will movement is (see the italics above), it’s not from God, and I want out. (Fortunately, I know that’s not how it is).

1) The Church simply does not endorse the claim that the possibility of non-human intelligent life threatens Catholicism like Dan and other misguided souls. Nor does it support their idea that UAPs are demons taking alien space shape forms. On the contrary, the Vatican has encouraged Catholics on many occasions to welcome the possibility of the existence if [sic] intelligent life throughout the cosmos.

Well, certain individuals in the Vatican have. That’s different to “the Vatican” or “the Church” encouraging that. Are you intentionally conflating the two (individuals in the Vatican versus the Vatican/Church as such)? Or was it an unintentional ambiguity? Please clarify. I’m sure you understand why the distinction is crucial here.

Anyway, this is a bit of a red herring. In theory, Fr Iannuzzi could be absolutely right about his conclusions and at the same time be incompetent, inconsistent and/or unethical in his modes of argumentation on this particular matter. I am far more concerned with the means that Fr Iannuzzi is willing to adopt, the lengths that (by all appearances) he is willing to go to in order to make his case look credible. If you had read my articles carefully I believe you would have picked that up.

2) Fr. Iannuzzi is a priest in good standing and always has been despite false claims from these rogue individuals. A letter of Fr. Iannuzzi’s good standing will follow this email.

Which false claims do you mean? Details, please.

I look forward to seeing the letter. Please do email it to me. (Producing a letter to show that a priest has been in good standing, in order to prove that he remains in good standing even now, in response to new information that has come to light. *Face palm*). I’d also like to know who Fr Iannuzzi’s superior is, where Fr Iannuzzi is incardinated (it’s extremely difficult to work that out) and the email of the superior so I can contact him to raise my legimate and serious concerns. My previous attempts have failed; emails have bounced. It is my right, and neither Fr Iannuzzi nor yourself has any valid reason or right to withhold that information. If neither of you produce that information for me, it will not be a good look. I will be waiting; and you know where to reach me. People need and want transparency and accountability in the Church these days. You have until the 16th of March. That is plenty of time to complete a very simple task.

Canon 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

*

The email continues:

All of the lay individuals mentioned above have no authority from the Church to teach theology or instruct others on Luisa's doctrines, as does Fr. Iannuzzi. And this appears to be another reason for their dissident behavior for which they shall answer to God. Instead of championing the theologian who has been instrumental in Luisa’s cause, Divine Will social group leaders engage in email campaigns to tighten the chains around the necks of their sheep, especially after the Vatican's Dec. 3, 2024 recent statement correcting their manipulation of Luisa's doctrines. How ironic that those who claim to be in the Divine Will use the human will to foam dissension and puff up their own standings within their religious social groups.  To apply St. Thomas More's famous quote, some men wouldn't sell their souls for the whole world... but to control a small group of vulnerable seniors?

Yeah, well, trying to control the vulnerable is a bad thing. That’s why it’s important to give them all the information they need to make up their own mind about the people who are leading them. Which I explained in my post. Information which I don’t believe you are going to provide. Who, then, is doing the chain tightening? “Puff up their own standings”? Um, I don’t think it would be wise for you to go there.

“Instead of championing the theologian who has been instrumental in Luisa’s cause”—you know, respect has to be earned, and once earned, it can also be lost. I didn’t go into this extended investigation with any desire to take down anyone, especially not this particular theologian who—I readily concede—has been instrumental in Luisa’s cause. I am not happy at all about this whole situation. I explained all this in my first post. But my conscience made me go to where the evidence led me.

The fact that someone has done a lot of good in the Church, does not make him henceforth immune to criticism. That is a false belief, and frankly, a very dangerous one. Need I remind you of the case of Marcial Maciel? Jean Vanier? I’m not suggesting that Fr Iannuzzi is anything like them. I was illustrating my point, and using a reductio ad absurdum argument. What I am saying is that the language you are using in your attack on me and your response to the circulators of that email, makes it sound like you and Fr Iannuzzi are attempting to create an oppressive “culture” in which Father can do nothing wrong and can say nothing wrong, and where if anyone does dare to suggest otherwise, there will be a spray of ad hominem attacks (in which Father will dig up some dirt about your background and attempt to cut you down to size, as his opening move) and all manner of flexing in regards to his good standing and Vatican endorsement and multiple degrees and good works—but not a jot of a substantive response. Because I have not seen any of the latter. A lot of barking, no meaningful talking.

Fr. Iannuzzi has forewarned us of modern-day false teachers who advance pernicious errors that are contrary to the Church's faith and morals. He exhorts us for the good of our souls to avoid these schismatic individuals who constitute weeds within the Catholic Church.

Dr. Michael James

Divine Will Era Ministries

What “pernicious errors” have I taught? And how on Earth am I in any way “schismatic”? Last time I checked, Fr Iannuzzi is neither identical to the Church nor sitting on the throne of Peter.

People can come to their own conclusions and make up their own minds. But my word, this is not a good look for “Divine Will Era Ministries”. If that’s the sort of culture they are trying to create there, I’d be getting the heck out of there ASAP, believe you me. And I’d be warning vulnerable individuals especially to stay away—or at least warning them, telling them to put protective measures and mindsets in place. “But what about all the good they are doing? What about the truth they are teaching? What about the cause of Luisa?” That same type of naive defence could have been used—and actually was used—to protect people like Maciel and Vanier. It counts for nothing. The devil can get in anywhere. And if he is given an opportunity to get in, he will.

An untouchable expert-theologian who is always flexing his Vatican-backed credentials and status and who apparently has no theological peers keeping him honest and who reacts like this in response to honest critique and has an assistant to work for him to circulate false accusations about someone behind their back and who does not actually address the objections? That’s the sort of culture you want for the Divine Will movement? For the Church as a whole? And we mere mortals are simply “schismatic … weeds” for daring to uncover something problematic, something that urgently needs attention?

Really? That’s your vision for the Church? For the Kingdom of God?


Look, it actually does trouble me, and it hurts me, that this is causing controversy. Disruption and disturbance. If people are growing in the Faith and learning to live more perfectly in the Divine Will, within the bounds of Church teaching, I’m all for that. But there’s also the truth. There are truths that have to come to light. There might have to be a purification, a shifting, a readjustment, a realignment (mea culpa here as well). And then healing and reconciliation.

Don’t blame me for putting Fr Iannuzzi in this unenviable position. He put himself into it. In order to keep the peace and protect him at all costs, it would be necessary to remain silent about things that have to be spoken. And that’s no way for a family to live. That is not true peace.

What needs to happen, for the sake of the Kingdom, is for Fr Iannuzzi and his chosen paraclete to come clean. Become completely transparent. For starters, tell us all what your real name is, “Michael James.” If you are going to diss my humble university, it’s only fair if you man up first and tell us which university you attended, and give us the title of your thesis since you insist on being known by the title of “Dr”? If you are too frightened (or whatever) to reveal your true identity—then dude, why are you even here in the first place? You are quite willing to circulate vague and baseless accusations against me from your position of anonymity. Not cool, bro. Not cool.

*

I won’t be holding any grudges. I’ve said what has to be said at this moment. We are all fools, and we are all sinners. We can be reconciled, if everyone is willing. I do believe that. The Church wants that from us. More importantly, Christ wants it. I really do believe in the power of charity. You just have to come clean. And then we can all move on and start afresh. Do things properly. All of this can be put in the past.

I really do mean that. It would be hypocritical of me if I didn’t. It’s essential to being a Christian, no? You are welcome to walk beside me in whatever Catholic community I might find myself in the future.

In the next article (it is a short one, so why not check it out now) I share what I posted on the Divine Will Era Facebook page as a comment responding to the slanderous post they put there about me. It concerns the supposed “low academic rating” of the University of Tasmania. This is a completely false statement and a serious case of slander. They are walking on thin ice.

Dr Brendan Triffett

Quick links to other posts:

Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

A summary of what I’ve uncovered so far about Fr Joseph Iannuzzi and Dr Michael James.

The title speaks for itself.

I thought it would be illuminating to collect in one place, in summary form, many (not all) of the false, problematic, laughable and bizarre things that I’ve uncovered (from their videos) about these two interesting people in a single place. I want to write this out quickly; readers will have to consult the three part video series themselves along with the meticulously researched articles on this blog (and there will be more to come). At the end I also respond to the reaction that these two had to the things I have posted. Not a full response (that comes in another post), but the beginning of one.

  • Fr Iannuzzi takes seriously a number of pseudo-scientific claims of Zecharia Sitchin and presents these as evidence for belief in aliens (see here). These claims have all been debunked by the scientific community. No serious scholar takes Sitchin seriously. Why does Fr Iannuzzi? Doesn’t he realise he is making himself, and the Church, look very silly?

  • Fr Iannuzzi cites from and promotes the work of Zecharia Sitchin, including Sitchin’s ancient astronaut theory. He never warns the audience that Sitchin’s ideas, especially his ancient astronaut theory, are highly influential in fringe, cult, occult and conspiracy theory movements. This includes cult movements such as Heaven’s Gate, which unfortunately ended in collective suicide. Isn’t Fr Iannuzzi supposed to be an exorcist? This is a bizarre omission. And a highly irresponsible one.

  • Fr Iannuzzi cites from and promotes the (supposed) encounter of Bruno Sammaciccia with extraterrestrials and claims that the encountered ETs were good and that they told Sammaciccia how humanity can become better. What he doesn’t tell the audience is that the one and only book (except for secondary accounts) in which these encounters are described, begins with a description of the main characters in the account being contacted by ETs through automatic writing, and that there are many bizarre elements to the encounters, including people smelling sulphur and the aliens producing flames from their fingers.

According to Bruno Sammaciccia and his friends Giulio, an engineer, and Giancarlo, an accountant, a series of poltergeist-type phenomena, including “automatic writing” of elaborate instructions, preceded initial in-person meetings with the aliens, which happened in April 1956. The group had been directed via a map to the Rocca Pia castle (Fortezza Pia) overlooking Ascoli Piceno. Nothing happened on this occasion, although the group felt suffused with “euphoric sensations of well-being and health.” The following day, they drove to the top of the road leading to the castle. “All of a sudden we saw some spots of light moving in the [evening] air,” Bruno reports. “We heard a voice, coming from nowhere, a very calm and strong one: ‘Now, my friends, stay calm, because I am going to have one of us appear. Are you ready?’” [Timothy Good (2013), Earth: An Alien Enterprise, pp. 195-96].

  • Any exorcist worth his exorcised salt would know that these are signs of demonic activity. He certainly wouldn’t publish anything that might encourage Catholics to read this literature with an open mind (as opposed to a critical mind, as I have had to do—though it shouldn’t have to be me! Why is this priest-exorcist-scholar leading Catholics in this direction?)

  • Either Fr Iannuzzi never noticed, or he never bothered to inform the audience, that there are many stories in the same book that are so obviously made up that it is laughable.[Stefano Breccia (2009), Mass Contacts; the Italian edition is Contattismi di massa, published by Nexus Edizioni, Roma, 2006]. For example, the aliens gave someone a device that can produce diamonds—but it can’t be found anymore because the humans threw it into the sea (where are the diamonds? They had to be cashed in). The aliens were able to “magically” open spaces underground for them to live in—but before leaving the Earth they pressed a button and made all these spaces disappear. The single photo produced of the “alien” looks just like a human being, though they tell us they spent many days with these aliens and had many opportunities to take good photos (they claim that this is a photo of an extraordinary tall figure—but for some reason they never took a comparative photo of him standing next to a human being). A story is told of a human person wearing an overall-like space suit that one can use on its own to travel at extremely fast speeds through space. Apparently someone travelled to another planet and back using this suit, and he was happy to report that the atmosphere there is not so bad after all.

Preliminary contacts [with the aliens] seem to have been initiated in Italy in April 1956. One of those first contacted was the late Professor Bruno Sammaciccia, a Catholic scholar who authored 160 books on religious matters [I fact-checked this. Sammaciccia did not publish this many books]. Holding degrees in psychology and psychiatry as well as many academic and theo-logical awards, he also contributed extensively to a history of Amicizia, compiled by Professor Stefano Breccia and another major participant, Hans (surname withheld), though sadly both Bruno and Hans passed away prior to publication. [Timothy Good (2013), Earth: An Alien Enterprise, p 193].

“We were happy being with them,” continued Bruno, “but at the same time felt a bit uneasy, because one could never tell what was going to happen when Dimpietro—a notorious practical joker—was around. . . . All six of us sat on the ground. Dimpietro took a big cigar out of a box. He threw the empty box away, admonishing us to pick it up before leaving. Then he broke the cigar into four parts, keeping one for himself and giving us the other pieces. Then he lit the cigar with a flame coming out of his forefinger, laughing at us!” [Good, p 198; cf. Breccia, pp. 184-86]

On several occasions, the aliens asked Bruno to obtain literally tons of fruit and vegetables, and sometimes fish, for delivery to one of their bases. Bruno and his colleagues were told to hire trucks and drivers, ensuring that the drivers were never present when it came to collection time. The food was then “collected” by means of “tele-transportation” and beamed to their bases! The drivers, having been persuaded to join Bruno and his friends at nearby cafés, could never understand how such a huge amount of food could have been collected so quickly. Payment to Bruno and others was sometimes by precious stones or—in one case—platinum ingots. On the latter occasion, at Bruno’s villa in Montesilvano, the ingots reportedly just fell from the open sky into the garden, which when collected filled ten boxes weighing about 150 kilograms. Luckily, Bruno was able to sell them to a wholesaler who didn’t inquire as to their origin. [Good, ibid., p 202; cf. Breccia, pp. 197-8].

“W56 [Bruno’s name for the group of aliens] sometimes supplied Bruno with platinum and gold,” Stefano told me, “and—aware that the operation was costing us a lot of money—they once gave Giancarlo a device made by them which was capable of generating diamonds. But there were two problems. First, the device was absorbing a huge quantity of electricity from the cables surrounding the area—without any direct connection—so that people living in the area started receiving huge bills from the electricity company! The second problem was that, although the device was actually generating diamonds, they were in the shape of an ellipsoid 20 centimeters long and 10 centimeters wide! So nobody would believe they were real diamonds and they couldn’t be sold: it would be too dangerous to try, because of criminals and so on. So one night, Giancarlo and I took a boat, went out a couple of kilometers from the coast, and threw them into the sea! It was an example of the aliens’ inability to comprehend our situation. [Good., pp. 202-203; citing Personal interview, April 7, 2010.]

Stefano [Breccia] claims that “overalls” are capable even of transporting an occupant to another planet—at least in our solar system—and related to me how one of his friends had once visited Mars, allegedly discovering that the temperature was less cold than, and the percentage of oxygen well above, that which is officially stated. [ibid., p. 212].

But don’t worry, Fr Iannuzzi is an expert theologian with the offical backing of the Vatican! It must all be true, if Father is citing from this book or drawing upon this story! Or something like that.

  • Nor does Fr Iannuzzi warn the audience that the book in which Sammaciccia’s story is told ends with the author explicitly promoting New Age theories, occult practices and pantheism in a long “spiritual” narrative (I’m inclined to believe that these are not the views of Sammaciccia himself, but the views of someone claiming to speak for Sammacicia after the latter’s death). This is very worrying, to say the least!

As for their religious attitudes, Bruno (the Catholic scholar) reports that they see “God” in everything, from the smallest insect to the cosmos. “Their religion is not as full of rituals as are ours: to them, it is just a deep feeling,” he writes. Stefano believes their creed is similar to that of classical yoga philosophy. I concur. Having read numerous books on these matters since my student days, I have always been particularly drawn to this philosophy. “Although respecting whatever creed of our planet,” wrote Stefano, “the W56s maintained that there is no need for rituals, worship, or asking for grace. God is within us. . . .” [ibid., p. 222; cf. Breccia, pp. 237-297].

  • Fr Iannuzzi claims that Admiral Byrd had an encounter with aliens/UFOs in the North Pole (see here). What he doesn’t mention is that the only existing account that involves Byrd and the North Pole is an unhinged conspiracy theory involving Byrd entering into “Hollow Earth” at the North Pole, after navigating his plane in reference to the Sun, even though at the specified time of the year, the Sun does not rise there at all. Does Fr Iannuzzi actually believe in Hollow Earth? Or does he believe that this single account counts as credible evidence for aliens, despite the fact that Hollow Earth is a central part of the story and that many other details cannot be squared with verifiable facts? (I dedicated a whole article to this). Vatican-backed expert theologian now believes in Hollow Earth, apparently—or is happy to base his beliefs on a document that promotes Hollow Earth. I guess the special enlightenment and anointing of the Holy Spirit was not working on that particular day. Or is it that the Vatican-endorsement only works on certain days of the week?

  • Fr Iannuzzi brings in passages from the writings of Luisa Piccarretta and St Annibale di Francia, takes these passages completely out of context, and reads meanings into them that are simply not there, in order to promote his belief in aliens. I was gob-smacked when I noticed this. And rather confused. And yes, deeply disappointed. Admittedly, we are all sinners, and I should be praying for priests much more.

  • Fr Iannuzzi claims that Nicholas of Cusa was speaking as a Cardinal in an official capacity and on behalf of the Church, when Cusa speculated about other worlds and the possibility of life on other worlds (the passage has to be taken in its full context, which Iannuzzi does not do—but that is a very long story). However, a simple Wikipedia search (followed by secondary literature) would have told Iannuzzi that Cusa was not made a Cardinal until 1448 at the earliest, whereas the work in question (De Docta Ignorantia) was published in 1440. On top of that (1) this work was humbly dedicated to a Cardinal whom he addressed as Cusa’s superior [Cardinal Julian Cesarini (1398-1444)]; very humble and self-effacing language is used in the introductory dedication [see the Appendix below], (2) the work is speculative and tentative, always emphasising the limits of human knowledge, (3) even if Cusa wrote this while he was a Cardinal (and he did not) it does not follow that he wrote it in an official capacity on behalf of the Church (Benedict XVI made essentially the same point about his own theological writings while he was pope). Do better, Fr Iannuzzi! Actually do your research, and stop making stuff up. Your audience deserves better. You are embarrassing yourself.

  • On a number of occasions Fr Iannuzzi has claimed that believing in aliens is supported in the writings of numerous Church Fathers. He has never produced any evidence to support this. Indeed, it looks as if he has deceived his audience about the opinions of one Church Father, Dionysius of Rome. (I dedicated a whole article to this). I mean, what the heck (to use tame language).

  • Fr Iannuzzi has claimed that believing in aliens in supported in the writings of Church Doctors. He has never produced any evidence to back up this claim either.

  • There is ample evidence that Luisa Piccarreta’s cosmology excludes the notion that there are fallen aliens. And yet Fr Iannuzzi insists that there are fallen aliens, even while promoting the writings and spirituality of Luisa, and even while claiming that Luisa’s writings support his own belief in aliens. (I dedicated a whole article to this).

  • Fr Iannuzzi claims that a third of all rational beings in the universe have fallen, including aliens. He effectively treats these fallen aliens as demons who are now fixed in evil. Of course he denies that they are demons, but he projects onto them a situation that only makes sense for demons. His position is incoherent.

    • First, it is said that they are far superior to humans in their intellectual capacity.

    • Second, they fell and are forever fixed in evil. This is not said explicitly, but it is assumed. If fallen aliens are not fixed in evil, then why not try and convert them? Why not appeal to their conscience during the experience of being abducted? That is one response of victims when they are being kidnapped or abused by other human beings. And the moral appeal sometimes actually works—the perpetrator softens.

    • When it comes to non-angelic intelligent creatures on Earth (i.e., humans) saying the name of Jesus and sprinkling holy water does not typically work to make the enemy retreat (if only it were that simple!). If fallen aliens are not fixed in evil, and are in a similar position to us as embodied intelligent beings, then one would expect that they’d be equally able to resist the name of Jesus and not be deterred by holy water. But Fr Iannuzzi says that they flee at the name of Jesus every time, and that holy water is effective against these abductions. And still, he denies that these are demons.

    • If fallen aliens actually possess people, as Fr Iannuzzi claims, then why not preach the Gospel to them? Why simply cast them out just as you would cast out demons? Wouldn’t the priest have a duty to preach to them and help them turn to the Light? I don’t think Fr Iannuzzi has thought this one through.

    • While we’re at it, how on earth does an alien, which has a soul and body, possess a human being? Does the alien’s soul inhabit his own body and also a second, possessed body at the same time?

    • And if this sort of thing happens, then God is allowing it as part of his providential plan for mankind (just as he has his reasons for allowing demonic temptation, oppression and temptation). In which case, again, it is something that is extremely relevant to our spiritual journey and every priest ought to know it. If there are fallen aliens that are able to torment and abuse and possess us, then this is not a neutral fact that priests should be free to ignore. In which case, the Church up until this point has completely failed in this respect, given that priests are never trained in this knowledge.

    • It’s funny that none of the Church Fathers has ever mentioned these entities when they wrote about spiritual warfare, despite there being (as Fr Iannuzzi claims) plenty of evidence in the Church Fathers for belief in aliens (you have to laugh).

    • One more point: if all these aliens exist in time, and aren’t yet fixed in good or evil, then the number of fallen aliens cannot be fixed in the way that Fr Iannuzzi implies (“a third of them fell”). At any moment it’s possible for one of the unfallen races (or one of the unfallen individual aliens) to fall. Again, I don’t think Fr Iannuzzi has thought this one through.

  • Fr Iannuzzi contradicts himself on a number of occasions—not just when it comes to fallen aliens. And so obviously that it’s laughable. In the same 10 minutes he claims that the existence of aliens has nothing to do with our spiritual journey, and then that he might have to speak more about this matter later, if there is a spiritual need for it. In one breath he says that aliens do not concern us in our faith or spiritual journey; in the next he points out that the name of Jesus and holy water will make evil aliens disappear (for those who are experiencing abduction or something similar). Apparently, there are millions of examples of alien abductions which are terrifying and traumatic, and you’re going to need the name of Jesus and sacramentals to deal with this—and yet this doesn’t concern us in our spiritual journey. Yeah, makes sense. In one video he claims that belief in aliens has nothing to do with the spirituality of Luisa Piccarreta. In another video he attempts to show that there is evidence in Luisa’s writings for believing in multiple worlds, and therefore aliens, and that our acts in the Divine Will send blessings to all the aliens in outer space—though for some reason, these aliens are not called to live in the Divine Will (which is a strange position to hold for someone who would have read in the 36 Volumes of the Book of Heaven that the Divine Will is the first principle of order in the universe, and that every creature in the universe is in the Divine Will except for man).

  • Despite all of this, Fr Iannuzzi continues to claim that, in his videos (the ones on aliens) he is the expert who has done his research, that he is the one who is acting with academic integrity and competence, that he is the one who is suitably qualified and ordained to put all the pieces together of this complex mosaic. And he gets his personal assistant Michael James to circulate an email claiming that the university from which I graduated is an inferior and merely secular college (there are a number of baseless claims made against me in that email, but I will address them elsewhere). Ad hominem attacks; no substantive response to my objections. This is not a good sign for them. It looks like they don’t have a substantive response, don’t have leg to stand on—wouldn’t you think?

Further Thoughts

  • If I thought this was typical of the Catholic Church, I wouldn’t stay in it. If I were to go along with what Fr Iannuzzi and Dr Michael James are saying, I would have to turn off my intellect, ignore all the research I’ve done, ignore all the logical errors that I’m uncovering, sit down, shut up, and passively receive everything from the golden mouth of this esteemed Vatican-endorsed expert theologian Fr Iannuzzi, no matter what. Sorry, but that’s not the Catholic Church I believe in. A church like that amounts to a cult. That modus operandi is what makes possible abusive leaders and passive followers who dare not speak out or question anything (and we know how that turns out). Fortunately, it is common knowledge that the true Catholic approach to things steers us away from positivism, voluntarism, and fideism.

  • To be sure, there is plenty of room for respect for authority, both clerical and academic. Of course. No doubt about that. I’m certainly not promoting the opposite extreme where everyone has to rely solely on “doing their own research”, and hold all authority figures (and the “establishment”) in suspicion from the very beginning, in principle, as if academic education stood for nothing. I believe in open discussion and the testing of ideas. If I am way off track, then show me! Critique my arguments. Where did I go wrong? Where is my argument invalid? Which premise is false? By contrast, to submit to the modus operandi promoted by Iannuzzi and James (i.e., sit down, shut up, and let Fr Iannuzzi tell you what you have to believe—you are the empty vessel, he is the full jug pouring all the information you need into your mind—and whatever you do, don’t question or critique anything our esteemed Vatican-endorsed theologian says, even if you have a PhD yourself) is to contradict the very spirit of the Church. As Benedict XVI emphasised time and again, Christianity is a religion of reason, of the Logos made flesh. Neither rationalistic (as per the Enlightenment) nor anti-rational.

  • I completely understand that there have been multiple local leaders of Divine Will groups who have gone of the rails in their interpretations of Luisa’s Book of Heaven. I completely understand that there needs to be some form of regulation or oversight in this matter, by well-trained theologians and orthodox priests. I honestly do. I don’t have the slightest objection to that type of intervention. Indeed, I heartily endorse it. But it is a false accusation to say that my intention is to have people involved in the Divine Will movement follow some local leader with complete receptivity, treating him or her like a divinely appointed guru! Not at all! I don’t want there to be any gurus! I am not saying that we should ditch guru Iannuzzi and let people choose a local guru instead! That’s just silly—and it’s a false dichotomy!

  • Years ago, before all of this happened, I took seriously Fr Iannuzzi’s wise advice that we must interpret Luisa and practise her spirituality within the tradition of the Catholic Church, in light of sound doctrine, with the guidance of good theologians. I haven’t changed my opinion on that. It was true before and it is still true. It’s the reason I studied Fr Iannuzzi’s thesis on Luisa Piccarreta in the first palce. I don’t recall finding anything in it that I objected to (perhaps there was a minor academic quibble on a very subtle point, but I always have those anyway!). And it’s the reason I am so disappointed by how things have developed.

  • I can go one better. I even agree with Fr Iannuzzi that there are way too many writings from (supposed) private revelation circulating online. We shouldn’t be naive about new spiritual leaders in the Church who claim to have a prophetic message or inner locutions or things of that sort. Charismatic gifts like this are a real possibility. We shouldn’t resist the Spirit. At the same time, we need to discern spirits. We shouldn’t put our critical reason aside and place our trust in a “guru’’. Nor should be treat a modern-day (alleged) mystic in a way that is close to that sort of relationship (anointed guru versus passive follower). I have no affiliation with the Countdown to the Kingdom website. That too is a false accusation.

  • But what’s the solution to that? To set up a different sort of guru at a higher level? No! We need to bring the use of theologically-informed reason into the equation. This means having a community of peers who can test each others’ ideas and keep each other in line. The last thing we need is a North Korean model where reason goes out the door, no questioning is allowed, and there is one central leader who calls all the shots, has no peers, and is not allowed to be challenged by anyone. Do you really think that’s a better way of preventing the Divine Will movement from going off the rails? I believe I’ve made a strong case that it is not. The studies on this website are exhibit A, B, C, etc.

  • Here are some observations from Catholics I know about Fr Iannuzzi (these are paraphrased):

    • He frequently asserts his theological credibility by highlighting his academic background from a Vatican-affiliated institution. However, these credentials do not inherently grant him quasi-official teaching status or the right to present his personal interpretations as unquestionable Church doctrine. Rather, his theological perspectives should be understood as his own scholarly opinion. What troubles me is his tendency to inflate his intellectual standing and claim a level of ecclesiastical authority that exceeds his actual professional scope.

    • I'm skeptical about the significance of Fr. Iannuzi's academic credentials. Simply possessing a degree from a Vaticn institution doesn't automatically confer theological legitimacy or protect against potentially problematic theological positions. Having a Vatican academic credential doesn't preclude the possibility of heterodox views. I'm curious about the actual substance of his Vatican connection: Does he hold any substantive ecclesiastical role, like a position in a Vatican department or a specific canonical appointment such as a theological censor? Or is he essentially just another academic with a standard Vatican university degree, without any special ecclesiastical standing or official theological review role?

    • The repeated claim that Fr. Iannuzzi is a "Vatican-accredited theologian" with full ecclesiastical endorsement appears to be an overstatement. From what I can discern, this assertion seems to be based solely on the fact that he completed a Ph.D. in Rome on the topic of Divine Will, which was academically accepted. Completing a doctoral thesis at a Roman institution does not equate to Vatican approval of his specific theological interpretations or grant him special magisterial authority. Academic approval typically means only that the thesis met scholarly standards and did not explicitly contradict established Church doctrine. It's common in academic theology for students to present diverse, even divergent perspectives within acceptable scholarly parameters. The mere fact of passing a doctoral defense does not transform a theologian into an official Church spokesperson or validate all of their theological positions. Two students could write substantially different theses on the same topic, both of which might be academically approved, without either representing official Church teaching.

    • I wrote “I get the impression that he and his assistant often ‘flex’ these sorts of credentials or whatever you'd call them, and his audience knows no better.” In response, a certain priest wrote “He should know better. If he doesn’t, that’s a problem; if he does, that’s also a problem. Therefore, he’s a problem.”

  • Fortunately, I understand that the Divine Will movement and Fr Iannuzzi’s way of doing things are not one and the same thing. If I believed they were, I would run from the Divine Will movement like the plague. I don’t know why anyone tolerates this.

  • There is more to come. I will not be shutting up, no matter how much these two individuals jump up and down in protest and circulate made-up stories about me behind my back. Engage with my substantive arguments, for goodness sake. Man up. Give me intellectually honest responses, and I will post them here.

  • Let’s start with this question, Fr Iannuzzi—or Dr Michael James (if Father is too busy with other things, or would rather send his assistant to the front line): which particular Church Fathers and Doctors support belief in aliens, as you have claimed on more than one occasion? Don’t just make these claims. Provide evidence. Give us the references. No more ad hominem attacks. Do the respectable thing. Do the Catholic thing. Catholicism is a religion of faith. But our faith is not against reason.

There are a dozen other points that I could l add to this list of “false, problematic, laughable and bizarre” things that I’ve uncovered. It will have to wait until later, however. Consider subscribing for free (below) if you want to be kept in the loop.

Dr Brendan Triffett

Appendix: The Prologue to De Docta Ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance) by Nicholas of Cusa (1440)

Translated by Jasper Hopkins

Your very great and indeed very proven Genius will rightly wonder what to make of the following fact: viz., that when, quite imprudently, I endeavor to publish my foreigner's-foolishness, I select you as a judge. [You will wonder about my treating you] as if you retained some leisure (you, who by virtue of your cardinal's duties at the Holy See are extremely busy with especially important public affairs) and as if, given your most thorough knowledge of all the Latin writers who have hitherto become illustrious (and [your] recent [knowledge] of the Greek writers as well), you could be drawn by the novelty of its title to this presumably very foolish production of mine—I, whose quality of intellect has long been very well known to you. This wondering shall, I hope, induce your knowledge-hungry mind to take a look. [You will wonder] not because you think that something previously unknown might be presented here; rather, [you will marvel] at the boldness by which I was led to deal with learned ignorance. For the naturalists state that a certain unpleasant sensation in the opening of the stomach precedes the appetite in order that, having been stimulated in this way, the nature (which endeavors to preserve itself) will replenish itself. By comparison, I consider wondering (on whose account there is philosophizing) to precede the desire-for-knowing in order that the intellect (whose understanding is its being) will perfect itself by the study of truth. Unusual things, even if they be monstrous, are accustomed to move us. For this reason, O unparalleled Teacher, deem, according to your kindness, that something worthwhile lies hidden herein; and in regard to divine matters receive from a German a mode of reasoning such as the following—a mode which great labor has rendered very pleasing to me.

Quick links to other posts:

Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

On Father Joseph Iannuzzi’s Alleged Violations of Academic Integrity

It appears that Fr Joseph Iannuzzi has committed serious violations of basic standards of academic integrity in an online video interview posted on November 23, 2023. As of February 11, 2025, the video has had 9,750 views. The video in question is Video 2 of a three-part video series posted on the Divine Will Era YouTube channel, which currently has 17.4K subscribers. In this report I uncover the details of these alleged violations of academic integrity. Finally I reflect on the broader impact and significance of abuses of academic authority in the Church.

Something is broken.

At a Glance

  • It appears that Fr Joseph Iannuzzi has committed serious violations of basic standards of academic integrity in an online video interview posted on November 23, 2023.

  • As of February 11, 2025, the video has had 9,750 views. The video in question is Video 2 of a three-part video series posted on the Divine Will Era YouTube channel, which currently has 17.4K subscribers.

  • In the online description of the video series it is stated: “Citing from Christian and official sources, Fr. J.L. Iannuzzi, STL, S.Th.D. demonstrates the existence of intelligent alien life.”

  • It appears that Fr Iannuzzi intentionally leads the audience to expect evidence from multiple Church Fathers in support of his view that aliens exist and that this belief is compatible with the Catholic Faith. (§1.1)

  • From the introduction to Video 2. [Dr Michael James] [1:33] “So Father for this Part Two we asked you to provide a theological backdrop to the landscape of intelligent life and its religious implications, taking us through the Patristics, Scholastics and contemporary scholars regarding this topic.” [Fr Joseph Iannuzzi] [1:49] “Sure. The first part addressed the scientific and anthropological data as well as the military and eye-witness reports in support of extra-terrestrial life or the possibility thereof on other planets. And the second part is going to be devoted to the ancient Greek classic scholars as well as the Patristic, Scholastic and contemporary theologians which include renowned cardinals, bishops and even Fathers.” [2:22]

  • However, in the whole video, Fr Iannuzzi mentions just one Father, Hippolytus of Rome, in a total of two sentences. (§2)

  • In his two sentences on the Church Fathers, Iannuzzi states that Hippolytus reports and refers to Leucippus and Epicurus, two atomists who believed in multiple worlds (cosmic systems with an Earth-like body in the centre) and the existence of life in other worlds (§3.1)

  • Iannuzzi’s “expert coverage” of the Patristic theological background to the question of extraterrestrial life amounts to a total of five sentences in the span of just one minute (three of these sentences are about the atomists) (2:22-3:22). (§3.2)

  • Needless to say, this falls far short of the reasonable expectations created by the introduction. (§3.2)

  • A mere reference by just one Church Father to someone else's belief in aliens does not amount to patristic evidence for believing in aliens. This is a serious case of misleading communication. (§3.2.)

  • It appears that Fr Iannuzzi intentionally leads the audience to think that in the writings of Hippolytus there is theological support for believing in aliens. (§3.1)

  • As it turns out, Hippolytus rejects as heretical the atomists’ view that multiple worlds (cosmic systems) exist and that there is life in other worlds. (§4)

  • Fr Iannuzzi fails to give this crucial piece of information to the audience. He never mentions it anywhere in the video interview, or indeed anywhere in the video series. So not only does Iannuzzi fail to deliver on promised evidence, he presents as supporting evidence a source that, if fully disclosed, would undermine his position. The omission of Hippolytus’ condemnation appears calculated to prevent the audience from knowing this Church Father’s true position. (§4)

  • The title of the work in which Hippolytus mentions the views of the atomists is literally titled “Refutation of all Heresies” (the Latin title is Refutatio Omnium Haeresium though it is written in Greek). Iannuzzi fails to mention this anywhere. (§5)

  • Fr Iannuzzi says that the two atomists are “reported in St Hippolytus of Rome’s letters”. But Refutatio Omnium Haeresium is the only work in which Hippolytus mentions Epicurus or Leucippus, and the only work in which he discusses the notion of multiple worlds. And this work couldn’t possibly be mistaken for a letter or epistle—certainly not by a scholar. (§6)

  • Again, it appears that Iannuzzi has deceived his audience by withholding crucial information about the source, and even by lying about the source. This appears to be part of a strategy of presenting as supporting evidence a source that, if fully disclosed, would undermine Iannuzzi’s position. (§6)

  • In a third video, Iannuzzi re-iterates to the audience (in a final summary of evidence) that he addressed the Patristic theologians who spoke of the possibility of extraterrestrial life. He also reinforces, once again, the positive link that he established in the viewer’s mind in Part Two between Hippolytus of Rome and support for the idea of extraterrestrial life. (§7)

  • Nowhere in the three part video series does Iannuzzi ever mention that several Church Fathers explicitly condemn pluralism (the view that there are multiple worlds / cosmic totalities): Hippolytus, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and Isidore of Seville (five of whom are Doctors of the Church). (§8)

  • Nowhere in the video series does Iannuzzi mention that the Fathers were uniformly against pluralism (belief in multiple worlds), with the exception of Origen, who was condemned for having that view. (§8)

  • Fr Iannuzzi’s theological expertise, proven by his academic publications in patristics, including a doctoral thesis, makes each element of misrepresentation appear to be calculated. (§9)

  • If these observations are correct, then the behaviour described above potentially represents a serious violation of academic integrity. (§10)

  • The fact that Fr Iannuzzi is an ordained priest as well as a Catholic scholar adds another layer of seriousness to this potential abuse of authority. (§11)

  • It appears that Fr Iannuzzi, in order to defend and propagate his personal views about aliens, has taken advantage of his platform on a popular YouTube channel (Divine Will Era)—a channel largely devoted to spreading the Divine Will movement and giving pastoral, spiritual and theological guidance—in order to manipulate and deceive the minds of close to 10,000 (probably unsuspecting) viewers. (§12)

From my final reflections:

  • Every individual in Fr Iannuzzi’s audience deserves to know this. They deserve to know how they’ve been misled, and they deserve to know how they might have been wronged.

  • They deserve to know so they can revise any false beliefs they have come to hold on account of placing their trust in Fr Iannuzzi’s academic authority.

    • The potential scope of this issue is not limited to the video interview that is the subject of this report. There are literally hundreds of video and radio episodes posted online in which Fr Iannuzzi gives a teaching or presents his opinion on a variety of subjects.

  • They deserve to know so they can prudently assess whether they ought to trust Fr Iannuzzi again.

  • These issues are not solely the concern of Catholics who have some interest in or relationship to the spirituality and writings of Luisa Piccarreta. If an abuse of academic authority has occurred in the Church, it concerns the whole body. It also concerns the academic community as such, especially Catholic academics.

  • The last thing we need now in the Church is a theological academic abusing the trust of thousands of receptive listeners who have little or no opportunity to thoroughly fact-check and critique what they are being taught.

Introduction

It appears that Fr Joseph Iannuzzi has committed serious violations of basic standards of academic integrity in an online video interview posted on November 23, 2023. As of February 11, 2025, the video has had 9,750 views. The video in question is Video 2 of a three-part video series posted on the Divine Will Era YouTube channel, which currently has 17.4K subscribers. Fr Iannuzzi does most of the talking in these interviews but there are brief moments in which Dr Michael James appears as host and interviewer.

The description of the video series (posted as text under the videos on the YouTube channel) is as follows (my emphasis in bold):

A Catholic theologian offers to the Christian faithful a public 3-part series video presentation exploring the possibility intelligent alien life [sic] throughout the cosmos and the Christian faith. The theme of this series: "The Vatican, Christianity and Aliens." Citing from Christian and official sources, Fr. J.L. Iannuzzi, STL, S.Th.D. demonstrates the existence of intelligent alien life.

Part 1: Fr. JL Iannuzzi introduces the Church’s position on extraterrestrial life, and a brief overview of its overwhelming evidence in Sacred Scripture, tradition, hagiography, anthropology, historical archives, declassified and military documents and more.

Part 2: Fr. Iannuzzi provides a theological backdrop to the landscape of intelligent alien life, the Christian faith and its religious implications.

Part 3: Fr. Iannuzzi presents for the first time a "systematic exotheology," expounding upon the creation of the angels, extraterrestrials, humans and other forms of life; the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the king and head of all creation, and Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen of all creation; the various prototypes, cultures and the religion of intelligent alien life; the impact of the fall of the angels and Original Sin upon human and alien life; alien and human technology in the modern era. And much more.

The description ends by directing the viewer to Fr Iannuzzi’s website: https://www.ltdw.org/

What is the nature of these alleged violations of academic integrity?

The reader might find the first part hard going or dry reading at times. But it is necessary to lay the foundations first. Things get more interesting in section 2 and from there it is all smooth sailing. The central premisses in the argument are highlighted in gold.

