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

Written By Brendan Triffett

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:

Brendan Triffett
Previous

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

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