Sneak Preview of: Father Joseph Iannuzzi EXPOSED, Part 2

Click here to read Part 1 in this series.

[updated April 4, 2025]

More Dark Secrets

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

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

In a recent post I wrote:

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

However,

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

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

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

Retreats regarding the Divine

Writings

Pay for office products and supplies required

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some more facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

UPDATE April 4, 2025.

A red flag which I forgot to mention is that Fr Iannuzzi officially categorised his nonprofit as a Protestant organisation for the IRS, despite there being clear references to Catholic spirituality and Catholic priests in the application, founding document and annual Form 990s—see the NTEE code in the previous link (this bizarre fact was written about already in 2018). This means that the “primary charitable activities” of the Association have been classified falsely since 2000 (or 2001)—this on top of the fact that the main expenses of the Association (publications, travel and conferences) don’t match up with the “primary exempt purpose” of the Association written on their Form 990s (the purpose of this form is described on the IRS page here). This is yet another example of non-transparency in Fr Iannuzzi’s modus operandi. Since there is no evidence that the Association is involved in actitivities that could be called “ecumenical” or “Protestant”, it looks as if Fr Iannuzzi’s intention is to hide his organisation from Catholic authorities in the U.S.—perhaps even from the eyes of the Catholic public. Either that, or he knows that he has no ecclesiastical right to be claiming his organisation as a Catholic one.

[end of update]

*

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

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

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

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

Dr Brendan Triffett

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

Supplement to: Father Joseph Iannuzzi EXPOSED, Part 1

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

The OSJ Problem

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

It’s worse than that, actually:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• site: https://www.ltdw.org/ "OSJ"

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

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

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

*

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

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

Other Strange Omissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://osjseminary.com/about-us-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to this, my questions are as follows:

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

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

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

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

More Red Flags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Brendan Triffett

Quick links to other posts:

• 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

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

An email from the Bishop of Marquette confirms my suspicions.

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

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

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

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

• “Joseph is member”

• “local bishop”

• “CCL (Companions of Christ”

• “village of Paradise”

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

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

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

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

Dear Rev. Ben Hasse

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also here

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

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

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

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

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

The fact about the house checks out

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time

Dr Brendan Triffett

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

Dear Dr. Triffett:

Greetings in Jesus Christ.

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

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

I hope that this addresses your question.

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

Sincerely in Christ,

+John F. Doerfler

Most Reverend John F. Doerfler, STD, JCL

Bishop of Marquette

1004 Harbor Hills Drive

Marquette, MI 49855

906-227-9115

jdoerfler@dioceseofmarquette.org

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

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

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

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

4. He does own a house within the diocese,

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

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

7. nor have I granted him faculties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://dioceseofmarquette.org/ourbishops

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

March 16, 2024

·  Office of the Bishop

·  Most Rev. John F. Doerfler

·  Bishop of the Diocese of Marquette

Dear Bishop Doerfler,

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

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

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

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

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

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

(newsletter yearly US $20 or $30 international)

MISSIONARIES OF THE HOLY TRINITY

P.O. BOX 8484

CRANSTON, RI 02920

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

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

Donate page: Donate to

Missionaries Of The Holy Trinity

Living In The Divine Will

LTDW2016

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

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

Thank you, your Excellency. 

You remain in my prayers.

 -----------------------------

The response from Bishop Doerfler:

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

Dear:

Greetings in Jesus Christ.

Thank you for writing with your questions.

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

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

I hope that this addresses your questions.

May you have a blessed Holy Week and Easter.

Sincerely in Christ,

+John Doerfler

Most Reverend John F. Doerfler

Bishop of Marquette

1004 Harbor Hills Drive

Marquette, MI 49855

906-227-9115

jdoerfler@dioceseofmarquette.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

*

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

https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_mi/800820022

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

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

https://opencorporates.com/filings/593026623 or click here.

https://opencorporates.com/filings/593026625 or click here.

Retrieved from the IRS Tax Exempt Organisation Search.