1.1.

Let’s begin with the introduction to Video 2. It appears that Fr Iannuzzi intentionally leads the audience to expect evidence from multiple Church Fathers in support of his view that aliens exist and that this belief is compatible with the Catholic Faith:

[Dr Michael James] [1:33] So Father for this Part Two we asked you to provide a theological backdrop to the landscape of intelligent life and its religious implications, taking us through the Patristics, Scholastics and contemporary scholars regarding this topic.

[Fr Joseph Iannuzzi] [1:49] Sure. The first part addressed the scientific and anthropological data as well as the military and eye-witness reports in support of extra-terrestrial life or the possibility thereof on other planets. And the second part is going to be devoted to the ancient Greek classic scholars as well as the Patristic, Scholastic and contemporary theologians which include renowned cardinals, bishops and even Fathers. [2:22]

(In all quoted passages, my own emphasis is in bold. Text in blue is Fr Iannuzzi speaking.)

The most natural way of understanding what Iannuzzi says in the introduction, taking into account its context (including the posted description of the video series), is as follows:

  1. The primary objective of these video interviews is to show the audience that there is a significant amount of evidence in favour of the belief that aliens exist (or that they probably exist, or that they may well exist).

  2. There are different types of evidence, which can be grouped into collections.

  3. The first part addressed one collection of evidence: scientific, anthropological, military and eye-witness reports.

  4. The second part will be devoted to another collection of evidence: the writings of the ancient Greek scholars, and the writings of various theologians from patristic, medieval and contemporary eras.

  5. The evidence presented in the first part is evidence that points toward the existence of aliens.

  6. The evidence that we will present now, in the second part, is the same: it is more evidence that points toward the existence of aliens. But in this case the evidence is theological evidence.

    • It’s not clear whether Iannuzzi wants to build his case on the non-theological basis of the ancient Greek scholars as well. In any case I am going to put that possibility aside. It doesn’t affect our argument.

1.2.

For a shorter version of this report (which I recommend for the first reading), skip this section and go to 1.3.

I understand theological evidence as follows (this definition is shaped by Fr Iannuzzi’s own arguments). Theological evidence pointing toward the existence of aliens (if such evidence exists) takes the form of rational arguments based on theological data: Scripture, Tradition, private revelation, the writings of saints and mystics, the writings of the Church Fathers, a particular theologian’s cosmology, and so on. These arguments purport to demonstrate (a) the possibility* or likelihood of aliens existing, (b) the reasonability of believing in aliens, (c) the non-reasonability of denying the existence of aliens, (d) the compatibility of the Catholic Faith with the existence of aliens and/or (e) the compatibility of the Catholic Faith with believing in aliens.

  • *An argument that merely demonstrates that the existence of aliens is logically possible, or that it is metaphysically possible, or that God has the power (potentia absoluta) to create aliens, doesn’t really acheive anything when it comes to arguing that aliens exist or that they are likely to exist. For nobody argues against aliens on the basis that the existence of aliens is logically impossible or metaphysically impossible or beyond the absolute power of God. It is only worth developing a theological argument for the “possibility of aliens” if that signifies, not logical or metaphysical possibility, but the fact that the existence of aliens is not ruled out by something—not ruled out by Scripture, for example, or by the magisterial teaching of the Church. Or even—on a broader scale—that it is not ruled out by the sum total of what we know by faith and reason.

Point (1) above (the primary objective of these video interviews is to show the audience that there is a significant amount of evidence in favour of the belief that aliens exist) is confirmed by the description under each of the videos (see my introduction above), and by the content of the three videos (we’ll look at some of the contents of Video Two later on).

Point (1) is also confirmed by the “summary of evidence” given toward the end of Video 3, from 22:20 onwards. In this summary Fr Iannuzzi does not recount or admit to any evidence that might count against the (possible) existence of aliens. To be sure, he doesn’t deny that such evidence (or purported evidence) exists. Nor does he deny that a more extensive and detailed argument would have to address counter-arguments and apparent counter-evidence (on the other hand, he does not mention this, and he gives no indication of being interested in such a project). My point is simply that

  • Iannuzzi gives no indication in his final summary that, alongside all the positive evidence for the existence of aliens, the investigation undertaken in this three-part series also presented some counter-evidence.

It should also be noted that

  • Iannuzzi gives no indication in his final summary that, during the investigation undertaken in this three-part series, in one or more cases (say, when looking at the writings of a particular Church Father), no evidence for the existence of aliens could be found.

In short,

  • no counter-evidence is listed in the summary statement; nor is there any mention there of some negative result along the lines of “we looked in the writings of so-and-so for theological evidence that might support believing in aliens, but in this case we found nothing.”

This is further confirmation that Iannuzzi’s purpose in Part Two is simply to give theological evidence in support of believing in aliens, evidence that’s already lined up. In Part Two, Iannuzzi is not investigating the data (theological writings) with a research question in mind, such as:

  • Which of these theologians are alien-supportive (i.e., have written something that counts as theological evidence for the existence of aliens), and which are not?

  • What theological evidence for belief in aliens (if any) can be uncovered in the writings of these theologians?

  • Are there any general patterns to be observed concerning these theologians’ views on aliens—or concerning their views about other “worlds” in which aliens might exist?

Iannuzzi’s purpose, to repeat, is not to engage in impartial enquiry and discovery before the audience, but rather to make a strong case for the existence of aliens and the rationality of believing in them.

My point here is not that Iannuzzi has abandoned objectivity in favour of subjective bias or the cynical objective of persuading the audience by any rhetorical means, however underhanded. The ethical dimension of Iannuzzi’s presentation has not yet been addressed. At this point I am simply clarifying what sort of project Iannuzzi is engaged in. And there is nothing inherently problematic about attempting to persuade the audience by presenting a strong case for one’s position, and having that objective (persuading the audience through argument) as one’s primary objective during the presentation. Of course, there are honest ways of attempting to realise that objective, and there are dishonest ways.

1.3.

Recall what Iannuzzi says in the introduction:

The first part addressed the scientific and anthropological data as well as the military and eye-witness reports in support of extra-terrestrial life or the possibility thereof on other planets. And the second part is going to be devoted to the ancient Greek classic scholars as well as the Patristic, Scholastic and contemporary theologians which include renowned cardinals, bishops and even Fathers.

To repeat point (6) above, the most natural reading of the second sentence is as follows: the evidence that we will present now, in the second part, is the same: it is more evidence that points toward the existence of aliens. But in this case the evidence is theological evidence.

There is nothing forced or arbitrary about this interpretation. Moreover, this is the only interpretation of the introduction that makes any sense. Besides the considerations mentioned in section 1.2 that point to this one interpretation, there is another fact to consider. If Iannuzzi is not indicating here that the theologians covered in Part Two are all alien-supportive*, what would be the point of emphasising that they include renowned clerics and even Fathers? Iannuzzi’s purpose, clearly, is to drive home to the audience that the evidence about to be uncovered is especially weighty and signficant on account of the authority and status of the source. In relation to what he wants to acheive, it makes perfect sense that Iannuzzi would want to emphasise this.

  • *An “alien-supportive” theologian is one who has written something that counts as theological evidence for the existence of aliens. “Theological evidence” was defined in 1.2.

  • See Appendix 1 for further proof that no other interpretation of the introduction is even marginally plausible.

I opened section 1.1 by saying:

It appears that Fr Iannuzzi intentionally leads the audience to expect evidence from multiple Church Fathers in support of his view that aliens exist and that this belief is compatible with the Catholic Faith.

The truth of this claim can now been demonstrated (but see Appendix 1 for further proof).

  • What Fr Iannuzzi is saying in the introduction (the last sentence) is that the evidence that he will present now, in the second part, is theological evidence that points toward the existence of aliens.

  • Fr Iannuzzi takes care to emphasise that the theologians he’s about to look at in Part Two include renowned bishops (plural), cardinals (plural) and even Fathers (plural).

  • He agrees, without any verbal qualification, to fulfil James’ request to “[take] us through the Patristics … regarding this topic”, the topic being the existence (or possible existence) of aliens “and its religious implications”. The audience will naturally expect that being taken through the Patristics by a patristic scholar with a PhD will involve looking at the writings of a few Church Fathers (at least), not just one.

Add these facts together and we arrive at the highlighted claim.

2.

To repeat, it appears that Fr Iannuzzi intentionally leads the audience to expect evidence from multiple Church Fathers in support of his view that aliens exist and that this belief is compatible with the Catholic Faith. However, in the whole video, Fr Iannuzzi mentions just one Father. The sum total of Iannuzzi’s discussion of the Church Fathers in this interview comes to just two sentences. Continuing on from the previous quote:

With regard to the ancient Greek scholars, the classic scholars, we first come across a pair that’s reported in St Hippolytus of Rome’s letters. Hippolytus was from the 3rd Century and he referred to Leucippus as well as the famous Epicurus who are respectively from the 5th Century and 3rd Century BC. Both of whom were atomists. [2:22-2:45]

Here is a list of all of the names which Iannuzzi mentions in the video, in order of appearance. Timestamps indicate where Iannuzzi refers to these persons or their writings in Video 2. The only Church Father on the list is Hippolytus.

One asterisk = bishop. Two asterisks = cardinal.

*St Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 – c. 235 AD): bishop of Rome (was in schism for a time but died in communion with Rome), martyr [2:22, 2:31]

Leucippus (lived and died 5th Century BC): Ancient Greek philosopher, founder of atomism [2:31, 4:00]

Epicurus (341 – 270 BC): Ancient Greek philosopher, founder of Epicureanism, atomist [2:31, 3:12, 4:00]

Aristotle (384 – 322 BC): Ancient Greek philosopher [4:00, 4:15, 4:57]

St Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274): Italian Scholastic theologian and philosopher, Dominican priest, Doctor of the Church [4:57]

William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347): English Scholastic theologian and philosopher, Franciscan priest, nominalist, theological voluntarist [5:06]

John Buridan (c. 1300 – 1360): French secular priest, philosopher [5:06]

Joseph Pohle (1852-1922): German Catholic theologian [5:06]

*Nicholas Oresme (c. 1320 – 1382): Bishop of Lisieux, French philosopher [5:06]

*Étienne Tempier (? – 1279): Bishop of Paris from 1268 to 1279, issued the condemnation of 219 propositions in 1277 [5:06, 7:23]

William Vorilung (c. 1390 – 1463): French theologian and philosopher [7:23, 7:50, 8:30, 8:56, 9:19, 9:51, 10:17, 12:12]

St Padre Pio of Pietrelcina (1887 – 1968): Italian Capuchin friar, priest and mystic [8:30, 8:56, 12:12]

St Paul the Apostle (c. 5 – 65 AD) [9:58]

**Nicholas of Cusa (1401 – 1464): German Catholic Cardinal, philosopher, theologian, polymath [10:17, 10:42, 11:14, 11:27, 11:48, 12:12, 13:37, 14:54, 22:39]

Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta (1865 – 1947): Italian mystic [11:44, 12:03, 12:12, 12:35, 13:22, 13:37, 13:53, 15:58, 17:00, 19:04, 19:19, 20:01, 20:21, 21:16, 21:41, 22:39, 23:25]

Giordano Bruno (1548 – 1600): Italian philosopher, poet, cosmologist and esotericist, burnt at the stake as a heretic in 1600 [15:45]

St Hannibal de Francia: Italian priest, founder of the Congregation of the Rogationist Fathers of the Heart of Jesus and of the Daughters of Divine Zeal, confessor of Luisa Piccarreta [15:58, 16:15, 17:00]

Mélanie Calvat (1831-1904): French religious sister, one of the seers of Our Lady of La Salette [15:58]

3.1.

In his two sentences on the Church Fathers, Iannuzzi states that Hippolytus mentions—more precisely, that he reports and refers to—Leucippus and Epicurus, two atomists who believed in multiple worlds (cosmic systems) and the existence of life in other worlds [see section 2]. Iannuzzi continues as follows:

Atomists were those who in the Greek world maintain that all that exists in the cosmos is atoms in the void and that these atoms cluster and form different shapes, positions, arrangements and give rise to various macroscopic substances, even the possibility of rational substances meaning rational life. And for example Epicurus noted that extra-terrestrial inhabitants may exist as well as plants and other organisms in other worlds. [2:45-3:22]

It appears that Fr Iannuzzi intentionally leads the audience to think that in the writings of Hippolytus there is theological support for believing in aliens. For in the introduction he indicates that he will be showing evidence, from the Church Fathers, that supports believing in aliens. And the first Father that Iannuzzi goes on to mention—and indeed the only Father he goes on to mention—is Hippolytus. Iannuzzi gives the audience every reason (besides saying it explicitly) to believe that he is presenting Hippolytus as an alien-supportive theologian. For it is only natural to expect Iannuzzi to deliver on his promise in the introduction—and straight after the introduction he mentions “St Hippolytus of Rome … from the 3rd Century” and his “letters”. The audience has been primed to believe that Hippolytus is alien-supportive, or at the very least, to understand that this is what Fr Iannuzzi is claiming.

Nobody in an uncritical audience would wonder why Iannuzzi is bringing up Hippolytus here or why the latter is mentioned in the same breath as the atomists with their belief in multiple worlds. The audience has been given plenty of cues directing them to one answer: Hippolytus is the first source of theological evidence—the first example, in Part Two, of an alien-supportive theologian. From this perspective, it is only natural to assume that when Hippolytus “reports” or “refers to” the views of the atomists (as Iannuzzi says), he does so positively, as an alien-supportive theologian. At least, this is what a receptive layperson will be led to believe under the guidance of patristic expert Fr Iannuzzi. The layperson is likely to think: “Why else would Fr Iannuzzi be drawing a connection between Hippolytus and the atomists? Iannuzzi must be claiming that Hippolytus is alien-supportive, and he must believe this himself (otherwise why would he be saying it?). He’s the expert here, and a trustworthy source of information. It’s not as if Fr Iannuzzi would be pointing out some random fact that doesn’t support his argument, or some accidental connection that has no significance in this context. That wouldn’t make any sense. (That Fr Iannuzzi would be incompetent or deceptive is out of the question).”

3.2.

In the previous section we looked at what the audience is likely to believe about Hippolytus as a result of what Iannuzzi says and the way his statements are framed in context. From the perspective of an uncritical layperson, it will appear that Iannuzzi has produced one example of an alien-supportive theologian, thus fulfilling (partially) the expectation that was set up in the introduction. In this section we turn to how things appear objectively—how things actually are—by assuming a philosophical perspective, as distinct from the perspective of an uncritical layperson. In our evaluation we take into account that there are no other references to Hippolytus or any other Church Father (or any other Christian in the patristic period) in the entirety of Part Two. Iannuzzi’s “expert coverage” of the Patristic theological background to the question of extraterrestrial life amounts to a total of five sentences (all of which reference the atomists, the first two mention Hippolytus) in the span of just one minute (2:22-3:22).

Needless to say, this falls far short of the reasonable expectations created by the introduction.

  • It falls short quantitatively, in that only one Church Father is mentioned.

  • It falls short qualitatively, in that nothing is said about this Father except his name and time period and the fact that he mentions two Greek philosophers, who themselves believe in life in other worlds. There are no direct quotations from any patristic text. No references are provided.

  • It falls short in terms of evidential strength also. The phrase “and even Fathers” [section 1.1] suggests that the evidence about to be uncovered is especially weighty given that it is direct patristic support. The adjective “renowned” as qualifying the “cardinals, bishops and even Fathers” who support belief in aliens, has the same rhetorical force—it suggests that the evidence about to be uncovered is especially weighty given that it is from the writings of renowned theologians, including “even Fathers” [all from section 1.1]. But in truth, there is nothing objectively “weighty” about the so-called “evidence” that Iannuzzi produces here.

The gap between what was promised and what was delivered is vast. A mere reference by just one Church Father to someone else's belief in aliens does not amount to patristic evidence for believing in aliens at all. This is a serious case of misleading communication. The natural expectation created by the introduction, taken in context, is that there is a substantial amount of weighty evidence in the patristic literature, and that Iannuzzi is about to uncover it. But Iannuzzi does nothing of the sort—not even partially. Moreover, in the brief discussion that follows the introduction, the unsuspecting layperson is led to believe, through the power of association and implicit suggestion, that (in partial fulfilment of the expectations set up in his mind) there is at least one alien-supportive theologian in the patristic period. Thus the layperson is led to believe that Iannuzzi has established something (the situation described in the phrase in italics) that he has not established at all.

That Fr Iannuzzi never explicitly says this (the phrase in italics) is beside the point. It is possible to communicate something without saying it. A common way of doing this is to set up a context in which a particular statement will inevitably suggest X. The speaker relies on the situation or contextual framework to do the work of “shunting” the mind of the listener along a certain path—from an explicit statement toward an unspoken conclusion. In this regard, what the speaker doesn’t say is just as important as what he does say.

For a shorter version, skip now to section 4.

Implicit communication, which requires the listener to “read between the lines”, need not be deceptive or even misleading. But it is a common means of deception. (It is also a potential source of innocent misunderstandings.)

One way of deceiving others, then, is to let others come to a certain conclusion on the basis of calculated statements that one inserts into a particular context. The deceiver’s intention is to lead others to a conclusion by making use of the “shunting tendencies” of the context. The deceiver stands back and lets the context do the work (he simply provides the initial “seed” or the first little “push”). His “standing back” requires that he doesn’t say anything (e.g. a necessary word of clarification) that would change the context and therefore the direction in which others’ thoughts are likely to run. By his act of “not saying”, the deceiver intentionally lets the thoughts of others run along a designated path toward a designated conclusion. At the same time, he is able to maintain plausible deniability (“That’s not what I said. He took my words out of context.”) At least, he hopes to be able maintain it.

A word of clarification. I said that it’s beside the point that Iannuzzi didn’t explicitly say that in the writings of Hippolytus there is theological evidence supporting belief in aliens. It’s beside the point because it’s possible to communicate something, even quite clearly, without saying it. (Example: “I have two cousins who work in security. Big men. They are very loyal to me.”) I then analysed a common way of deceiving others. There is no accusation hidden in these statements. The purpose of the last three paragraphs was to explore possibilities that have to be considered and establish logical connections between concepts, not to make a concrete judgement about a particular case.

To summarise this section: The gap between what was promised in the introduction and what was delivered in Part Two is vast. A mere reference by just one Church Father to someone else's belief in aliens does not amount to patristic evidence for believing in aliens at all. Despite this, the layperson is led to believe that Iannuzzi has established that there is at least one alien-supportive theologian in the patristic period, when in fact, he has done nothing of the sort. But Iannuzzi says nothing to dispel this false belief. He appears to make no effort to bring the clarity that the situation demands. If it was not his intention to create, in the minds of his listeners, a positive connection between Hippolytus and the atomists’ belief in multiple worlds and the possibility of extraterrestrial life, then why did he even mention Hippolytus in the first place? What could be interesting or relevant about the fact that Hippolytus mentioned atomists in one his works? What was the purpose of bringing Hippolytus into the discussion? What is Iannuzzi doing when he brings Hippolytus to our attention alongside the atomists and their affirmation of extraterrestrial life, if not to establish a positive connection between the two?

It gets worse.

4.

As it turns out, Hippolytus rejects as heretical the atomists’ view that multiple worlds (cosmic systems) exist and that there is life in other worlds. Scholar Marie George states:

Hippolytus of Rome describes in some detail Democritus’ views that there are infinite universes … While Hippolytus does not actually critique this view, it is plain that he rejects it, for he recounts it in a work entitled: The Refutation of all Heresies. Hippolytus both rejects Democritus’ infinite universes, and the earths that come with these universes.

(Marie I. George, Christianity and Extraterrestrials?, p. 66. See Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book I, proemium [for context] and chapters 10 [on the heresies of Leucippus], 11 [on the heresies of Democritus] and 19 [on the heresies of Epicurus]; also Book X, chapters 28-30.)

But Fr Iannuzzi fails to give this crucial piece of information to the audience. He never mentions it anywhere in the video interview, or indeed anywhere in the video series. So not only does Iannuzzi fail to deliver on promised evidence, he presents as supporting evidence a source that, if fully disclosed, would undermine his position. The omission of Hippolytus’ condemnation appears calculated to prevent the audience from knowing this Church Father’s true position.

It gets worse.

5.

As already indicated, the title of the work in which Hippolytus mentions the views of the atomists is literally titled “Refutation of all Heresies” (the Latin title is Refutatio Omnium Haeresium though it is written in Greek). Iannuzzi fails to mention this anywhere. The title alone signals that the views being discussed in this work are presented there as heresies to be refuted. Any scholar would know that, in this context (given the position Iannuzzi is arguing for), citing from a work called "Refutation of all Heresies" without mentioning its title or purpose is highly misleading—and if done intentionally, downright unethical. The title provides crucial context that would immediately alert listeners to Hippolytus’ actual stance.

This pattern of omissions (only one Father mentioned, not multiple as promised → mere mention of the views of two atomists → omitting Hippolytus’ condemnation of these views → omitting the telling title of the work) suggests a systematic misrepresentation of the patristic evidence. Each omission serves to obscure the fact that, far from supporting belief in aliens, this patristic source explicitly condemns such beliefs as heretical. This appears to be not just misleading communication but a deliberate inversion of the source’s actual meaning and purpose! By this point, the reader should be starting to get a sense of how potentially serious this is.

It gets worse.

6.

Fr Iannuzzi says that the two atomists are “reported in St Hippolytus of Rome’s letters” [section 2 above]. But Refutatio Omnium Haeresium is the only work in which Hippolytus mentions Epicurus or Leucippus, and the only work in which he discusses the notion of multiple worlds. And this work couldn’t possibly be mistaken for a letter or epistle. Everything points in the other direction: the work’s explicit purpose, its systematic nature, its size (multiple chapters) and its style—not to mention that no patristic scholar (besides Iannuzzi) and no other Church Father ever refers to this work as a “letter” (why on Earth would they?).

No scholar could genuinely mistake this work as a letter or as a collection of letters. Iannuzzi’s mischaracterisation of this work as a “letter” or “letters”, and his failing to provide an accurate reference so that people might fact-check his claims for themselves (is this too much to ask?), serve to further obscure the condemnatory nature of the source (“Refutation of all Heresies”). Iannuzzi’s mischaracterisation of the source and his failing to provide crucial information about it suggest either a concerning level of scholarly incompetence or a case of deliberate misrepresentation.

It gets worse.

7.

In the introduction, Fr Iannuzzi explicitly agrees to take the audience “through the Patristics … regarding this topic”, where “this topic” is (in Iannuzzi’s words) “extraterrestrial life or the possibility thereof on other planets” or (in James’ words) “the landscape of [extraterrestrial] intelligent life and its religious implications” [section 1.1]. In Part Three, in the middle of his final summary of evidence, Iannuzzi confirms what his intention was:

In Part Two we addressed the ancient Greek classic scholars as well as the Patristic, Scholastic and contemporary theologians who spoke of the possibility of extraterrestrial life. I mentioned how Hippolytus of Rome spoke of Epicurus and Lucretius [sic] who supported the idea of extraterrestrial life. [26:55-27:17]

[See Appendix 3 for the rest of the summary that relates to Part Two].

In this way Iannuzzi re-iterates to the audience [in the final summary of evidence] that he addressed the Patristic theologians who spoke of the possibility of extraterrestrial life. He also reinforces, once again, the link that he established in the viewer’s mind in Part Two [see section 3.1 above] between Hippolytus of Rome and support for the idea of extraterrestrial life. But again, no links are made between Hippolytus and his factual condemnation of the atomists for their heretical belief in multiple worlds (cosmic systems) and the possiblility of life therein. No mention is made of the polemical title of the work in which Hippolytus “spoke of” Epicurus and Leucippus. (Strangely, Iannuzzi mistakenly refers to Lucretius, an atomist who was never mentioned in Part Two).

It gets worse.

8.

To repeat, in his final summary of evidence [see section 7], Iannuzzi re-iterates to the audience that he addressed the Patristic theologians who spoke of the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Yet in this third video—and indeed in the whole three-part series—Iannuzzi fails to mention

  • that several Church Fathers explicitly condemn pluralism (the view that there are multiple worlds):

    • Hippolytus

    • Athanasius*

    • Epiphanius

    • Ambrose*

    • Jerome*

    • Augustine* and

    • Isidore of Seville*

    • Lactantius and Philastrius, two other Christian writers of the patristic period but not usually labelled “Church Fathers”, also condemn pluralism

    • See references below.

    • * = Doctor of the Church

  • that the Fathers were “uniformly against it [pluralism], with the exception of Origen.”

  • the central importance of Origen in respect to this topic and the fact that the Fathers uniformly rejected Origen’s version of pluralism, in which different worlds (cosmic systems) exist in sequence.

    • George, ibid., pp. 64-67.

As we have already seen, the only Father who ever gets a mention is Hippolytus, in two vacuous sentences about the atomists, whose views Hippolytus “reported” [see section 2]. Fr Iannuzzi presented himself as an expert and academic, promised his audience substantial theological evidence from the patristics, gave the audience a big fat nothing burger, and then had the audacity to claim in his final summary that “we addressed the ancient Greek classic scholars as well as the Patristic … theologians who spoke of the possibility of extraterrestrial life” [see section 7].

See Appendix 2 for a longer excerpt of the transcript of Video 2.

Christ with the Eastern and Western Fathers.
The icons of Monastero di Bose

References (* = Doctor of the Church, ** = not usually categorised as a Church Father):

  • St Hippolytus of Rome (170-235) in Refutation of All Heresies, Book I, chapters 11 and 19; Book X, chapters 28-30.

  • St Athanasius* (c. 296-373) in Against the Heathen, part 3, chapter 39, sentence 6.

  • St Epiphanius of Salamis (c.310-403) in The Panarion, 66 “Against Manichaeans”: 28,9 (p. 258 in The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide. Second, revised ed. Translated by Frank Williams. Brill: Leiden, 2013.)

  • St Ambrose of Milan* (c. 339-397) in Letter XLV to Sabinus, sections 15 and 16.

  • St Jerome* (343-420) in Apology Against the Books of Rufinus, Book II, no. 12; Letter 124 “To Avitus”, #3, #5 and #6.

  • St Augustine* (354-430) in City of God, Book XI, chapter 5 and Book XII, chapters 11-13, 17; De Haeresibus, cap 77.

  • St Isidore of Seville* (c. 560-636), in Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, ed. by Stephen Barney, W. Lewis, J. Beach and Oliver Berghof (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), VIII, v. 69 (p. 178).

  • Lactantius** (c. 250 - c. 325) in On the Anger of God, chapter 10 [against the pluralism of the atomists]; also Epitome of the Divine Institutes, chapters 27, 41, 69-72 [the world/cosmos is singular; in creation man alone is made in God’s image with the gift of reason and called into communion with God; God made all visible things for man and on account of man]

  • St Philastrius** (died before 397) in Sancti Filastrii episcopi Brixensis Diversarvm hereseon liber, no. 86, 89. The linked text is in Latin; see the translation in George (ibid., Kindle location 1269).

It actually gets worse.

9.

As is well known, Rev. Joseph Leo Iannuzzi, Ph.B, STB, M. Div., STD is an academic scholar with expertise in patristic theology: see (in the same link) chapters 5-7 of his 2012 doctoral dissertation “The Gift of Living in the Divine Will in the Writings of Luisa Piccarreta”, for example, or his The Splendor of Creation: The Triumph of the Divine Will on Earth and the Era of Peace in the Writings of the Church Fathers, Doctors and Mystics (2011). Two other publications of his are listed here. This makes the situation even more serious and ethically concerning. It is highly unlikely that the entire series of omissions and misrepresentations outlined above can be attributed to ignorance or could amount to a series of honest mistakes. Fr Iannuzzi’s theological expertise, and his academic publications in patristics, makes each element of misrepresentation appear to be calculated. It is difficult to believe that this same Fr Iannuzzi would

  • not understand proper scholarly citation and representation of sources

  • not recognise the importance of Hippolytus’ explicit condemnation of the atomists’ belief in multiple worlds

  • not know the difference between a letter and a major theological treatise of a polemical nature

  • not understand the polemical significance of “Refutation of all Heresies” as a title, or

  • not be aware (after a few minutes of research, if necessary) that the Church Fathers uniformly condemned pluralism (belief in multiple worlds / cosmic systems) with the single exception of Origen.

10.

If these observations are correct, then the behaviour described above potentially represents a serious violation of academic integrity. For it certainly appears to be

  • an abuse of scholarly authority

  • an abuse of the authority conferred upon Fr Iannuzzi by his doctoral examiners and the Gregorian Pontifical University of Rome

  • a grievous example of misusing one’s expertise in order to mislead rather than to inform

  • a serious violation of basic principles of academic honesty, and

  • behaviour that will potentially damage trust in patristic scholarship.

11.

The fact that Fr Iannuzzi is an ordained priest as well as a scholar adds another layer of seriousness to this potential abuse of authority.

But that’s not all.

12.

It appears that Fr Iannuzzi, in order to defend and propagate his personal views about aliens, has taken advantage of his platform on a popular YouTube channel (Divine Will Era)—a channel largely devoted to spreading the Divine Will movement and giving pastoral, spiritual and theological guidance—in order to manipulate and deceive the minds of close to 10,000 (probably unsuspecting) viewers. If this is true, then his behaviour is especially egregious.

  • If not for this report, who knows how many of Fr Iannuzzi’s trusting viewers would never have known that something was amiss with this video presentation?

    • Just to be clear, I mean no disrespect to any of Fr Iannuzzi’s viewers. Saying that a certain proportion of these viewers are “trusting” is not an insult. Relations of authority and trust are part of the natural order. They necessarily follow from the various vocations and professions. They are essential to the Church. It is true that we should not “follow” any mere human person religiously. This is what tends to happen with personality cults. However, there are levels and forms of trust that are entirely appropriate.

Final Reflections

In 2002 the Boston Globe Spotlight Investigation into sexual abuse shocked the world and rocked the Church to its core. Nothing has been the same since. Before 2002 many Catholics were probably still under the illusion that, in order to protect the reputation of the Catholic Church, it is better to keep secrets like this buried. We were tempted to think: Why bring these things into the light? It would only put obstacles in the way of the Church’s mission and impede the work of converting souls.

We are no longer under the grips of that illusion. In truth it was necessary, and still is necessary, for these things to be brought into the light in order for the Church to be purified of her sins.

Obviously this is not a case of sexual abuse. But the lessons learnt in one case can be applied to another. More than once I had wondered whether, by publishing this report, I would only be placing obstacles in the way—in the way of people who are searching for the Truth, and in the way of the Truth Who is searching for people. I had wondered whether, for the sake of (1) the cause for the beatification of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta and (2) the reputation of the Divine Will Movement, it might be better to keep quiet, given that Fr Iannuzzi is publically involved with both. However, after prayer and counsel, I am at peace with my decision. I am quietly confident that this is a time when “making straight paths for the Lord” (Luke 3:4) demands bringing things into the light.

Not that these issues are solely the concern of Catholics who have some interest in or relationship to the spirituality and writings of Luisa Piccarreta. Put aside for now the question of what to think about Luisa and the Divine Will Movement. If an abuse of academic authority has occurred in the Church, it concerns the whole body. It also concerns the academic community as such, especially Catholic academics.

Over 9,400 viewers have been seriously misled by a Catholic priest and patristic scholar about (certain aspects of) the views of the Church Fathers. This occurred in a rhetorical exercise designed to persuade others that believing in aliens is perfectly compatible with Church teaching (there’s significant support for it in the patristic literature, so it must be!).

Is this a case of gross incompetence or deliberate deception? In any case, every individual in Fr Iannuzzi’s audience deserves to know. They deserve to know how they’ve been misled, and they deserve to know how they might have been wronged.

They deserve to know, for four reasons.

  1. So they can work toward the restoration of justice, charity and peace between members of the Church.

  2. So they can revise any false beliefs they have come to hold on account of placing their trust (quite naturally) in Fr Iannuzzi’s academic authority.

    • Note that the potential scope of this issue includes, but is not limited to, the video interview that is the subject of this report. There are literally hundreds of video and radio episodes posted online in which Fr Iannuzzi gives a teaching or presents his opinion on a variety of theological subjects.

  3. So they can prudently assess whether they ought to trust Fr Iannuzzi again, and if so, under what conditions.

  4. So they can begin to think about what reservations or precautions they should be taking if they should decide to continue watching his videos, listening to his recordings, or in any way depending on his teaching ministry.

*

The Church is hurting enough already. So many in the Church have had their trust abused. Too many of those above us have abused our trust. The last thing we need now in the Church is a theological academic abusing the trust of thousands of receptive listeners who have little or no opportunity to thoroughly fact-check and critique what they are being taught. And for what end? What is to be gained from this? More importantly, who gains from this?

Dr Brendan Triffett

Appendix 1: Longer proof that only one reading of the introduction is remotely plausible.

Exactly which theologians is Fr Iannuzzi referring to when he states in the introduction to Video Two that they “include renowned cardinals, bishops and even Fathers”?

[1:49] Sure. The first part addressed the scientific and anthropological data as well as the military and eye-witness reports in support of extra-terrestrial life or the possibility thereof on other planets. And the second part is going to be devoted to the ancient Greek classic scholars as well as the Patristic, Scholastic and contemporary theologians which include renowned cardinals, bishops and even Fathers. [2:22]

First, what are the logical possibilities? He must mean either (a) all Patristic, Scholastic and (presumably Catholic) contemporary theologians, or (b) some subset thereof. Let a supportive theologian be one whose writings, in Iannuzzi’s view (or in his rhetoric, at least), support believing in aliens (even if in just one passage), whether directly or indirectly. A non-supportive theologian is one who is not supportive (he need not be thought of as positively opposed, or as someone who has written against believing in aliens). Let a covered theologian be one who is studied and/or mentioned by name by Iannuzzi in Video 2. This gives us two dimensions with three possible values each, giving us a total of 9 logical possibilities:

[A: supportive | B: non-supportive | C: supportive or non-supportive]

[1: covered | 2: non-covered | 3: covered or non-covered]

  • [C3] All Patristic, Scholastic and (Catholic) contemporary theologians. Let this be SET A.

  • [A3] All supportive theologians in SET A.

  • [A1] All supportive covered theologians in SET A.

  • [A2] All supportive non-covered theologians in SET A.

  • [B3] All non-supporitive theologians in SET A.

  • [B1] All non-supportive covered theologians in SET A.

  • [B2] All non-supportive non-covered theologians in SET A.

  • [C1] All covered theologians in SET A.

  • [C2] All non-covered theologians in SET A.

It is impossible for the second part to be devoted to theologians who are not covered in the second part. Unless Iannuzzi has lost his mind (and there are no signs that he has), he wouldn’t intend to do something that is obviously an impossible contradiction, namely: to cover, in the second part, a number of theologians who will not be covered in the second part. Therefore, the theologians to whom Iannuzzi is referring to must all be covered theologians, both in reality and in his own mind. (It is safe to assume that Iannuzzi has no false beliefs about which theologians are covered in his own presentation.) This narrows down the possibilities to A1, B1 and C1 (underlined above).

Objection: What if Iannuzzi doesn’t intend to do X in Part Two, but is telling the audience, nonetheless, that doing X is his intention for Part Two? Let X stand for the phrase in italics above.

Response: We have absolutely no reason to think that this far-fetched Mad Hatter scenario is what is going on in the introduction. It is only natural to assume that Iannuzzi is neither as crazy as the Mad Hatter, nor deceptively presenting himself as someone who is. Indeed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we are obliged to assume—and with good reason we naturally do assume—that the speaker is neither insane nor attempting to come across as insane. Moreover, what could Iannuzzi possibly hope to gain in this scenario (arguing for the existence of aliens in a public video interview) by sometimes pretending to think like a madman?

A1

It was argued above (sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3) that A1 is the most natural reading and the only plausible reading of the introduction to Video 2. On this reading, Fr Iannuzzi is indicating that more alien-supportive evidence will be uncovered in Part Two—from theological literature this time, as distinct from the “scientific and anthropological data as well as the military and eye-witness reports” uncovered in Part One.

In what follows we show that the two remaining possibilities (B1 and C1) are not plausible at all as interpretations of the introduction.

In the arguments that follow, we do not always rely on information that is clear to us now, reflecting on the video series. In certain places we adopt the standpoint of someone in the audience who is watching Fr Iannuzzi’s introduction to Video 2 for the first time. We consider both (1) how plausible a certain interpretation is for us, and (2) how plausible it would be for someone in the audience (in other words, how natural it would be, and how likely it would be, for someone in the audience to assume this interpretation).

B1

If Iannuzzi means B1, then what he intends to say is that all of the theologians he will be covering in Part Two are non-supportive of belief in aliens. But to say this would be to admit that no evidence supporting belief in aliens will be uncovered from the writings of any theologians in Part Two. B1 clearly contradicts (1) the purpose of the video series and (2) the fact that all theologians presented in Part Two (except Aquinas, in a passing comment) are presented there as supportive theologians (see sections 1.2 and 2 above). If we assume B1 as Iannuzzi’s meaning, the last sentence of the introduction (“And the second part is going to be devoted to the ancient Greek classic scholars as well as the Patristic, Scholastic and contemporary theologians which include renowned cardinals, bishops and even Fathers”) makes no sense. There is no meaningful way to make it fit in with the previous sentence or with the explicit purpose of the video series. Nor is there any way of making sense of Iannuzzi’s emphasis, namely: that the theologians covered in Part Two include renowned clerics and even Fathers. What would be the purpose of emphasising this fact? What would its significance be in relation to the goal of the video series (i.e., persuading the audience that it is reasonable and theologically acceptable to believe in aliens)?

C1

This leaves C1. If Iannuzzi means C1, then he does not mean to imply, and he does not mean to give the audience any expectation, that any alien-supportive theologians will be covered in Part Two. The only promise or expectation he intends to communicate is (1) that a number of Patristic, Medieval and contemporary theologians will be covered in Part Two, and (2) that this set of theologians includes renowned cardinals, bishops and even Fathers. It doesn’t matter if it turns out that none of the theologians covered in Part Two is alien-supportive. This outcome wouldn’t contradict what Iannuzzi promised in the introduction. As far as the introductory statement (promise / expectation) is concerned, the number and proportion of alien-supportive theologians covered in Part Two is of no consequence (though it would affect the strength of the main argument and the nature of the conclusion).

But in that case, what is the objective of Part Two? Could it be that the objective in Part Two is simply to look at the writings of a number of theologians (Patristic, Medieval and contemporary)—theologians who may or may not be alien-supportive? No, because that objective is too broad and indeterminate. There has to be a specific research question put to the writings—or alternatively, the writings have to be put to a specific use in an argument. If no specific question or use is applied to the writings, then nothing in the writings will stand out as important or as worthy of comment in the context of Iannuzzi’s presentation.

Let’s evaluate the two options under C1. If C1 is the correct interpretation of the introduction then in Part Two either

  • (i) a specific research question is put to the writings of theologians (Patristic, medieval and contemporary) or

  • (ii) the writings of these theologians are put to use in an argument.

Suppose (i) there is a specific research question for Part Two. What might be the research question be? It should have to be related to the topic and purpose of the video series as a whole. Here are four possibilities. (1) How many of these theologians are alien-supportive, and how many are not? (2) Which of these theologians are alien-supportive (if any)? (3) What theological evidence for belief in aliens (if any) can be uncovered in the writings of these theologians? (4) Are there any general patterns to be observed concerning these theologians’ views on aliens—or concerning their views about other “worlds” in which aliens might exist? Whichever of these questions is applied to the data (and it’s possible to apply more than one), there will be a process of impartial enquiry and discovery. Remember that in our case, following the C1 interpretation, “the data” is the writings of theologians (Patristic, medieval and contemporary) who may or may not be alien-supportive. And to repeat, it might turn out that none of the theologians covered in the study is alien-supportive. Or it might turn out that most of them are not, or that most or all of them are.

