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

Written By Brendan Triffett

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:

Brendan Triffett
Previous

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

On Father Joseph Iannuzzi’s Alleged Violations of Academic Integrity