Retrieved from the IRS Tax Exempt Organisation Search.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/383197935/2010_08_EO%2F38-3197935_990_200912

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/383197935/2007_09_EO%2F38-3197935_990_200612

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/383197935/2006_09_EO%2F38-3197935_990_200512

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/383197935/2005_07_EO%2F38-3197935_990_200412

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/383197935/2004_08_EO%2F38-3197935_990_200312

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/383197935/2003_08_EO%2F38-3197935_990_200212

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/383197935/2002_11_EO%2F38-3197935_990_200112

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• a quote from Fr Iannuzzi’s 2005 book

• critical comments on Fr Iannuzzi by Emmett O’Regan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image source: medium.com.

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

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

Checking with the Official Catholic Directory

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

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

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

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

Features Include:

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

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

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

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

An Index that lists priests alphabetically for easier and faster access

…

*Available in Digital Flipbook format only

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

• 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 [the 1997 edition requires you to log in]

• 2000, [2001-2003 missing], 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

• 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, [2017 missing], 2018, 2019

• 2020, 2021 [more recent editions currently not available at archive.org].

SEARCHING FOR THE MISSIONARIES OF THE HOLY TRINITY

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

These results confirms the two statements made by Bishop Doerfler:

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

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

SEARCHING FOR FR JOSEPH IANNUZZI

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

1995-1997

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

1998

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

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

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

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

1999-2005

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

2006

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

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

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

2007-2009

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

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

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

2010-2021

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

*

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

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

*

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

September 2012. Rhodes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE OSJ PROBLEM

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

https://osjseminary.com/about-us-1

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INSTITUTIONS LOCATED IN THE DIOCESE

[A] Elementary Interparochial Schools

[B] Endowment Funds

[C] General Hospitals

[D] Homes for the Aged

[E] Convents and Residences of Sisters

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

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

[F] Retreat Houses

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

[G] Newman Clubs

[H] Miscellaneous

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

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

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTES OF MEN REPRESENTED IN THE DIOCESE

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

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

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

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTES OF WOMEN REPRESENTED IN THE DIOCESE

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

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

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

• [2004] Franciscan Clarist Congregation (India)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIOCESAN CEMETERIES

NECROLOGY

*

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

To conclude this section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Red Flags

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Word for Part One

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

Dr Brendan Triffett

Make sure to:

• subscribe (at the bottom of the page) to be notified of the next installment

• read the Sneak Preview of: Father Joseph Iannuzzi EXPOSED: Part Two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) People who are genuinely sorry do Y.

(2) Farrow is doing Y.

Therefore

(3) Farrow is genuinely sorry.

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

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

(2) Farrow is doing Y.

Therefore

(3) Farrow is genuinely sorry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The email that I sent is as follows:

Dear Professor Jean-Marie Farrow

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

I live far away from you in Australia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Dr Brendan Triffett
monokosmos.com

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

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

How long until they wake up and return to reality?

Dr Brendan Triffett

Quick links to other posts:

• 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

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

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

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

You’re locked in then?

Okay. Let’s play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• true vs false religion

• corruption in the Church

• corruption in spiritual movements within the Church

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

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

*

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

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

Commencement Video

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

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

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

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

o

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

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

This address has to be put into the search bar at

https://web.archive.org/

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

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

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

Coursicle Listing for Education at FDU

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published work of Dr Farrow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On p 42 Farrow is listed as an Adjunct.

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

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

On on p 48 Farrow is listed as an Adjunct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

Pun intended.

Dr Brendan Triffett

Quick links to other posts:

• 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

On Father Iannuzzi’s bizarre claim that there are fallen aliens.

An AI-generated image reflecting Fr Iannuzzi’s belief in fallen aliens. A heretical and disturbing image, for sure.