It is easy to demonstrate that this cannot be the right interpretation of the introduction. There are several facts that do not fit with this hypothesis (i.e., that in Part Two Iannuzzi undertakes an impartial enquiry with a specific research question in mind). First, as already mentioned, all theologians presented in Part Two (except Aquinas, who is only mentioned in passing) are presented there as alien-supportive theologians. Second, in his final summary of evidence in Part Three, Iannuzzi does not mention the results of any impartial enquiry supposedly undertaken in Part Two; nor does he answer some previously posed research question. Third, nowhere in the three part series, and nowhere in the description of the series, is there any mention of an impartial enquiry into supportive and non-supportive sources. Nor is there any indication that one of the objectives of the presentation (in Part One, Two or Three) is to discover and weigh up evidence on both sides of the argument. Fourth, it is hard to see why Iannuzzi emphasises the fact that the theologians covered in Part Two include renowned bishops, cardinals and even Fathers. What would be the significance of this point if Iannuzzi is saying, in effect, that the theologians covered in Part Two may or may not be alien-supportive? It is not immediately clear. The audience would have to work hard to make sense of this point of emphasis, if it’s possible to make sense of it at all. Fifth, all of the bishops, cardinals and Fathers that appear in Part Two are presented there as alien-supportive (as it turns out, Iannuzzi looks at just one cardinal and just one Father, but that doesn’t affect my point).

Recall the two options under C1. If C1 is the correct interpretation of the introduction, then in Part Two either

  • (i) a specific research question is put to the writings of theologians (Patristic, medieval and contemporary) or

  • (ii) the writings of these theologians are put to use in an argument.

Option (i) has been excluded. It remains for us to consider option (ii).

If (ii) is true, then non-supportive theological writings are introduced in Part Two to support an argument. But the main argument in Part Two is an argument in favour of Iannuzzi’s position, which is that aliens exist (or may well exist) and that believing in aliens is compatible with the Catholic Faith. There is no way that an attentive person could be mistaken about this—not if they are part of the intended audience, and therefore intelligent enough to understand what Iannuzzi is saying and to follow his arguments. But why would Iannuzzi introduce non-supportive theological writings in Part Two in order to argue for his own position? More importantly, why would anyone in the audience—or more precisely, why would an average member of the intended audience—even consider the possibility that Iannuzi might want to do this? What would the reasoning for, or the intended strategy behind, Fr Iannuzzi doing such a thing? Nothing readily comes to mind. It is hard to see how this would be a productive use of the limited time that Fr Iannuzzi has to convince the audience of his position. From the perspective of someone in the audience who is watching the introduction to Part Two, everything points away from the idea that Fr Iannuzzi might want to introduce non-supportive writings into his presentation, and nothing points towards it.

From our perspective, there are further indications that this cannot be the right interpretation of the introduction. There is some overlap here with what I said against B1.

(1) All theologians presented in Part Two (except Aquinas, who is mentioned in passing) are presented there as supportive theologians (see sections 1.2 and 2 above).

(2) If we assume C1 as Iannuzzi’s meaning, what sense can be make of the last sentence of the introduction (“And the second part is going to be devoted to the ancient Greek classic scholars as well as the Patristic, Scholastic and contemporary theologians which include renowned cardinals, bishops and even Fathers”)? What would be the purpose of emphasising that the theologians covered in Part Two include renowned clerics and even Fathers, if there is no telling yet how many of these theologians are alien-supportive? Even if we managed to come up with some purpose that potentially fits, C1 could hardly be said to be natural or plausible as an interpretation. Too much effort and creativity is required to make it work at this point, if indeed it can work.

A1 has emerged as the clear winner of this comparison and evaluation. B1 and C1 not only lost to A1. They didn’t even manage to finish the race.

*

In a last, desperate measure, someone (let’s call him Farrow) who wants to defend C1 might offer the following objection.

Farrow: I admit that non-alien-supportive writings aren’t directly useful for Fr Iannuzzi. But that’s not to say they aren’t useful at all. They might be used indirectly.

Response: How, exactly, does that work? How might non-supportive writings be used indirectly for arguing for the existence of aliens, or for the claim that believing in aliens is consistent with the Faith?

Farrow: Well, non-supportive writings might provide important historical context in a more complex narrative. For example, “In this work, X [a Church Father] rejected the pluralism of the atomists, but this was because he was attached to an outdated cosmology. By contrast, a number of other Fathers were open to different cosmological views, and for this reason accepted pluralism as a possibility. Some of them even differentiated their own views from that of X. Let’s look at some of their alien-supportive writings.”

Admittedly, in order for the narrative to ultimately work out as an argument for believing in aliens, it would have to show that the supportive writings in the patristic period are of more weight compared to the non-supportive writings. It would have to show (or at least argue) either that the former evidence is greater in quantity, or that it is greater in quality.

Following this hypothesis, the objective in Part Two is something like this: to propose an historically accurate narrative that (1) relates the contrasting positions in the Church Fathers on the question of pluralism and the possibility of extraterrestrial life and/or (2) traces the historical development of these different positions. However, this can’t be the whole story—otherwise it would turn out that the main objective of Part Two is to explore the data impartially with a specific research question in mind (as previously). So it must be that the narrative ultimately supports, or serves as, an argument for believing in aliens.

Response: What you have just described looks like the bare outline of an impressive thesis proposal or graduate lecture series or the contents of a forthcoming book (put aside the question of whether the proposed narrative could plausibly fit the data). But it would be impossible to achieve anything close to this in the space of a 25 minute presentation, let alone a portion thereof. Moreover, the described narrative would demand from the audience a higher level of learning and engage them at a higher type of intelligence compared to the level at which the three part video series is pitched (the first two levels of Bloom’s taxonomy—check this yourself).

The scenario you proposed is that non-supportive writings are used indirectly in Part Two for arguing for the existence of aliens (or for the acceptability of believing in aliens). This scenario is not plausible if it requires a method or narrative that’s too complex or too involved for this context. Not only is it implausible from our critical perspective, it is implausible from the perspective of the audience. By that I mean: it would be unreasonable and arbitrary for the audience to assume that Iannuzzi’s intention in Part Two is: to tell a complex story about the Church Fathers, fitting a number of patristic writings into that story, where some of these writings are supportive and others are non-supportive, and where the narrative somehow leads to the claim that the supportive writings hold more weight.

Remember, Iannuzzi says nothing in the introduction that even remotely suggests this as an interpretation of his intentions in Part Two. And in the absence of anything that points toward this rather strained and convoluted interpretation (or anything like it), it is only natural—especially in this context—for the audience to assume that Iannuzzi’s modus operandi will be relatively simple and linear.

Farrow: Okay. I agree.

Response: What room is left for non-supportive writings, then? Remember (1) that Iannuzzi’s objective is to show, on the basis of patristic writings, that it is reasonable to believe in aliens and (2) that he has to keep things relatively simple (this does not mean: misleading!) for the audience and because of time constraints. If you had to suggest a place for some non-supportive text in Part Two, without changing the objective of Part Two, what place would you propose? What role should that text have in the argument? More importantly—and please answer this one first—would the inclusion of a non-supportive patristic text be essential to the argument? Or would it be accidental to the argument, supplementary at best?

Farrow: Surely, it could only be accidental. After all, Fr Iannuzzi did not draw upon any such text in his argument, and his argument was still valid. As for your other question, I am at a loss as to how to answer.

Response: Interesting. I agree with you that the inclusion of such a text could only be accidental to the argument. It is obvious that there is no need to include one. I can’t even think of a false opinion that might lead one to believe that it is necessary or recommended to include one—let alone a false opinion that people are liable to have. But from this it follows that there will be no expectation, from the audience, that such a thing might be included in Part Two. There’s no reason to think that the idea of Iannuzzi producing a non-supportive text in Part Two would even enter anyone’s mind.

Appendix 2: Transcript (partial) of Video 2.

[Dr Michael James] [1:33] So Father for this Part Two we asked you to provide a theological backdrop to the landscape of intelligent life and its religious implications, taking us through the Patristics, Scholastics and contemporary scholars regarding this topic.

[Fr Joseph Iannuzzi] Sure. The first part addressed the scientific and anthropological data as well as the military and eye-witness reports in support of extra-terrestrial life or the possibility thereof on other planets. And the second part is going to be devoted to the ancient Greek classic scholars as well as the Patristic, Scholastic and contemporary theologians which include renowned cardinals, bishops and even Fathers. [1:49-2:22]

With regard to the ancient Greek scholars, the classic scholars, we first come across a pair that’s reported in St Hippolytus of Rome’s letters. Hippolytus was from the 3rd Century and he referred to Leucippus as well as the famous Epicurus who are respectively from the 5th Century and 3rd Century BC. Both of whom were atomists. [2:22-2:45]

Atomists were those who in the Greek world maintain that all that exists in the cosmos is atoms in the void and that these atoms cluster and form different shapes, positions, arrangements and give rise to various macroscopic substances, even the possibility of rational substances meaning rational life. And for example Epicurus noted that extra-terrestrial inhabitants may exist as well as plants and other organisms in other worlds. [2:45-3:22]

[3:22] Now that the key word. They use the expression “worlds”. Now of course they spoke Greek, I’m using English but in Greek the word “world” in the writings of these first atomists that address the possibility of other worlds and the possibility of life therein that could be rational, in some parts at least, did not mean “world” as we understand it today [3:46] “World” did not mean the Solar System. It meant a series of solar systems, a series of … you may call them cosmoi or universes in which there was the possibility of organisms both irrational and rational.

[4:00] And Epicurus was succeeded in the ancient Greek classic scholar world by Aristotle, who was also like Leucippus and Epicurus, a pagan philosopher. [4:15] Now most people don’t realize that Aristotle did not believe in a personal God. There’s no evidence in his writings to suggest that. He was one who supported the idea that there was a Prime Mover throughout the universe and this Prime Mover gave rise to successive motions – which we refer to today as inertia in physics – and therefore he concluded that since there’s only one Prime Mover which is an impersonal force in the universe keeping things in motion, there could only be one effect of that Prime Mover which is one prime effect, result and therefore only one world or one cosmos or one universe.

[4:57] Now this argument of Aristotle, even though it would be picked up by Aquinas, was contested later on in succeeding centuries by Catholic theologians. In brief, some of them are the Franciscan friar from Oxford, Father William of Ockham, as well as Father John Buridan, Father Joseph Pohle and Bishop Nicholas Oresme, and these were scholars from respectively the 13th to the 14th Centuries. And they maintain that God does not limit his power to human thought. In other words, God’s power is limitless. And this is reflected actually in the angel Gabriel’s salutation to Mary when he told her that “Nothing is impossible with God’”

[5:42] And this position of these scholastic thinkers and even neo-scholastic thinkers was kind of confirmed by the 13th Century Bishop Étienne Tempier, who issued a condemnation against those who maintained that God could only create one world. This is known as the famous 1277 Condemnation in which Bishop Étienne Tempier stated, and I’m going to quote you from this … article 34 of this Condemnation of 1277, that “It is an excommunicable offense to hold ‘That the First Cause [that is, God; the First Mover which is God] could not make several worlds.’” Now this is huge. Because this ecclesiastical statement from a Bishop of Paris opened up the ecclesial doors to the theological acceptance of the reality of other worlds throughout the cosmos and therefore the possibility of them even being inhabited. [6:54] So this is the beginning of the Catholic Church’s admission of the possibility of other worlds and other life that may occupy them.

[7:04-7:22: other video footage]

[7:22] Now after Bishop Étienne in the 14th Century still, rolling into the 15th Century came William Vorilung. And he was a French philosopher and theologian and he was the first – this is important too – the first theologian to have raised the question of whether the plurality of worlds or universes or cosmoi may be reconciled with the Incarnation and the Redemption of Jesus Christ. [7:50] And he replied in the affirmative. I’m going to quote to you from one of his works in which he states, “If it be inquired whether a whole world is able to be made more perfect than this universe, I answer that not one world alone, but that infinite worlds more perfect than this one, lie hid in the mind of God. [It seems there is a gap here?] If it be inquired whether individuals exist on that world, and whether they have sinned as Adam sinned, I answer no. For they would not exist in sin and did not spring from Adam.”

[8:30] Now this is interesting because almost exactly 500 years later to this statement of William Vorilung, St Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, a Franciscan Friar stated … in response to a friar asking him if other rational beings exist on other planets, stated, “On other planets, other beings exist who did not sin and fall as we did.” [8:56] See the correlation between William Vorilung and Padre Pio? So Padre Pio’s statement did not come out of nowhere. It was grounded in this history of Greek, Scholastic philosophical, theological debate on the plurality of other worlds. And the possibility of rational and irrational beings existing therein.

[9:19] William Vorilung states, “As to the question whether Christ by dying on this Earth could redeem the inhabitants of another world, I answer that he is able to do so even if the other worlds were infinite. But it would not be fitting for Christ to go to another world in order to die again.” And this is the mainstream theological Catholic position in speculative theology. Christ incarnated Himself only once for all eternity. [9:51] And redeemed mankind and the universe only once for all eternity. He didn’t just redeem the world. He redeemed the cosmos. [9:58] Paul even states this when he says that He is the firstborn of all creatures and that Christ’s one Incarnation … He reconciled (that’s what he says) all things in heaven and on Earth. Why in heaven? Why would He have to reconcile things in heaven? So you start to see the bigger picture here.

[10:17] Then after William of Vorilung comes Nicholas of Cusa. He was a German Catholic Cardinal. A philosopher and a theologian from the 15th Century. And he stated in chapter 12 (I’m going to quote it to you) of his most famous work, De Docta Ignorantia which is “On (or Of) Learned Ignorance”. He states as follows: [10:42] “Life, as it exists on earth in the form of men, animals and plants, is to be found, let us suppose, in higher forms in solar and stellar regions. Rather than think that so many stars and parts of the heavens are uninhabited, we will suppose (‘we’ meaning, the Cardinal representing the Church), that in every region there are inhabitants differing in nature by rank, all owing their origin to God. [11:14] Even if inhabitants of another kind should exist in other stars, it seems inconceivable that anything more noble and perfect could be found than the intellectual nature that exists here on earth.” [11:27] Let me repeat this, this is important, because this Cardinal, Nicholas of Cusa, is stating that even though there are higher forms in other regions of the universe, we, the lowest form of rational life are the most noble. [11:44]

In the rest of the video interview (it ends at 23:54), Fr Iannuzzi discusses passages from the writings of St Hannibal de Francia and Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta. There are passing references to Padre Pio, William Vorilung, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno and Mélanie Calvat.

Appendix 3: Transcript of the Summary of Part Two at the end of Video 3.

[26:55] In Part Two we addressed the ancient Greek classic scholars as well as the Patristic, Scholastic and contemporary theologians who spoke of the possibility of extraterrestrial life. I mentioned how Hippolytus of Rome spoke of Epicurus and Lucretius who supported the idea of extraterrestrial life.

[27:17] I also spoke of Aristotle as well as Aquinas, Father John Buridan of the University of Paris, Father Joseph Pohle, Bishop Nicholas Oresme, the 1277 condemnation of the Bishop of Paris Étienne Tempier and William Vorilung of the 14th century, the French philosopher and theologian who was the first author to have raised the question on whether or not the plurality of worlds can be reconciled with the Incarnation and Redemption of Jesus Christ. And he affirmed that it … they can be. That Christ in one Incarnation and one Redemption has redeemed the whole cosmos and Paul corroborates this when he states that Christ reconciled all things in Heaven and on Earth.

[28:03] I spoke of also Nicholas of Cusa, the 15th Century German Catholic cardinal who was also a philosopher and theologian. And he also in his work De Docta Ignorantia talks about the possibility of not just other worlds but many, many other worlds in which rational sentient beings live and thrive and how they were not affected by original sin as we were.

[28:29] Padre Pio made that statement. Vorilung made that statement. Padre Pio made that statement in similar terms. It’s suggested … it’s suggested also in the writings also of Nicholas of Cusa. And then I addressed St Hannibal di Francia who spoke of Christ creating many worlds. And then Jesus Christ himself reveals to the servant of God Luisa Piccarreta of whom St Hanibal di Francia was the confessor appointed by her bishop, that God could create thousands and thousands of worlds.

[29:02] In part three we addressed how God created the material and the material orders ... [Fr Iannuzzi’s summary of part three continues].

Quick links to other posts:

Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

Fr Iannuzzi’s curious statement about Admiral Byrd (continuing on from my previous post).

What if it turns out that Fr Iannuzzi does not believe the Earth is hollow? If that’s the case, then it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Iannuzzi has deceived his audience. I don’t claim to have divine insight into Iannuzzi’s soul, however, so I limit my comments to how things look, and what fair and reasonable people would most likely think, on the assumption that Iannuzzi doesn’t think the Earth is hollow.

In the following, I trace a reasonable thought process toward its conclusion. My intention is not to demonstrate to the reader anything about Fr Iannuzzi’s intellectual competence or moral character. My intention, rather, is to show that it is neither unreasonable nor uncharitable for someone to arrive at the proposed conclusion.

This post does not stand on its own. It is the second and final part of a discussion which begins here. To refresh the reader’s memory, I insert a quote from the previous post.

What, then, does Fr Iannuzzi believe? There are two possibilities to consider. Either Fr Iannuzzi believes in hollow Earth, or he does not.

Belief

If it turns out that he does believe it, then in my view we ought to ignore everything that he says that touches on the physical sciences. At the very least, we ought to treat his statements with a very high degree of suspicion, thoroughly fact-checking all his comments … I would even be wary of the theological statements of someone—even a trained theologian—who believes that the Earth is hollow. In my judgement, a belief of that sort … is often a sign that there is something seriously wrong with a man’s intellectual approach to the world, his way of reasoning about things …

According to his website, Fr Iannuzzi has a postgraduate degree in Medicine and a Bachelor of Philosophy (Ph.B.). In a more sane world, perhaps, it would be safe to assume that nobody in the developed world with these degrees … would ever come to believe, or even be inclined to believe, that the Earth is hollow. On the one hand, I find it very hard to believe that Fr Iannuzzi believes it. On the other hand, the whole situation with these interviews is so bizarre at times it’s hard to know what to think.

Non-Belief

  • What if it turns out that Fr Iannuzzi does not believe the Earth is hollow? If that’s the case, then it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Iannuzzi has deceived his audience. I don’t claim to have divine insight into Iannuzzi’s soul, however, so I limit my comments to how things look, and what fair and reasonable people would most likely think, on the assumption that Iannuzzi doesn’t think the Earth is hollow.

  • In the following, I trace a reasonable thought process toward its conclusion. My intention is not to demonstrate to the reader anything about Fr Iannuzzi’s intellectual competence or moral character. My intention, rather, is to show that it is neither unreasonable nor uncharitable for someone to arrive at the proposed conclusion.

  • First it should be noted that Iannuzzi holds up Admiral Byrd as an example of a “notable name” and “reputable person” who had an extraordinary encounter, by which I mean: an experience involving aliens or some other form of non-human embodied intelligence (“non-human earthlings”) and/or some type of non-human technology (e.g., flying saucers). He intentionally places Byrd alongside other “notable” / “reputable” men who worked for the government (in the U.S. or Canada) and had such encounters, namely: Paul Hellyer PC, Colonel Philip Corso and Sergeant Clifford Stone.

    • See Iannuzzi’s comment on Byrd in its context in Video 1 of the “Vatican and Aliens” series, 25:36-28:32. See also Video 3, 22:20-23:15 (see the transcript in the indented quotation after the next).

    • Speaking of the non-human earthlings living in hollow Earth, Michael Salla writes, “Strictly speaking, this sub-group is not extra-terrestrial in origin but simply a sub-terrestrial humanoid race that is genetically linked to humanity” (Exopolitics, 257). I coined the term “non-human earthlings” in my previous article. I do not believe there are non-human earthlings.

Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd

From Video 1 (premiered September 29, 2023):

Now at the time in ‘77 the pope was still Archbishop of Krakow but he dedicated Bruno Sammaciccia’s book to the Catholic Church. He [Sammaciccia] was visited by extraterrestrials and he wrote all about this but he did not want this to be revealed until after his death. [27:51] Much like Admiral Byrd. He [Byrd] also did not want until his death for his experience to be revealed of what he saw in the North Pole when he went there.

From Video 3 (premiered December 27, 2023):

[22:20] So to summarize these three parts of this theme of the Christian faith and the possibility of extraterrestrial life throughout the cosmos. In Part One we addressed the scientific and anthropological data as well as the declassified military and eyewitness reports supporting extraterrestrial life on other planets and its interaction with humans and even governments here on Earth. [22:52] The naval officer Admiral Richard Byrd, the Canadian minister of National Defence Paul Hellyer, Lieutenant Colonel Philip Corso, Sergeant Clifford Stone, a devout Catholic, another devout Catholic Charles Hall who is a nuclear physicist and US military worker. Also Monsignor Carrado Balducci [23:15].

  • This is much is clear:

    • Iannuzzi says to his audience in Video 1 (from 27:51) that the great Admiral Byrd had an encounter in the North Pole (the context tells us that Iannuzzi means an encounter with one or more aliens, non-human earthlings and/or UFOs; this is confirmed by the quote from Video 3) and that Byrd didn’t want to go public with this encounter in his lifetime. Let’s call this Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd.

    • Then in Video 3 (from 22:20) Iannuzzi includes the name of Admiral Byrd in his list of “declassified military and eyewitness reports supporting extraterrestrial life on other planets and its interaction with humans and even governments here on Earth.” Indeed, Admiral Byrd is the first name he mentions. Clearly, the comment he made about Byrd in Video 1 was not some inexplicable slip of the tongue. In this third video, published three months after the first, Iannuzzi is re-iterating the same claim, this time in a “summary of evidence”.

    • These are the only two instances in which Iannuzzi mentions Byrd in the three-part video series—or anywhere else, as far as I know.

  • So what does Iannuzzi means when he says “in the North Pole”? One reading is that he means at the North Pole (the geographic North Pole, where the Earth's axis of rotation intersects the surface in the Northern Hemisphere) or somewhere very near it—say, within half a degree of latitude, which makes for a surface area of roughly 9,700 km.

  • An alternative reading is that he means in the Earth at the North Pole, or more precisely: in some hollow space under the surface whose entrance is at or very near the North Pole. Let the phrase in italics be our definition of “under the North Pole”. For the sake of argument, we allow the proposed “hollow space” under the surface to be a hole or cavern or something along those lines. It need not be “hollow Earth”.

  • There’s no reason to think that Iannuzzi means the magnetic North Pole, which doesn’t have a fixed location. It is currently about 1,760 km from the geographic North Pole (85.762°N latitude and 139.298°E longitude) and has drifted roughly 2,000 km from its 1947 location. When it is said that Byrd was the first to reach the North Pole by plane, “North Pole” obviously signifies the geographic North Pole (this is the standard meaning of “North Pole”). None of the conspiracy theories about Admiral Byrd refers to a journey to magnetic North Pole either.

  • In reality, the surface of the Earth at or very near the North Pole has never been land—certainly not in the last 2000 years! The closest land to the North Pole is a rocky islet called Qeqertaq Avannarleq. Part of Greenland's archipelago, it is about 700 km (6.3 degrees of latitude) south of the North Pole.

  • How far south of the North Pole do we need to go before the surface is open water, rather than ice? In winter, the Arctic Ocean is almost completely frozen (on the surface), with open water not appearing until around 1500-2000 km (13.5 to 18 degrees of latitude) south of the North Pole. On average, the shortest distance from the North Pole to open water in summer is around 300-600 km (2.7 to 5.4 degrees of latitude). Lowest ice coverage is in September, and the lowest on record was in 2012 (we only have data from 1979, when continuous satellite observations began). The shortest distance from the North Pole to open water during the record low was at least 200 km (1.8 degrees of latitude). Even if we define “very near” the North Pole more generously, as anywhere less than a whole degree of latitude (around 111.7 km, here taking into account the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, slightly flatter at the Poles) south of the North Pole, there was never open water in this region during the record low in 2012.

  • Clearly, then, the surface of the Earth at or very near the North Pole is ice all year round. The years in which Byrd lived (1888-1957) are no exception. We don’t have satellite data for this period, but we do have the reports of explorers, and we know that global temperatures in those years were cooler, with long-term averages of 0.5–0.8°C below preindustrial levels. From the 1990s onwards, by contrast, global temperatures have been 1.1–1.2°C warmer than preindustrial levels (from Chat GPT).

  • None of the conspiracy theories I’ve uncovered concerning Admiral Byrd’s flight to the North Pole postulates that he flew his plane into open water (see the “Secret Diary”; publications by Giannini; Palmer; Bernard; Trench; Salla; and the History Channel’s variation on the theory—all cited in the previous post). Flying into Hollow Earth is one thing, but flying a plane through ocean water into Hollow Earth? Don’t be ridiculous! (Even conspiracy theorists have standards.) Nor is there any mention of Byrd observing something (aliens, non-human earthlings or UFOs) in ocean waters, or something emerging from ocean waters, at or near the North Pole.

  • It is highly unlikely that Iannuzzi had in mind the idea that Byrd flew into the ocean at or near the North Pole and somehow managed to return! And it’s unlikely that Iannuzzi believes that Byrd observed something submerged in or emerging from the ocean at or near the North Pole. We return to this point later.

General comments on sincerity and negligence

  • Our task is to determine the conditions under which Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd would be a deceptive statement.

  • First, some general comments on deception. If someone says X (that X is true) even though he believes the opposite (that X is false) then he is being deceptive. Similarly, if by his statements someone deliberately implies that he believes X is true, when he believes X is false, then he is being deceptive. Another way of being deceptive is wording something in a particular way knowing that the audience—or many people in the audience—will likely understand him to mean that X is true (when in fact he doesn’t believe it) and taking advantage of this situation. What someone doesn’t say in these situations is just as important as what he does say.

  • It’s also possible to speak in an ambiguous and misleading way without being deceptive. In this case the statements are factually misleading, yet the speaker himself is not engaging in the deliberate action of misleading his audience. This can happen in different ways.

    • Someone might not be good with words, not good with the language in general, not good with the language in a particular domain (e.g., ethics), or not good at speaking on the spot. He might have been rushed or flustered when speaking. He might not have been given the chance to construct his sentences carefully, through no fault of his own. He might be experiencing a momentary lapse in cognitive ability, or something worse.

    • Alternatively, someone might be culpably inattentive—insufficiently careful with his words, insufficiently attentive to the effect his words might be having on his audience. This could be part of a general intention to deceive, but it need not be. Someone can be careless with his words without being deceptive, properly speaking.

    • In an ecclesial context, this sort of negligence is often rooted in a false belief that, for the audience of “mere laypersons”, an error here and there doesn’t matter so much, or that errors aren’t that important when it comes down to the specifics, or that all that matters in the end is whether someone is well-intentioned. I am thinking in particular of that sinister combination of (1) a modern clericalism of low expectations and (2) situation ethics. In this case there is still a type of deception at work, insofar as the theologian, by adhering to (1) and (2), is here mis-representing the teaching and attitude of the Church. To repeat, these are general comments; I am not pointing the finger at anyone in particular.

    • Another possibility is that someone lacks a nuanced understanding of the different theoretical positions that need to be distinguished in a certain domain. It’s often that case that substantially different positions branch out from statements that, to the untrained eye, look the same (one might be heretical, where the other is not).

    • If someone lacks a sufficiently nuanced understanding in a certain domain of enquiry, this may well be an example of negligence, especially for (a) the person who speaks on such matters from a validly inherited position of authority (e.g., a priest or bishop speaking on Catholic doctrine) and (b) for the person who presumes to speak on such matters from a position of authority (e.g. a gung-ho Catholic YouTuber speaking to a wide audience when his theological understanding of a certain matter is severely lacking in nuance.) If this person genuinely believes he has a good handle on the area, then he is deluded (a delusion often rooted in pride). If he is bluffing—deliberately giving the impression that, as someone who has a good handle on the issues, he can be trusted, when deep down he knows he probably does not—then then he is being negligent and deceptive.

    • Side note: I don’t have any objection in principle to people earning a living through their online Catholic commentary. There are instances of this which in my view ought to be supported and encouraged. But it certainly has its moral dangers. There is often a financial incentive to bluff in the way just described, and even to deceive oneself about (a) one’s intellectual ability and (b) the need to be more nuanced, more circumspect, more studious, more irenic, or more well-read. The incentive to bluff and self-deceive is especially tempting for strongly choleric characters. For they are more inclined to believe in themselves too readily, and others will be inclined to follow a confident leader. The temptation is there even if a person’s temperament has been supernaturally purified, since we all have our moments of weakness. It will be far worse, obviously, for the spiritually immature person with this sort of temperament. Of course, it would be a mistake to regret that there are cholerics at all in positions of leadership in the world or in the Church. They have strengths which are essential to the common good.

Under what conditions would Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd be a sincere statement?

  • Statements taken in the abstract, as intelligible propositions, are neither sincere nor deceptive. But a particular declarative utterance, in which someone affirms that something is the case or that something is not the case, can be sincere or deceptive, depending on what that person believes. Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd only has the property of being sincere or deceptive as a concrete utterance—it does not have that property when considered in the abstract, as an intelligible proposition.

  • We turn now to our particular case. Recall Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd: the great Admiral Byrd had an encounter in the North Pole and Byrd didn’t want to go public with this encounter in his lifetime.

  • Suppose now that Iannuzzi doesn’t believe that Byrd had any extraordinary encounter in the North Pole, whether that be (1) under the surface of the Earth, (2) above the surface of the Earth or (3) in some “complex” region that covers a region above the surface of the Earth and a region below the surface.

    • By “above the surface” I mean: on the surface and/or in the air above the surface.

    • In this scenario, Iannuzzi is being deceptive when he makes his Statement about Byrd. And this is true regardless of whether Iannuzzi means “at or very near the North Pole” or “under the North Pole” (as defined above) when he says “in the North Pole”.

    • On my understanding of terms, someone has an encounter in/at a certain place if and only if, during the encounter, both the person and the encountered object are physically present in/at that place. I included option (3) above to allow for the possibility of Byrd being above the surface while observing something beneath it, and the possibilty of Byrd being beneath the surface while observing something above it. (I am making extra sure to cover all bases! Admittedly, this comes at the cost of making our analysis a little more complex and our argument a little more involved).

  • Suppose instead that Iannuzzi doesn’t believe that the Admiral flew into a hole at or very near the North Pole, nor that he had some extraordinary encounter under the surface and/or inside the Earth. In this case, Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) may or may not be deceptive:

    • (T1) In this situation (the part in bold above), if Iannuzzi doesn’t believe that Byrd had some extraordinary encounter above the surface either (when he was at or very near the North Pole)—and on top of that doesn’t believe that Byrd had an encounter “above and below” the surface near the North Pole (as per option (3))—then his Statement on Byrd is deceptive, regardless of which sense of “in the North Pole” is in play.

    Consider the following:

    • (T2) If a putative encounter “in the North Pole” (i) did not occur above the surface and (ii) did not occur beneath the surface and (iii) did not occur in some “complex region” spanning one region above and one region beneath the surface, then it did not occur at all.

    Now

    • T1 is true unless Iannuzzi does not believe T2. However, we are more than justified in assuming that Iannuzzi believes T2 (it would likely be an implicit belief). For it would be extremely irrational not to believe T2. (Where else could the putative encounter at or near the North Pole have occurred? All possibilites for the location of the encounter have been covered.)

    • (T3) In this situation of disbelief (see again the part in bold above), if Iannuzzi believes that Byrd did have some extraordinary encounter above the surface at or very near the North Pole and didn’t want to go public with this in his lifetime, then Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) is sincere.

    • More precisely, if the antecedent (the part in italics) is true in T3, then we have no reason (as yet) to believe that Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) is deceptive. That may change once other facts and considerations are brought into the equation, however.

    • (T4) In this situation of disbelief (the part in bold above), if Iannuzzi believes that Byrd did have some extraordinary encounter in some “complex” region that covers a region above the surface of the Earth (at or very near the North Pole) and a region “under the North Pole” (as defined above)—with Byrd observing from above the surface something beneath the surface, never going beneath the surface himself—and didn’t want to go public with this in his lifetime, then again, Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) is sincere.

    • More precisely, if the antecedent (the part in italics) is true in T4, then we have no reason (as yet) to believe that Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) is deceptive.

  • Building on the above considerations, we are now in a position to consider the situation in which Iannuzzi does not believe in hollow Earth. Recall again Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd: the great Admiral Byrd had an encounter in the North Pole and Byrd didn’t want to go public with this encounter in his lifetime. If Iannuzzi doesn’t believe in hollow Earth, then his Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) might be sincere—but only if he believes that Byrd had at least one of the following:

    • an Above-the-Surface Encounter—some extraordinary encounter (i) above the surface at or very near the North Pole (ii) which he didn’t want to publicize in his lifetime.

    • a Below-the-Surface Encounter—some extraordinary encounter (i) under the North Pole (i.e., in some hollow space under the surface whose entrance is at or very near the North Pole) but not in hollow Earth (ii) which he didn’t want to publicize in his lifetime.

    • an Above-and-Below-the-Surface Encounter—some extraordinary encounter (i) at or very near the North Pole, in some complex region that covers a region above the surface of the Earth and a region below the surface (not hollow Earth) (ii) which he didn’t want to publicize in his lifetime. [There are two possibilities here: Byrd was above the surface, observing something below the surface, or he was below the surface, observing something above the surface].

  • I will revise this claim slightly in a moment.

  • Now the “Secret Diary” indicates, against the observable facts of the matter, that there is land at or very near the North Pole—add that to our long list of reasons we know it is a hoax! It’s not clear whether the surface of the Earth in this region is supposed to be all land (plus rivers and lakes), or whether it is supposed to include land and the expected sheet of ice (I mean floating ice, not land-based ice like in Greenland and Antarctica).

  • Our three categories of Encounter (in bold above) are worded in such a way that the surface of the Earth very near the North Pole may be thought of as (i) entirely land, (ii) entirely floating ice or as (iii) both land and floating ice (only the second option is true, of course!). For example, the mentioned “hollow space under the surface” could be in ice, or it could be in rock.

  • Suppose Iannuzzi believes it was a Below-the-Surface Encounter. For reasons already explained, it is safe to assume that Iannuzzi doesn’t believe that the “surface” under which Byrd had an encounter was open water. However, it is part of my method not to leave any stone unturned. So let’s accommodate the idea stated in italics as follows:

    • we allow the “hollow space” under the surface to be dry or filled with water (fully or partially) and

    • we add another category, in which Byrd simply has an Underwater Encounter at or very near the North Pole—underwater but not in some submerged cave nor in some submerged opening in rock or ice or whatever—and does not want to publicize this encounter in his lifetime.

  • The definitions for Above-the-Surface Encounter and Above-and-Below-the-Surface Encounter can stay as they are. For neither definition excludes the possibility of the “surface” being open water.

  • Here, then, is our revised statement. If Iannuzzi doesn’t believe in hollow Earth, then his Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) might be sincere—but only if he believes that Byrd had at least one of the following (see their definitions above):

    • An Above-the-Surface Encounter

    • A Below-the-Surface Encounter

    • An Underwater-Encounter

    • An Above-and-Below-the-Surface Encounter

  • I define a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter as an encounter that falls in one of these four categories.

  • A shorter but logically equivalent version of our statement can now be formulated:

    • If Iannuzzi doesn’t believe in hollow Earth, then his Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) might be sincere—but only if he believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow Earth Encounter.

  • This proposition (in bold) outlines a necessary condition for Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd being sincere (when taken as a concrete utterance).

The conditions of belief

  • We turn now to the next phase of our argument.

  • (T5) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then he must have in mind something—some account, document or testimony, for example—which he thinks counts as evidence (direct or indirect) that the encounter occurred.

  • If someone has X “in mind” then he has a concept of X and a cluster of beliefs about X which are retained in his memory, and upon reflection, or in response to someone’s question, he is able to bring X (and his beliefs about X) into his attention and into conversation.

  • (T6) To have X “in mind” as something that counts as evidence for a certain claim is (1) to be able*, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence that the claim is true, where (2) one’s citing X as evidence for that claim counts as a sincere disclosure of one’s rational being—i.e., what one believes personally and the reason(s) one has believing it.

    • *If someone is physically unable to communicate, the ability to offer X as evidence could still exist as a cognitive capacity or intellectual disposition. In this case the person would be able, in principle, to actualise this capacity or disposition were he to (re-)gain his physical capacity to communicate.

  • (T7) It is possible to have X in mind as something that one might offer as evidence for a certain claim, even when one doesn’t believe that the claim is true, and even when one believes the claim is true but doesn’t believe that X counts as evidence in support of it.

  • If someone doesn’t believe that X counts as evidence in support of a certain claim, then either

    • he doesn’t believe that X is credible in itself (e.g., he believes X is a hoax, or that X is pseudo-scientific garbage, or that X is based on invalid research, or he doesn’t know enough about X)

    • he believes that X is credible, but doesn’t believe that it supports the claim in question (e.g., he accepts the Deep Sea Scrolls as true documents, but doesn’t believe that they support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.)

  • Why would someone offer X as evidence for a certain claim when he doesn’t believe that the claim is true? There are different possibilities:

    • (1) He wants to deceive others—to persuade them (i) that the claim is true when he doesn’t believe that it is, and as a means to this (ii) to persuade them that he himself believes that the claim is true, when he does not.

    • (2) He is explicating the belief-system of someone else, presenting that belief-system not as his own belief-system (that would be deception) but as the belief-system of someone else. “As far as Aristotle is concerned, the movement of rocks toward the Earth is evidence that rocks have a teleological tendency toward the centre of the Earth.” It is not deceptive to “bracket out” one’s own beliefs about the cosmos in order to present and unpack the cosmological belief-system of someone else.

    • (3) He is explicating an hypothetical belief-system, which need not belong to anyone in particular. This is common in philosophical analysis. Again, there is nothing deceptive about this.

  • Why would someone offer X as evidence for a certain claim when he believes the claim is true but doesn’t believe that X counts as evidence in support of it? Again, there are different possibilities:

    • (1) He wants to convince others that his view is correct, and to this end—in order to make his position look as strong as possible—he is willing to bring in “evidence” that he doesn’t believe is valid evidence for the view he is arguing for (he intends to withhold this non-belief of his from the audience, of course). It might be that he secretly believes that this “evidence” is a hoax, or based on invalid research; it might be that he secretly understands that this “evidence”, while valid in itself, doesn’t support the view he is arguing for; or it might be that he hasn’t really looked into this “evidence” yet to see if it checks out.

    • (2) He is explicating the belief-system of someone else. For example, a philosophy lecturer believes that God exists and that it’s possible to prove it philosophically. He explicates Anselm’s ontological argument for his students, defending it from a number of objections for pedagogical reasons. Yet he doesn’t believe that Anselm’s argument is sound. The fact that he doesn’t let his students know this, does not mean that he is being deceptive.

    • (3) He is explicating an hypothetical belief-system.

    • In respect to point (1), generally speaking people who adopt this rhetorical strategy either don’t believe anyone in the audience would go to the effort to fact-check the offered “evidence”, or they don’t believe anyone in the audience is competent to do so. At least, they are willing to take their chances; they are confident they can “get away with it.”

    • A common strategy that such people use to minimise (in their mind at least) the chances of being exposed, is to bombard the audience with an overwhelming amount of “evidence”. The intended effect is to impress the audience so much that they simply accept, passively, that there is a lot of evidence for the view being argued for and that the person speaking must know what he is talking about. In this case the person speaking “goes all in” in order to “minimise” his chances of losing. But in many situations, the more someone bluffs, the more risk he takes. If in the audience of the bluffer there is someone who is willing and able to fact-check each of these supposed pieces of evidence, he (the bluffer) stands to lose everything (i.e., his reputation and his credibility).

    • As someone gains a wider following, his confidence increases, and he is more likely, by my reckoning, to engage in bluffing if he is that sort of person. He will believe more readily that he can “get away with it”, that people will simply take him at his word, and that none of his followers would call his bluff or fact-check his claims. He might even come to think of his “true followers” as a certain “buffer” or “layer of protection” against potential critics.

    • In the extreme case, he comes to think of himself as “untouchable”, as it were. Admittedly, sometimes this is true, or true enough. Sometimes people are virtually untouchable. There are many examples of people who have managed to keep their status and influence, even after objective criticism has exposed their incompetence and irrationality, and the extent of the deception for which they are responsible.

