On Father Joseph Iannuzzi’s Alleged Violations of Academic Integrity

View fullsize

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.”

  • George, Christianity and Extraterrestrials?, p. 61 or location 1367 in the Kindle version.

• 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:

• Father Joseph Iannuzzi EXPOSED, Part 1

• Supplement to: Father Joseph Iannuzzi EXPOSED, Part 1

• Sneak Preview of: Father Joseph Iannuzzi EXPOSED, Part 2

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

  • Namely: “Missionaries of Divine Will, Inc.” and “The Divine Fiat, Inc.”

• On Father Joseph Iannuzzi’s Alleged Violations of Academic Integrity

  • This is the post that got a lot of attention and elicited a slanderous response from Team Iannuzzi

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

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

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

  • In which I demonstrate that Dr Michael James is Michael James Farrow

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

• Did Fr Iannuzzi just indicate his belief in hollow Earth theory?

• Fr Iannuzzi’s curious statement about Admiral Byrd

  • Following on from the hollow Earth theory post

• Fr Joseph Iannuzzi on the possibility of ETI: A critical analysis

  • This is where it all began

• Fr Iannuzzi’s Flights of Fancy: Transcripts of Video 1

• On Fr Iannuzzi’s bizarre claim that there are fallen aliens