Introduction

Some Catholics believe that aliens exist. Others are inclined to believe it. They may even want to believe it, but concede that the existence of aliens has not been demonstrated. Catholics who are agnostic on the question are at least open to the possibility that God has created other embodied intelligent beings and situated them light years away from us. Rightly or wrongly, these Catholics—alien-believers, alien-agnostics, and everyone in between—do not recognise any fundamental incompatibility between the Catholic faith and belief in aliens, nor between salvation history and the existence of aliens (should they exist).

In my first post I defined exclusivism as "the claim that the Catholic faith understood correctly (including everything we know about God’s revealed will for man and creation) excludes the possibility of ETIs (extraterrestrial intelligences, aliens) existing in our universe. I wrote that there are three possibilities regarding the writings of Luisa Piccarretta and the question of whether ETIs exist:

1. Luisa’s writings support exclusivism and therefore the view that ETIs do not exist.

2. Luisa’s writings neither support nor contradict exclusivism.

3. Luisa’s writings contradict exclusivism and support the view that ETIs exist or might exist.

What does Luisa have to do with anything? you might ask. Let me provide the necessary context by quoting myself extensively (from my first post):

I re-read all 36 volumes of Luisa’s Book of Heaven … along with The Hours of the Passion, The Virgin Mary in the Kingdom of the Divine Will and Luisa’s letters. Finally I re-read Fr [Joseph] Iannuzzi’s dissertation. I looked through all of this material carefully and always in light of my research question: which of the three scenarios is true?

I came to the conclusion that the first scenario is true. Luisa’s writings support exclusivism. In fact, there are several lines of argument beginning from different passages and themes in the writings and converging on the same conclusion.

My contention is (1) that Iannuzzi is wrong to claim that the writings support the (possible) existence of ETIs and (2) that to make such a claim is to place an unnecessary obstacle in the way between the writings and Luisa’s potential readers.

I voiced my concern as follows:

It even appears that Fr Iannuzzi took certain passages of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta out of context, and falsely interpreted a couple of sentences by St Annibale di Francia, in support of his belief in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence … If that is what Iannuzzi has done, then this is a serious matter.

… [I]t is bizarre that Fr Iannuzzi of all people would have gotten things wrong in this area, his area of expertise (the writings and spirituality of Luisa)! And it is both ironic and concerning that the same scholar priest who (rightly) warns about the dangers of taking passages of Luisa’s writing out of context and spreading erroneous interpretations would do precisely that. (Again, these claims of mine are yet to be substantiated. I don’t want anyone to simply take my word for it …)

We are all human [pun not intended!]. In this case, I think, Father got over-excited about the (possible) existence of ETIs. And in his enthusiasm he left behind sound reasoning and sound principles of interpretation. Not to mention pastoral prudence. For (1) he was speaking authoritatively to a wide audience. And (2) he didn’t consider the fact that using (or misusing) passages from Luisa Piccarreta’s writings to support his view that ETIs exist will inevitably create obstacles for people who might otherwise have been open to the writings.

No doubt Fr Iannuzzi’s public speculations have had a number of negative effects, and will continue to do so unless counteracted. I return to this point in the conclusion of the article. For more about Fr Iannuzzi, read my first post.

For this research article I narrowed my focus to the question of whether man is the only fallen intelligent being in the physical universe. I relate the question to the belief-system of Fr Iannuzzi, and compare that belief-system to the writings of Luisa Piccarreta.

The reason for my narrower focus is that demonstrating the difference between Iannuzzi’s claims on this particular point, and Luisa’s own position on the same point, is quite straightforward. By contrast, for the broader question — whether man is the only intelligent being in the physical universe, and how does Iannuzzi’s belief-system compare to the writings of Luisa on his point — there will be more evidence to consider, and more arguments to work through. On top of that, one of the demonstrated conclusions in this article, will become a premise in one of the arguments in a future article. The latter argument will go as follows:

• If there are no fallen aliens and no unfallen aliens, then there are no aliens.

• If Luisa’s worldview excludes (i) the notion that there are fallen aliens and (ii) the notion that there are unfallen aliens, then it excludes (iii) the notion that there are aliens.