Recall T6:

To have X “in mind” as something that counts as evidence for a certain claim is (1) to be able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence that the claim is true, where (2) one’s citing X as evidence for that claim counts as a sincere disclosure of one’s rational being—i.e., what one personally believes and the reason(s) one has for believing it.

  • To repeat, if someone puts forward X as evidence for a certain claim, it’s possible that he doesn’t believe that X counts as evidence for that claim. (As explained above, he might be deceiving the audience about his beliefs. Alternatively, he might be explicating someone else’s belief-system, or an hypothetical belief-system.) That’s why it’s necessary to include point (2) in T6.

  • Suppose Alice is explicating the belief-system of someone else—Aquinas’ doctrine of the angels, for example—and in the process puts forward a piece of evidence (a premise in an argument) that Aquinas gives for a certain claim (e.g. the claim that every angel is its own genus). And suppose Alice completely agrees with Aquinas (1) that the premise is true, (2) that the claim being argued for is true and (3) that the premise supports the claim being argued for. It is entirely possible for Alice to explicate this belief-system for her students without disclosing her own rational being—i.e. what she believes about angels and the reasons she has for believing what she believes about angels. To be sure, she will be disclosing what she believes is the rational position of Aquinas (if she is a good teacher, of course, these beliefs will amount to knowledge of Aquinas.) But just because her own view on angels corresponds to that of Aquinas, it does not follow that, when as a teacher she cites X as evidence for the conclusion (every angel is its own genus), this in itself counts as a sincere disclosure of her own rational being (her own view about angels).

  • Now suppose someone (i) puts forward X as evidence for a certain claim, (ii) doesn’t believe that X counts as evidence for that claim and (iii) is lying (attempting to deceive his audience) by putting forward X as evidence for that claim. The person’s goal in this case is to make others think that the presented belief-system (the doxastic* connection between X and the claim it supposedly supports) is his own belief-system**—that it is part of his rational being (what he believes and the reason(s) he has for believing it)—when it is not. But this is not the goal when a person explicates someone else’s belief system or an hypothetical belief system.

    • *Doxastic = belief-related.

    • **A belief-system can be “one’s own” in this sense, even when there is nothing “original” about the belief-system.

  • This goal—to deceive others about what one believes—may be sought as a means toward convincing others that one’s “beliefs” are true. But there are cases in which someone attempts to deceive others about what he believes, without attempting to convince others that his “belief” (the belief which he doesn’t have) is true. It’s possible to have a strong incentive to deceive others about one’s own beliefs, but no incentive to convince others that these “beliefs” are true (there will still be an incentive in this case to convince others that he wants to convince others of the truth of these beliefs; this will be part of “the act” in which one deceives others about what one believes). An example of this situation: a non-communist attempting to infiltrate the communists by convincing them that he (the non-communist) is a true communist. Indeed, it is entirely possible for someone in a situation like this to have a strong incentive not to convince anyone of the truth of the “beliefs” he is posing as his own. Our hypothetical spy wants to pass as a communist, but he doesn’t want to convert anyone to communism in the process (to convert someone to communism might go against his moral principles or against the instructions he was given).

Recall T5 and T6:

(T5) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then he must have in mind something—some account, document or testimony, for example—which he thinks counts as evidence (direct or indirect) that the encounter occurred.

(T6) To have X “in mind” as something that counts as evidence for a certain claim is (1) to be able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence that the claim is true, where (2) one’s citing X as evidence for that claim counts as a sincere disclosure of one’s rational being—i.e., what one personally believes and the reason(s) one has for believing it.

From T5 and T6 it follows that

  • (T8) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he is able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence for this encounter, where (2) his citing X as evidence for that encounter counts as a sincere disclosure of his rational being—i.e., what he believes and the reason(s) he has for believing it.

    • X here stands for some account, document, artefact, testimony, etc.

Testing our proposition

  • In this section we ask whether there are any plausible exceptions to T8.

  • It’s theoretically possible for someone to have divinely infused knowledge about something or some other form of claivoyant insight (gained from demonic influence, for example). If this occurs, then the person who “just knows” something to be true by direct insight, might not have in mind (as yet) any evidence to support his belief—or at least, no evidence in mind apart from his testimony (and the experience it is based on) that he “just knows” or that God revealed it to him.

  • Is it possible for someone to believe that something is true, while having no reason at all for believing it to be true? No reason at all means: not trust in another person who assured him it is true, not trust in God or the Church, not weak or partial or inconclusive evidence, not an argument or thought-process which (as it turns out) is invalid or based on false premises—the list goes on.

  • One might think that “belief for no reason” is possible in the case of first principles, which are self-evident. Take, for example, the principle of non-contradiction: something cannot be A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect. However, it is not that we accept the principle of non-contradiction for no reason (not when we are in our right minds, anyway). The reason (or the primary reason) we accept it is that we intellectually see that it is self-evidently true.

  • Infused knowledge, clairvoyant insight and our intellectual perception of the truth of the principle of non-contradiction, are three examples of direct insight into an object. The light by which something is known by direct insight to be true might be (1) the divine light or a special infusion of grace, (2) demonic influence or (3) the natural light of the intellect or the natural “splendour” of the intelligible object (the object being some first principle or intelligible essence).

  • We can safely assume (1) that Iannuzzi does not have direct insight into any of the relevant facts about Byrd’s life, and that he never did and (2) that Iannuzzi does not believe that he does (or did). He has certainly never claimed that he does (or did)—it would be a worry if he had!

  • Philosophers might argue about whether direct acquaintance with Byrd—for example, being his co-pilot and observing Byrd’s actions in flight—would count as “direct insight” into some of the facts about Byrd’s life, or whether this mode of knowledge ought to be named differently and placed in a different category (I take the latter view). But this semantic disagreement is irrelevant here, because Iannuzzi did not know Byrd personally (Iannuzzi is too young, for starters), and has never been with him to the North Pole! Nor does he claim to have known Byrd personally.

  • To repeat: Is it possible for someone to believe that something is true, while having no reason at all for believing it to be true (not even an experience which he thinks is a direct insight into the object)? Either such a thing is impossible altogether, or it is impossible for anyone in their right mind.

  • We can safely assume, then, that Iannuzzi has in mind some reason for believing (if he does) that Byrd had an encounter at or near the North Pole. It might not be a good reason, objectively speaking. But there would have to be a reason (at least one), assuming Iannuzzi was neither out of his mind when he formed this belief, nor out of his mind each time he expresses or reflects on his belief and re-affirms it.

  • In some cases a truth is not self-evident, but can be demonstrated a priori. In this case, our justification of our belief and our knowledge that something is true do not essentially rest on our experience of things in the world. This is how mathematicians know that the Pythagorean Theorem (the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle adjacent to the right angle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse) is universally true. If knowing the truth of the theorem essentially depended on our experience of things in the world, it would be necessary to check every right-angled triangle to see if there are any exceptions to the proposed rule. But this is not the case.

  • We can safely assume that Iannuzzi does not believe on the basis of some a priori demonstration, that Byrd had an encounter at or near the North Pole. No valid a priori demonstration exists for any of the contingent facts about Byrd’s life, and only a completely unhinged person could believe, in all honesty, a contingent fact about someone’s life on the basis of some (supposed) a priori demonstration.

TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE

  • Let’s take stock. Recall T8:

(T8) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he is able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence for this encounter, where (2) his citing X as evidence for that encounter counts as a sincere disclosure of his rational being—i.e., what he believes and the reason(s) he has for believing it.

X here stands for some account, document, artefact, testimony, etc.

  • Our question was whether there are any plausible exceptions to T8.

  • In the following we assume for argument’s sake that the antecedent in T8 is true: Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole.

  • Even if it is possible to believe that something is true and to believe it for no reason at all, nobody in their right mind is able to. In any case, it’s safe to assume that Iannuzzi doesn’t believe what he believes (i.e., that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole) for no reason at all.

    • Note that Iannuzzi could hardly gain anything by objecting to my argument at this point!

  • What reason might Iannuzzi have for this belief of his, then? So far we have excluded the following modes of knowledge. We can be confident that Iannuzzi does not believe he has ever had

    • direct insight into the relevant facts about Byrd’s life (infused knowledge, clairvoyance, or intellectual intuition of a first principle or intelligible essence)

    • direct acquaintance with Admiral Byrd (especially the details of his flight to the North Pole) or

    • knowledge by a priori demonstration of Byrd’s encounter at the North Pole.

  • Can we exclude any other modes of knowledge? Let’s draw up a taxonomy (an exhaustive catalogue) of the different types of reasons one might have for believing something. Our taxonomy of reasons will have the same categories and divisions as a taxonomy of the different types of human knowledge.

  • First we divide human knowledge into natural, supernatural and praeternatural.

  • Natural knowledge divides into a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge.

    • A priori knowledge is either direct or indirect.

    • Direct a priori knowledge is intellectual intuition of something self-evident, such as a first principle (perhaps also the phenomenological intuition of an intelligible essence, though some might say that this is an a posteriori intuition—I’m actually not sure).

    • Indirect a priori knowledge is knowledge by way of demonstration from self-evident first principles.

    • Both these modes (direct and indirect) of a priori knowledge have already been excluded.

    • This leaves a posteriori knowledge, which divides into direct and indirect.

    • Direct a posteriori knowledge would be direct acquaintance with Admiral Byrd. Some might argue that there is a form of direct insight (not what I am calling “direct acquaintance”) that also belongs in this category. But we have already excluded direct insight (all types) along with direct acquaintance.

    • This leaves indirect a posteriori knowledge—this is the only type of natural knowledge that remains.

    • Someone might object that there are types of natural knowledge that do not fall neatly into either of these two categories (a priori and a posteriori). Here is a list of potential candidates of natural knowledge-types which (one might argue) are neither a priori nor a posteriori, strictly speaking:

      • Kant’s synthetic a priori

      • practical and procedural knowledge (“know-how”)

      • types of innate knowledge (e.g. linguistic structures, biological instinct)

      • scientific theories, which combine observation and theoretical assumptions

      • connatural knowledge (intuitive or affective grasp of things, a non-propositional “attunement” to things based on habit or disposition)

      • knowledge of values (moral, aesthetic, spiritual)

      • knowledge of universals (e.g. the intelligible logos of a horse)

      • paranormal forms of direct insight (e.g. psychic ability, clairvoyance)

    • The last category has already been excluded. None of the other ways of knowing could possibly give us (in isolation or in combination) knowledge of the historical facts of Byrd’s life. Knowledge of values in this case only builds on the historical knowledge that one already has by other means. While knowledge of universals is implicit in historical knowledge, it is never sufficient for historical knowledge, which deals in contingent facts. Scientific theories don’t give us historical knowledge of facts either, though they might come into play when an historian evaluates narratives and putative evidence for their credibility. The same can be said for any other theoretical or narrative framework that one might apply to available data or evidence. The general framework as such is blind to factual details.

    • We can safely assume that Fr Iannuzzi does not believe what he believes about Admiral Byrd on the basis of some (putative) evidence which in his mind he gained through one or more of these forms of knowledge (the 8 dot points above).

    • We can safely assume that Iannuzzi does not believe what he believes about Byrd on the basis of some (putative) evidence which he actually gained through one or more of these forms of knowledge (the 8 dot points above).

    • It would be difficult to prove that this list includes every type of natural knowledge that is strictly speaking neither a priori nor a posteriori. However, the list does take into account classical and contemporary theories of knowledge, and it is highly improbable that, our efforts notwithstanding, we’ve missed a type of natural knowledge that wouldn’t turn out to be irrelevant like all the others.

    • With confidence, then, we can move on to supernatural knowledge and praeternatural knowledge.

  • The ordinary sources of supernatural knowledge are sacred Scripture, sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. Sometimes other sources are added to the list: the sacraments, prayer and contemplation, creation viewed sacramentally, and the lives of the Saints. Extraordinary gifts of supernatural knowledge include infused knowledge, inner locutions and other forms of private revelation, mystical insight, and the charismatic gifts of prophecy, discernment and wisdom. Underlying all of this is the supernatural gift of faith. One might add charity here as a source of supernaturally connatural knowledge. (God the Trinity is the primary source of all supernatural gifts.)

  • We can safely assume that Iannuzzi does not believe he was given information about Admiral Byrd’s life and his (supposed) encounter at the North Pole through any of these supernatural means. If he were to claim that he did, I wouldn’t believe him!

  • Praeternatural knowledge is human knowledge that is above the natural powers of man but (unlike supernatural knowledge) not above the created order altogether. This includes:

    • 1. An expansion of the capacities of the human mind through demonic influence

    • 2. Information conveyed during communication (one-way or two-way) with angels, demons, the souls in hell, the souls in purgatory, or the saints in heaven.

      • While the Church acknowledges that certain mystics and saints have received knowledge in some of these ways (e.g. Joseph’s dreams in Matthew 1:20-25, 2:13-15, 2:19-21), one should never attempt to communicate with demons or the souls in hell (exorcisms performed by exorcists might be an exception, under strict conditions), and it is not good practice to seek out special knowledge in any of the other ways either (from angels, from the souls in purgatory, from the saints in heaven).

      • Caution, discernment and submission to Church teaching and authority are always necessary when it comes to received “special revelations”.

      • Actively seeking out visions, locutions and other supernatural experiences is never recommended. See, for example, St John of the Cross, Ascent of Mount Carmel, Chapters 21-22.

    • We can safely assume that Fr Iannuzzi did not gain knowledge or evidence of Byrd’s encounter at the North Pole through any of the means listed under the first and second types of praeternatural knowledge.

    • We can be confident that Iannuzzi does not believe that he did, either.

    • If a priest were to claim, very publically, that through demonic influence, or by communicating with a demon, an angel, or a departed soul, he gained special knowledge of Byrd’s encounter with non-human intelligence at the North Pole, that would be enough, potentially, to ruin his credibility and reputation as a priest. At the very least he would be required by his superior to seek mental help.

    • 3. Sometimes “praeternatural” is understood in a third way, in reference to special assistance from God given to natural human powers for a specific purpose in accordance with God’s Will, where that assistance does not, in itself, elevate the human power in a supernatural way, properly speaking. Christians are not the only ones who receive praeternatural assistance. The Magi understood the signs in the heavens and found their way to the child Jesus in this way. Praeternatural assistance from God is often mediated by his angels and saints [this means there is some overlap with the second category of praeternatural knowledge]. Angels and saints influence our actions in hidden but positive ways—more so when we ask for their assistance or dedicate something to their patronage. God might give a political leader, or a team of doctors, or a married couple (to mention just three examples) special guidance and assistance for His own hidden purposes and in response to prayer. The recipients need not be aware of this assistance; in my view, they usually are not. I’ve already pointed out that the recipient of such assistance need not be Christian. As a matter of fact, he or she might not even be a morally good person. God is able to focus the mind and steady the hand of a brain surgeon (qua surgeon) in response to someone else’s prayer, regardless of the evil that might have taken root in the surgeon (qua man). Finally, it’s plausible that intellectual and artistic genius might be the effect of God’s praeternatural assistance—in this case a permanent gift rather than occasional assistance.

    • Praeternatural knowledge in the third sense does not represent a distinct category of human knowledge; it merely qualifies natural human knowledge. If the Holy Spirit (acting through an angel perhaps) subtly directs the course of someone’s thought or gives his mind a greater facility, so that he arrives at an important insight (or so that he does so more quickly), that person still has to go through a natural reasoning process in order to arrive at the conclusion. He does not have the insight without doing cognitive work.

    • To repeat, praeternatural knowledge in the third sense is not an independent source of knowledge in addition to the natural ones. So even if Fr Iannuzzi was praeternaturally assisted (third sense) in his research, this is irrelevant to our discussion.

  • This ends our exploration of the different types of human knowledge. Indirect a posteriori knowledge is the only type of human knowledge that was not excluded. This mode of knowledge alone can be plausibly applied to Iannuzzi’s beliefs about Byrd’s encounter. It follows that there are no plausible exceptions to T8. The significance of this result is explored below.

No discussion of empirical evidence is complete without a photo of someone looking down a microscope.

TYPES OF EVIDENCE

Let’s rehearse our argument from the beginning.

  • If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then he must have a reason for believing that Byrd had this encounter.

    • The only possible exception to this (if we limit ourselves to natural causes) is if his reason is severely incapacitated because of (say) mental illness, neurological disease or extreme stress. But there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this is the case. Fr Iannuzzi certainly doesn’t come across as mentally incapacitated in any of the video-recorded interviews I’ve watched so far, and somehow I doubt that Fr Iannuzzi is going to argue with me over this!

  • If Iannuzzi has a reason for believing that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then he must have in mind some X—some account, document or testimony, for example—which he thinks counts as evidence that the encounter occurred.

Therefore

  • If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then he must have in mind some X which he thinks counts as evidence that the encounter occurred.

Now

  • If Iannuzzi has in mind some X which he thinks counts as evidence that the encounter occurred, then (1) he is able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence for the encounter, where (2) his citing X as evidence for the encounter counts as a sincere disclosure of his rational being—i.e., what he believes and the reason(s) he has for believing it.

Therefore

  • If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he is able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence for the encounter, where (2) his citing X as evidence for the encounter counts as a sincere disclosure of his rational being—i.e., what he believes and the reason(s) he has for believing it.

Our task now is to specify what X might be.

  • The only mode of knowledge by which Iannuzzi might know something about Byrd’s encounter at the North Pole, is indirect a posteriori knowledge. Other modes of knowledge such as infused knowledge and demonic influence are theoretically possible for this object (Admiral Byrd’s encounter at the North Pole). But indirect a posteriori knowledge is the only mode of knowledge that is remotely plausible in this case—all other modes of knowledge are in this case either impossible or extremely unlikely.

  • We can safely assume that Iannuzzi himself doesn’t believe what he does about Byrd’s encounter on the basis of an insight or experience which he believes was a special revelation from God, or a direct insight into the historical facts of the case, or any of the other modes of knowledge we excluded above.

  • Now within this one mode of knowledge—indirect a posteriori—the categories of primary evidence that might convince someone that a subject (another person) had an encounter at a particular location include:

    • testimonial evidence from the subject him/herself, or from someone who was with the subject, or from someone who knows/knew the subject personally.

    • documentary evidence (e.g. photographs, videos, official government documents)

    • physical / real evidence (e.g. objects of unknown origin, samples of alleged alien DNA or tissue, artefacts of non-human technology)

    • forensic evidence (e.g. anomalous radiation levels, soil anomalies, inexplicable vegetation damage).

  • In the case of Admiral Byrd, the testimonial evidence would have to be a documented testimony of Byrd himself (in a secret diary, for example), the testimony of someone who was with Byrd at the time, or the testimony of someone who knew Byrd personally.

  • If there were a secret diary, this would be documentary evidence and testimonial evidence.

  • In respect to testimonial, documentary, physical and forensic evidence—and any other type of evidence that belongs in this list (categories of primary evidence within this one mode of knowledge)—one might know (or “know”) the primary evidence

    • directly (first-hand)

    • indirectly (second-hand), relying on secondary publications—(alleged) copies, reports or accounts of (alleged) primary evidence

    • indirectly (third-hand), relying on tertiary publications—publications referring (accurately or not) to one or more secondary publications

    • indirectly (even more distant), relying on the opinion or judgement of someone else who has done (or claims to have done) their own research. I call this vicarious research.

  • What should we call publications which are (a) neither secondary nor tertiary and (b) refer to a tertiary publication? Quarternary publications? What then should we call publications that are even further removed from the primary evidence they indirectly refer to? Let’s group all these together with tertiary publications, calling them higher-order publications.

  • Let these four groups—primary evidence, secondary publications, higher-order publications and vicarious research—be called classes of evidence.* Note that primary evidence (the foundational class of evidence) itself contains (at least) four categories of its own: testimonial, documentary, physical and forensic evidence.

    • *It would be more accurate to call them “classes of indirect a posteriori evidence”.

  • (T9) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he is able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence for the encounter, and (2) his citing X as evidence for the encounter counts as a sincere disclosure of his rational being, where (3) X is one or more items from any of the four classes of evidence (primary evidence, secondary publications, higher-order publications and vicarious research).

  • Note that it is unreasonable to expect any piece of evidence, abstracted from its meaningful context, to have the evidential power to persuade, or even begin to persuade, a rational person of anything. There is no such thing as a piece of evidence whose strength does not rely upon an assumed background of established knowledge. In a legal setting, evaluating evidence requires that we distinguish between

    • established knowledge that needs to be demonstrated in court, such as the scientific consensus in respect to a rare disease,

    • established knowledged that can be presumed (the doctrine of judicial notice “provides that a court may take cognisance of facts which are generally known, without requiring them to be proved”), and

    • the facts in issue.

A simplified version of T9 is:

  • (T10) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he must have in mind some X which he thinks counts as evidence that the encounter occurred, where (2) X is one or more items from any of the four classes of evidence.

    • It’s possible that Iannuzzi is mistaken in thinking that this “evidence” actually supports his claim that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole.

    • It’s possible that Iannuzzi is mistaken in thinking that the primary evidence he has in mind actually exists. He might have relied on non-primary evidence—secondary publications, higher-order publications and/or vicarious research—which presented false claims about primary evidence. Or he might have misinterpreted non-primary evidence. Or he might have a false or confused memory about the evidence he has looked into.

    • It’s possible that Iannuzzi is mistaken in thinking that the non-primary evidence he has in mind actually exists. He might have relied on false or misleading citations given in another publication, or he might have misinterpreted the citations. Or again, he might have a false or confused memory about the evidence he has looked into.

    • What’s not possible (assuming he believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole), is Iannuzzi not having in mind some X which in his mind counts as evidence for his belief.

    • At least, such a thing is impossible assuming

      • (A) that Iannuzzi is not having a moment of insanity

      • (B) that he does not have clairvoyant insight into Byrd’s movements at the North Pole, nor insight into these movements via any of the other modes of knowledge that we excluded above.

Four Scenarios

Now that we have established T9 and T10, there are four scenarios to consider in respect to the “evidence” that Fr Iannuzzi must have in mind if he truly believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter. Either the “evidence” that Iannuzzi has in mind is the “Secret Diary” or it is not. If it is the “Secret Diary”, then either he has a good understanding of the contents of this document (first scenario) or he does not (second scenario). If it is not the “Secret Diary”, then either this “other evidence” exists (third scenario) or it does not (fourth scenario). The four scenarios are mutually exclusive and exhaustive (if they were not exhaustive, the argument below wouldn’t be valid).

Here is a sneak-preview of the conclusion of this section:

[I]f Fr Iannuzzi has in mind some X which he takes as evidence that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter, then one of these four scenarios is true. But it is highly unlikely that any of the four scenarios is true. Therefore it is highly unlikely that Fr Iannuzzi has in mind some X which he takes as evidence that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter.

In the following we do consider the possibility of Iannuzzi relying on what I have called “vicarious research”. In this section “evidence” refers to primary evidence, a secondary publication, or a higher-order publication.

  • First Scenario. Suppose the “evidence” that Iannuzzi has in mind is the “Secret Diary” and that he has a good understanding of the contents of this document. In this case, Iannuzzi believes the following:

    • (a) an alleged report of an extraordinary encounter taking place in Hollow Earth counts as evidence supporting Iannuzzi’s “more reasonable” belief in a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter and

    • (b) a document whose main thesis (that the Earth is hollow) is risibly false is nonetheless a piece of evidence supporting Iannuzzi’s “more reasonable” belief.

  • If Iannuzzi honestly believes (a) and (b), then he hasn’t got the faintest clue what he is talking about; he lacks the intellectual competence to speak on these matters and be taken seriously.

  • However, it is difficult to believe that someone of Fr Iannuzzi’s stature would be stupid enough to believe (a) and (b). So the first scenario is highly unlikely.

  • Second Scenario. Suppose instead that the “evidence” that Iannuzzi has in mind is the “Secret Diary” and that Iannuzzi is mistaken about the contents of the document. In this case the connection that Iannuzzi makes between the (imagined) contents of the document, and his own belief, might be quite reasonable—it is just that he has a false concept or memory of the document.

  • In this case too, Iannuzzi doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about—intellectual disorganisation and/or incompetent research have led him to believe, and then publically affirm, that Byrd saw something extraordinary at the North Pole.

  • This is slightly more likely, perhaps, than the first scenario. Still, it is very unlikely that the fantastic contents of the “Secret Diary”, including its very loud affirmation of hollow Earth theory, would have slipped from Iannuzzi’s mind despite his interest in the topic and his willingness to bring the case of Byrd into his argument explicitly—and this before a worldwide audience of many thousands.

    • The video of the interview from September 2023 has 20k views (as of November 14 2025) and the channel currently has 17.1k subscribers.

  • Nor is it likely that Iannuzzi got a false impression of the “Secret Diary” by quickly reading a blurb of one of the books in which the “Diary” is published. For the blurbs and other summaries all mention Byrd’s descent into hollow Earth (see my previous post for images). Of course they do, for this is essentially what the “Secret Diary” is all about!

  • It’s theoretically possible that Iannuzzi depended entirely on someone else’s (Dr Michael James’s?) poor research or inaccurate description of the “Secret Diary”, honestly believed it was a reliable description, and did not check out the document for himself. This, of course, would count as incompetent research. But how likely is this? Consider the following situations (these are all hypothetical possibilities within the second scenario):

    • (1) Someone—either Fr Iannuzzi or a research assistant—looks into Admiral Byrd’s alleged encounter at the North Pole and somehow doesn’t notice the only relevant document in circulation, the only relevant document mentioned in the alternative literature and YouTube videos concerning Byrd and the North Pole, the only relevant document mentioned in respectable academic literature (in this case as a comic aside, before the author refutes the claim with eyes rolling), namely: the “Secret Diary” in which Byrd discovers hollow Earth, a discovery that is always presented front-and-centre in the narrative; the “Secret Diary” which stands out immediately in a Google search with the terms “Byrd”, “North Pole” and “aliens” (or “UFO” or “encounter”)—one simply cannot miss it. There just isn’t any other “rabbit hole” or alternative path that one might be drawn down instead, if the question on one’s mind is, what did Admiral Byrd encounter at the North Pole? If that is your research question, and you’re interested in aliens and UFOs and all that (as a believer or as a skeptic), then all roads lead immediately into Hollow Earth. So no—this hypothetical possibility is not plausible in the least.

    • (2) An assistant (let’s call him Jack) looks into Admiral Byrd’s alleged encounter at the North Pole and intentionally deceives Fr Iannuzzi about the evidence and narratives surrounding it, and as a result of this Iannuzzi remains in ignorance of the ubiquitous Hollow Earth narrative, believing instead that there is evidence in favour of a “more plausible” encounter at the North Pole, one that doesn’t involve Hollow Earth; though if Iannuzzi had known that the “Secret Diary” is actually about Hollow Earth, he wouldn’t have mentioned Admiral Byrd in his argument.

      • This far-fetched story is highly unlikely.

      • (i) Jack would know that he could be caught out with a very simple fact-check.

      • (ii) What would be his motivation?

      • (iii) Why didn’t Iannuzzi do a very quick fact-check himself (that would be enough) or ask Jack to provide a reference that he (Iannuzzi) could check himself? It is not plausible that Iannuzzi would be so blindly reliant on an assistant.

    • (3) Jack the assistant is supposed to look into Admiral Byrd’s alleged encounter at the North Pole, but he doesn’t do the work; John then deceives Fr Iannuzzi about the research he hasn’t done; as a result of this Iannuzzi remains in ignorance of the ubiquitous Hollow Earth narrative, etc.

      • This too is highly unlikely.

      • Jack would know that he could be caught out with a very simple fact-check.

      • There is no work involved in digging up a couple of facts about the alleged encounter compared to making up a couple of facts about it and then lying about it.

      • See (iii) above.

    • (4) Jack the assistant looks into Admiral Byrd’s alleged encounter at the North Pole and there is a failure in communication; as a result of this, Fr Iannuzzi remains in ignorance of the ubiquitous Hollow Earth narrative, etc.

      • Again this is highly unlikely.

      • It’s hard to see how something as fantastic and absurd as Hollow Earth could get missed in an email or conversation.

      • See (iii) above.

  • In situations (2), (3) and (4), Fr Iannuzzi doesn’t even do 3 minutes of simple fact-checking on the internet for himself, before being interviewed as a Catholic priest and esteemed academic scholar and making a claim about Admiral Byrd before an online audience of tens of thousands, as part of his argument for the existence of (respectable military and government reports of) aliens. And yet (the story goes), if Iannuzzi had only known that the “Secret Diary” is actually about Hollow Earth, he wouldn’t have mentioned Admiral Byrd at all. However plausible you might think this is, it does not put Fr Iannuzzi in a positive light.

  • In respect to the second scenario as a whole, if Iannuzzi was so confident that the “Secret Diary” supports his case (his “more reasonable belief”), and had no inkling that the document presents itself as evidence for a hollow Earth, then why did he not cite the document in support of his argument?

  • If the second scenario is true—and we have determined that this is highly unlikely—then Fr Iannuzzi doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about, and he acts incompetently, irresponsibly and possibly even dishonestly in presenting his so-called “research”.

  • A third scenario to consider is that the “evidence” that Iannuzzi has in mind is not the “Secret Diary” and this “other evidence” exists. The latter would have to be an extremely obscure piece of (putative) evidence. For it is neither included nor cited in the academically respectable literature on Admiral Byrd, and my extensive research into the “alternative” literature could not uncover it. If Fr Iannuzzi and his interviewer Dr Michael James want to claim, and have us believe, that this third scenario is what actually happened, the onus is on them to produce this mysterious “other evidence”. And why wasn’t this special evidence cited or produced in the first place?

    • This scenario is highly unlikely, for the reasons just given.

  • A fourth scenario is that is that the “evidence” that Iannuzzi has in mind is not the “Secret Diary” and this “other evidence” does not exist. In this case, Iannuzzi doesn’t know what he is talking about. (Unless the “other evidence” used to exist when Iannuzzi came across it, but no longer exists. Theoretically possible, but who would believe it?)

    • It is difficult to believe that Fr Iannuzzi would be so irrational, or so intellectually disorganised, that he honestly believes that a certain piece of (putative) evidence exists, even though it never did. In this case too, one wonders why Iannuzzi didn’t cite the “evidence” whose existence and validity he was so sure about. This scenario is just as unlikely as the first and third scenarios.

  • In summary: it is more than reasonable to conclude, on the basis of what we know, that each of these four scenarios is highly unlikely, with the second scenario being the least unlikely.

  • To repeat, if Fr Iannuzzi has in mind some X (from the four classes of evidence) which he takes as evidence that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter, then one of these four scenarios is true. But it is highly unlikely that any of these four scenarios is true. Therefore it is highly unlikely that Fr Iannuzzi has in mind some X which he takes to be evidence that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter.

Conclusion

Recall T10:

(T10) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he must have in mind some X which he thinks counts as evidence that the encounter occurred, where (2) X is one or more items from any of the four classes of evidence.

It is appropriate now to specify the encounter as a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter:

(T11) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he has in mind some X which he thinks counts as evidence that this Encounter occurred, where (2) X is one or more items from any of the four classes of evidence.

Now suppose that

(T12) Iannuzzi does not have in mind (as evidence that a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter occurred) any item from any of the four classes of evidence.

If that’s the case, then the consequent in T11 (the part in italics) is false. From this it follows that the antecedent in T11 (the underlined part) is also false (the logical rule applied here is called modus tollens). Therefore:

(T13) If T12 is true, then Iannuzzi does not genuinely believe that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter at or very near the North Pole.

Now it is highly likely that T12 is true. We know this from the conclusion of the previous section (i.e., it is highly unlikely that Fr Iannuzzi has in mind some X which he takes as evidence that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter). Therefore, from T13:

It is highly likely that Iannuzzi does not genuinely believe that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter at or very near the North Pole.

*

Let’s zoom out now. There are exactly three possibilities to consider when it comes to the question of what Iannuzzi actually believes:

  • (1) Iannuzzi believes in hollow Earth, that Byrd had an extraordinary encounter in hollow Earth, and that Byrd did not want this encounter revealed until after his death.

  • (2) Iannuzzi does not believe in hollow Earth; he believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter at or very near the North Pole and that and Byrd did not want this encounter revealed until after his death.

  • (3) Iannuzzi does not believe in hollow Earth; nor does he believe that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole.

The conclusion of Part One of this study was that (1) is highly unlikely. The conclusion at which we arrived in the previous section is that (2) is highly unlikely. From this perspective it is only rational to conclude that (3) is the most likely to be true.

The minor conclusion of the section above called “Under what conditions would Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd be a sincere statement?” was as follows:

If Iannuzzi doesn’t believe in hollow Earth, then his Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) might be sincere—but only if he believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow Earth Encounter.

This proposition (in bold) outlines a necessary condition for Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd being sincere (when taken as a concrete utterance).

If we accept that option (3) is the most likely to be true and that options (1) and (2) are highly unlikely, it follows from the minor conclusion (in bold above) that it is highly unlikely that Iannuzzi was being sincere when he made his Statement about Byrd. To see the latter in context, see again the part in bold from this quote (from Video 1):

Now at the time in ‘77 the pope was still Archbishop of Krakow but he dedicated Bruno Sammaciccia’s book to the Catholic Church. He was visited by extraterrestrials and he wrote all about this but he did not want this to be revealed until after his death. [27:51] Much like Admiral Byrd. He [Byrd] also did not want until his death for his experience to be revealed of what he saw in the North Pole when he went there. But Bruno Sammaciccia again is a reputable individual, he's an academic, he published over a hundred books, he was a distinguished figure in academic circles. Basically in 1956 a group of ETS appeared to him according to his memoirs and they were good, and they shared to him things about how to be better in the world, improve the society in which we live and things like that.

[Watch from here until 28:32 to listen to the entire quote, or from here to listen just to the part in bold (from 27:51).]

*

Is there any rational way to get around the conclusion that Iannuzzi was being deceptive here? Indeed there is. Plausibility and probability aside, here are the options.

  • (A) Fr Iannuzzi believes in Hollow Earth.

  • (B) Fr Iannuzzi believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter but he has no reason whatsoever for believing this—he doesn’t have in mind any (putative) evidence that might support his belief.

  • (C) Fr Iannuzzi believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter and he believes this on the basis of

    • (i) the “Secret Diary”, and he has a good understanding of the contents of the latter.

    • (ii) the “Secret Diary”, and is quite mistaken about the contents of the latter.

    • (iii) some other published document, article or book (not the “Secret Diary”), and this putative evidence actually exists (it need not be objectively plausible).

    • (iv) some other published document, article or book (not the “Secret Diary”), and this putative evidence does not exist (Iannuzzi has a false memory, or his research is very poorly organised).

    • (v) someone else having told him that there is plausible evidence for the Encounter, and he didn’t do a simple fact-check.

    • (vi) a misunderstanding of something he read or something somebody said, and he didn’t do a simple fact-check.

    • (vii) (what he takes to be) an a priori demonstration.

    • (viii) a delusion—that he was there with Admiral Byrd when the Encounter happened.

    • (ix) (what he takes to be) infused knowledge or some other form of direct insight into Byrd’s movements at the North Pole.

    • (x) (what he claims is) knowledge gained by communicating with an angel, demon, or departed soul.

    • (xi) Scripture, Tradition or Magisterium, or some other supernatural source of knowledge.

    • (xii) occult knowledge or practices.

If I were Fr Iannuzzi’s PR assistant, and had to answer some difficult questions, I would certainly avoid inserting (A) or (B) into the narrative. They imply wild irrationality, if not a moment of insanity. [Option (A) also implies deception—why did Fr Iannuzzi withhold his belief in Hollow Earth, and the nature of the document on which he (secretly) bases his claim about Byrd?] For the same reason I’d definitely avoid options (vii) to (xi). For obvious reasons I’d steer way clear of (xii). This leaves the options written in blue.

I would avoid options (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi), because these entail that Iannuzzi doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about—that his “research” in this area is so incompetent it is embarrassing; this would be virtually impossible to recover from. It would be foolhardy to take seriously any of the other “research” of somebody who was this incompetent. This leaves options (i) and (iii).

What about option (i)? If this is true, then (as I said above) Fr Iannuzzi believes that

(a) an alleged report of an extraordinary encounter taking place in Hollow Earth counts as evidence supporting Iannuzzi’s “more reasonable” belief in a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter and

(b) a document whose main thesis (that the Earth is hollow) is risibly false is nonetheless a piece of evidence supporting Iannuzzi’s “more reasonable” belief.

Would I go with this narrative, as a PR assistant? To be honest, this doesn’t look any better, in the end. The objective implication is the same—that Iannuzzi doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, and his “research” is so incompetent it’s embarrassing.

This leaves option (iii), which is underlined. This is the only possible scenario or “narrative” in which Fr Iannuzzi is able to save face, it would seem. Unfortunately, and as I’ve explained already, it is highly unlikely to be true. Until this “other evidence” is produced, it is more than reasonable to assume it doesn’t exist. (If it exists, why doesn’t it turn up anywhere in an extensive search? And why didn’t Iannuzzi cite it in the first place?).

*

If my argument is sound—and I’m open to being corrected on this score—then Fr Iannuzzi has put himself in a position that is unenviable, to say the least. In this particular case in which Fr Iannuzzi presented his “research” authoritatively before an audience of tens of thousands, it very much appears that he has acted incompetently and/or deceptively. I cannot see any way around this conclusion—though again, I’m happy to be corrected.

A Christian does not take pleasure in pointing out something of this nature. We need to be on guard against the vice of “vengeance” (Msgr Charles Pope has a good article on this topic). There is no need to claim high moral ground. But for the sake of Iannuzzi’s viewers and “followers”—especially those who are more vulnerable, less educated, or otherwise unable to get past Fr Iannuzzi’s “authority” to see through his rhetorical strategies—the truth has to be exposed (see my first post for more on this topic).

As far as I can see, there are four potentially face-saving strategies that someone in his position might adopt.

  • (1) He might produce the “other evidence”, assuming he has it. It is highly unlikely that this new “evidence” for Admiral Byrd’s encounter would be credible before a panel of world experts. But there’s no need to impose such a high standard here. The withheld “evidence” would merely have to be sufficiently credible and respectable that Iannuzzi is able to avoid the appearance of being deceptive, wildly irrational and/or grossly incompetent.

    • I am willing to present Iannuzzi’s “new evidence” on this site if it is ever produced and brought to my attention (contact details can be found in the “Contact” section up top).

  • (2) He might find and expose an error in my argument. For example, he might introduce new information or give more context, which my argument did not take into account. He might dispute one or more of the “facts” that my argument relies upon. Or he might point out a logical error.

    • I am willing to publish and engage with any response made in good faith (contact details can be found in the “Contact” section up top).

  • (3) He might admit his mistake publically, admitting that he made an error and acted incompetently and/or dishonestly.

  • (4) He might attempt to steer people’s attention away from the inconvenient facts.

    • One approach is to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

    • Another is to “muddy the waters”, engaging with the argument only in a superficial way (not in good faith)—e.g. distracting the audience with finicky disputes which are ultimately irrelevant.

    • He might go on the attack, poisoning the well or using ad hominem for example.

    • He might flex his credentials, his expertise or his clerical status.

    • He might try to minimise the significance of the facts. “I only mentioned Admiral Byrd twice. My argument doesn’t depend solely on that particular claim. I gave so many other pieces of evidence—did you even consider the other evidence? You can’t dismiss all of it.” “This is one small mistake. Everyone makes mistakes.” “You’re making far too much of this.”

    • He might “double down”, simply re-asserting his view with more force.

I am not saying that Fr Iannuzzi is the sort of person who would be willing to engage in any of the “dirty” tactics listed under (4). I am simply mapping out the hypothetical possibilities.

*

What, then, is my final conclusion in respect to Fr Iannuzzi’s comments about Admiral Byrd (pasted again here for easy reference)?

From Video 1 (premiered September 29, 2023):

Now at the time in ‘77 the pope was still Archbishop of Krakow but he dedicated Bruno Sammaciccia’s book to the Catholic Church. He [Sammaciccia] was visited by extraterrestrials and he wrote all about this but he did not want this to be revealed until after his death. [27:51] Much like Admiral Byrd. He [Byrd] also did not want until his death for his experience to be revealed of what he saw in the North Pole when he went there.

From Video 3 (premiered December 27, 2023):

[22:20] So to summarize these three parts of this theme of the Christian faith and the possibility of extraterrestrial life throughout the cosmos. In Part One we addressed the scientific and anthropological data as well as the declassified military and eyewitness reports supporting extraterrestrial life on other planets and its interaction with humans and even governments here on Earth. [22:52] The naval officer Admiral Richard Byrd, the Canadian minister of National Defence Paul Hellyer, Lieutenant Colonel Philip Corso, Sergeant Clifford Stone, a devout Catholic, another devout Catholic Charles Hall who is a nuclear physicist and US military worker. Also Monsignor Carrado Balducci [23:15].

Have I proven that Fr Iannuzzi was being deceptive when he made his statement about Admiral Byrd? No, I have not. But unless there’s some crucial flaw in my argument, what I have shown is three-fold:

(1) It is entirely reasonable, and not at all uncharitable, for someone to come to that conclusion after (i) consulting the facts and (ii) carefully and impartially thinking things through.

(2) If Fr Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd is not deceptive, then it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Iannuzzi doesn’t have the faintest clue what he is talking about, and that his “research” (in this case at least) is so incompetent and irrational in nature that it is embarrassing. We come to this particular conclusion on the assumption that Iannuzzi

  • (a) does not have in mind some existing “other evidence” on the basis of which he believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter

  • (b) is neither insane nor has occasional moments of insanity when doing his research and/or presenting his results

  • (d) does not believe he has direct insight into the historical life of Byrd by infused knowledge or praeternatural means.

(3) Apart from public admission of his mistake, the only scenario under which Fr Iannuzzi might be able to “save face” (in an honest way) is if he produces the elusive “other evidence”.

Final Comments

Respectful comments are welcome either through this website (there are two methods: the “Contact” page or the comments section) or by email directly: brendan.philosophy [at] gmail.com

If you’d like to support my work — a lot of work has gone into this project, and I mean a lot— you might

  • share this article

  • write to me

  • subscribe and/or

  • pray for me, for my family and for this work.

At this stage I have not set up the right platform(s) for donations. If you’d like to do that in the future (for the price of a coffee, for example), you might express your interest/pledge through email or the Contact page.

I’d be very grateful for any form of support.

God bless you

Dr Brendan Triffett

Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

Did Father Iannuzzi just indicate his belief in hollow Earth theory? An extended research article.

Fr Iannuzzi does not elaborate further on the case of Admiral Byrd in the entire YouTube series (“Vatican and Aliens”). What is Iannuzzi referring to when he mentions “what he [Byrd] saw in the North Pole when he went there”? Clearly Iannuzzi means that Byrd saw something extraordinary. He is drawing a parallel between the respective experiences of Sammaciccia and Byrd. And he is drawing attention to the fact that neither of them wanted to go public with their respective experiences in their lifetime. In order to determine what Iannuzzi is referring to (“what he saw in the North Pole when he went there”), then, we’ll have to

  • look at the documents and narratives — the academically respectable ones and the fringe / conspiracy theory ones — concerning Byrd and his flight to the North Pole

  • find in this material a document or narrative according to which (1) Byrd sees something extraordinary in the North Pole during his flight there and (2) Byrd does not want to go public with this experience in his lifetime.

The cover of one of the books published in fringe circles about a “secret diary” of Admiral Byrd. In this book it is claimed that Byrd flew through an opening in the North Pole into a great undiscovered land inside the Earth, where an alien race of giant beings resides.

The Real Diary of Admiral Byrd

In 1996 a diary—a real diary, one that people can see and touch—of Admiral Richard Byrd’s 1926 flight to the North pole was discovered “in a box assumed to contain only artifacts” (Goerler, “Archives in Controversy”, p. 310). In the diary there was new evidence relevant to a long-standing controvery: was Byrd the first person to fly a plane to the North pole, as he claimed? Certain contemporaries of Byrd, and later historians, had disputed that claim. The facts of the discovery are discussed in Raimund E. Goerler, “Archives in Controversy: The Press, the Documentaries and the Byrd Archives” in The American Archivist, 62(2), 1999, p. 307-324. (Click here to download a pdf of the article for free.)

A very good introduction to the life and acheivements of Richard Byrd can be read here.

Before we continue, who is Raimund Goerler? He was University Archivist at The Ohio State University (OSU) from 1978 to 2010. He edited To the Pole: The Diary and Notebook of Richard E. Byrd, 1925-1927, Ohio State University Press (1998). OSU press has made the entire book available online here for non-commerical use. Details about Goerler can be found here, here and here.

From the abstract of the article:

The diary provided new evidence, and the news of its existence and meaning fueled stories that reached every part of the globe. Interest in Byrd also inspired producers of three documentaries. The archivist [Goerler] who dealt with producers and reporters discusses the media coverage, the challenges of working with reporters and producers … and the impact of the publicity on an archival program (p. 307).

Goeler ends his article with these reflections (my emphasis):

Finally, amidst the impact that media attention can have on an archival program, there is room for comedy as well as controversy. When newspapers reported that the archives was looking for a publisher of the diary, three publishers not associated with OSU [Ohio State University] responded. One asked if the diary was of Byrd's journey into the center of the earth through the poles. According to The Hollow Earth by Raymond Bernard Byrd discovered an opening to the interior of the earth at the North Pole in 1947 and another at the South Pole in 1956. Bernard, who cited Flying Saucer Magazine repeatedly as a source of information, claimed that Byrd found evidence of another world, a place of lush vegetation and warm temperatures, inside the earth. Fearing global competition in a rush for the new land, the government of the United States forbade Byrd to talk about or publish his discoveries. Despite the alleged cover-up, a Hollow Earth Society, an organization of like-minded believers, has used the World Wide Web to advertise books and videos purporting to show Byrd's discovery and to prove that aliens from another planet, or perhaps the descendants of the lost continent of Atlantis, live in the inner earth. While researchers have occasionally asked for documentation from Byrd's papers about his discovery of the hollow earth, nothing has been found. So far, none of the queries have been from producers of documentaries or docudramas (pp. 323-24).

The pseudo-scientific work cited by Goerler is Raymond Bernard, The Hollow Earth: The Greatest Geographical Discovery in History (Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1969), 29-57. You can consult the work online here. You just need to sign up for a free account.

Bernard, The Hollow Earth, 78-79.

Fr Iannuzzi on Admiral Byrd

In Video 1 of the “Vatican and Aliens” YouTube video series, Iannuzzi claims

  • that Admiral Byrd saw something “in the North Pole when he went there”

  • that Byrd did not want this experience to be revealed until after his death

  • that this is similar to how Bruno Sammaciccia did not want his experience of being visited by extraterrestrials to come to light until after his death.

Video 1: 26:52 - 28:32

Watch from here until 28:32 to listen to the entire quote below, or from here to listen just to the part I’ve put in bold (from 27:51).

Bruno Sammaciccia, he was a theologian, a lay Theologian who participated with Paul VI, it was in 1977 … the national Eucharistic Congress in Pescara, Italy and he put out a book, Bruno Sammaciccia, a theologian, in 1977 entitled Le Miracle Eucharistique De Lanciano which in English is The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano in Italian it was published his native language in ‘73 and then in ‘77 the translation in French to which Saint Pope John Paul II appended his dedication. Now at the time in ‘77 the pope was still Archbishop of Krakow but he dedicated Bruno Sammaciccia’s book to the Catholic Church. He was visited by extraterrestrials and he wrote all about this but he did not want this to be revealed until after his death. [27:51] Much like Admiral Byrd. He [Byrd] also did not want until his death for his experience to be revealed of what he saw in the North Pole when he went there. But Bruno Sammaciccia again is a reputable individual, he's an academic, he published over a hundred books, he was a distinguished figure in academic circles. Basically in 1956 a group of ETS appeared to him according to his memoirs and they were good, and they shared to him things about how to be better in the world, improve the society in which we live and things like that. But on the flip side as I mentioned you have the bad ones and that in my opinion refers to that one third that fell with Lucifer. [28:32]

A photograph of Admiral Byrd shown in Video 1 of the “Vatican and Aliens” YouTube series featuring Fr Joseph Iannuzzi, who is interviewed by Dr Michael James. Time stamp: 27:53.

A later photograph of Admiral Byrd shown in the same video at 28:00.

Iannuzzi does not elaborate further on the case of Admiral Byrd in the entire YouTube series (“Vatican and Aliens”). What is Iannuzzi referring to when he mentions “what he [Byrd] saw in the North Pole when he went there”? Clearly Iannuzzi means that Byrd saw something extraordinary. He is drawing a parallel between the respective experiences of Sammaciccia and Byrd. And he is drawing attention to the fact that neither of them wanted to go public with their respective experiences in their lifetime. In order to determine what Iannuzzi is referring to (“what he saw in the North Pole when he went there”), then, we’ll have to

  • look at the documents and narratives — the academically respectable ones and the fringe / conspiracy theory ones — concerning Byrd and his flight to the North Pole

  • find in this material a document or narrative according to which (1) Byrd sees something extraordinary in the North Pole during his flight there and (2) Byrd does not want to go public with this experience in his lifetime.

Now according to the public record (as opposed to conspiracy theories) Byrd flew over the North Pole — or very close to it if you believe the skeptics — just once, in 1926. (The controversy over who was the first to fly over the North Pole is discussed in Raimund E. Goerler (1999), “Richard E. Byrd and the North Pole flight of 1926: fact, fiction as fact, and interpretation”, 1998 IAMSLIC Conference Proeedings, 363-376.) Byrd’s other expeditions were:

  • His 1927 Trans-Atlantic flight

  • Three Antarctic expeditions in 1928-30, 1933-34 and 1939-40

    • This includes his 1929 flight (Nov 28-29) over the South Pole. ChatGPT: “Byrd's most notable flight over the South Pole occurred on November 29, 1929, during his first Antarctic expedition (1928–1930). He and his crew flew a Ford Trimotor aircraft named the Floyd Bennett and became the first to successfully fly over the geographic South Pole. This historic flight solidified Byrd's reputation as a leading polar explorer.”

  • Operation Highjump to Antarctica (1946-47). Byrd was (nominally) officer in charge. (Hofstra writes: “Although he was named officer in charge, active command flowed through established naval channels.”) More on this operation below.

    • This includes his non-triumphant second flight over the South Pole. Hofstra in the same essay writes, “From late 1946 to early 1947, four thousand men and a small fleet of ships and planes mapped more than fifteen hundred miles of coastline. Byrd joined a flight to the South Pole and navigated with his old sun compass, but it was just a gesture.”

  • Operation Deep Freeze I to Antarctica (1955-56), in which Antarctic bases were established in three locations, along with a permanent US military presence. This was Byrd’s last expedition to Antarctica. Byrd was (nominally) officer in charge (Hofstra again: “his [Byrd’s] leadership in the huge Antarctic expeditions of the 1940s and 1950s was only nominal …”).

    • His last flight over the South Pole was on January 8, 1956.

See here for further details about Byrd’s expeditions.

Operation Highjump (1946-47)

There are many conspiracy theories circulating concerning this operation. The theories have been debunked multiple times. See, for example, Michael Heiser’s article, and Summerhayes and Beeching’s 2007 article, “Hitler’s Antarctic base: the myth and the reality” in Polar Record 43(224): 1-21 (freely available here). A certain “Captain Antarctica” writes (on this page):

It was this Expedition [Operation Highjump] which figures heavily in conspiracy theories where it is claimed that Byrd’s flotilla encountered Nazi UFO’s and a pitched battle ensued resulting in the defeat of the American forces. None of it is true but that doesn’t stop the story continuing to do the rounds.

Let’s look at the operation in more detail. From the Wikipedia entry on Byrd:

In 1946, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal appointed Byrd as officer in charge of Antarctic Developments Project. Byrd's fourth Antarctic expedition was code-named Operation Highjump. It was the largest Antarctic expedition to date and was expected to last 6–8 months.

The expedition was supported by a large naval force (designated Task Force 68), commanded by Rear Admiral Richard H. Cruzen. Thirteen US Navy support ships (besides the flagship USS Mount Olympus and the aircraft carrier USS Philippine Sea), six helicopters, six flying boats, two seaplane tenders, and 15 other aircraft were used. The total number of personnel involved was over 4,000.

ChatGPT gives the following as the official objectives of Operation Highjump:

Establishing the Antarctic Research Base “Little America IV”
A key objective was to set up a base of operations in Antarctica to support future scientific research and exploration.

Training Naval Personnel in Cold-Weather Operations
The U.S. Navy sought to test men, ships, and equipment under extreme polar conditions to prepare for potential future military operations in cold climates.

Conducting Aerial Mapping and Exploration
Extensive photographic surveys were planned to map large portions of Antarctica’s uncharted coastline and interior. This was seen as vital for geopolitical knowledge during the early stages of the Cold War.

Testing New Equipment and Military Technology
Operation Highjump provided an opportunity to test ships, aircraft, and survival gear in harsh, icy conditions.

Scientific Studies
The mission conducted research on meteorology, geology, ice conditions, and electromagnetic propagation at high latitudes.

ChatGPT lists the following as “conspiracy theories and speculative purposes”

Confrontation with Nazi Bases
Some theories suggest that Operation Highjump was launched to confront secret Nazi bases in Antarctica, where advanced technology (possibly flying saucers) was allegedly being developed after World War II.

Investigating Hollow Earth or UFO Phenomena
A popular but unsubstantiated theory is that Admiral Byrd’s mission involved the discovery of a hidden realm or advanced civilizations beneath the Earth's surface.

Cold War Geopolitical Objectives
Some believe the operation was an early Cold War maneuver aimed at asserting U.S. dominance over Antarctica in anticipation of strategic conflicts with the Soviet Union.

Operation Highjump is the subject of an Academy Award-winning 1948 documentary called The Secret Land. It can be viewed here. It is quite interesting. The declassified report of Operation Highjump is available here.

Byrd’s 1926 flight to the North Pole

The following passages are taken from the article already cited: Raimund E. Goerler, “Archives in Controversy” (available here).

On May 9, 1926, Richard Byrd and copilot Floyd Bennett flew a tri-motor airplane, the Josephine Ford, from Spitzbergen, Norway to the North Pole, and returned in fifteen-and-a-half hours. They claimed to be the first to have reached the North Pole since Commander Robert Peary and Dr. Frederick Cook in separate expeditions claimed to have done so by dog sled in 1909. Three days later, on May 12, 1926, an international expedition headed by Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen, financed by American Lincoln Ellsworth, and piloted by Italian Colonel Umberto Nobile, flew an airship, the Norge, over the North Pole. For Byrd, the flight to the North Pole launched a thirty-one-year career as a public hero, prominent aviator, and polar explorer. A Congressional Medal of Honor, promotion in rank in the U.S. Navy even though he was retired, and lucrative lecture tours followed in quick succession. A year after his North Pole adventure, Byrd became the third person to achieve a successful transatlantic flight, following Charles Lindbergh … In 1928 Byrd's personal fame enabled him to raise enough money from private donors and companies to lead the largest expedition to Antarctica. So prominent a hero was Byrd that parents named children after him; even Byrd's dog, Igloo, who had accompanied him on the expeditions to the North and South Poles, was a celebrity and the subject of a biography. (308)

The skeptics

Byrd also had his skeptics. Soon after Byrd's flight over the North Pole in 1926, supporters of Amundsen's flight questioned Byrd's achievement. Despite the international acclaim for Byrd, some publicly doubted that the plane could have reached the Pole as quickly as it did. They suspected that Byrd had turned back before the Pole, possibly because of an oil leak in one engine. Byrd himself acknowledged the oil leak, but claimed that it happened very near the North Pole, so close that he and Floyd Bennett continued the flight. After Byrd's death in 1957, books and articles appeared that formally challenged the success of Byrd's polar flight. One of these publications claimed that Byrd's pilot had confessed privately that the accomplishment had been a fraud and that they had only flown out of the sight of reporters, and then circled long enough to have claimed to have reached the North Pole. (309)

Byrd never responded to the doubters during his lifetime, and after his death family members did not permit access to his papers. In 1985 Ohio State University acquired Byrd's papers—some 1.5 million items. Although Byrd was not a graduate of Ohio State University, the family knew of its prominence in polar research and wished to have the explorer's papers there. Between 1993 and 1994 a federal grant made possible the arrangement, description, and cataloging of the collection. (310)

The Diary turns up

In the process of making Byrd's papers available, artifacts—such as clothing and equipment from expeditions—received relatively little attention in the haste to meet the deadlines of the grant. The goal was to catalog and describe the vast quantity of correspondence, photographs, and expeditionary records. As luck would have it, Byrd's notebook and diary of the 1926 flight turned up early in 1996 in a box assumed to contain only artifacts. Labeled "1925," the book does begin with remarks about the year 1925 and an expedition to Greenland. In addition, the diary includes a log of Byrd's transatlantic flight of 1927, as well as daily entries of his expedition to the North Pole in 1926. For the most part, the diary and notebook are in chronological disarray. Apparently Byrd purchased a diary in 1925, recorded some pages, and then frugally used the remaining pages pre-marked "1925" to record events in 1926 and 1927. In the diary, Byrd's flight to the North Pole in May 1926 comes before an expedition to Greenland that took place in July 1925. (310)

Byrd wrote several pages while actually on the plane to the North Pole and scribbled messages on blank pages to communicate with his pilot as the roaring engines deafened the two men. Periodically, navigator Byrd communicated to pilot Bennett that the plane was heading off course. At one point Byrd informed Bennett, "We should be at the North Pole now. Make a circle . . ." Several pages also contained navigational calculations, a few of which showed signs of erasure. These would prove to be highly controversial. (310)

Controversy and media attention

So important was Byrd's diary as evidence in a historical controversy that publication and distribution seemed appropriate, even compelling. In April 1996, however, the Ohio State University Press declined publication. The acting director of the press doubted that there would be widespread interest in Byrd and feared that sales of the diary would be disappointing. At the same time, Dennis Rawlins, another important figure in the developing controversy, visited the campus to attend a conference. Rawlins, the editor of Dio, a journal of historical astronomy, had previously published his skepticism of Byrd's (and of Robert Peary's) accomplishment of reaching the North Pole and his navigational abilities in a book, Peary at the Pole: Fact or Fiction. So little did Rawlins think of Byrd as a navigator and explorer that he claimed that Byrd's sole instrument of navigation during his flight to the South Pole in 1929 was a bottle of cognac. (310-312)

At the invitation of the OSU archivist, Rawlins examined the newly found diary and used his expertise to evaluate the navigational calculations and erasures. Rawlins confirmed that the diary was an extraordinary document. In a sixteen page, single-spaced report … Rawlins compared the erasures in the diary against the data that Byrd had submitted in his official reports to the U.S. Navy and to the National Geographic Society and concluded that Byrd had falsified data in his official report. Rawlins praised the archives for making the diary available and even complimented Byrd's courage and navigational ability. Nevertheless, Rawlins concluded that the erased navigational calculations proved that Byrd had lied about reaching the North Pole. (312-313)

…

Truthfully said, no one expected the scope and scale of attention that the story about Byrd's diary would bring. In the late evening of May 8, the Associated Press called the OSU archivist at home to ask for comments about the stories that were to appear in the New York Times and the Washington Post the next morning. On May 9, the media arrived in full force and National Public Radio aired its broadcast on Morning Edition. CBS Evening News called to request a telephone and videotaped interview after the press conference. At the press conference, some twenty-five reporters asked questions about Byrd, the archives, the discovery of the diary, and its significance. Many took photographs of the diary and of the archivist holding it cautiously with white cotton gloves. Also in the room were photographs of Byrd, books about Byrd, and a model of one of Byrd's airplanes. That evening stories about the diary appeared on CBS Evening News, CNN, NBC, and even Brazilian National Television. At the end of the day, a radio talk-show broadcast from Washington, D.C. featured the diary and the archives. For the following two weeks, reporters called with questions and for telephone interviews. Eventually the news that had been orchestrated sounded around the world, in newspapers not only in the United States but in Europe—notably in Norway and in Italy—and as far away as Australia. One week later, the archivist conducted a telephone interview about Byrd's diary with the BBC and had scheduled a television appearance on CNN. (313-14)

Publication of the Diary

One indisputable accomplishment was the publication of Byrd's diary as To the Pole: The Diary and Notebook of Richard E. Byrd, 1925-1927, one of the principal goals of the original effort to draw the attention of the media … By September 1996, the new director of the Ohio State University Press reversed the press's initial decision not to publish the diary, and encouraged the archivist [Goerler] to edit it for publication. Published in 1998, the book contains the diary, cites documents in Byrd's papers concerning the North Pole flight and provides an epilog of his career in Antarctica and a chronology of his entire life. (322)

Nowhere in the 1998 book To the Pole, edited by Raimund E. Goerler, nowhere in Goerler’s two 1999 articles (“Archives in Controversy” and “Richard E. Byrd and the North Pole flight of 1926”) and nowhere in Hofstra’s biographical essay, is there any mention of:

  • a different expedition of Admiral Byrd to the North Pole—i.e., not the 1926 expedition

  • an existing different diary written by Byrd—a “secret” diary, not the diary discovered in 1996

  • an encounter that Byrd did not want disclosed in his lifetime

  • Byrd’s discovering a “hole” in the North Pole or his entry into “hollow Earth”, or

  • an encounter with a non-human race of intelligent beings, or with advanced technology of non-human origin.

Recall what Goerler wrote at the end of his article (my emphasis):

Despite the alleged cover-up, a Hollow Earth Society, an organization of like-minded believers, has used the World Wide Web to advertise books and videos purporting to show Byrd's discovery and to prove that aliens from another planet, or perhaps the descendants of the lost continent of Atlantis, live in the inner earth. While researchers have occasionally asked for documentation from Byrd's papers about his discovery of the hollow earth, nothing has been found. (324)

Christian Haag, writing for Logically Facts in 2023, came to the same conclusion (there is no evidence of a secret diary or documentation of Byrd’s supposed discovery of hollow Earth) in his fact-checking report:

Several videos refer to the "lost and secret diaries of Admiral E. Byrd" passed to his son as the source of their theories. A new diary was uncovered in 1996, dating from 1926, and disputed Byrd's claim of being the first person to reach the North Pole. However, the videos circulating on social media refer to different diaries, which are widely available. These include "The missing diary of Admiral Richard E. Byrd" by Timothy Green Beckley, "The secret lost diary of Admiral Richard E. Byrd and the Phantom of the Poles" by Timothy Green Beckley et al., and "Admiral Richard Byrds missing Diary: A flight to the land beyond the North Pole into the Hollow Earth" by Geoff Douglas. Each of these books contains identical prints of the diary. 

However, the three books do not cite any actual first-hand sources or claim that they have seen any original diaries. Logically Facts has found no evidence that Byrd passed down a secret diary to his son. Logically Facts contacted the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center about the diary, and it responded that they “receive questions about the hollow earth every year, and that there are no records to support these claims in their archive.” As such, there is no credible evidence that Admiral Byrd encountered a new civilization.

Our search continues

Recall our objective: to find a document or narrative according to which (1) Byrd sees something extraordinary in the North Pole during his flight there and (2) Byrd does not want to go public with this experience in his lifetime. Clearly we are not going to find anything of this sort in the academically respectable literature. When Iannuzzi mentions “what he [Byrd] saw in the North Pole when he went there” he must be referring to something he read or watched in the weird and wonderful world of pseudo-science and conspiracy theory. As I explained earlier, there are many conspiracy theories surrounding Operation Highjump. But Operation Highjump took place in Antarctica and had nothing to do with the North Pole. So we must narrow our search to fringe / conspiracy literature about Byrd’s expedition (or a supposed expedition) to the North Pole.

Now the only fringe / conspiracy theory concerning Admiral Byrd and the North Pole that comes up in an extensive search on Google — supplemented with a few searching prompts to ChatGPT — is this one ubiquitous theory about the secret diary of Admiral Byrd and his journey to hollow Earth. The same theory is repeated almost ad nauseam in various media: books, blog entries, forum discussions, YouTube videos and so forth. In one variation of the theory, Byrd flew into hollow Earth at the South Pole. In another variation, Byrd flew into hollow Earth at both poles. Sometimes the narrative about a “secret diary” and “inner Earth” is combined with other elements, such as the claim that the Nazis had set up a base at the South Pole, or that Byrd discovered spacecraft which the Nazis had reversed engineered from alien technology. Christian Haag points out that elements of the Operation Highjump cluster of conspiracy theories re-appear in the Secret Diary / Inner Earth theory:

The text contains several allusions to the supposed Operation Highjump. Byrd encounters disc-shaped aircraft called "Flugelrad" with swastikas on them. He meets aliens who speak with a "Nordic or Germanic accent." They are described as "tall with blonde hair" and end the encounter with "auf wiedersen [sic]" thus connecting the aliens and their technology with the Nazis.

Predecessors to the “Secret Diary”

Three other influences on the “Secret Diary” myth are worth mentioning. First there is F. Amadeo Giannini, Worlds Beyond the Poles: Physical Continuity of the Universe (1959). Consult the text online here (see pp. 17, 30-32 including illustrations, 42). In this very strange book Giannini claims that

  • the Earth is part of an infinite and continuous plane in which all things in the universe are joined without any intervening space—there is no such a thing as a physically discrete planet (a finite sphere).

  • there are unexplored lands beyond the North and South Poles; these connecting lands are all part of the one “super-terrestrial continuum”

  • the appearance of physically discrete spheres (planets, stars, asteroids, etc) separated by space is an illusion.

Says Giannini:

In February, 1947, a United States Navy Arctic expeditionary force, under the command of Rear Admiral Richard Evelyn Byrd, achieved a memorable seven-hour flight over land extending beyond the northern geographic “center" or mathematically prescribed northern “end” of the Earth. That flight confirmed that there is no northern physical end to the Earth … The northern Physical Continuity of the Earth with celestial areas of the Universe also has its counterpart in the land now known to extend beyond the South Pole … We may move, as Rear Admiral Byrd moved, beyond the North Pole and out of physical bounds of this Earth, on the same physical level as this Earth … Except for the vast ice barriers at the Arctic and Antarctic regions … we might even walk (p. 42).

Image of Giannini, Worlds Beyond the Poles, p. 42.

Giannini takes the historical fact of Operation Highjump, which took place in Antarctica and officially ended in February 1947, and combines it imaginatively with some details from Byrd’s 1926 flight to the North Pole. Giannini’s claim that the U.S. Airforce flew “beyond” the South Pole on January 13, 1956 and into lands further out in the same physical continuum (p. 17), is a creative improvisation on the historical fact of Operation Deepfreeze I (1955-56). Recall the fact that Byrd was officer in charge for both operations / expeditions, at least nominally.

February 1947 fact check: There is no way to reconcile (1) Giannini’s claim that Byrd was flying over the North Pole at some point in February 1947, with the support of a U.S. Navy “expeditionary force” with (2) the verifiable fact of Byrd’s occupation with Operation Highjump until late February 1947 before journeying back to the U.S.. February 1947 was when navy ships and personell (4,700 men!) were recalled due to weather conditions. Byrd arrived in Washington in early April 1947, having been onboard Mount Olympus, the expedition’s command ship.* On top of that, there would be a public record of a U.S. Naval expedition to the North Pole in February 1947, if one actually occurred. Nor can Navy ships travel from the U.S. to the Arctic Circle without their movement at sea—or their absence from where they were docked—being noticed! Giannini made up the whole story of this 1947 flight to the North Pole, using a couple of historical facts for inspiration.

*See the declassified documents of Operation Highjump here (for example pp. 273-275 and 292-303 of the pdf) and Lisle Rose (1980), Assault on Eternity: Richard E. Byrd and the Exploration of Antarctica, 1946-47, pp. 241-242 (text available here).

The biographical essay by Warren R. Hofstra gives us further evidence that Byrd did not make a secret journey to the North Pole in 1947:

The Byrd Arctic Expedition steamed out of New York harbor on 5 April 1926, accompanied by innumerable small craft, tugs, and fireboats sounding every horn or siren at their disposal. As was characteristic of all Byrd's future efforts, this one was conducted in the full glare of public attention whipped to a frenzy by months of carefully cultivated newspaper coverage. Byrd had entered what historians have called the Ballyhoo Years as one of its prime stars. This was a time in which America was swept by fads from baseball to mah-jongg. Culture heroes assumed proportions larger than life. Their every move was followed by millions of Americans; their achievements marked by huge national celebrations, of which the epitome was the ticker-tape parade down Broadway in New York City. Driving this development was an emerging mass culture, the cultural counterpart of burgeoning consumerism in a mass-production, mass-consumption economy created by industrialization, capitalism, and national markets. As more and more Americans were drawn into a common set of values, ideals, habits, and aspirations by new media such as radio and movies, those who excelled in any public endeavor and stood above the crowd became objects of intense fascination …

So it was with Byrd. Some in his position, such as Charles Lindbergh, attempted to withdraw from public view. Others, like Babe Ruth and Clara Bow, reveled in it, sometimes spinning out of control into lives of waste and dissipation. Byrd, however, sought to put this new culture and the millions of people it touched to his own uses, relying on his media image as America's lone adventurer and last explorer to generate not only public interest in his exploits but also a market for the sale of that image. In this way he raised the immense funds his work required. All this was in the future, however, as Byrd set out for the North Pole in 1926.

We should also keep in mind the deterioration in Byrd’s health after his carbon monoxide poisoning during his stay at an isolated weather station in Antarctica (Summer of 1933-34). Hofstra in the same essay writes:

The South Pole flight [Nov 1929] was, arguably, the apex of Byrd's career. His second expedition to the Antarctic, 1933-35, was devoted strictly to exploration and science. Lacking any single dramatic venture to fix public attention and financial support on his endeavors, Byrd elected to man an isolated weather station by himself during the long and grueling Antarctic winter … [I]t ended in disaster for Byrd who, poisoned by a poorly vented stove and faulty gasoline-powered generator, had to be rescued by his own men. The blow to his self-esteem and the damage to his health haunted the remainder of his days …

Speaking of the last two decades of Byrd’s life (1937-57) Hofstra adds:

Byrd never again matched his most notable triumphs—he failed to equal the flights over the poles or the Atlantic, his leadership in the huge Antarctic expeditions of the 1940s and 1950s was only nominal, and there were no more ticker-tape parades down Broadway. He may have never fully recovered from damage he did to his health at Advance Base.

*

The second text to consider was already mentioned above: Raymond Bernard, The Hollow Earth: The Greatest Geographical Discovery in History (1969), 29-57. Consult the text online here. Bernard takes the continuous “beyond the poles” imagined by Giannini but folds that continuum back into the globe at the poles. But he takes much of his inspiration from something published by Ray Palmer at the end of 1959 in “Flying Saucers” magazine (itself edited by Palmer). Palmer takes some of the fantastic claims that Giannini makes about Byrd’s expeditions in his (Giannini’s) 1959 book Worlds Beyond the Poles and adjusts them to fit the hollow Earth theory. Palmer (and then Bernard) also take a number of (putative) quotes from Byrd and dramatically stretch their significance to support the hollow Earth theory. Some of these “sayings” of Byrd cannot be verified as authentic in the first place. The putative quotations include:

  • “The present expedition has opened up a new vast land” (Bernard, 29)

    • Quote cannot be verified

  • The south polar expedition is “the most important expedition in the history of the world” (29-30)

    • Quote cannot be verified

    • Brinsley Le Poer Trench in Secret of the Ages: UFOs Inside the Earth (1976) follows suit in reading far too much into this statement (p. 103) and the next two as well (pp. 105, 101).

  • Antarctica is “that enchanted continent in the sky, land of everlasting mystery” (Bernard, 27)

    • Admittedly, expansive poetic expressions such as this are present in Byrd’s recollections of Antarctica, especially in his autobiography.

    • See also Trench, p. 105

  • “I’d like to see the land beyond the Pole. That area beyond the Pole is the center of the Great Unknown” (Bernard, 31)

    • Byrd may have said this in a radio interview before setting south in Operation Highjump, but this cannot be verified today.

    • See also Trench, p. 101

Quotation fact check: Even if Byrd is the author of each of these sayings, there is no indication that he was thereby suggesting anything like a hollow Earth theory! The sayings lend themselves readily to “scientifically respectable” readings (which is not to deny the aesthetic / spiritual depth of some of the expressions); the far-fetched interpretations imposed by conspiracy theorists are completely unwarranted and completely unnecessary.

Palmer incorporated into his tale the claim that Byrd and his flight-companion reported by radio that they descended into a great valley at the North Pole, and that he was astounded to see forests and rivers (where he was expecting to see only ice) hemmed in by mountain ranges, and even a great beast that looked like a mammoth (Bernard, 28-29). Bernard makes it clear that he believes Palmer’s story (24-25); he refers to this deep valley as the “polar depression” or “polar concavity” (31) that leads into hollow Earth and is one of the two outer openings of hollow Earth.

All of this story-telling becomes the imaginative foundation for Palmer’s claim that hollow Earth is very likely to be the place from which flying saucers originate (29, 41).

Speaking in his own voice now, Bernard claims that two massive discoveries occurred early in 1947: Lt Commander David Bunger discovered a warm land “beyond” the South Pole, and Admiral Byrd discovered a warm land “beyond” the North Pole (43). But we know that Byrd could not have been anywhere near the North Pole in early 1947 — see the “February 1947 fact check” above.

A third potential influence on the “Secret Diary” is Brinsely Le Poer Trench (1976) Secret of the Ages: UFOs From Inside the Earth, 100-105 (already cited above; book is available here). Trench wonders whether Byrd flew over both poles in 1929 and over both poles in 1947 (103). “Did the Admiral fly several times some way into the interior of the Earth? I am sure that he did just that!” (105). There is no reference to the “Secret Diary” in this book, so I’m confident that the hoax appeared some time after this book’s publication, which was in 1976.

A few other books that speak of hollow Earth prior to the publication of the “Secret Diary”, sometimes in connection with Byrd, are listed in Trench, pp. 13-14.

Hollow Earth fact check (ChatGPT):

The idea that the Earth is hollow is a scientifically debunked hypothesis. Here are seven reasons we know the Earth is not hollow:

1. Seismic Wave Studies

Seismic waves from earthquakes travel through the Earth at speeds and in patterns that confirm it is composed of layers: crust, mantle, outer core, and inner core.

Seismic waves behave differently depending on the material they pass through. For example:

P-waves (primary waves) travel through solids, liquids, and gases but slow down in the liquid outer core.

S-waves (secondary waves) do not travel through liquids, confirming the presence of a liquid outer core.

2. Earth’s Gravity

The Earth’s measured gravitational field corresponds to a solid body with a dense core. If the Earth were hollow, its gravity would be much weaker and inconsistent with what we observe.

Calculations of Earth's mass and density (from its size and gravitational pull) match the solid Earth model.

The Earth’s magnetic field is generated by the dynamo effect—the motion of molten iron and nickel in the liquid outer core.

A hollow Earth wouldn’t support the complex convection currents required for this magnetic field to exist.

3. Evidence from Volcanism

Volcanic activity is driven by molten rock (magma) from the Earth’s mantle and core.

A hollow Earth would lack the solid and molten materials needed to create volcanoes and related tectonic activity.

4. Direct Observations from Drilling

The deepest hole ever drilled, the Kola Superdeep Borehole in Russia, reached 12.3 kilometers (7.6 miles) deep and encountered high temperatures and pressure consistent with a solid interior.

While this is a fraction of the Earth's diameter, it matches predictions for a layered, solid structure.

5. Satellite Observations

Satellites measure the Earth’s shape (an oblate spheroid) and its gravitational field with precision. These observations are consistent with a solid, layered Earth.

The Earth’s response to tidal forces and rotational dynamics also aligns with a solid structure.

6. Astronomical Evidence

Other planets and moons in our solar system, studied through gravitational and seismic data, show similar solid or layered structures.

There is no evidence of hollow celestial bodies, and the physics of planet formation (accretion) naturally leads to dense, solid interiors.

———

In conclusion, the combined evidence from geology, physics, and astronomy overwhelmingly supports the model of a solid Earth with distinct layers. The hollow Earth theory is inconsistent with all available scientific data

Now in the “preparatory” texts we looked at above, there is no mention of any “secret diary” that one might refer to in support of the fantastic story. Bernard’s book was published in 1969, Trench’s in 1976. At some point in the late 1970s or 1980s (it is hard to say), Byrd’s “secret diary” conveniently appears so as to corroborate the details of the story in Bernard’s book, complete with Nazi UFOs and Aryan racial references to boot. The fantastic story comes first; a document is then produced to match the story. The “diary” gets circulated; it becomes a common trope and reference point in fringe / conspiracy theory circles.*

*Different fringe / conspiracy theory circles have their different theoretical “soups”, as it were. Elaborating on this metaphor: As soon as a tasty-looking new ingredient is discovered, it is promptly added to a communal soup. The new ingredient is now part of their soup, an essential ingredient in their recipe. Other groups might then copy the first group, taking the same ingredient and adding to their respective soups. Note also that adding something to a soup is quick and easy, but removing an ingredient is difficult.

Scientists and historians unanimously rejected (and still reject) the “secret diary” as a hoax. In this case the hoax is a very bad one—it is not even credible at first glance. And yet, people get drawn into communities in which obviously fake documents such as these are uncritically accepted as true. I see this as a dysfunctional manifestation of God-given spiritual needs: the need to believe in something, and the need to belong to some community of faith. To put things simply: it is false religion combined with curiositas.

There is a serious side to all this, then. On that note, I tend to agree with the following judgement, which appears in the Haag article already cited:

Steven Tucker, who has written two books debunking the ideas about Nazi UFOs, writes "if you can believe that Adolf Hitler built spaceships, then the idea that Auschwitz never existed seems fairly reasonable by comparison." As such, beliefs in these kinds of theories could also lend themselves to holocaust denial and other harmful historical revisionist claims.

The “Secret Diary”: Publications

There is no official version of this “Secret Diary” but various documents containing the text can be found online — here and here, for example. There are a few published books which, as far as I can tell, present the very same text of the “secret diary” (recall what Christian Haag wrote in 2023 about the three texts he checked all being the same).

  • The Missing Diary of Admiral Richard E. Byrd (1990, 2013)

    • Timothy Green Beckely and Tim R. Schwartz. See the image at the very top of this article.

    • “A secret expedition and journey to a paradise inside the earth.”

  • The Secret Lost Diary of Admiral Richard E. Buard and the Phantom of the Poles (2012)

    • Timothy Green Beckley, William Reed, Commander X, Tim R Schwartz

    • This book cover goes nicely with the opening theme of Star Wars.

    • "Includes proof that there is a vast, uncharted, civilization exists [sic] inside the planet."

  • Admiral Richard E. Byrd's Missing Diary: A Flight to the Land Beyond the North Pole into the Hollow Earth (2017)

    • complied by Geoff Douglas 2017, otherwise known as “Previously lecturer Geoff Douglas” (I kid you not) on amazon.com.au

    • From the blurb: “In the winter of 1947, Admiral Richard E. Byrd allegedly flew a secret mission across the frozen waters of the arctic. There, he claimed to have seen a previously unknown land with forests and even prehistoric animals. Even more incredible, he encountered flying discs from a technologically advanced civilization hidden deep within the hollow Earth. This incredible adventure is revealed in Byrd's diary which had been missing for many years. Had it been sealed away by the U.S. government in fear of the haunting message given to Byrd by the inhabitants of the hollow Earth? Or is the truth even more shocking?”

  • Tim R. Swartz (2007) Admiral Byrd's Secret Journey Beyond the Poles

    • (Otherwise known as “Attack of the Giant Pineapple Rings and Hard-Boiled Eggs” and “It’s in Comic Sans but I swear it’s true!” — I’m kidding.)

    • “Discover a Hidden World Inside the Earth! Land Without a Horizon. Secrets of the Hollow Earth.”

  • William Kern (2018) Admiral Byrd's Lost Secret Diary Rediscovered

    • Surely this one has the best aesthetic. I’m loving the Indiana Jones vibe.