• Luisa’s worldview excludes the notion that there are are fallen aliens

• Luisa’s worldview excludes the notion that there are unfallen aliens.

• Therefore, Luisa’s worldview excludes the notion that there are aliens.

The underlined premise is a main conclusion of this article.

*

Late last year I scoured all 36 volumes of Luisa Piccarreta’s Book of Heaven again and found 22 excerpts which demonstrate, beyond all possible doubt, that Luisa’s clear and consistent position is that man is the only fallen intelligent being in the physical universe. More precisely, the excerpts demonstrate that this — the statement in bold — is the clear and consistent position of Jesus as narrated to Luisa over the course of at least 19 years (Volume 12 to Volume 36). The excerpts are provided toward the end of this article. The statement in bold can be expressed more precisely as follows:

Thesis A:

Human beings are the only creatures who are both (i) embodied and intelligent by nature (logos) and (ii) inwardly corrupted by sin in respect to their factual condition or circumstance (tropos).

Let EIC stand for embodied intelligent creature. This acronym is used a lot in this article, so try and memorise it now! Following Aquinas we understand “intelligence” as an intellectual power inseparable from freedom, personhood, and spiritual being (chimpanzees do not have intelligence, properly speaking). Thesis A is more simply expressed as the claim that man is the only fallen EIC. The negation of Thesis A is the claim that man is not the only fallen EIC. Thesis A is false if and only if there are fallen non-human EICs.

I differentiate between two categories of non-human EIC.* The first category is the ETI or alien. The second is the “non-human earthling”. By definition, non-human earthlings are non-human EICs that inhabit the terrestrial realm, living on the Earth, in the Earth, or in the surrounding atmosphere. Some examples of (supposed) non-human earthlings are gnomes, fairies, leprechauns, the Nephilim (on certain interpretations) and alien-human hybrids that are said to roam the Earth (in the past, if not also in the present).**

*Our distinction between aliens and non-human earthlings is a purely logical statement. With this distinction we are not making a cosmological statement or an ontological commitment. We are not saying that aliens exist (nor are we denying it) and we are not saying that non-human earthlings exist (nor again are we dening it). Here we remain in the ideal realm—we are concerned only with the inner workings of the mind in relation to (a) its concepts and (b) the realm of intelligible possibilities. We are simply categorising different types of possible entities whose real existence someone may or may not affirm.

**Sometimes the distinction between the two categories is blurred. Many UFO enthusiasts and fringe theorists claim that the Earth is inhabited by one or more races of non-human earthlings that migrated here from outer space.

Now Father Iannuzzi claims that aliens exist and that some of them are fallen. This implies that man is not the only fallen EIC. But to imply that man is not the only fallen EIC is to contradict Thesis A, which states that man is the only fallen EIC.

In the following I demonstrate that

1. Luisa Piccarretta’s clear and consistent position throughout the Book of Heaven is that man is the only fallen EIC (as per Thesis A)

2. Fr Iannuzzi’s position is that aliens exist and that some of them are fallen

3. Fr Iannuzzi therefore (i) contradicts Thesis A and (ii) in this respect departs from the cosmology outlined in the Book of Heaven.

By “cosmology” I mean: the theory of the nature of the universe, what sorts of things exist in the universe, how the universe exists in relation to God, and what is man’s place in the universe relative to God and other creatures. The underlined part is the most relevant in this article.

I begin with a preliminary analysis of key propositions and their connections. Next I turn to relevant excerpts from video interviews with Fr Iannuzzi, and then the 22 passages from the Book of Heaven.

Conceptual Analysis

Thesis A (man is the only fallen EIC) is compatible with

(1) There are non-human creatures who are embodied and intelligent by nature (logos).

It is also compatible with

(2) There are non-human intelligent creatures who are fallen.

Proposition (1) is just the claim that there are non-human EICs. There are three options available for someone who affirms proposition (1):

(i) Claim that existing EICs are divided into two classes: human beings and aliens.