    • “The Secret Diary - Mystery of the Hollow Earth - Admiral Byrd and Operation Highjump - Operation Highjump - The Mysteries of the Poles”

  • The North Pole and Inner Earth Chronicles (2023)

    • compiled by Sebastian Richard.

    • two made-up stories in one convenient volume!

    • The Smoky God: A Voyage to the Inner World and The Secret Diary of Admiral Richard E. Byrd.

    • “unabridged original accounts”.

  • Secret Exploits of Admiral Richard E Byrd: The Hollow Earth? Nazi Occultism? Secret Societies and the JFK Assassination (2017)

    • By Tim E Cridland, Tim R Swartz, Micah Hanks and others.

The text of the “Secret Diary”

The text to follow (in two sections) is the entirety of Byrd’s so-called “Secret Diary”. It makes for an entertaining read! Bold text is my emphasis. Text in blue contain references to German nationality, Aryan mythology or Nazi ideology.

I must write this diary in secrecy and obscurity. It concerns my Arctic flight of the nineteenth day of February in the year of Nineteen and Forty Seven.

There comes a time when the rationality of men must fade into insignificance and one must accept the inevitability of the Truth!

I am not at liberty to disclose the following documentation at this writing ... perhaps it shall never see the light of public scrutiny, but I must do my duty and record here for all to read one day.

In a world of greed and exploitation of certain of mankind can no longer suppress that which is truth.

FLIGHT LOG - BASE CAMP ARCTIC February 19, 1947

0600 Hours- All preparations are complete for our flight north ward and we are airborne with full fuel tanks at 0610 Hours

0620 Hours- fuel mixture on starboard engine seems too rich, adjustment made and Pratt Whittneys are running smooth

0730 Hours- Radio Check with base camp. All is well and radio reception is normal

0740 Hours- Note slight oil leak in starboard engine, oil pressure indicator seems normal, however.

0800 Hours- Slight turbulence noted from easterly direction at altitude of 2321 feet, correction to 1700 feet, no further turbulence, but tail wind increases, slight adjustment in throttle controls, aircraft performing very well now

0815 Hours- Radio Check with base camp, situation normal.

0830 Hours- Turbulence encountered again, increase altitude to 2900 feet, smooth flight conditions again

0910 Hours- Vast Ice and snow below, note coloration of yellowish nature, and disperse in a linear pattern. Altering course for a better examination of this color pattern below, note reddish or purple color also. Circle this area two full turns and return to assigned compass heading. Position check made again to base camp, and relay information concerning colorations in the Ice and snow below

0910 Hours- Both Magnetic and Gyro compasses beginning to gyrate and wobble, we are unable to hold our heading by instrumentation. Take bearing with Sun compass, yet all seems well. The controls are seemingly slow to respond and have sluggish quality, but there is no indication of Icing!

0915 Hours- In the distance is what appears to be mountains.

0949 Hours- 29 minutes elapsed flight time from the first sighting of the mountains, it is no illusion. They are mountains and consisting of a small range that I have never seen before!

0955 Hours- Altitude change to 2950 feet, encountering strong turbulence again.

1000 Hours- We are crossing over the small mountain range and still proceeding northward as best as can be ascertained. Beyond the mountain range is what appears to be a valley with a small river or stream running through the center portion. There should be no green valley below! Something is definitely wrong and abnormal here! We should be over Ice and Snow! To the portside are great forests growing on the mountain slopes. Our navigation Instruments are still spinning, the gyroscope is oscillating.

1005 Hours- I alter altitude to 1400 feet and execute a sharp left turn to better examine the valley below. It is green with either moss or a type of tight knit grass. The Light here seems different. I cannot see the Sun anymore. We make another left turn and we spot what seems to be a large animal of some kind below us. It appears to be an elephant! NO!!! It looks more like a mammoth! This is incredible! Yet, there it is! Decrease altitude to 1000 feet and take binoculars to better examine the animal. It is confirmed - it is definitely a mammoth-like animal! Report this to base camp

1030 Hours- Encountering more rolling green hills now. The external temperature indicator reads 74 degrees Fahrenheit! Continuing on our heading now. Navigation instruments seem normal now. I am puzzled over their actions. Attempt to contact base camp. Radio is not functioning!

1130 Hours- Countryside below is more level and normal (if I may use that word). Ahead we spot what seems to be a city!!!! This is impossible! Aircraft seems light and oddly buoyant. The controls refuse to respond!! My GOD!!! Off our port and starboard wings are a strange type of aircraft. They are closing rapidly alongside! They are disc-shaped and have a radiant quality to them. They are close enough now to see the markings on them. It is a type of Swastika!!! This is fantastic. Where are we! What has happened. I tug at the controls again. They will not respond!!!! We are caught in an invisible vice grip of some type!

1135 Hours- Our radio crackles and a voice comes through in English with what perhaps is a slight Nordic or Germanic accent! The message is: 'Welcome, Admiral, to our domain. We shall land you in exactly seven minutes! Relax, Admiral, you are in good hands.' I note the engines of our plane have stopped running! The aircraft is under some strange control and is now turning itself. The controls are useless.

1140 Hours- Another radio message received. We begin the landing process now, and in moments the plane shudders slightly, and begins a descent as though caught in some great unseen elevator! The downward motion is negligible, and we touchdown with only a slight jolt!

1145 Hours- I am making a hasty last entry in the flight log. Several men are approaching on foot toward our aircraft. They are tall with blond hair. In the distance is a large shimmering city pulsating with rainbow hues of color. I do not know what is going to happen now, but I see no signs of weapons on those approaching. I hear now a voice ordering me by name to open the cargo door. I comply.

END LOG

The “diary” continues on, but I insert here my commentary.

Fact check based on sun position on February 19

From approximately September 23 to March 21, the North Pole experiences continuous night. On February 19, the day of the year marked for the alleged flight log, you need to be south of approximately 78.5° N to see the sun from sea level. This latitude —which is about 1280 km south of the North pole — is called the latitude of polar night; it marks the boundary where the sun would be visible on the horizon at some point on that date (Feb 19, 1947). Further south, daylight becomes longer, while the North Pole itself remains in continuous darkness until about March 21. ChatGPT did the calculation for me; the result is confirmed by looking at the appropriate sunrise/sunset charts at timeanddate.com/sun.

Axel Heiberg Island is listed as 79.75 degrees north of the equator (just over one degree north of the latitude of polar night on that date (78.5° N)). As you can see, on February 19th, 1947, the sun did not rise at this location (at sea level).

Longyearbyen is listed as 78.2 degrees north of the equator (just over one degree south of the latitude of polar night on that date (78.5° N)). As you can see, on February 19th, 1947, daylength was about 3 hours 25 minutes at this location (at sea level).

ChatGPT tells me that “For most practical purposes, the latitude of polar night on a specific date can be considered effectively constant over a century. The minor shifts of a few kilometers due to orbital mechanics are primarily of scientific interest rather than having noticeable real-world effects.” But just to be sure, I looked at the values for this day of the year (February 19) in 1947.

What about altitude? ChatGPT tells me that “At an altitude of 2,900 feet, you would experience polar night further north by approximately 0.5° (or about 55 km / 34 miles) compared to sea level.”

Now 78.5° N, the latitude of polar night at sea level, is 1,280 km south of the North Pole. The shifted latitude of polar night (taking into account an altitude of 2,900 feet) would be about 55 km further north, which is 1,225 km south of the North Pole.

What this means is that a truthful and accurate report of a northward flight to the North Pole on February 19th, 1947, will not have the sun visible to the pilot when the plane is at an altitude of 2,900 feet or lower — unless the plane is at least 1,225 km south of the North Pole when the sun is visible to the pilot (it might have to be a little bit further south again if it is too early in the day, but we will ignore that).

How much further north would the sun be visible if we allow a higher altitude? Let’s allow a very generous 40,000 feet (though the highest reported altitude in the “Secret Diary” is 2,950 feet).

ChatGPT tells me:

Theoretically, the Lockheed P-80, with a service ceiling of 46,000 feet, could have been among the highest-flying planes capable of reaching the North Pole in 1947. However, this was a military aircraft, not typically used for polar exploration. Civilian and exploration aircraft like the Douglas DC-4 or B-29 Superfortress would have been more common for such missions, with practical altitude limits of 30,000 feet or less.

…

The latitude of polar night at sea level is 78.5°N on February 19. At 40,000 feet, polar night shifts north by 1.24°.

This gives us a latitude of polar night of 79.74 degrees N. Let’s round this up to 80 degrees N, which is 1,113 km south of the North Pole, taking us only 112 km further north compared to when the altitude was set at 2,900 feet. As you can see, adding a generous 37,100 feet to the reported altitude will only take us about 112 km closer to the North Pole.

With these more generous constraints in place, we come to this conclusion:

A truthful and accurate report of a northward flight to the North Pole on February 19th, 1947, will not have the sun visible to the pilot — unless the plane is at least 1,113 km south of the North Pole at the time when the sun is visible to the pilot.

Now at 0910 hours in the report it says that bearings were taken from a sun compass, which of course requires the sun to be visible in the sky.*

*ChatGPT on the sun compass:

The sun compass was a simple instrument with a rotating disk marked with the cardinal directions. The user would align the instrument with the sun, and based on the sun’s angle and time of day, they could estimate direction and sometimes their latitude (especially near the equinox when the sun’s position is more predictable).

At the North Pole, the sun would circle the horizon, making this method especially useful when determining true directions relative to the poles.

So at this point they must have been at least 1,113 km south of the North Pole. 50 minutes later, at 1000 hours, they cross over a mountain range and see a valley below which is supposed to be the entrance into hollow Earth. The Sun has not yet disappeared from view—not until 1005 does that occur—and they are still taking their bearings from the Sun in order to proceed north, so again, they must be at least 1,113 km south of the North Pole.

The orange dotted circle is the Arctic Circle (≈ 66.5° N) which is 2,615 km south of the North Pole. 80 degrees N or 1,113 km south of the North Pole is indicated with the red circle, which I added to an original image from https://www.swoop-arctic.com/travel/map. For context, that latitude runs through Salm Island, one of the southern islands in Franz Josef Land. In 1926 Richard Byrd took off in a Fokker trimotor airplane for the North Pole from Ny-Ålesund, which is about 100 km NW from Longyearbyen in Svalbard. The latitude of Ny-Ålesund is 78.925 degrees N. That is only 1.075 degrees, or 119.92 km, south of the red circle. Byrd would have crossed that latitude in the first hour of his (roughly) 7 hour 45 minute 1926 flight to the North Pole (his return trip was roughly 15 hours 30 mins long; average speed ≈ 160 km/hr).

Returning to the “Secret Diary”, we have determined that, if the logged report is true, then Byrd’s plane must have descended into a valley and into hollow Earth somewhere along the red circle on the map (80 degrees N), or somewhere further south. We determined this on the basis of the latitude of polar night on February 19, 1947 and the time of the sun sightings reported in the log. This gives us three possibilites.

  1. the logged report is false

  2. Byrd’s plane did not descend into a hole at the North Pole

  3. Byrd’s plane descended into a hole with a radius of at least 1,113 km whose geometric centre (at the surface) is at the North Pole.

ChatGPT tells me that the surface area of the “cap” inside the 80 degrees N latitude line is 3,874,513 square km, assuming the Earth is a perfect sphere. This is about half the area of Australia which is 7,688,287 square km. Obviously, a hole that size could not remain unnoticed, nor could its presence by covered up by the government! If a hole that size exists at the top of the world, then the Arctic Ocean would be draining into it. This is not something that could have been discovered for the first time in 1947. Option (3) is obviously false.

There is no way, then, that Byrd could have flown a plane into a hole at the North Pole at the date and time reported in the “Secret Diary”. This is our third proof (one I constructed myself) that the “Secret Diary” is a hoax. The first proof (see above) starts by demonstrating that hollow Earth theory is false. The second proof (see above) starts by demonstrating that Byrd cannot have been anywhere near the North Pole in February 1947.*

*Based on the information above we can narrow down the possibilities for the latitude of the plane when it (supposedly) took off. I was unable to incorporate this information into a further proof that the “secret diary” is a hoax, but I include it here anyway. At 1000 hours (says the log report) they have been travelling for at least 3 hours 50 minutes (230 minutes). ChatGPT tells me that “The Douglas DC-4 was a widely used long-range propeller-driven aircraft in 1947, well-suited for polar exploration and long-haul flights due to its reliability and range” and that its crusing speed is around 370km/hr, maximum speed around 450 km/hr. Suppose the plane is flying at a relatively slow 350 km/hr (5.83333 km/min); this will eaily take into account any slight departures from travelling due North. Distance travelled = 230 minutes times 5.83333 km/min = 1341.67 km. We determined that the closest to the North Pole they could have been when they descended into the valley is 1113 km south of the North Pole. Add 1341 km to this and we get 2454 km south of the North Pole or 67.95 degrees N. This is roughly the latitude of Kiruna, the northernmost city in Sweden; and just north of Sisimiut in Greenland. If the plane was flying any faster than 350 km/hr on average, then the plane took off somewhere even further south.

The text of the “Secret Diary” (continued)

The “Secret Diary” continues:

From this point I write all the following events here from memory. It defies the imagination and would seem all but madness if it had not happened. The radioman and I are taken from the aircraft and we are received in a most cordial manner. We were then boarded on a small platform-like conveyance with no wheels! It moves us toward the glowing city with great swiftness. As we approach, the city seems to be made of a crystal material. Soon we arrive at a large building that is a type I have never seen before. It appears to be right out of the design board of Frank Lloyd Wright, or perhaps more correctly, out of a Buck Rogers setting!! We are given some type of warm beverage which tasted like nothing I have ever savored before. It is delicious. After about ten minutes, two of our wondrous appearing hosts come to our quarters and announce that I am to accompany them. I have no choice but to comply. I leave my radioman behind and we walk a short distance and enter into what seems to be an elevator.

We descend downward for some moments, the machine stops, and the door lifts silently upward! We then proceed down a long hallway that is lit by a rose-colored light that seems to be emanating from the very walls themselves! One of the beings motions for us to stop before a great door. Over the door is an inscription that I cannot read. The great door slides noiselessly open and I am beckoned to enter. One of my hosts speaks. 'Have no fear, Admiral, you are to have an audience with the Master...' I step inside and my eyes adjust to the beautiful coloration that seems to be filling the room completely. Then I begin to see my surroundings. What greeted my eyes is the most beautiful sight of my entire existence. It is in fact too beautiful and wondrous to describe. It is exquisite and delicate. I do not think there exists a human term that can describe it in any detail with justice! My thoughts are interrupted in a cordial manner by a warm rich voice of melodious quality, 'I bid you welcome to our domain, Admiral.'

I see a man with delicate features and with the etching of years upon his face. He is seated at a long table. He motions me to sit down in one of the chairs. After I am seated, he places his fingertips together and smiles. He speaks softly again, and conveys the following: 'We have let you enter here because you are of noble character and well-known on the Surface World, Admiral.' Surface World, I half-gasp under my breath! 'Yes, ' the Master replies with a smile, 'you are in the domain of the Arianni, the Inner World of the Earth. We shall not long delay your mission, and you will be safely escorted back to the surface and for a distance beyond. But now, Admiral, I shall tell you why you have been summoned here.

Our interest rightly begins just after your race exploded the first atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. It was at that alarming time we sent our flying machines, the "Flugelrads" , to your surface world to investigate what your race had done. That is, of course, past history now, my dear Admiral, but I must continue on. You see, we have never interfered before in your race's wars, and barbarity, but now we must, for you have learned to tamper with a certain power that is not for man, namely, that of atomic energy. Our emissaries have already delivered messages to the powers of your world, and yet they do not heed. Now you have been chosen to be witness here that our world does exist. You see, our Culture and Science is many thousands of years beyond your race, Admiral.' I interrupted, 'But what does this have to do with me, Sir?' The Master's eyes seemed to penetrate deeply into my mind, and after studying me for a few moments he replied, 'Your race has now reached the point of no return, for there are those among you who would destroy your very world rather than relinquish their power as they know it...'

I nodded, and the Master continued, 'In 1945 and afterward, we tried to contact your race, but our efforts were met with hostility, our Flugelrads were fired upon. Yes, even pursued with malice and animosity by your fighter planes. So, now, I say to you, my son, there is a great storm gathering in your world, a black fury that will not spend itself for many years. There will be no answer in your arms, there will be no safety in your science. It may rage on until every flower of your culture is trampled, and all human things are leveled in vast chaos. Your recent war was only a prelude of what is yet to come for your race. We here see it more clearly with each hour…do you say I am mistaken?' 'No, ' I answer, 'it happened once before, the dark ages came and they lasted for more than five hundred years.' 'Yes, my son, ' replied the Master, 'the dark ages that will come now for your race will cover the Earth like a pall, but I believe that some of your race will live through the storm, beyond that, I cannot say. We see at a great distance a new world stirring from the ruins of your race, seeking its lost and legendary treasures, and they will be here, my son, safe in our keeping. When that time arrives, we shall come forward again to help revive your culture and your race. Perhaps, by then, you will have learned the futility of war and its strife...and after that time, certain of your culture and science will be returned for your race to begin anew. You, my son, are to return to the Surface World with this message...' With these closing words, our meeting seemed at an end. I stood for a moment as in a dream....but, yet, I knew this was reality, and for some strange reason I bowed slightly, either out of respect or humility, I do not know which. Suddenly, I was again aware that the two beautiful hosts who had brought me here were again at my side. 'This way, Admiral, ' motioned one. I turned once more before leaving and looked back toward the Master. A gentle smile was etched on his delicate and ancient face. 'Farewell, my son, ' he spoke, then he gestured with a lovely, slender hand a motion of peace and our meeting was truly ended.

Quickly, we walked back through the great door of the Master's chamber and once again entered into the elevator. The door slid silently downward and we were at once going upward. One of my hosts spoke again, 'We must now make haste, Admiral, as the Master desires to delay you no longer on your scheduled timetable and you must return with his message to your race.' I said nothing. All of this was almost beyond belief, and once again my thoughts were interrupted as we stopped. I entered the room and was again with my radioman. He had an anxious expression on his face. As I approached, I said, 'It is all right, Howie, it is all right.' The two beings motioned us toward the awaiting conveyance, we boarded, and soon arrived back at the aircraft. The engines were idling and we boarded immediately. The whole atmosphere seemed charged now with a certain air of urgency. After the cargo door was closed the aircraft was immediately lifted by that unseen force until we reached an altitude of 2700 feet. Two of the aircraft were alongside for some distance guiding us on our return way. I must state here, the airspeed indicator registered no reading, yet we were moving along at a very rapid rate. 215 Hours - A radio message comes through. 'We are leaving you now, Admiral, your controls are free. Auf Wiedersehen!!!!' We watched for a moment as the flugelrads disappeared into the pale blue sky. The aircraft suddenly felt as though caught in a sharp downdraft for a moment. We quickly recovered her control. We do not speak for some time, each man has his thoughts...

ENTRY IN FLIGHT LOG CONTINUES

220 Hours- We are again over vast areas of ice and snow, and approximately 27 minutes from base camp. We radio them, they respond. We report all conditions normal....normal. Base camp expresses relief at our re-established contact.

300 Hours- We land smoothly at base camp. I have a mission...

END LOG ENTRIES

March 11, 1947

I have just attended a staff meeting at the Pentagon. I have stated fully my discovery and the message from the Master.

All is duly recorded. The President has been advised. I am now detained for several hours (six hours, thirtynine minutes, to be exact.) I am interviewed intently by Top Security Forces and a medical team. It was an ordeal!!!! I am placed under strict control via the national security provisions of this United States of America. I am ORDERED TO REMAIN SILENT IN REGARD TO ALL THAT I HAVE LEARNED, ON THE BEHALF OF HUMANITY!!! Incredible! I am reminded that I am a military man and I must obey orders.

December 30, 1956 - FINAL ENTRY

These last few years elapsed since 1947 have not been kind... I now make my final entry in this singular diary. In closing, I must state that I have faithfully kept this matter secret as directed all these years. It has been completely against my values of moral right. Now, I seem to sense the long night coming on and this secret will not die with me, but as all truth shall, it will triumph and so it shall. This can be the only hope for mankind. I have seen the truth and it has quickened my spirit and has set me free! I have done my duty toward the monstrous military industrial complex. Now, the long night begins to approach, but there shall be no end. Just as the long night of the Arctic ends, the brilliant sunshine of Truth shall come again... and those who are of darkness shall fall in its Light... FOR I HAVE SEEN THAT LAND BEYOND THE POLE, THAT CENTER OF THE GREAT UNKNOWN.

Further Observations on the “Secret Diary”

  • Recall Fr Iannuzzi’s claim that Byrd “did not want until his death for his experience to be revealed of what he saw in the North Pole when he went there.” In the “Secret Diary” it is written (1) that Byrd sees something extraordinary in the North Pole during his flight there and (2) that Byrd does not want to go public with this experience in his lifetime (see the last two entries). The “Secret Diary”, then, describes a (supposed) event that clearly matches Iannuzzi’s brief comment on Byrd. But as already explained, there are no other references in the literature — academically respectable or otherwise — of a (supposed) event that matches Iannuzzi’s comment. It is likely, then, that Iannuzzi was referring to the events described in the “Secret Diary”. Given the ubiquity of the latter and the absence of any alternative interpretation that might fit Iannuzzi’s comment, this appears to be the only interpretation possible. We will revisit this point below, however.

  • Even if, hypothetically, Iannuzzi had some other narrative in mind — and it would have to involve some extremely obscure document about Byrd that does not turn up anywhere after extensive research — he certainly cannot expect his audience to come to any other conclusion about his meaning, other than the one we have drawn here. For the “Secret Diary” story is very easy to discover, it is repeated all over the place, it quite obviously matches Iannuzzi’s comment, and Iannuzzi gives no indication whatsoever that he is referring, not to this, but to something else.

  • The last sentence in the “Diary” repeats one of the alleged sayings of Byrd mentioned by Giannini, Palmer and Bernard in 1959 and 1969 (see above).

  • The description of warm land, forests and a mammoth-like beast in a great valley at the North Pole is simply a repetition of the story told by Palmer and Bernard in their respective 1959 publications.

  • The multiple references to Nazi Germany and Aryan mythology repeat a common trope found in conspiracy theories about Operation Highjump.

  • Note too the references to the spiritual “evolution” of alien races and of mankind, and the displacement of Jesus as Saviour and Christian eschatology in favour of a future alien intervention—a time of peaceful co-operation with aliens in which man becomes more enlightened and moves into a New Age. These are common themes in the popular literature on encounters with aliens and UFOs.

  • It is surprising, and rather concerning, that Fr Iannuzzi is effectively steering his audience toward this sort of literature. He does this by

    • (implicitly) presenting some of the books favourably

    • citing the events narrated in them in support of his belief in aliens (most of which are good, in his view, so that communicating with them is no cause of concern—recall his comment about Bruno Sammaciccia in Video 1: 27:51 - 28:32: “Basically in 1956 a group of ETS appeared to him according to his memoirs and they were good, and they shared to him things about how to be better in the world, improve the society in which we live and things like that. But on the flip side as I mentioned you have the bad ones and that in my opinion refers to that one third that fell with Lucifer …”) and

    • without warning his audience of the dangerous views and practices contained in them—e.g., anti-Christian soteriology and eschatology, telepathic communication with spiritual entities, clairvoyance and automatic writing.

  • On top of that, there is the (extreme) conspiracy-theory mindset which Iannuzzi inevitably encourages whenever he engages publically in this style of thinking. (A friend of mine tells me that this way of thinking about the world is historically rooted in anti-Catholicism. I cannot confirm the truth of this claim as yet; I plan to look further into it). This is a dangerous road to go down intellectually, psychologically and spiritually.

  • Byrd could not have been at the Pentagon on March 11, 1947, just as he could not have been anywhere near the North Pole in February 1947. He didn’t return from Operation Highjump until April 1947 (see above).

  • It is unlikely that Byrd would have referred to the “base camp” in generic terms only.

  • It is highly unlikely that Byrd would have failed to write down the co-ordinates of his positions during his flight.

  • It is highly unlikely that Byrd would have written about “the military industrial complex” in 1956. The first known use of the phrase is U.S. President Eisenhower’s farewell speech on January 17, 1961.

  • ChatGPT gives us a few more proofs that the “Secret Diary” is a hoax:

The so-called "Secret Diary" of Admiral Richard E. Byrd, which claims he flew into the Earth's hollow interior and encountered an advanced civilization, is widely regarded as a hoax. Here are several reasons why this document is not credible:

1. Lack of Authenticity

The "diary" is not recognized by any reputable historian, archivist, or institution, including those managing Byrd's official records.

Admiral Byrd’s official diaries and logs from his expeditions, available in public archives, contain no mention of a hollow Earth or any similar claims.

2. No Evidence in Official Records

Byrd's well-documented polar expeditions … were thoroughly recorded. These records confirm the nature of his flights and findings and include no evidence of a "hollow Earth."The "Secret Diary" does not align with his other documented writings or the scientific objectives of his expeditions.

3. Unscientific Claims

The "diary" describes encounters with an advanced civilization inside the Earth … which are entirely unsupported by any physical evidence or scientific principles.

These claims contradict everything we know about Earth's structure, as confirmed by geology, physics, and seismic studies.

4. No Supporting Testimonies

None of Byrd's contemporaries or crew members reported witnessing or participating in events described in the "Secret Diary."

Large-scale polar expeditions involve teams of people, and such extraordinary claims would not have gone unnoticed or uncorroborated.

5. Timing of Publication

The "diary" surfaced decades after Byrd’s death, and there is no evidence he wrote it.

Many hoaxes related to hollow Earth theories gained popularity in the mid-20th century, a period rife with interest in conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

6. Connection to Hollow Earth Mythology

The "diary" closely aligns with the hollow Earth myths popularized by writers such as John Cleves Symmes and Jules Verne, as well as mid-20th-century UFO conspiracy theories.

It appears to be a deliberate fabrication to support these ideas rather than an authentic historical document.

7. No Corroborating Scientific Data

Modern exploration and satellite imaging of the polar regions reveal no physical evidence of entrances to a hollow Earth.

The detailed knowledge we have of Earth's interior structure (via seismic wave analysis and other methods) leaves no room for such a phenomenon.

Conclusion

The "Secret Diary" of Admiral Byrd is widely regarded as a hoax, concocted to promote hollow Earth theories and fringe beliefs. It lacks authenticity, corroboration, and any basis in science or Byrd’s known writings and accomplishments.

  • Finally, we haven’t yet mentioned the extremely hazardous weather conditions that prevail near the North Pole in February. From ChatGPT:

In February, the North Pole experiences some of the harshest winter weather conditions due to its extreme latitude. Here's a breakdown:

1. Temperature

Average temperatures: Between -40°C (-40°F) and -30°C (-22°F).

These freezing temperatures could affect the performance of aircraft engines, fuel systems, and instruments.

2. Darkness

February is still part of the polar night, where the Sun remains below the horizon. While there may be some twilight, it is generally dark 24 hours a day.

Limited visibility could complicate navigation, especially in 1947 when navigation technologies were less advanced than today.

3. Wind and Wind Chill

Strong, frigid Arctic winds are common, leading to wind chill temperatures significantly colder than the air temperature.

Wind shear or turbulence could pose challenges for flight stability.

4. Snow and Ice

Snowstorms and blizzards are frequent, which could result in reduced visibility and hazardous conditions for takeoff, landing, and flight.

Accumulated ice on aircraft wings and propellers can impair aerodynamics.

5. Atmospheric Pressure

Low temperatures lead to dense air and higher atmospheric pressure at ground level, which can slightly improve engine performance in propeller-driven aircraft.

However, the high altitude cold air could cause freezing in fuel lines and instruments, leading to potential malfunctions.

Impact on a Flight in February 1947

Aircraft Limitations:

Planes in 1947 were typically propeller-driven and not as well-equipped for extreme cold as modern jets. Fuel systems, hydraulics, and lubricants could freeze or malfunction.

Cabin heating systems were rudimentary, leading to challenging conditions for the crew and any passengers.

Navigation Challenges:

Magnetic compasses would behave erratically near the magnetic North Pole, complicating navigation.

Navigators would have to rely on celestial navigation, which is challenging in polar darkness.

Visibility: Snowstorms and constant darkness would make visual navigation nearly impossible, increasing reliance on instruments.

Survivability: In the event of an emergency landing, survival would be difficult due to extreme cold and remote location. Rescue efforts would be challenging in such conditions.

Conclusion

Flying near the North Pole in February 1947 would have been an extremely hazardous endeavor. Severe cold, darkness, strong winds, and the limitations of mid-20th-century aviation technology would combine to make such a mission perilous.

  • While ChatGPT sometimes gets things wrong, this is not one of those times (I challenge the reader to prove otherwise!). So whoever thinks that highly decorated Admiral Byrd might have been stupid enough to set off to the North Pole by plane in February 1947 is just plain wrong. Even supposing that Byrd did attempt an absurdly suicidal expedition such as this (not to mention the gross irresponsibility of badly mismanaging funds and hired equipment!) and by some miracle managed to reach his destination and return safely — why do the log entries report a very smooth trip to the North Pole? And why does Byrd not express any surprise at there being such miraculously convenient weather in February? It was for good reason that Byrd set off on his real flight to the North Pole in May of 1926, when conditions are far, far more favourable.

  • There are therefore three reasons why Byrd could not have flown to the North Pole on February 19, 1947, the date specified in the “Secret Diary”:

    • Extremely hazardous weather conditions

    • Polar night

    • Byrd was still occupied with Operation Highjump at this stage (his return journey was on USS Mount Olympus, which arrived home in April 1947).

  • Clearly, whoever claims that Byrd flew to the North Pole in February 1947 is on this point out of touch with reality and hasn’t got the faintest clue what he is talking about. This includes the following people:

    • whoever claims that the log reports in the “Secret Diary” are true

    • whoever thinks that the log reports in the “Secret Diary” might be true. For example, Michael E. Salla, who in his 2004 book, Exopolitics: Political Implications of the Extraterrestrial Presence (see here) writes, “A little known expedition of Admiral Byrd to the North Pole at the same time of Operation High Jump where he supposedly came into contact with an advanced subterranean race with Nordic physical characteristics suggests that the Thule Society had indeed been correct in its assessment of the existence of such a race. Admiral Byrd disclosed the circumstances of this encounter in a posthumously published entry in his diary. … The veracity of Byrd’s dairy continues to be debated, but Byrd’s comments to the Chilean Press suggests he was sufficiently unnerved by events related to his polar expedition(s) in 1946/47 for such an encounter to have occurred” (193). “In a secretive flight to the Arctic Ocean in 1947, Admiral Richard Byrd reported in his diary—whose veracity continues to be debated — of his encounter with an ancient humanoid race in a subterranean city under the North Pole …” (255).

    • All the authors and editors mentioned above who circulate the "Secret Diary": Timothy Green Beckeley, Tim R. Schwarz, William Reed, Geoff Douglas, William Kern, Sebastian Richard, and Tim E. Cridland et. al.

    • Authors of the mentioned “predecessors” of the “Secret Diary”: Giannini, Palmer, Bernard, Trench.

    • Fr Iannuzzi, potentially.

  • The History Channel, which is notorious for presenting conspiracy theories and pseudo-science as factual, published this episode of Ancient Aliens on YouTube 2 years ago (“Crystal City Discovered Under Antarctica”). The narrative has changed from Byrd entering hollow Earth at the North Pole in February 1947, to him entering hollow Earth at the South Pole. It appears that the producers realised that the February 1947 narrative just doesn’t make sense (even they have standards, apparently!). Their “solution” was to erase all the clear references in the “Secret Diary” to travelling north, the North Pole, and the Arctic. In the video, an intriguing narrative based on the other parts of the “Secret Diary” is presented, a narrative now relocated from one end of the Earth to the other (literally). What would motivate them to do such an immoral and cynical thing? Money, possibly?

  • Finally, note the following. Of all of the fringe / conspiracy literature cited so far—the seven books in which the “Secret Diary” is published, the four “predecessors” of the “Secret Diary”, and Salla’s Exopolitics—exactly none of them involves Byrd encountering aliens or UFOs or a non-human race on or above the surface of the North Pole, let alone something of that description that he didn’t want revealed until after his death.

What, then, does Fr Iannuzzi believe?

There are two possibilities to consider. Either Fr Iannuzzi believes in hollow Earth, or he does not.

Belief

  • If it turns out that he does believe it, then in my view we ought to ignore everything that he says that touches on the physical sciences. At the very least, we ought to treat his statements with a very high degree of suspicion, thoroughly fact-checking all his comments for ourselves, and consulting the knowledge of properly-educated science graduates and scientists. Speaking personally, I would even be wary of the theological statements of someone—even a trained theologian—who believes that the Earth is hollow. In my judgement, a belief of that sort (when held by an educated man in today’s world) is often a sign that there is something seriously wrong with a man’s intellectual approach to the world, his way of reasoning about things.

  • I admit that such a man (a believer in hollow Earth) might be morally good, even quite holy. He might be competent and trustworthy in others areas of life. But I’d be reluctant to accept that he might be a good critical thinker or a good teacher. I imagine I’d object if such a man were to become a catechist or school teacher to one of my children.

    • Such a man can be a problem and a blessing simultaneously. Consider a more extreme example. A spiritually abusive bishop might bring many blessings to his diocese, not by virtue of his abusiveness of course, but because good and evil can be mixed together in the same person (admittedly, the evil would have to diminish as higher levels of holiness are reached). Recent history tells us that the mixture in the same priest of good and evil, order and disorder, charity and dyfunction, can be a dangerous mixture. The good that a priest does, and the good reputation that he enjoys (as a strong Catholic culture warrior, for example) so often blind people—unsuspecting victims, the people to whom they disclose their abuse, and the people who ought to be looking out for the vulnerable—to the abuse that he is committing. Now one might assume that the “good” that such a priest did for the flock was all a sham—a way of gaining trust deceptively, gaining power, and feeding one’s pride. This is often the case, I have no doubt. However, the presence of sin and brokenness is often more complicated and double-sided. The same father can be a genuinely good father in some respects, and also an abusive father. The double-sidedness of things is a big part of why it is hard for us to identify and accept that someone close to us is an abuser. In many cases it also makes it difficult for us to separate ourselves psychologically from the abuser and begin to heal. Far easier, I think, to separate from someone psychologically (also physically) if that person never loved us, never blessed us, never did good to us.

    • I should mention here that this is my philosophical opinion and not professional advice. I am neither a trained counsellor nor a trained psychologist (I have a major in Psychology, and relevant personal experience, but that’s it). If you need help, get help from a professional. Or reach out to someone you trust, as a first step.

    • Let the reader understand that, with the above comments, I am not sending a message “between the lines” about Fr Iannuzzi. I was simply reflecting on the mixture of good and evil in the same person, and on recent disclosures of abuse in the Church. I believe I’ve uncovered some true principles here. If and how they might apply to Fr Iannuzzi in particular, is another question. Suffice it to say: we should not dimiss out of hand the possibility that someone is abusing his authority, just because we have benefited a lot from his ministry, or from his work as a teacher, etc. (And just to be clear, being appropriately wary and prudent does not mean adopting an attitude toward others of “guilty until proven innocent”. There is a false dichotomy we need to avoid here.)

  • According to his website, Fr Iannuzzi has a postgraduate degree in Medicine and a Bachelor of Philosophy (Ph.B.). In a more sane world, perhaps, it would be safe to assume that nobody in the developed world with these degrees (not to mention the others) would ever come to believe, or even be inclined to believe, that the Earth is hollow. On the one hand, I find it very hard to believe that Fr Iannuzzi believes it. On the other hand, the whole situation with these interviews is so bizarre at times it’s hard to know what to think. With everything I’ve uncovered so far about Fr Iannuzzi’s claims while fact-checking the “Vatican and Aliens” video series (see my previous posts for some indication), almost nothing surprises me any more.

*

I intend to round off this article with another section entitled “Belief,” followed by a conclusion. But this post is quite long already and the philosophical argument in the next section isn’t short. So I am posting just this first part of the research article now. I will complete my overall argument—and the research article as a whole—in the following post.

Final Comments

Respectful comments are welcome either through this website (there are two methods: the “Contact” page or the comments section) or by email directly: brendan.philosophy [at] gmail.com

If you’d like to support my work — a lot of work has gone into this project, and I mean a lot— you might

  • share this article

  • write to me

  • subscribe and/or

  • pray for me, for my family and for this work.

At this stage I have not set up the right platform(s) for donations. If you’d like to do that in the future (for the price of a coffee, for example), you might express your interest/pledge through email or the Contact page.

I’d be very grateful for any form of support.

God bless you.

Dr Brendan Triffett

Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

On Father Iannuzzi’s bizarre claim that there are fallen aliens.

Late last year I scoured all 36 volumes of Luisa Piccarreta’s Book of Heaven again and found 22 excerpts which demonstrate, beyond all possible doubt, that Luisa’s clear and consistent position is that man is the only fallen intelligent being in the physical universe. More precisely, the excerpts demonstrate that this — the statement in bold — is the clear and consistent position of Jesus as narrated to Luisa over the course of at least 19 years (Volume 12 to Volume 36). In this article I show that Father Joseph Iannuzzi contradicts Luisa when he claims that there are fallen aliens.

aliens falling from heaven and good angels casting them out

An AI-generated image reflecting Fr Iannuzzi’s belief in fallen aliens. A heretical and disturbing image, for sure.

Introduction

Some Catholics believe that aliens exist. Others are inclined to believe it. They may even want to believe it, but concede that the existence of aliens has not been demonstrated. Catholics who are agnostic on the question are at least open to the possibility that God has created other embodied intelligent beings and situated them light years away from us. Rightly or wrongly, these Catholics—alien-believers, alien-agnostics, and everyone in between—do not recognise any fundamental incompatibility between the Catholic faith and belief in aliens, nor between salvation history and the existence of aliens (should they exist).

In my first post I defined exclusivism as "the claim that the Catholic faith understood correctly (including everything we know about God’s revealed will for man and creation) excludes the possibility of ETIs (extraterrestrial intelligences, aliens) existing in our universe. I wrote that there are three possibilities regarding the writings of Luisa Piccarretta and the question of whether ETIs exist:

  1. Luisa’s writings support exclusivism and therefore the view that ETIs do not exist.

  2. Luisa’s writings neither support nor contradict exclusivism.

  3. Luisa’s writings contradict exclusivism and support the view that ETIs exist or might exist.

What does Luisa have to do with anything? you might ask. Let me provide the necessary context by quoting myself extensively (from my first post):

I re-read all 36 volumes of Luisa’s Book of Heaven … along with The Hours of the Passion, The Virgin Mary in the Kingdom of the Divine Will and Luisa’s letters. Finally I re-read Fr [Joseph] Iannuzzi’s dissertation. I looked through all of this material carefully and always in light of my research question: which of the three scenarios is true?

I came to the conclusion that the first scenario is true. Luisa’s writings support exclusivism. In fact, there are several lines of argument beginning from different passages and themes in the writings and converging on the same conclusion.

My contention is (1) that Iannuzzi is wrong to claim that the writings support the (possible) existence of ETIs and (2) that to make such a claim is to place an unnecessary obstacle in the way between the writings and Luisa’s potential readers.

I voiced my concern as follows:

It even appears that Fr Iannuzzi took certain passages of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta out of context, and falsely interpreted a couple of sentences by St Annibale di Francia, in support of his belief in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence … If that is what Iannuzzi has done, then this is a serious matter.

… [I]t is bizarre that Fr Iannuzzi of all people would have gotten things wrong in this area, his area of expertise (the writings and spirituality of Luisa)! And it is both ironic and concerning that the same scholar priest who (rightly) warns about the dangers of taking passages of Luisa’s writing out of context and spreading erroneous interpretations would do precisely that. (Again, these claims of mine are yet to be substantiated. I don’t want anyone to simply take my word for it …)

We are all human [pun not intended!]. In this case, I think, Father got over-excited about the (possible) existence of ETIs. And in his enthusiasm he left behind sound reasoning and sound principles of interpretation. Not to mention pastoral prudence. For (1) he was speaking authoritatively to a wide audience. And (2) he didn’t consider the fact that using (or misusing) passages from Luisa Piccarreta’s writings to support his view that ETIs exist will inevitably create obstacles for people who might otherwise have been open to the writings.