(ii) Claim that existing EICs are divided into two classes: human beings and non-human earthlings.

(iii) Claim that existing EICs are divided into three classes: human beings, aliens and non-human earthlings.*

*The three claims written in italics are cosmological statements. For they are assertions about what sorts of creatures exist. They are not merely logical statements about the intelligible categories by which we might organise our thought.

It is possible to affirm Proposition (1) (there are non-human EICs) without contradicting Thesis A, as long as no fallen creatures are included in the set of non-human EICs. Indeed, options (i), (ii) and (iii) are all compatible with Thesis A. For in none of these cases is it said that some non-human EIC exists in a fallen state.

Let’s turn now to Proposition (2): there are non-human intelligent creatures who are fallen.

Logically speaking, a non-human intelligent creature is either embodied (it is a non-human EIC) or it is non-embodied (it is an angel). (With this purely logical statement, we are not committing ourselves to the view that non-human EICs exist, or even to the view that angels exist). This gives us three ways of affirming (2) (in each case it is understood that there are fallen men also):

(i) There are fallen angels. There are no fallen non-human EICs.

(ii) There are fallen non-human EICs. There are no fallen angels.

(iii) There are fallen angels and fallen non-human EICs.

(These are cosmological statements). Under option (i) one might deny that non-human EICs exist (there are no aliens and no non-human earthlings). This is the traditional view of things. Alternatively, one might say that non-human EICs exist and that all of them are unfallen.

Under option (ii) one might deny that angels exist. Alternatively, one might say that angels exist and that all of them are unfallen (there are no demons).

Option (i) does not contradict Thesis A. Option (ii) contradicts Thesis A, as does option (iii). The only way to reconcile Thesis A with Proposition (2) is to take option (i).

Image from https://www.comix.it/caduta-alieni/

Fallen creatures: Iannuzzi versus Catholic tradition

Fr Iannuzzi affirms Proposition (1) there are non-human EICs. He also affirms Proposition (2) there are non-human intelligent creatures who are fallen. Under Proposition (2) he takes option (iii), there are fallen angels and fallen non-human EICs. By affirming (iii) he contradicts Thesis A and therefore the cosmology of Luisa Piccarretta, as I demonstrate later on.

Returning to what we said about Proposition (1), one might ask if Fr Iannuzzi divides existing EICs into two classes (humans and aliens) or into three classes (humans, aliens and non-human earthlings). In one video interview Iannuzzi speculates that there are (or at least have been) alien-human hybrids existing on Earth (link provided at the end of this section). On this basis I attribute to Iannuzzi the cosmological view that existing* EICs are divided into three classes. In any case, the important take away for this discussion is simply that Iannuzzi includes ETIs (aliens) in the class of EICs (embodied intellectual creatures).

*Here “existing” should be interpreted as “existing at some time in the history of the universe”.

Iannuzzi’s claim that aliens exist does not in itself contradict Thesis A. But his claim that some aliens are evil/fallen does.

*

Luisa’s writings are consistent with the traditional Catholic view concerning fallen creatures, which is as follows:

(T1) man is the only embodied intelligent creature,

(T2) there are intelligent creatures other than man,

(T3) the only intelligent creatures other than man are the angels, who are non-embodied intelligent beings,

(T4) man fell in Adam,

(T5) some of the angels fell (these are the demons),

(T6) the Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin, and never actually sinned,

(T7) with the exception of Jesus and Mary, every descendent of Adam and Eve has inherited original sin, and members of the human race who do not yet exist will inherit original sin upon their conception.*

*This is hardly an exhaustive summary covering all aspects of the traditional Catholic view on fallen creatures, and it is not meant to be. For example, I have not mentioned the doctrine that sinful man is offered redemption, whereas the fallen angels are not.

In the 36 Volumes of the Book of Heaven one can find statements affirming each of these seven points. And there are no statements which, correctly interpreted, contradict any of the seven points, either directly or by implication.