No doubt Fr Iannuzzi’s public speculations have had a number of negative effects, and will continue to do so unless counteracted. I return to this point in the conclusion of the article. For more about Fr Iannuzzi, read my first post.

For this research article I narrowed my focus to the question of whether man is the only fallen intelligent being in the physical universe. I relate the question to the belief-system of Fr Iannuzzi, and compare that belief-system to the writings of Luisa Piccarreta.

The reason for my narrower focus is that demonstrating the difference between Iannuzzi’s claims on this particular point, and Luisa’s own position on the same point, is quite straightforward. By contrast, for the broader question — whether man is the only intelligent being in the physical universe, and how does Iannuzzi’s belief-system compare to the writings of Luisa on his point — there will be more evidence to consider, and more arguments to work through. On top of that, one of the demonstrated conclusions in this article, will become a premise in one of the arguments in a future article. The latter argument will go as follows:

  • If there are no fallen aliens and no unfallen aliens, then there are no aliens.

  • If Luisa’s worldview excludes (i) the notion that there are fallen aliens and (ii) the notion that there are unfallen aliens, then it excludes (iii) the notion that there are aliens.

  • Luisa’s worldview excludes the notion that there are are fallen aliens

  • Luisa’s worldview excludes the notion that there are unfallen aliens.

  • Therefore, Luisa’s worldview excludes the notion that there are aliens.

The underlined premise is a main conclusion of this article.

*

Late last year I scoured all 36 volumes of Luisa Piccarreta’s Book of Heaven again and found 22 excerpts which demonstrate, beyond all possible doubt, that Luisa’s clear and consistent position is that man is the only fallen intelligent being in the physical universe. More precisely, the excerpts demonstrate that this — the statement in bold — is the clear and consistent position of Jesus as narrated to Luisa over the course of at least 19 years (Volume 12 to Volume 36). The excerpts are provided toward the end of this article. The statement in bold can be expressed more precisely as follows:

Thesis A:

Human beings are the only creatures who are both (i) embodied and intelligent by nature (logos) and (ii) inwardly corrupted by sin in respect to their factual condition or circumstance (tropos).

Let EIC stand for embodied intelligent creature. This acronym is used a lot in this article, so try and memorise it now! Following Aquinas we understand “intelligence” as an intellectual power inseparable from freedom, personhood, and spiritual being (chimpanzees do not have intelligence, properly speaking). Thesis A is more simply expressed as the claim that man is the only fallen EIC. The negation of Thesis A is the claim that man is not the only fallen EIC. Thesis A is false if and only if there are fallen non-human EICs.

I differentiate between two categories of non-human EIC.* The first category is the ETI or alien. The second is the “non-human earthling”. By definition, non-human earthlings are non-human EICs that inhabit the terrestrial realm, living on the Earth, in the Earth, or in the surrounding atmosphere. Some examples of (supposed) non-human earthlings are gnomes, fairies, leprechauns, the Nephilim (on certain interpretations) and alien-human hybrids that are said to roam the Earth (in the past, if not also in the present).**

*Our distinction between aliens and non-human earthlings is a purely logical statement. With this distinction we are not making a cosmological statement or an ontological commitment. We are not saying that aliens exist (nor are we denying it) and we are not saying that non-human earthlings exist (nor again are we dening it). Here we remain in the ideal realm—we are concerned only with the inner workings of the mind in relation to (a) its concepts and (b) the realm of intelligible possibilities. We are simply categorising different types of possible entities whose real existence someone may or may not affirm.

**Sometimes the distinction between the two categories is blurred. Many UFO enthusiasts and fringe theorists claim that the Earth is inhabited by one or more races of non-human earthlings that migrated here from outer space.

Now Father Iannuzzi claims that aliens exist and that some of them are fallen. This implies that man is not the only fallen EIC. But to imply that man is not the only fallen EIC is to contradict Thesis A, which states that man is the only fallen EIC.

In the following I demonstrate that

  1. Luisa Piccarretta’s clear and consistent position throughout the Book of Heaven is that man is the only fallen EIC (as per Thesis A)

  2. Fr Iannuzzi’s position is that aliens exist and that some of them are fallen

  3. Fr Iannuzzi therefore (i) contradicts Thesis A and (ii) in this respect departs from the cosmology outlined in the Book of Heaven.

By “cosmology” I mean: the theory of the nature of the universe, what sorts of things exist in the universe, how the universe exists in relation to God, and what is man’s place in the universe relative to God and other creatures. The underlined part is the most relevant in this article.

I begin with a preliminary analysis of key propositions and their connections. Next I turn to relevant excerpts from video interviews with Fr Iannuzzi, and then the 22 passages from the Book of Heaven.

Conceptual Analysis

Thesis A (man is the only fallen EIC) is compatible with

(1) There are non-human creatures who are embodied and intelligent by nature (logos).

It is also compatible with

(2) There are non-human intelligent creatures who are fallen.

Proposition (1) is just the claim that there are non-human EICs. There are three options available for someone who affirms proposition (1):

(i) Claim that existing EICs are divided into two classes: human beings and aliens.

(ii) Claim that existing EICs are divided into two classes: human beings and non-human earthlings.

(iii) Claim that existing EICs are divided into three classes: human beings, aliens and non-human earthlings.*

*The three claims written in italics are cosmological statements. For they are assertions about what sorts of creatures exist. They are not merely logical statements about the intelligible categories by which we might organise our thought.

It is possible to affirm Proposition (1) (there are non-human EICs) without contradicting Thesis A, as long as no fallen creatures are included in the set of non-human EICs. Indeed, options (i), (ii) and (iii) are all compatible with Thesis A. For in none of these cases is it said that some non-human EIC exists in a fallen state.

Let’s turn now to Proposition (2): there are non-human intelligent creatures who are fallen.

Logically speaking, a non-human intelligent creature is either embodied (it is a non-human EIC) or it is non-embodied (it is an angel). (With this purely logical statement, we are not committing ourselves to the view that non-human EICs exist, or even to the view that angels exist). This gives us three ways of affirming (2) (in each case it is understood that there are fallen men also):

(i) There are fallen angels. There are no fallen non-human EICs.

(ii) There are fallen non-human EICs. There are no fallen angels.

(iii) There are fallen angels and fallen non-human EICs.

(These are cosmological statements). Under option (i) one might deny that non-human EICs exist (there are no aliens and no non-human earthlings). This is the traditional view of things. Alternatively, one might say that non-human EICs exist and that all of them are unfallen.

Under option (ii) one might deny that angels exist. Alternatively, one might say that angels exist and that all of them are unfallen (there are no demons).

Option (i) does not contradict Thesis A. Option (ii) contradicts Thesis A, as does option (iii). The only way to reconcile Thesis A with Proposition (2) is to take option (i).

Fallen creatures: Iannuzzi versus Catholic tradition

Fr Iannuzzi affirms Proposition (1) there are non-human EICs. He also affirms Proposition (2) there are non-human intelligent creatures who are fallen. Under Proposition (2) he takes option (iii), there are fallen angels and fallen non-human EICs. By affirming (iii) he contradicts Thesis A and therefore the cosmology of Luisa Piccarretta, as I demonstrate later on.

Returning to what we said about Proposition (1), one might ask if Fr Iannuzzi divides existing EICs into two classes (humans and aliens) or into three classes (humans, aliens and non-human earthlings). In one video interview Iannuzzi speculates that there are (or at least have been) alien-human hybrids existing on Earth (link provided at the end of this section). On this basis I attribute to Iannuzzi the cosmological view that existing* EICs are divided into three classes. In any case, the important take away for this discussion is simply that Iannuzzi includes ETIs (aliens) in the class of EICs (embodied intellectual creatures).

*Here “existing” should be interpreted as “existing at some time in the history of the universe”.

Iannuzzi’s claim that aliens exist does not in itself contradict Thesis A. But his claim that some aliens are evil/fallen does.

*

Luisa’s writings are consistent with the traditional Catholic view concerning fallen creatures, which is as follows:

(T1) man is the only embodied intelligent creature,

(T2) there are intelligent creatures other than man,

(T3) the only intelligent creatures other than man are the angels, who are non-embodied intelligent beings,

(T4) man fell in Adam,

(T5) some of the angels fell (these are the demons),

(T6) the Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin, and never actually sinned,

(T7) with the exception of Jesus and Mary, every descendent of Adam and Eve has inherited original sin, and members of the human race who do not yet exist will inherit original sin upon their conception.*

*This is hardly an exhaustive summary covering all aspects of the traditional Catholic view on fallen creatures, and it is not meant to be. For example, I have not mentioned the doctrine that sinful man is offered redemption, whereas the fallen angels are not.

In the 36 Volumes of the Book of Heaven one can find statements affirming each of these seven points. And there are no statements which, correctly interpreted, contradict any of the seven points, either directly or by implication.

On the traditional view of fallen creatures, which is also Luisa’s view, the set of fallen creatures is the union (sum total) of two mutually exclusive sets:*

(i) all human creatures other than the Virgin Mary (note that Jesus is not a creature).

and

(ii) the fallen angels.

*Of course Luisa never articulates ideas or doctrines in terms of sets! Nor does the Catholic tradition, at least not usually. But that is beside the point. It is the inner logic or substance of the belief that matters here.

On the traditional/Luisian view, “man is the only fallen intelligent being” is false, yet “man is the only fallen intelligent being in the physical universe” (i.e., Thesis A) is true.*

*As already indicated, I define a creature that exists “in the physical universe” as a creature whose metaphysical consitution includes a physical body (still, it might be said that angels exist “in” the physical universe in some other sense—as having an influence on physical creatures, for example).

Now an alternative, non-traditional view is that the set of fallen creatures is actually the union of three mutually exclusive sets:

(i) all human creatures other than the Virgin Mary

and

(ii) the fallen angels

and

(iii) the fallen ETIs (fallen aliens).

To repeat, this view is promoted by Fr Iannuzzi. On his view, man is not the only fallen intelligent creature in the physical universe. Recall the traditional seven points:

(T1) man is the only embodied intelligent creature,

(T2) there are intelligent creatures other than man,

(T3) the only intelligent creatures other than man are the angels (fallen or unfallen), who are non-embodied intelligent beings,

(T4) man fell in Adam,

(T5) some of the angels fell (these are the demons),

(T6) the Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin, and never actually sinned,

(T7) every descendent of Adam and Eve has inherited original sin, and members of the human race who do not yet exist will inherit original sin upon their conception.

I am confident that Fr Iannuzzi affirms (T2), (T4), (T5), (T6) and (T7), based on my positive recollections of things he has said and written in the past. Still, he departs from the traditional view by denying the two underlined points: both (T1) that man is the only embodied intelligent creature and (T3) that the only intelligent creatures other than man are the angels.

Some Catholic theologians might count this “departure” as an instance of material heresy (if not also formal heresy). However, in this study I leave aside the question of whether Iannuzzi’s non-traditional view is in any way heretical. I will even concede this: departing from a certain belief or opinion to which Catholics have traditionally adhered, does not necessarily amount to heresy (material or formal). It depends on how central to the Faith the traditional proposition is (the one which is being departed from).

In respect to the seven points, Iannuzzi’s “departure” actually boils down to his denial of (T1)—that man is the only EIC. This denial is equivalent to an affirmation: non-human EICs exist. But if non-human EICs exist, it already follows that (T3)—the only intelligent creatures other than man are the angels—is false.

However, Iannuzzi adds a further twist. He does not merely claim that aliens exist—this is his departure from the traditional view that man is the only EIC.* He also claims that some of these aliens are evil/fallen—this is the twist added to his depature. On top of that, he conjectures that a third of the aliens fell.

*If I am not mistaken, Iannuzzi also claims that human/alien hybrids exist on Earth, or that they used to exist on Earth—see Part 2 in the “Vatican and Aliens” YouTube series. This too is a departure from the traditional view that man is the only EIC. However, in this discussion our focus is on Iannuzzi’s beliefs about aliens.

Fr Joseph Iannuzzi and the meme text: I'm not saying it was aliens ... it was FALLEN aliens

Quotations from Fr Iannuzzi on “fallen aliens”

Excerpts 1c and 1d below are copied from my previous post. They are part of Iannuzzi’s response to a question from the interviewer, Dr Michael James. This is from Video 1 from the “Vatican and Aliens” series on YouTube. I refer to this video simply as “Video 1”. Text in blue is Fr Iannuzzi speaking.

Video 1: 15:08 – 15:27

Watch from here until 15:27.

[Dr Michael James] If one-third of beings fell with the angels, are there hostile anti-Christian alien beings that are at war with friendly alien beings? What would you speculate?

Excerpt 1c

Video 1: 15:36 – 15:51

See the 14 second clip here or watch from here until 15:51.

Well you mentioned that one-third of the beings fell and this goes all the way back to Revelation chapter 12 verses 4 through 9 that one third of the stars fell. It does not mention a third of the angels fell […]

Excerpt 1d

Video 1: 16:11 – 17:29

See the 46 second clip here and the 31 second clip here.

Alternatively watch from here until 17:29.

But in scripture “stars” also refers to all rational beings including those throughout the cosmos. This is alluded to in Daniel chapter 12 verse 3, Philippians 2:15. The point is, one must avoid theological reductionism which takes “stars” and applies it to only one group of individuals like the angels. And in Christian circles this has been the case. They interpret this passage of Revelation referring to a third of the stars as meaning only … only the third of the angels. The Church does not teach that it refers only to the angels. Yes, it includes the angels. Because stars is referred to as angels, as is Jesus Christ, as are believers. But it doesn’t limit it to just the angels.

[16:58] So it is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings fell with Lucifer. Therefore this may explain in part the difference between the good beings throughout the cosmos that are supported by many eyewitness testimonies as well as the bad ones throughout the cosmos. Well, considering that only one third fell, the good outnumber the bad.

More excerpts from Iannuzzi

Video 1: 24:59 – 25:30

Watch from here until 25:30

I have personally witnessed exorcisms with people who had been physically abducted. There are millions of testimonies throughout the world and the exorcists will tell you that they have cast out demons that were neither human nor angelic, they were other entities. And I'm not saying this on my own behalf, other exorcists have told me this as well.

Video 1: 28:08 – 28:32

Watch from here until 28:32

Basically in 1956 a group of ETS appeared to him [Bruno Sammaciccia] according to his memoirs and they were good. And they shared to him things about how to be better in the world improve the society in which we live and things like that. But on the flip side as I mentioned you have the bad ones and that in my opinion refers to that one-third that fell with Lucifer.

There is also a video entitled “Fr. Iannuzzi Radio Program: Ep 198- Luisa vs. Demons - Learning to Live Divine Will (3-25-23)”

Luisa vs Demons Video: 20:31 - 21:18

Watch from here until 21:18

As one who has performed many exorcisms and who has shared my experiences with other exorcists, I can attest to you on their behalf and mine, that during exorcisms there have been expelled from people demonic entities that were neither angelic nor human. Let me repeat that. Several exorcists can attest to the fact that they have expelled from people that were diabolically afflicted, entities that were neither angelic nor human …

Luisa vs Demons Video: 24:40 - 25:54

Watch from here until 25:54

[24:40] But I mention this in passing because when these individuals I know claim to have been abducted invoke the name of Jesus, the abduction stops on the spot, every single time.

From 25:00 - 25:26 Fr Iannuzzi mentions MUFON (Mutual UFO Network, see https://mufon.com/)

[25:26] Over 1000 documented cases where when an individual was being abducted and they called upon the name of Jesus, the abduction stopped. Which means these are not good beings.

[25:39] Now I know what you're thinking: they're fallen angels. No they're not. And I know people have claimed that but that's not true because they have physical bodies and angels don't have physical bodies that die and then go on to an eternal place like these do.

Luisa vs Demons Video: 26:41 - 27:40

Watch from here until 27:40

Now to conclude this theme on exotheology I'll say this. It is from my studies from the Eastern and Western Church Fathers and Doctors and saints and mystics, I've come to the conclusion based on their writings not my own theories, that when Lucifer fell as the Book of Revelation reports, he took a third of the stars with him. And that's what the Book of Revelation states. It does not state ‘a third of the angels’, but ‘a third of the stars’. And the star is the center of a galaxy that has life. [NASA says otherwise! “A galaxy is a huge collection of gas, dust, and billions of stars and their solar systems”]. A solar system that has life. Our star is the sun. So according to them … and I believe this very much – that a third of all rational beings in the cosmos fell. And this may explain … the evil abductions, who knows?

Finally there’s this longer excerpt from Video 3 in the “Vatican and Aliens” YouTube series.

Video 3: 30:11 - 32:05

Watch from here until 32:05

[30:11] I referred to in Parts Two and Three to the Biblical meaning of stars comprising one third of not just the angels but all rational sentient beings of the cosmos that fell with Lucifer, and this may explain the millions of reported traumatic events of alien abductions many of which are also published by Dr David Jacobs. He's studied over a thousand cases of people that have claimed to have been abducted. And this phenomenon of alien abduction I've come to understand after having spoken myself with abductees is not a myth or a theory, it's a reality. And we have to come to accept it. Millions of people will not be lying throughout the world over decades and centuries. This has been going on for a long time.

[31:07] And one person I will share that I have spoken to briefly is a woman from British Columbia, Canada. And she shared with me how her mother, she, her daughter were all abducted and I did send her in the mail some holy water, holy exorcised water … and things like that because these things do stop these abductions.

[31:31] There's another report of Dr John Edward Mack. He died recently, he was a Harvard PhD Professor who interviewed and clinically studied individuals who were abducted and published two books in 1994, 1999 on the trauma that accompanies these abductions. Now these are related on my opinion to this one third that fell. And then you have of course the two thirds that are good, the majority. And these are the ones of whom Clifford Stone speaks and Philip Corso writes about and so forth.

Summary of Iannuzzi’s claims in these excerpts

  • One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer

  • This may explain why there are testimonies of encounters with good ETIs and also testimonies of encounters with bad ETIs.

  • It is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos fell, and to read Revelation 12:4 in this way.

  • The good ETIs outnumber the bad 2:1.

  • Exorcists including Fr Iannuzzi testify to the fact that they have cast out evil entities that were neither human nor angelic. These have physical bodies. So they must be fallen ETIs.

  • Millions of people have testified to being abducted by aliens. Fr Iannuzzi has interviewed some of them. In all cases the experience stops when the name of Jesus is invoked. Exorcised holy water and other sacramentals also prevent the abductions. But these entities are not demons (fallen angels) as many have concluded. They are fallen ETIs.

Comment

Are there any passages in Luisa’s Book of Heaven that support Iannuzzi’s view that there are fallen aliens? Or even the view there is at least one fallen alien in the universe? I am certain that no such passage exists anywhere in the 36 Volumes, and that no sound argument for Iannuzzi’s unusual view can be constructed on the basis of that text. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

The position narrated consistently throughout the Book of Heaven is that man is the only fallen being in the physical universe, as I demonstrate next. It would be odd if Luisa had also written something that blatantly contradicts these 22 passages, all of which speak directly against Iannuzzi’s view. I’m sure Fr Iannuzzi does not want to attribute that level of inconsistency to a mystic of whose cause he is a champion.

The 22 excerpts from the Book of Heaven

Currently (January 2, 2025) there is no official English translation of the 36 volumes of Luisa Piccarreta’s Book of Heaven. A critical edition with theological commentary should be released in the future (hopefully soon). Here I use the translation by Marina d'Ariano — the “Marina translation” or “MT” for short.

In the Volumes, Luisa speaks in the first person. Text inside inverted commas are the words of Jesus, as reported by Luisa. I have highlighted certain words and passages by putting them in bold.

I briefly comment on some of the passages below. For the rest, I let the quotations speak for themselves.

1. Volume 12, March 22, 1919

As I was in my usual state, I found myself outside of myself, and I could see all the order of created things. And my sweet Jesus told me: “My daughter, see what harmony, what order in all created things, and how all of them came out to life from the Eternal Fiat …” Then He added in a more afflicted tone: “It was not so in creating man. It is true that his origin is my Fiat, but this was not enough for Me. Taken by excess of love, I breathed on him, wanting to infuse in him my very Life; I endowed him with reason; I made him free, and I constituted him king of all Creation. But man, ungrateful - how did he correspond to Me? Amid all Creation, he alone has become the sorrow of my Heart, the clashing note.” [Marina translation]

2. Volume 14, August 6, 1922

“My Will contains perfect balance. Balance brings order, regimen, utility, harmony. All things harmonize together as if they were one single thing. Order brings equality; equality brings likeness. This is why there is so much harmony, order and likeness in the Three Divine Persons, and all created things are in perfect harmony - one is the support, the strength and the life of the other. If just one created thing disharmonized, all the others would tumble and end up in ruin.

Only man moved away from Us, from the balance of Our Will. Oh! how man tumbled, and from the highest place he fell into the deepest abyss!” [MT]

3. Volume 17, May 4, 1925

“Therefore, be attentive, because this is about placing in safety that Eternal Will which, with so much love, wants to dwell in the creatures [i.e., in human beings]. But It wants to be known, It does not want to be like a stranger, but wants to give Its goods and become Life of each one. However, It wants Its rights, Its place of honor; It [the Divine Will] wants the human will to be put aside – the only enemy for Itself and for man. The mission of my Will was the purpose of the creation of man. My Divinity did not depart from Heaven - from Its throne, while my Will not only departed, but descended into all created things and formed Its Life in them. But while all things recognized Me, and I dwell in them with majesty and decorum, man alone drove Me away.” [MT]

4. Volume 18, January 28, 1926

“[T]he whole Creation, including man, came out of the Eternal Creator as their source of Life, in which they were to be preserved only with the Life of the Divine Will. Everything was to be founded upon It, and this foundation of the Divine Will was to preserve all things as beautiful and noble, just as they had come out of God. And, in fact, all created things are just as they were created – none of them has lost anything of its origin; only man lost the life, the foundation, and therefore he lost his nobility, the strength, and the likeness to his Creator.” [MT]

5. Volume 19, May 27, 1926

“[T]he purpose of Creation was that, all things having come out from within the unity of this light of the Supreme Fiat, all should have remained in the unity of It. Only the creature [i.e., man] did not want to recognize this purpose; he went out of the unity of the light of the sun of my Will, and reduced himself to begging for the effects of this light, almost as the earth begs its vegetation and the development of the seeds it hides in its womb, from the sun. What sorrow, my daughter – to reduce oneself from king to beggar, and to beg from those which were to be at his service.”

...

And Jesus, sighing, added: “My daughter, feeling your nothingness more does not oppose the living in my Will; on the contrary, it is a duty of yours. All of my works are formed over nothing, and this is why the All can do what He wants. If the sun had reason, and someone asked it: ‘What good do you do? What are your effects? How much light and heat do you contain?’; it would answer: ‘I do nothing, I just know that the light given to me by God is invested with the Supreme Will, and I do whatever It wants. I extend wherever It wants, and I produce the effects It wants; and while I do so much, I remain always nothing and the Divine Will does everything in me.’ The same for all my other works - all their glory is to remain in their nothingness in order to give the whole field to my Will, to let It operate. Only man wanted to do without the Will of his Creator, he wanted to make his nothingness operate, believing himself to be good at something; and the All, feeling Himself placed after the nothing, went out of man, who reduced himself from superior to all, to inferior to all.” [MT]

Anyone who has read a substantial amount of the 36 Volumes knows that “creatures” always signifies human beings.

6. Volume 19, May 31, 1926

“Before sinning, since he [Adam] possessed the source of the unity of light with his Creator, each little act of his was a ray of light which, invading the whole Creation, went to fix itself in the center of his Creator, bringing Him the love and the return for all that had been made for him in the whole Creation. He was the one who harmonized everything and formed the note of accord between Heaven and earth. But as soon as he withdrew from my Will, his acts no longer invaded Heaven and earth like rays, but they shrank, almost like plants and flowers, within the little circle of his field. So, losing the harmony with all Creation, he became the clashing note of all Creation. Oh! how low he descended, and cried bitterly over the lost unity of light, which, raising him above all created things, made of Adam the little god of the earth.” [MT]

Jesus says that man (in Adam) became “the” clashing note, not “a” clashing note of all Creation.

7. Volume 19, August 27, 1926

“My daughter, how beautiful are Our works – they are Our honor and Our perennial glory. All of them remain at their place, and each created thing fulfills its office perfectly. Man alone is Our dishonor in Our creative work, because by withdrawing from Our Will, he walks upside down, with his head down on the earth and his feet up in the air. What disorder! What disorder! It is disgusting to see him. By walking with his head upside down, he crawls on the earth, he becomes all upset, he transforms himself.” [MT]

8. Volume 20, September 17, 1926

“So, all things, even the smallest ones, have their place. It can be said that they are in their home, secure, and no one can touch them. They possess abundance of goods, because that Will which flows in them possesses the source of all goods; they are all in the order, the harmony, and the peace of all. On the other hand, by withdrawing from Our Will, man lost his place; he remained without Our home, exposed to dangers. All can touch him to harm him; the very elements are superior to him because they possess a Supreme Will, while he possesses a degraded human will, which can give him nothing but miseries, weaknesses and passions. And because he lost his origin, his place, he remained without order, disharmonized from all, and he enjoys no peace, not even within himself. So, it can be said that he is the only being wandering in the whole Creation, to whom nothing is due by right, because We give everything to one who lives in Our Will, for he is in Our home – he is one from Our family. The relations, the bonds of sonship which he possesses by living in It, give him the right to all Our goods.” [MT]

9. Volume 20, October 24, 1926

“Now, you must know that all Creation and all my works done in Redemption are as though tired of waiting, and find themselves in the condition of a noble and rich family, whose children are all of proper stature, good looking, of uncommon intelligence, always well dressed, and with marvelous neatness. They are the ones who make always the best impression among all others. Now, after such great fortune, this family has had a misfortune: one of these children, degrading himself, descends from his nobility and goes around always dirty; he does unworthy and vile acts which dishonor the nobility of the family, and as much as they do so that he may appear together with the other brothers, they do not succeed; on the contrary, he keeps getting worse and worse, to the point of becoming the mockery and the laughingstock of all. The whole family has a constant sorrow; and as much as they feel the dishonor of this son, they cannot destroy him and say that he does not belong to them, and that he did not come from that same father to whom they belong. Such is the condition in which all Creation and all the works of my Redemption find themselves. They are all a celestial family, their origin is divine nobility; all of them have the Will of their Celestial Father as their insignia, dominion and life, and therefore they all maintain themselves in their nobility – beautiful, decorous, pure, of enchanting beauty, and worthy of that Will which possesses them. After so much glory and honor for this celestial family, they have had the misfortune that one alone – man – who came from their same Father, has degraded himself; and in the midst of such great glory and beauty of theirs, he is always dirty, he does foolish actions - unworthy and vile. They cannot deny that he belongs to them, but they do not want him in their midst so dirty and foolish.” [MT]

Jesus says that the whole family has “a” constant sorrow, which is the dishonour of “this” son (singular).

10. Volume 20, December 25, 1926

Note that whenever Luisa writes “creatures”, she means human beings.

“There was a contest between Mother and Son – I in giving, She in receiving. As this little Humanity of Mine made Its first entrance upon earth, my Divinity wanted to shine forth from It, in order to go around everywhere and make the first sensible visit to all Creation. Heaven and earth – all received this visit of their Creator, except for man. They had never received so much honor and glory as when they saw their King, their Maker, within their midst; all felt honored, for they were to serve the One from whom they had received their existence, therefore all made feast. So, my birth was of great joy and glory for Me on the part of my Mama and of all Creation; but it was for Me of great sorrow on the part of creatures.” [MT]

11. Volume 25, December 8, 1928

“So, all Creation – Heaven and earth, and even hell – felt in the immaculate conception of this Virgin little girl, just newly born in the womb of Her mama, the strength of the order which She was placing in all Creation. With my Will, She associated Herself with all as their sister, She embraced all, She loved everything and everyone; and all longed for Her, loved Her, and felt honored to adore the Divine Will in this privileged creature.

How could all Creation not celebrate? In fact, up until then, man had been the disorder among all created things; no one had had the courage, the heroism, to say to his Creator: ‘I do not want to know my will – I give it to You as gift; I want your Divine Will alone as life.’ But this Holy Virgin gave Her will in order to live of the Divine, and therefore all Creation felt the happiness of the order which, through Her, was given back to It …” [MT]

Jesus says that man has been “the” disorder, not merely “a” disorder among all created things.

12. Volume 25, March 22, 1929

“The Fiat Voluntas Tua on earth as It is in Heaven is precisely this: that man return into my Divine Will; and only when It sees again Its child happy, living in Its house, with the opulence of Its goods - then will It calm Itself. And so It will be able to say: ‘My child has come back, he is clothed with his royal garments, he wears the crown of king, he lives together with Me, and I have given back to him the rights which I gave him in creating him. So, the disorder in Creation is ended, because man has come back into my Divine Will’.” [MT]

Jesus speaks of “My child” in the singular. He also says that man coming back into the Divine Will is a sufficient condition for the disorder in Creation ending. This entails that there are no fallen intelligent creatures in the physical universe besides man.

13. Volume 26, May 16, 1929

“[N]othing is lacking to Our work of Creation – heavens, suns, works and magnificence of every kind; but one point is missing – yet a point which disfigures a work so beautiful. This point is the most important; it is the most beautiful shade, it is the most vivid color that is missing in the Creation: everyone and everything lives in my Fiat, but one point of It – that is, the human family – is outside of It, outside of my Kingdom, and it lives unhappy.” [MT]

14. Volume 26, June 27, 1929

Then my sweet Jesus continued, saying: “My daughter, the sea of Our Divinity always murmurs, without ever ceasing. But do you know what it says in its murmuring? ‘Love! Love toward the creature!’ And the ardor of Our Love is so great, that in Our continuous murmuring We overflow with Love, and We form such gigantic waves as to be able to drown Heaven and earth, and all creatures [i.e., human beings], all with Love. And seeing that they do not let themselves be filled completely with Our Love, with the desire to see creatures overflow with Our Love, the delirious Love forms within Us; and in Our delirium, putting the human ingratitude aside, and murmuring, We repeat more loudly: ‘Love! Always love to the one who denies and does not take Our Love to let herself be loved and give Us love.’“ [MT]

There is only one who does not freely receive God’s love. Not one individual, but one species. “The creature” signifies a human being, taken either individually or collectively as a species (“man”).

15. Volume 26, August 12, 1929

I was doing my round in the Divine Volition, and my sweet Jesus, drawing me outside of myself, made me see the whole Creation in the act of coming out of His creative hands. Each thing carried the mark of the creative hand of its Maker, therefore everything was perfect, of an enchanting beauty. Each created thing was animated by vivid light, either as property of nature given to it by God, or indirectly, communicated by one who possessed it. Everything was light and beauty. But amid so much light and enchantment of beauty, one could see a black speck, which appeared so ugly, especially being in the midst of so many works, so beautiful, majestic and refulgent. This black speck aroused terror and compassion, because it seemed that, in its own nature, God had not created it black, but beautiful; even more, it once was a work of the most beautiful created by the Supreme Being.

…

“We are inseparable from Our works, and We like them so much that We delight in doing them continuously, and this is why they maintain themselves majestic, beautiful, fresh, as if, there and then, they were receiving the beginning of their life. Look at them – how beautiful they are; they are the narrators of Our Divine Being and Our perennial glory. But amid so much glory of Ours, look – there is the black speck of the human will. Loving man with greater love, We endowed him with a free will, but, abusing, he wanted to breathe and palpitate in his human will, not with Ours, and therefore it changes continuously to the extent of blackening, losing its beauty and freshness, and it reaches the point of losing the Divine Life in its human nature.

So, who will put to flight the thick darkening of the human will? Who will give back to it the freshness, the beauty of its creation? The acts done in Our Divine Will. They will be light which will dispel the darkness, and heat which, molding it with its heat, will destroy in it all the bad humors that have rendered it ugly. The acts done in my Will will be the rebound to all the human acts done with the human will. This rebound will restore the freshness, the beauty, the order, as the human will was created. Therefore, many acts are needed, done by the creature in Our Divine Volition, in order to prepare the counterpoison, the beauty, the freshness, the act opposite to everything evil that the human will has done. Then will Our works in Creation appear all beautiful; the black speck will disappear, and it will convert into a point, the most luminous one, in the midst of the magnificence of Our created works; and Our Divine Will will take the dominion of all, and will reign on earth as It does in Heaven.” [MT]

Again, man’s returning to the Divine Will is a sufficient condition for the Divine Will taking “the dominion of all.” This means that there are no fallen intelligent creatures in the physical universe other than man.

16. Volume 27, November 14, 1929

“The first rights of how all things were created, including man, are sacred, are holy and just; and, with justice, all should stick to the first act, as they were created. Only man was unable to maintain for himself the great honor of the way he was created by God; but this cost him so much, and therefore all evils swooped down upon him.” [MT]

17. Volume 28, November 20, 1930

“And since my Will fills heavens, sun, sea and everything, even though they do not have reason, they are dominated freely by the powerful Strength and Reason of my Fiat, from which they never moved away.

Therefore, in the name of the heavens, sun and everything, you can, by right, ask for Its Kingdom, because the smallest thing as well as the greatest, animated and dominated by my Divine Will, is always superior to man. In fact, without It [the Divine Will], man occupies the last place; he is the degraded one and the most humiliated in the midst of all created things; he is the neediest, the poorest who, in order to live, has to stretch out his hand to all created things to receive the charity of their beneficial effects.” [MT]

If there were other fallen beings in the physical universe besides man, he would not occupy the “last place”, nor would he be the “neediest” or “most humilitated” or “poorest” in the universe.

18. Volume 29, May 31, 1931

“The sea, as it murmurs, the water, as it gives itself to creatures, the earth, as it becomes green and produces plants and flowers – so many multiple acts of my Will do they perform. My Will is the motor of everything and keeps all Creation in act of doing Its Will; and this is why they are all happy, they never lose their place of honor, nor are they subject to dying – because my Will operating in created things gives them perennial life. Only the creature, the one who was to make the greatest display in doing a continued act of my Will, is the only one that goes out of the motor of It, and reaches the point of placing herself against a Will so holy.” [MT]

To repeat: “the creature” is man.

19. Volume 30, April 2, 1932

“My daughter, all the works of Our Supreme Being are perfect and complete – none of Our works is by half. The Creation is all complete and perfect; even more, there are many things which are not of absolute necessity, but like luxury and pomp of Our power, love and magnificence. Should man alone, for whom all things were created, remain like an incomplete and imperfect work of Our own, without the purpose for which he was created – which is for Our Fiat to have Its Kingdom in each creature? And this, because he sinned and remained stained and degraded, which rendered him like a collapsing house, exposed to his thieves and enemies – as if Our Power were limited and did not have all the power to do what It wants, the way It wants it, and when It wants it? Whoever thinks that the Kingdom of Our Will cannot come puts Our very Supreme Power in doubt. We can do anything; We might lack the willingness, but when We want it Our Power is so great, that whatever We want We do – there is nothing that can resist before Our Power.” [MT]

20. Volume 31, September 8, 1932

“My daughter, created things were made by Us in order to form many ways, so that man might make use of them in order to come to Us. In fact, We left them all open, so that, whenever he wanted to come, he would have no need to knock, or to open in order to come to Us. He was Our son – it was right and reasonable that he would have all the ways open to go to His Celestial Father and spend time with Him, to love Him and be loved, and, as son, to ask Him for graces and favors. But do you know what the ungrateful son did? He himself shut the ways closed, formed the bars and, by sin, formed the doors, closing the correspondences with the One who had given him life. Now, do you want to know who returns to open the doors, to burn up the bars? One who loves Me and lives in my Divine Will. The love and my Fiat are the powerful forces that burn and empty everything, and open all the ways, so as to place the distant child once again in the arms of his Celestial Father.

21. Volume 33, May 12, 1934

“[A]ll things, and the very human nature, draw from the eternal motion of God, in such a way that everything revolves around Him. The whole of Creation, the breath, the heartbeat, the blood circulation, are under the empire of the eternal motion; and since everyone and everything receives life from this motion, they are inseparable from God; and as they have life, so do they revolve around the Supreme Being with a unanimous race. So, the breath, the heartbeat, the human motion – it is not in their power to breathe, to palpitate, to move; whether they want it or not, given the incessant motion of the Eternal One, they too feel the incessant act of breathing, of palpitating and of moving. It can be said that they live life together with God and with all created things, which revolve around Him without ever stopping.

Only the human will, as We had created it with the great gift of the free willing, that it might tell Us, freely, that it loved Us – not because it was forced, as the breath is forced to breathing, or the heart to beating and to receiving the motion of its Creator; but out of its wanted will, not forced, it might love Us and remain together with Us, to receive the operating life in Our Volition… [ellipsis in original] It [The Divine Volition] was the greatest honor and gift We gave to the creature, and she, ungrateful, moves away from Our union and inseparability, and therefore from the union of all and of everything, and therefore she gets lost, she degrades herself, becomes debilitated, loses the one strength, and is the only one in the whole Creation to lose her race, her place of honor, her beauty, her glory, and goes wandering, shifted from her place that she has in Our Will, which calls her, longs for her to be at her place of honor. So, all have a place, even the human breath and heartbeat; and since everyone and everything has a place, they never lose life and their incessant motion – none of them feels poor, weak, but rich in the eternal motion of their Creator. Only the human will, because it does not want to be in the royal place of the Divine Volition is the lost one and the poorest of all …” [MT]

22. Volume 36, April 25, 1938

“This is why I call the creature [i.e., the human being] to live in Our Will – so that she may be sustained and strengthened by It, and so give honor to Our creative work. In fact, only man is voluble, while all Our other works never change: the heavens are always fixed, nor do they tire of remaining stretched out; the sun always runs its course, nor does it ever change the action of giving its light for the good of all the earth; the air is always in act of letting itself be breathed. All things remain just as they were created by Us, and they keep doing the same action. Only man, by not wanting to live in Our Divine Will, descends from the manners of his Creator and is incapable of bringing his works to completion, therefore he can’t love them or appreciate them, nor can he receive the merit of his works.” [MT]

Conclusion

My stated objective was to demonstrate that

  • Luisa Piccarretta’s clear and consistent position throughout the Book of Heaven is that man is the only fallen EIC (as per Thesis A)

    • This was acheived in the previous section. An overabundance of evidence was given in support of this point. There is no room for doubt.

  • Fr Iannuzzi’s position is that ETIs exist and that some of them are fallen

    • This was acheived in the section just before that, entitled “Quotations from Fr Iannuzzi on fallen aliens”. An overabundance of evidence was given in support of this point also. There is no room for doubt.

  • Fr Iannuzzi therefore (i) contradicts Thesis A and (ii) in this respect departs from the cosmology outlined in the Book of Heaven.

    1. This has been acheived. The conclusion follows from the previous two points, both of which have been demonstrated.

How far does Iannuzzi depart from the cosmology outlined in the Book of Heaven in general? That is another question, which we have not addressed here. To begin to answer it, we would have to ask whether Iannuzzi’s belief in ETIs (not just fallen ETIs) contradicts Luisa’s cosmology. Toward the beginning of this article I indicated in passing that there is no room in Luisa’s cosmology for the existence of embodied intelligent creatures other than man. However, I didn’t provide any evidence for this. This will be the objective of a future research article.

In a follow-up article I will

  • discuss the significance of Iannuzzi’s (very obvious and very public) departure from the cosmology outlined in the Book of Heaven, in light of the fact that Iannuzzi is an internationally renowned scholar, expert, teacher and champion of the spirituality of Luisa Piccarreta, and

  • draw attention to some of the negative aspects of this bizarre and unfortunate situation.

Final Comments

Respectful comments are welcome either through this website (there are two methods: the “Contact” page or the comments section) or by email directly: brendan.philosophy [at] gmail.com

If you’d like to support my work — a lot of work has gone into this project, and I mean a lot— you might

  • share this article

  • write to me

  • subscribe and/or

  • pray for me, for my family and for this work.

At this stage I have not set up the right platform(s) for donations. If you’d like to do that in the future (for the price of a coffee, for example), you might express your interest/pledge through email or the Contact page.

I’d be very grateful for any form of support.

God bless you.

Dr Brendan Triffett




























Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

Father Iannuzzi’s Flights of Fancy: Transcripts of Video 1.

Bottom Centre: The so-called “Abydos Helicopter” in the Temple of Seti I at Abydos. These hieroglyphic marks are taken as “evidence” by pseudo-archeologists for their belief in ancient aliens. The claim that these marks are evidence of ancient advanced technology was debunked decades ago. This is just one example of the sort of pseudo-scientific BS that Fr Joseph Iannuzzi (Bottom Right) has swallowed uncritically and then regurgitated to an audience of well over 15,000 on a platform provided by Dr Michael James (Bottom Left). Top Centre: Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, producer and presenter for the History Channel series Ancient Aliens. Known in popular culture for his outrageous beliefs, outrageous hair, and for the “I’m not saying it was aliens … but it was aliens” meme. While Tsoukalos and Fr Iannuzzi are both ancient astronaut theorists, Iannuzzi attempts to “baptise” the theory, filtering parts of Zechariah Sitchen’s first book (Top Left) through to a Catholic audience.

Introduction

In this post I provide some excerpts from the first video in the three part series called "The Vatican, Christianity and Aliens.” The three videos appear on a YouTube Channel called Divine Will Era. Fr Joseph Iannuzzi is the presenter and the host is a certain Dr Michael James. The description under this first video is as follows:

Citing from Christian and official sources, Fr. J.L. Iannuzzi, STL, S.Th.D. demonstrates the existence of intelligent alien life.

Part 1: Fr. JL Iannuzzi introduces the Church’s position on extraterrestrial life, and a brief overview of its overwhelming evidence in Sacred Scripture, tradition, hagiography, anthropology, historical archives, declassified and military documents and more.

The title of the video is Fr. Dr. Iannuzzi: Vatican & Aliens PART 1: Intelligent Life throughout Cosmos - Padre Pio - Prophecy. That is quite a mouthful and has too many colons and dashes, so I will be calling it simply, “Video 1”. It is found here.

In my critical analysis of Video 1, I will debunk many of the claims made by Fr Iannnuzzi and point out numerous logical errors. The purpose of the post you are reading is to prepare the ground for my critical analysis in a future post.

Here you will find resources (“the evidence”): transcripts for a number of excerpts from Video 1, links to the corresponding video footage along with time stamps, relevant images from the video footage, and a summary list of the claims that I will be evaluating. I will be referring back to this evidence in my critical analysis.

The context and motivation for this project is explained in my first post here.

*

Both Fr Iannuzzi and Dr James are known for promoting the writings and spirituality of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta (1865—1947). So let me be clear: my intention is not to cast doubt on the authenticity of Luisa’s writings nor on the spirituality that is called “living in the Divine Will.”

In fact, one of the concerns motivating this project is that Fr Iannuzzi has drawn upon the writings of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta in his arguments for the existence of aliens (extraterrestrial intelligence, ETI). I firmly believe that Fr Iannuzzi is causing confusion by appropriating Luisa’s writings (and the commentary of St Annibale de Francia) in this way for his own personal speculations on ETI. In this case—I do not say “in general” or “as a rule” but simply “in this case”—he has taken passages out of context and mangled their meaning.

In a future post I will highlight the sections in Video 2 where Fr Iannuzzi brings the writings of Luisa and St Annibale into his argument for the existence of ETIs (see here until the end of the video).

This way of presenting Luisa’s writings may or may not be dishonest. For it’s possible that Father genuinely believes that the cited passages mean what he wants them to mean. If that’s the case, that is a great concern in itself! There are two possibilities here, as I see it: either Iannuzzi was careless and incompetent when it came to interpreting a certain portion of Luisa’s writings, or he has acted dishonestly. But in any case it is highly irresponsible of him to be so careless in his interpretation and presentation of these passages.

I understand that I haven’t yet made my case for these claims about Iannuzzi’s reading of Luisa—I have only directed the reader to the evidence (two paragraphs above). And we must presume that a person is “innocent” until proven “guilty”. May nobody violate this principle of justice when it comes to their judgements about Fr Iannuzzi.

The difficulty I face is that this has expanded into a larger project with many parts and I want to start at the beginning. But at the same time it’s necessary to provide the context of the project, and to communicate my motivation, my intentions, the reasons for my concern, and the direction in which the project is going. I have confessed my concerns; I have not yet made my case.

*

So let’s look at the evidence! Links to the excerpts of video are provided in case the reader would like to check the content or accuracy of the transcript. Watching the excerpts is not strictly necessary, however. My comments are in square brackets. Italics indicate emphasis given by the speaker. I draw attention to parts of the text by using bold.

The reader who wants to “cut to the chase” might prefer to skip to the final section, the summary.

Excerpts of Video 1

Excerpt 1a

Video 1: 5:40 – 6:05

See the 25 second clip here or watch from here until 6:05.

They [i.e., different types of Church documents cited in the Catechism] do not all enjoy the same level of authoritative teaching. So when we are speaking you know the teaching of the Church on extraterrestrials which is not definitive, you're open to believe it. Actually the Church encourages to … encourages you to believe it. Even the Vatican priest in charge of the [Vatican] Observatory has said we should believe because there's a lot of reason to.

According to Iannuzzi, then:

  • The Church encourages you to believe in ETIs.

Excerpt 1b

Video 1: 9:14 – 10:04

See the 50 second clip here or watch from here until 10:04.

And as I mentioned the Vatican chief astronomer Father José Funes [Director of the Vatican Observatory from 2006 to 2015] said that – and I'm going to quote you from him – “In my opinion the possibility of life on other planets exists.” The possibility of life on other planets exists. This is a statement from the Vatican chief astronomer and he says there’s no conflict between believing in God and then the possibility of extraterrestrial brothers. He uses that word “brothers”. So they're not all evil as some of these cracker barrel theologians who have no degree in theology are claiming on the internet [context: Iannuzzi is taking a shot at Daniel O’Connor without naming him], saying oh they're all evil, they're fallen angels, they're possessing. No. They're not angels. They're not humans. They are entities as Saint Padre Pio stated, that are visible, that are physical but that are not on Earth. They may visit the Earth but they're not from here.

Iannuzzi’s claims:

  • Some theologians claim that all encounters with aliens are actually encounters with demons, but this is incorrect.

  • ETIs exist, but not all ETIs are evil.

  • At least some of them are our “brothers”.

  • ETIs may visit the Earth but they are not from here.

Excerpt 1c

Video 1: 15:36 – 15:51

See the 14 second clip here or watch from here until 15:51.

Well you mentioned that one-third of the beings fell and this goes all the way back to Revelation chapter 12 verses 4 through 9 that one third of the stars fell. It does not mention a third of the angels fell […]

 Iannuzzi claims that

  • One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer.

 The same theme will appear again multiple times, more clearly expressed.

Excerpt 1d

Video 1: 16:11 – 17:29

See the 46 second clip here and the 31 second clip here.

Alternatively watch from here until 17:29.

But in scripture “stars” also refers to all rational beings including those throughout the cosmos. This is alluded to in Daniel chapter 12 verse 3, Philippians 2:15. The point is, one must avoid theological reductionism which takes “stars” and applies it to only one group of individuals like the angels. And in Christian circles this has been the case. They interpret this passage of Revelation referring to a third of the stars as meaning only … only the third of the angels. The Church does not teach that it refers only to the angels. Yes, it includes the angels. Because stars is referred to as angels, as is Jesus Christ, as are believers. But it doesn’t limit it to just the angels.

[16:58] So it is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings fell with Lucifer. Therefore this may explain in part the difference between the good beings throughout the cosmos that are supported by many eyewitness testimonies as well as the bad ones throughout the cosmos. Well, considering that only one third fell, the good outnumber the bad.

Iannuzzi claims: 

  • One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer [as above]

  • This may explain why there are testimonies of encounters with good ETIs and also testimonies of encounters with bad ETIs.

  • It is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos fell, and to read Revelation 12:4 in this way.

  • The good ETIs outnumber the bad 2:1.

Excerpt 1e

Video 1: 17:37 – 17:53 …

See the 16 second clip here or watch from here until 17:53.

Iannuzzi claims that

  • His view on ETIs is “founded theological speculation grounded upon eyewitness reports, traditional teachings, apparition, revelations approved by the Church. And Scripture itself.”

Excerpt 1f

Video 1: … 17:53 – 18:25 …

See the 32 second clip here or watch from here until 18:25.

Let’s go to Scripture, the Book of Genesis. When Adam and Eve were created, according to biblical genealogies 4000 BC, six thousand years ago … after he committed original sin, Cain and Abel … Cain just walked up and killed Abel because God preferred Abel’s sacrifice. Then God puts a mark on Cain, why? So that nobody would harm him. Well if Adam and Eve were the only two people there why would he have to put on a mark unless others were there that could harm him?

The rhetorical question, seen in context, is a claim:

  • Since God had to put a mark on Cain to protect him, there must have been other rational beings on Earth at that time outside the human race (Adam and Eve and their descendants).

Excerpt 1g

Video 1: … 18:26 – 20:00 …

See the 55 second clip here and the 39 second clip here.

Alternatively watch from here until 20:00.

We also find in the same Book of Genesis, Deuteronomy, there were these beings that fell from above they called the Nephilim. Now what are these beings that fell from above? The word “Nephilim” in Hebrew doesn't mean “angels”. It means beings that didn't come but fell from above. And this is found in Genesis 6:4, it's found in Numbers 13:31. But these Nephilim are just one of several unexplained beings in the Old Testament that were here.

But what's interesting about these Nephilim is that they had relations with the daughters of men. Who were these beings? The Church does not teach definitively on this. It only gives us suggestions or opinions or theories in footnotes. But we do know that as soon as these Nephilim that fell from above were having relations with the daughters of men, the inhabitants were so evil, God sent the flood.

The Anakites, these were another unknown civilization of beings in Canaan around the time, shortly after Adam. Or … it was actually, they were probably there before Adam.

But we know that they're described in a way that suggests that they were very large beings, almost giants. For example, Deuteronomy 2:10, 21, Deuteronomy 9:2, Numbers 13 32-33. And then you have these other beings called the Emites that were very strong people and as tall as the Anakites. This is found in Deuteronomy 2:10. And the list goes on.

Here Iannuzzi claims:

  • The Nephilim are not fallen angels.

  • “Nephilim” means a being that didn’t come but fell from above.

  • There were several unexplained groups of beings in the OT that existed on Earth, including the Nephilim.

  • The Nephilim had relations with the daughters of men.

  • The Flood was God’s response to widespread evil.

  • The book of Genesis associates the widespread evil that immediately preceded the Flood with the Nephilim having relations with the daughters of men.

  • There were a number of civilizations of unknown beings in Canaan in OT times (from Adam to Joshua), including the Anakites.

  • The Anakites probably existed before Adam.

  • The Anakites and Emites were very large beings: giants or almost giants.

Excerpt 1h

Video 1: … 20:00 – 21:05 …

See the 36 second clip here and the 28 second clip here.

Alternatively watch from here until 21:05.

We also have evidence of archaeological findings that revealed that there were civilizations buried underground for millennia that pre-date 4000 BC. For example there's a place called Çatalhöyük, it's a funny word […] it was apparently founded, has been dated to 9000 BC [official sites say around 7500 BC, others say 9000 BC]. That was discovered by archaeologists. And then we have these pictographs, etchings in caves throughout the world that go so far as almost 39 000 BC.

 

And the oldest known pictograph is in the upper Paleolithic area of Mount Castillo. Point is, it's very likely and it's proven archaeologically and historically that there are images and writings in stone, cuneiform, hieroglyphics that pre-date the 4000 BC creation of Adam and Eve. These were not humans. These were very likely beings but from where we don't know.

Iannuzzi claims:

  • Archeological findings tell us that there were civilizations of (embodied) rational beings on Earth millennia before 4000 BC.

  • But Adam and Eve were created around 4000 BC.

  • Therefore these more ancient rational beings were not human.

Excerpt 1i

Video 1: … 21:05 – 22:10

See the 23 second clip here and the 41 second clip here.

Alternatively watch from here until 22:10.

The Sumeran texts [he must mean “Sumerian” because “Sumeran” means something else entirely!], they are witness to this and the scholar [sic!] that recently died, Zecharia Stitchen [he must mean “Sitchin”] who interpreted Sanskrit and Sumeran [i.e., Sumerian] which only like four people on Earth can read, he was very clear that and he can show the actual cuneiforms, they knew the solar system thousands of years before we discovered it. [At 21:10 an image is shown of Sitchin with a Sumerian artefact, the VA 243 Cylinder Seal. A section of the seal shows a star-like image with eleven smaller circles surrounding it.] You could see nine planets.

Relevant images that appear in this excerpt:

This is a zoomed-in version (shown at 21:23 — the lower circle or “planet” has been cropped out) of a close-up of the VA 243 cylinder seal that has added markings. The close-up with added markings can be found on pseudo-scientific websites — and on sites devoted to debunking Sitchin’s claims. I don’t know who added the markings originally.

This image doesn’t appear in the excerpt; it appears on this site. Note that in this version the lower circle (the so-called “planet”) has not been cropped out.

In Excerpt 1i Iannuzi claims that:

  • There are Sumerian texts which support the existence of pre-Adamic rational beings on Earth.

  • Zecharia Sitchin is a reliable scholar and translator of these Sumerian texts.

  • Only about four people on Earth can read Sumerian texts.

  • Reading the cuneiform script on Sumerian artefacts, Sitchin was able to demonstrate that the Sumerians knew about the solar system (Sun and nine planets) thousands of years before we knew about it.

  • There is a Sumerian artefact (the VA 243 cylinder seal) where you can see our solar system depicted with nine planets.

  • Scientists have confirmed that a ninth planet (after Neptune, but not Pluto) may well exist with a long orbit around the Sun of between ten thousand and twenty thousand Earth years.

Excerpt 1j

Video 1: 22:21 – 22:45

See the 23 second clip here or watch from here until 22:45.

So you say to yourself, how could these Sumerans [i.e., Sumerians] know this, have this knowledge? And how can Cain receive this Mark if there was no one but Adam and Eve? Who were these Nephilim, these Emites etc? [at 22:38 an image of the “flying aircraft” hieroglyphics is shown] And the Egyptian hieroglyphics you look at some of them, you find flying aircraft engraved in them. Things that look like helicopters, discs.

In Excerpt 1j a number of questions are raised by Fr Iannuzzi:

  • How could the ancient Sumerians have such detailed knowledge of our solar system?

  • From which rational beings on Earth did God protect Cain, given that there were no other humans on Earth that might harm him at that time?

  • Who were the Nephilim, the Anakites and the Emites?

He claims that

  • There are flying aircraft engraved in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs; these look like helicopters and flying discs.

From Iannuzzi’s perspective, this raises another question:

  • How do we explain archaeological artefacts that suggest the existence of advanced technology (e.g., flying aircraft, electricity [edit 03/05/2025: see excerpt 3d, watch from here until 16:30]) in ancient times?

It is clear that Iannuzzi raises these questions in order to lead us to a conclusion:

  • There were embodied rational beings on Earth prior to Adam and Eve with advanced scientific knowledge and technology.

Iannuzzi’s argument would be as follows (I’ve added steps of the argument that are clearly implied):

  • That such beings existed on Earth is the most probable explanation of the four mysteries mentioned.

  • 1. How could the ancient Sumerians have such detailed knowledge of our solar system?

    • It was given to them by another race of embodied rational beings.

  • 2. From which rational beings on Earth did God protect Cain, given that there were no other humans on Earth that might harm him at that time?

    • A non-human race or races existed on the Earth at that time.

  • 3. Who were the Nephilim, the Anakites and the Emites?

    • A non-human race or races existed on the Earth at that time.

  • 4. How do we explain archaeological artefacts that suggest the existence of advanced technology in ancient times?

    • Some non-human civilization (or civilizations) shared some of their technologies with ancient humans, or some of these technologies were witnessed by ancient humans, or both.

Excerpt 1k

Video 1: 28:00 – 28:32

See the 32 second clip here or watch from here until 28:32.

But Bruno Sammaciccia again is a reputable individual, he's an academic. He published over a hundred books. He was a distinguished figure in academic circles. Basically in 1956 a group of ETs appeared to him according to his memoirs and they were good. And they shared to him things about how to be better in the world, improve the society in which we live and things like that. But on the flip side as I mentioned you have the bad ones and that in my opinion refers to that one third that fell with Lucifer.

Relevant images shown:

In Excerpt 1k Iannuzzi claims:

  • Bruno Sammaciccia is a reputable individual and a distinguished academic, and has published over 100 books.

  • According to Sammaciccia’s memoirs, good ETIs appeared to him in the 1950s and they spoke with him about how to be better and how to improve the world.

  • Sammaciccia’s descriptions of these “good ETIs” are credible.

  • Nonetheless some ETIs are bad; again these are the “one third of the stars” that fell with Lucifer.

Excerpt 1l

Video 1: 31:07 – 31:30

See the clip here or watch from here until 31:30.

So there is ample evidence and I'm not even going into other reputable exemplars of the Church that have testified to this reality that these extraterrestrials are neither angels nor they're [sic] humans but they are sentient beings, rational beings with an intellect, with a volition … that are like we do [sic].

Iannuzzi claims that

  • Several reputable exemplars of the Church have testified that

    • ETIs exist

    • ETIs are neither angels nor humans

    • ETIs are sentient, rational beings with intellect and will like us.

Summary

Fr Iannuzzi makes a number of claims in Video 1. The claims uncovered above are gathered together and listed below. Note that it was not my intention to uncover all of the claims that Iannuzzi makes in the excerpts, let alone in Video 1 as a whole. Nor do the excerpts cover the whole of the video.

I round off the list of claims with a summary statement made by Iannuzzi at the start of Video 2 in the series, about the (supposed) evidence he provided in Video 1 for the existence of ETIs. This summary statement gives us further evidence that some or all of the non-human rational beings that Iannuzzi mentions in Excerpt 1j are understood by him to be ETIs. In Excerpts 1f through 1j, then, Iannuzzi sometimes argues indirectly for the existence of ancient ETIs on Earth — the ancient astronaut theory — by arguing for the existence of ancient non-human rational beings on Earth. But he also argues directly for the ancient astronaut hypothesis by describing the Nephilim as corporal, non-angelic beings (i.e., not demons) who fell from above.

Given everything that Iannuzzi says previously in Video 1, and given where his argument is headed, it is safe to assume that Iannuzzi here means “above” as a reference to outer space (“the heavens”) and thus to other planets. There is certainly precedence for this. Sitchin and other ancient astronaut theorists claim that the original meaning (or one of the original meanings) of “Nephilim” in Genesis and 1 Enoch is “those who came down from above” (see The Twelfth Planet, pp. vii, 128ff) where “above” means outer space. The late Dr Michael Heiser critiques Sitchin’s etymology here.

Excerpt 1a

1a1: The Church encourages you to believe in ETIs.

Excerpt 1b

1b1: Some theologians claim that all encounters with aliens are actually encounters with demons, but this is incorrect.

1b2: ETIs exist, but not all ETIs are evil.

1b3: At least some of them are our “brothers”.

1b4: ETIs may visit the Earth but they are not from here.

Excerpt 1c

1c1: One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer [see 1d1].

Excerpt 1d

1d1: One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer [same as 1c1].

1d2: This may explain why there are testimonies of encounters with good ETIs and also testimonies of encounters with bad ETIs.

1d3: It is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos fell, and to read Revelation 12:4 in this way.

1d4: The good ETIs outnumber the bad 2:1.

Excerpt 1e

1e1: Fr Iannuzzi’s view on ETIs is “founded theological speculation grounded upon eyewitness reports, traditional teachings, apparition, revelations approved by the Church. And Scripture itself.”

Excerpt 1f

1f1: Since God had to put a mark on Cain to protect him, there must have been other rational beings on Earth at that time outside the human race (Adam and Eve and their descendants).

Excerpt 1g

1g1: The Nephilim described in Genesis are not fallen angels.

1g2: “Nephilim” means a being that didn’t come but fell from above.

1g3: There were several unexplained groups of beings in the OT that existed on Earth, including the Nephilim.

1g3: The Nephilim had relations with the daughters of men.

1g4: The Flood was God’s response to widespread evil.

1g5: The book of Genesis associates the widespread evil that immediately preceded the Flood with the Nephilim having relations with the daughters of men.

1g6: There were a number of civilizations of unknown beings in Canaan in OT times (from Adam to Joshua), including the Anakites.

1g7: The Anakites probably existed before Adam.

1g8: The Anakites and Emites were very large beings: giants or almost giants.

Excerpt 1h

1h1: Archeological findings tell us that there were civilizations of (embodied) rational beings on Earth millennia before 4000 BC.

1h2: But Adam and Eve were created around 4000 BC.

1h3: Therefore these more ancient rational beings were not human.

Excerpt 1i

1i1: There are Sumerian texts which support the existence of pre-Adamic rational beings on Earth.

1i2: Zecharia Sitchin is a reliable scholar and translator of these Sumerian texts.

1i3: Only about four people on Earth can read Sumerian texts.

1i4: Reading the cuneiform script on Sumerian artefacts, Sitchin was able to demonstrate that the Sumerians knew about the solar system (Sun and nine planets) thousands of years before we knew about it.

1i5: There is a Sumerian artefact (the VA 243 cylinder seal) where you can see our solar system depicted with nine planets.

1i6: Scientists have confirmed that a ninth planet (after Neptune, but not Pluto) may well exist with a long orbit around the Sun of between ten thousand and twenty thousand Earth years.

Excerpt 1j

1j1: There are flying aircraft engraved in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs; these look like helicopters and flying discs.

1j2: There were embodied rational beings on Earth prior to Adam and Eve with advanced scientific knowledge and technology.

1j3: That such beings existed on Earth is the most probable explanation of four mysteries:

  • How could the ancient Sumerians have such detailed knowledge of our solar system?

    • 1j4: It was given to them by another race of embodied rational beings.

  • From which rational beings on Earth did God protect Cain, given that there were no other humans on Earth that might harm him at that time?

    • 1j5: A non-human race or races existed on the Earth at that time (same as 1f1).

  • Who were the Nephilim, the Anakites and the Emites?

    • 1j6: A non-human race or races existed on the Earth at that time.

  • How do we explain archaeological artefacts that suggest the existence of advanced technology in ancient times?

    • 1j7: Some non-human civilization (or civilizations) shared some of their technologies with ancient humans, or some of these technologies were witnessed by ancient humans, or both.

Excerpt 1k

1k1: Bruno Sammaciccia is a reputable individual and a distinguished academic, and has published over 100 books.

1k2: According to Sammaciccia’s memoirs, good ETIs appeared to him in the 1950s and they spoke with him about how to be better and how to improve the world.

1k3: Sammaciccia’s descriptions of these “good ETIs” are credible.

1k4: Nonetheless some ETIs are bad; these are the “one third of the stars” that fell with Lucifer [see 1d1 - 1d4].

Excerpt 1l

1l1:  Several reputable exemplars of the Church have testified that ETIs exist, that they are neither angels nor humans, and that they are ETIs are sentient, rational beings with intellect and will like us.

*

Excerpt 2A

Video 2: 1:49 – 2:05

See the 16 second clip here or watch from here until 2:05.

The first part addressed the scientific and anthropological data as well as the military and eye-witness reports in support of extra-terrestrial life or the possibility thereof on other planets.

2a1: There is scientific and anthropological evidence, and military and eye-witness reports, in support of the existence of ETIs.

Read More
Brendan Triffett Brendan Triffett

Fr Joseph Iannuzzi on the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI): A critical analysis.

Late in November 2023 I happened to watch a video presentation given by Fr Joseph Iannuzzi and hosted by Dr Michael James. The topic was the Catholic faith and the possible existence of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). This was Part 2 of a three part series posted on the Divine Will Era Ministries YouTube channel. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. The talk was riddled with basic logical errors and quite a few errors of fact! I noted some of these and watched the video again. I typed out a transcript. I looked again. More odd things began to surface. Fr Iannuzzi appeared to be subtly misleading his audience (unintentionally?) and failing to give the proper context when it came to some of the “evidence” he was giving for his position. I dug deeper. The more fact-checking and critical thinking I applied to the transcript, the more problems I found.

Earthrise (1968) from Apollo 8. This famous image evokes wonder. Is humanity alone in the universe?

Earthrise from Apollo 8 by William Anders (1968)

Introduction

CONTEXT

Late in November 2023 I happened to watch a video presentation given by Fr Joseph Iannuzzi and hosted by Dr Michael James. This was Part 2 of a three part series posted on the Divine Will Era Ministries YouTube channel.

I already knew about Fr Iannuzzi. I have a hard copy of his doctoral dissertation, The Gift of Living in the Divine Will in the Writings of Luisa Piccarreta. My aunt had put me onto this work. After reading it and listening to a few of his podcasts, I came to respect Father for his clarity and piety. For me and many others he has been a sure guide for understanding the writings of Luisa in accordance with Catholic tradition.

For years I saw him as someone who had both spiritual depth and psychological balance. I appreciated his warnings to steer clear of false prophets and opportunists who run “false doomsday websites”, sometimes for financial gain. I agreed with Father that the fear and disturbance that these sorts of websites typically encourage are not from Our Lord.

After that I moved on. I don’t mean that I went “off” Fr Iannuzzi. His dissertation is still there as a stable point of reference on my bookshelf and in the back of my mind. If you’re anything like me, you receive what’s good from one person and next season you move onto other writers and role models. Though you might end up circling back.

As for Dr Michael James, at this point in time I don’t know anything about him except that he “works with Fr. Iannuzzi and has a ministry” (positive things are said in the comments section here). I have seen a short video of him visiting Fr Iannuzzi after saying goodbye to his daughter.

[Edit December 23 2024: The content of that video suggested that he’s a lecturer of some sort—he said he had to take time off teaching to visit Fr Iannuzzi, and he showed a brief clip inside a college. The short video has since been made private, however.

I couldn’t find any information about this “Dr Michael James”. It would help if I knew which university he attended or where he works, or the title of his doctoral thesis, or the title of any one of his publications. Or even just his area of expertise. I will continue to look into this. I will try reaching out to him via the comments section in the videos he is in.]

THE VIDEOS

The description of the video series found under each video on YouTube is as follows:

For the very first time a Catholic theologian offers to the Christian faithful a public 3-part series video presentation on intelligent alien life throughout the cosmos and the Christian faith. The theme of this series: "The Vatican, Christianity and Aliens." Citing from Christian and official sources, Fr. J.L. Iannuzzi, STL, S.Th.D. demonstrates the existence of intelligent alien life.

To say that Fr Iannuzzi “demonstrates the existence of intelligent alien life” is an overstatement. It’s more accurate to say that he “argues for” the existence of intelligent alien life.

Here are the links to the three parts and the number of views as of March 15, 2024:

  • Part 1 premiered on Sep 29, 2023. 17,497 views. [Edit: 20,389 views as of Dec 23rd 2024]

  • Part 2 premiered on Nov 23, 2023. 8,098 views. [Edit: 9,496 views as of Dec 23rd 2024]

    • This is the video we’ll be focusing on.

  • Part 3 premiered on Dec 27, 2023. 10,400 views. [Edit: 11,402 views as of Dec 23rd 2024]

MY REACTION

Several times during my first watch of the video (Part 2) I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Iannuzzi’s* talk was riddled with basic logical errors and quite a few errors of fact! I noted some of these and watched the video again. I typed out a transcript. I looked again. More odd things began to surface. Iannuzzi appeared to be subtly misleading his audience (unintentionally?) and failing to give the proper context when it came to some of the “evidence” he was giving for his position. I dug deeper. The more fact-checking and critical thinking I applied to the transcript, the more problems I found.

*Referring to Father Iannuzzi by surname only should not be taken as a sign of disrespect. It is normal practice in writings of an academic nature.

The whole thing began to look bizarre. And emotionally I was a bit torn. How could a priest this qualified, with this many academic achievements (see here), fail to notice his research mistakes? How could he not be aware of the undergraduate level — yes, undergraduate level — philosophical errors that he was making? What was going on here? Was I out of my mind?

I don’t believe so. I was a bit torn because on one hand, I felt it was my duty to set things straight — to uncover these logical and factual errors for the public and show people that Iannuzzi’s arguments were deeply flawed. And I don’t mean that they were respectable arguments that another critical thinker might take issue with, something that often happens between academics. Rather, I mean that most of the arguments didn’t even rise to that level of respectability. On the other hand, I didn’t want to cause embarrassment. Nor did I feel comfortable with the idea of “correcting” a priest.

WHAT TO DO?

I sought counsel from a number of wise people and after a period of discernment I decided to take their advice and publish. Two months ago in the comments section under the video, I had offered to do an interview in response (I indicated my belief that Fr Iannuzzi had misinterpreted Nicholas of Cusa, though as it turned out, that was only the tip of the iceberg) but I got no reply. There were some important considerations that friends had pointed out to me:

  1. It is appropriate to reply publicly to statements made in the public forum (my thanks to Prof. Larry Chapp).

  2. If Iannuzzi had misled people or given flawed arguments, then people deserve to know. Thousands have already seen the video.

  3. In the intellectual or academic sphere where the truth of ideas is tested, if a priest turns out to be superior as an intellectual (because he has done more research, has a better handle on the discipline, offers better arguments, etc.), that is accidental to the fact that he is a priest. In other words, questioning the intellectual integrity of an argument does not amount to questioning the spiritual authority of the priest who made the argument.

  4. It is not my desire or intention for Fr Iannuzzi to end up with egg on his face. But it is not unjust if that should happen. Rather, it is Iannuzzi’s fault for publishing shoddy material. Each of us is responsible for what we put our name to.

  5. Given the above, there is nothing essentially uncharitable about what I was proposing to do. Granted, reflecting on our motivations is necessary, since it is always possible to do things uncharitably.

At this point you may be thinking: the more likely scenario, Dr Triffett, is that you are out of your mind. Or you are letting your emotions get the better of you. Perhaps you are stressed, or not seeing things clearly for some other reason. Indeed you are probably out of your depth. This is Fr Iannuzzi after all. Go home, go to sleep. Let it go. Whatever you do, don’t embarrass yourself over this.

I understand if that’s what you’re thinking, given the context. And I agree that nobody should simply take my word for it when it comes to the sorts of claims that I am making. People need to look at the evidence themselves. That is my purpose in these posts: to exhibit the evidence and present arguments to support my case.

AN UNNECESSARY OBSTACLE

It gets worse. It even appears that Fr Iannuzzi took certain passages of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta out of context, and falsely interpreted a couple of sentences by St Annibale di Francia, in support of his belief in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETIs). If that is what Iannuzzi has done, then this is a serious matter. In a later installment we will look at the evidence that led me to that conclusion (Part 2, from 11:44 onwards).

I know. I didn’t expect that either. And yes, it is bizarre that Fr Iannuzzi of all people would have gotten things wrong in this area, his area of expertise (the writings and spirituality of Luisa)! And it is both ironic and concerning that the same scholar priest who (rightly) warns about the dangers of taking passages of Luisa’s writing out of context and spreading erroneous interpretations would do precisely that. (Again, these claims of mine are yet to be substantiated. I don’t want anyone to simply take my word for it. My purpose here is to explain the context of the work you are reading and give some indication of its contents.)

We are all human. In this case, I think, Father got over-excited about the (possible) existence of ETIs. And in his enthusiasm he left behind sound reasoning and sound principles of interpretation. Not to mention pastoral prudence. For (1) he was speaking authoritatively to a wide audience. And (2) he didn’t consider the fact that using (or misusing) passages from Luisa Piccarreta’s writings to support his view that ETIs exist will inevitably create obstacles for people who might otherwise have been open to the writings.

It is perfectly rational and well within the boundaries of orthodoxy to believe that the Catholic faith, understood correctly (including everything we know about God’s revealed will for man and creation), excludes the possibility of ETIs existing in our universe. (Whether God has the absolute power to create ETIs is another matter. One of Iannuzzi’s undergraduate-level errors in the interview is to conflate absolute possibility with suppositional possibility, and God’s absolute power [potentia absoluta] with his ordained power [potentia ordinata]. The error pops up multiple times. But we will get to that.) And it is neither against reason nor against revelation to hold that it is certain (or extremely likely) that God in His wisdom has created man (descended from Adam and Eve) as the only species of rational animal, the uniquely embodied image of God.

Let exclusivism be the claim that the Catholic faith, understood correctly, excludes the possibility of ETIs existing in our universe. Non-exclusivism is the claim that the Catholic faith, understood correctly, does not exclude the possibility of ETIs existing in our universe. In both cases, a commitment to the Catholic faith is assumed.

It is neither against reason nor against revelation to be an exclusivist. Exclusivism is neither irrational nor heretical. It is neither eccentric nor laughable. Nor is it a “fringe” belief amongst Catholics. Iannuzzi has said that certain passages in Luisa’s writing imply that ETIs exist or might exist. This amounts to the claim that certain passages in Luisa’s writing contradict exclusivism. For “ETIs might exist” contradicts exclusivism, as does “ETIs exist” (it does not contradict exclusivism to say that God has absolute power to create ETIs).

One likely effect of Iannuzzi’s argument, then, is that an obstacle has been placed between (a) the writings of Luisa and (b) all Catholics who are committed to exclusivism or strongly inclined toward it. Iannuzzi did indicate that the question of whether Luisa’s writings are true and her spirituality authentic is separate to the question of whether ETIs exist. But that does not remove the obstacle. To agree with Iannuzzi that certain passages in Luisa’s writing imply that ETIs exist or might exist, is already to believe that the two questions are not separate questions, after all.

Iannuzzi cannot have it both ways. He should either (1) confirm that the two issues are separate and keep the writings of Luisa out of his arguments for the (possible) existence of ETIs or (2) concede that the two issues are connected, after all.

The following imaginary dialogue might help the reader appreciate the significance of the situation that Iannuzzi has created:

“What do you think of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta?”

“I was already suspicious of them. But now I’ve heard that Luisa believes in aliens. This is not hearsay. It was confirmed by the official Vatican-supported world expert on Luisa Piccarreta! That decides it for me. No authentically Catholic mystic would receive messages from our Lord saying that God created ETIs. I advise you to stay clear!”

AN OBJECTION

But you are begging the question. Suppose Luisa’s writings actually do support the view that ETIs exist. If someone then demonstrates that this is the case, that demonstration neither puts an obstacle in the way nor inhibits the acceptance of Luisa’s writings. If people have an issue with belief in ETIs, then of course they are going to have an issue with Luisa’s writings once they understand them. But either Luisa is right to say (or imply) that ETIs exist, or she is not. If she is right, then whoever has an issue with belief in ETIs is in the wrong, in which case the obstacle lies within the person who has the issue. If she is wrong, then the obstacle is in Luisa’s writings, and one who correctly explains Luisa’s position (or implied position) on ETIs does not thereby place an obstacle between the writings and the person who is unsure about them.

RESPONSE

That is a valid point. I concede that the link that Iannuzzi makes between Luisa’s writings and the existence or possible existence of ETIs — i.e., his claim that certain passages in Luisa’s writings imply that ETIs exist or might exist — becomes an added obstacle if and only if Iannuzzi is reading that link into Luisa’s writings. There are three scenarios to consider.

  1. Luisa’s writings support exclusivism and therefore the view that ETIs do not exist.

  2. Luisa’s writings neither support nor contradict exclusivism.

  3. Luisa’s writings contradict exclusivism and support the view that ETIs exist or might exist.

Recall that exclusivism is the claim that the Catholic faith, understood correctly (including everything we know about God’s revealed will for man and creation), excludes the possibility of ETIs existing in our universe. When we ask whether Luisa’s writings support exclusivism, for argument’s sake we assume that Luisa’s writings are true, and we understand that “everything we know about God’s revealed will for man and creation” includes the teachings of Luisa on the subject.

If the third scenario is true then Iannuzzi is not reading a link into Luisa’s writings. Rather, he is bringing into view a link—an implication—that is objectively founded in Luisa’s writings. But if the first or second scenario is true, then Iannuzzi is reading the link into Luisa’s writings.

A RESEARCH QUESTION

In order to prepare a detailed response to the video, I re-read all 36 volumes of Luisa’s Book of Heaven from the beginning to the end (I had already read and re-read most of the work prior to that, over about 20 years) along with The Hours of the Passion, The Virgin Mary in the Kingdom of the Divine Will and Luisa’s letters. Finally I re-read Fr Iannuzzi’s dissertation. I looked through all of this material carefully and always in light of my research question: which of the three scenarios is true?

I came to the conclusion that the first scenario is true. Luisa’s writings support exclusivism. In fact, there are several lines of argument beginning from different passages and themes in the writings and converging on the same conclusion.

My contention is (1) that Iannuzzi is wrong to claim that the writings support the (possible) existence of ETIs and (2) that to make such a claim is to place an unnecessary obstacle in the way between the writings and Luisa’s potential readers. However, it is not strictly necessary to demonstrate that Luisa’s writings support exclusivism (the first scenario) in order to demonstrate the truth of my contention. It is enough to demonstrate that the third scenario is false. If the third scenario is false then either Luisa’s writings support exclusivism (first scenario) or they neither support not contradict exclusivism (second scenario).

In one of the later chapters I will demonstrate that in his talk, Fr Iannuzzi gives us no reason to believe that the writings support the (possible) existence of ETIs. If everything goes to plan, the final chapters will provide comprehensive support for my contention that the writings support exclusivism and therefore the view that ETIs do not exist.

Note that this particular research question forms only part of my investigation, albeit an important one.

THE STAKES

In light of the above, it is clear that the stakes are high. Either I come out of this analysis looking like a fool, or someone else does.

Whatever the outcome, let it be for the glory of God. Nobody who wants to live in the Divine Will should be fundamentally opposed to being humbled and made to look like a fool. The ego that feeds on its own glory instead of the Holy Will of God: who cares if that gets “destroyed by facts and logic”? I shouldn’t care in the slightest; nor should Fr Iannuzzi.

Mind you, I have not set out to humiliate anyone. I have set out to set things straight. It is right and just to let the truth of things shine. If someone — me or anyone else — gets in the way of the Truth and their ego or reputation is damaged in the process, then who’s fault is that? It’s the fault of the person who got in the way of the Truth instead of making way for It.

The purpose of this work is to get to the truth of the matter, where “the matter” is certain claims made by Fr Iannuzzi in the video series, especially Part 2. I am not interested in “winning for the sake of winning”. I am interested in the truth: finding it, clarifying it, communicating it, defending it. I am not encouraging anyone to “take sides” or to engage in any other form of petty tribalism. That’s the last thing we need in the Church today.

THE AUDIENCE

I will proceed through the transcript of the video in chronological order [Edit 23rd Dec 2024: actually, I will not proceed in strict chronological order]. My critical analysis should be of interest to the following groups:

  1. Those who are interested in the question of whether belief in ETIs is compatible with the Catholic faith, or more generally with Christianity.

  2. Those who are interested in the philosophical and theological history of this question.

  3. Those who are interested in the writings of Luisa Piccarreta for one reason or another (e.g., a devoted reader, someone who has concerns, or an impartial researcher).

CARITAS IN VERITATE

Even if every judgement of mine in these chapters proves to be correct, it does not follow that Fr Iannuzzi is a bad person or an unholy priest. Nor does it follow that we should no longer read his writings or listen to his talks. But I don’t think anyone should be “following” Fr Iannuzzi — just as I don’t think anyone should be “following” any other mere human, however holy and well-educated he or she may be.

1 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. 9 For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.

1 Cor 3:11-9 (NIV).

May Charity and Truth incarnate overcome every human will that stands in His Way.

In the next post (Chapter 1) I show how Iannuzzi appears to engage in “false advertising” right from the beginning of Video 2, and fails to deliver on his promise. For he is unable to show that there is any Patristic support whatsoever for his view that ETIs exist (or might exist) on other planets or even for the view that there are “multiple worlds”. [Edit May 3rd, 2024: The content I intended to deliver in the “next post” will actually appear after a few more posts that lay the foundations. But I will get there!]

Read More