On the traditional view of fallen creatures, which is also Luisa’s view, the set of fallen creatures is the union (sum total) of two mutually exclusive sets:*

(i) all human creatures other than the Virgin Mary (note that Jesus is not a creature).

and

(ii) the fallen angels.

*Of course Luisa never articulates ideas or doctrines in terms of sets! Nor does the Catholic tradition, at least not usually. But that is beside the point. It is the inner logic or substance of the belief that matters here.

On the traditional/Luisian view, “man is the only fallen intelligent being” is false, yet “man is the only fallen intelligent being in the physical universe” (i.e., Thesis A) is true.*

*As already indicated, I define a creature that exists “in the physical universe” as a creature whose metaphysical consitution includes a physical body (still, it might be said that angels exist “in” the physical universe in some other sense—as having an influence on physical creatures, for example).

Now an alternative, non-traditional view is that the set of fallen creatures is actually the union of three mutually exclusive sets:

(i) all human creatures other than the Virgin Mary

and

(ii) the fallen angels

and

(iii) the fallen ETIs (fallen aliens).

To repeat, this view is promoted by Fr Iannuzzi. On his view, man is not the only fallen intelligent creature in the physical universe. Recall the traditional seven points:

(T1) man is the only embodied intelligent creature,

(T2) there are intelligent creatures other than man,

(T3) the only intelligent creatures other than man are the angels (fallen or unfallen), who are non-embodied intelligent beings,

(T4) man fell in Adam,

(T5) some of the angels fell (these are the demons),

(T6) the Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin, and never actually sinned,

(T7) every descendent of Adam and Eve has inherited original sin, and members of the human race who do not yet exist will inherit original sin upon their conception.

I am confident that Fr Iannuzzi affirms (T2), (T4), (T5), (T6) and (T7), based on my positive recollections of things he has said and written in the past. Still, he departs from the traditional view by denying the two underlined points: both (T1) that man is the only embodied intelligent creature and (T3) that the only intelligent creatures other than man are the angels.

Some Catholic theologians might count this “departure” as an instance of material heresy (if not also formal heresy). However, in this study I leave aside the question of whether Iannuzzi’s non-traditional view is in any way heretical. I will even concede this: departing from a certain belief or opinion to which Catholics have traditionally adhered, does not necessarily amount to heresy (material or formal). It depends on how central to the Faith the traditional proposition is (the one which is being departed from).

In respect to the seven points, Iannuzzi’s “departure” actually boils down to his denial of (T1)—that man is the only EIC. This denial is equivalent to an affirmation: non-human EICs exist. But if non-human EICs exist, it already follows that (T3)—the only intelligent creatures other than man are the angels—is false.

However, Iannuzzi adds a further twist. He does not merely claim that aliens exist—this is his departure from the traditional view that man is the only EIC.* He also claims that some of these aliens are evil/fallen—this is the twist added to his depature. On top of that, he conjectures that a third of the aliens fell.

*If I am not mistaken, Iannuzzi also claims that human/alien hybrids exist on Earth, or that they used to exist on Earth—see Part 2 in the “Vatican and Aliens” YouTube series. This too is a departure from the traditional view that man is the only EIC. However, in this discussion our focus is on Iannuzzi’s beliefs about aliens.

Quotations from Fr Iannuzzi on “fallen aliens”

Excerpts 1c and 1d below are copied from my previous post. They are part of Iannuzzi’s response to a question from the interviewer, Dr Michael James. This is from Video 1 from the “Vatican and Aliens” series on YouTube. I refer to this video simply as “Video 1”. Text in blue is Fr Iannuzzi speaking.

Video 1: 15:08 – 15:27

Watch from here until 15:27.

[Dr Michael James] If one-third of beings fell with the angels, are there hostile anti-Christian alien beings that are at war with friendly alien beings? What would you speculate?

Excerpt 1c

Video 1: 15:36 – 15:51

See the 14 second clip here or watch from here until 15:51.

Well you mentioned that one-third of the beings fell and this goes all the way back to Revelation chapter 12 verses 4 through 9 that one third of the stars fell. It does not mention a third of the angels fell […]

Excerpt 1d

Video 1: 16:11 – 17:29

See the 46 second clip here and the 31 second clip here.

Alternatively watch from here until 17:29.

But in scripture “stars” also refers to all rational beings including those throughout the cosmos. This is alluded to in Daniel chapter 12 verse 3, Philippians 2:15. The point is, one must avoid theological reductionism which takes “stars” and applies it to only one group of individuals like the angels. And in Christian circles this has been the case. They interpret this passage of Revelation referring to a third of the stars as meaning only … only the third of the angels. The Church does not teach that it refers only to the angels. Yes, it includes the angels. Because stars is referred to as angels, as is Jesus Christ, as are believers. But it doesn’t limit it to just the angels.

[16:58] So it is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings fell with Lucifer. Therefore this may explain in part the difference between the good beings throughout the cosmos that are supported by many eyewitness testimonies as well as the bad ones throughout the cosmos. Well, considering that only one third fell, the good outnumber the bad.

More excerpts from Iannuzzi

Video 1: 24:59 – 25:30

Watch from here until 25:30

I have personally witnessed exorcisms with people who had been physically abducted. There are millions of testimonies throughout the world and the exorcists will tell you that they have cast out demons that were neither human nor angelic, they were other entities. And I'm not saying this on my own behalf, other exorcists have told me this as well.

Video 1: 28:08 – 28:32

Watch from here until 28:32

Basically in 1956 a group of ETS appeared to him [Bruno Sammaciccia] according to his memoirs and they were good. And they shared to him things about how to be better in the world improve the society in which we live and things like that. But on the flip side as I mentioned you have the bad ones and that in my opinion refers to that one-third that fell with Lucifer.

There is also a video entitled “Fr. Iannuzzi Radio Program: Ep 198- Luisa vs. Demons - Learning to Live Divine Will (3-25-23)”

Luisa vs Demons Video: 20:31 - 21:18

Watch from here until 21:18

As one who has performed many exorcisms and who has shared my experiences with other exorcists, I can attest to you on their behalf and mine, that during exorcisms there have been expelled from people demonic entities that were neither angelic nor human. Let me repeat that. Several exorcists can attest to the fact that they have expelled from people that were diabolically afflicted, entities that were neither angelic nor human …

Luisa vs Demons Video: 24:40 - 25:54

Watch from here until 25:54

[24:40] But I mention this in passing because when these individuals I know claim to have been abducted invoke the name of Jesus, the abduction stops on the spot, every single time.

From 25:00 - 25:26 Fr Iannuzzi mentions MUFON (Mutual UFO Network, see https://mufon.com/)

[25:26] Over 1000 documented cases where when an individual was being abducted and they called upon the name of Jesus, the abduction stopped. Which means these are not good beings.

[25:39] Now I know what you're thinking: they're fallen angels. No they're not. And I know people have claimed that but that's not true because they have physical bodies and angels don't have physical bodies that die and then go on to an eternal place like these do.

Luisa vs Demons Video: 26:41 - 27:40

Watch from here until 27:40

Now to conclude this theme on exotheology I'll say this. It is from my studies from the Eastern and Western Church Fathers and Doctors and saints and mystics, I've come to the conclusion based on their writings not my own theories, that when Lucifer fell as the Book of Revelation reports, he took a third of the stars with him. And that's what the Book of Revelation states. It does not state ‘a third of the angels’, but ‘a third of the stars’. And the star is the center of a galaxy that has life. [NASA says otherwise! “A galaxy is a huge collection of gas, dust, and billions of stars and their solar systems”]. A solar system that has life. Our star is the sun. So according to them … and I believe this very much – that a third of all rational beings in the cosmos fell. And this may explain … the evil abductions, who knows?

Finally there’s this longer excerpt from Video 3 in the “Vatican and Aliens” YouTube series.

Video 3: 30:11 - 32:05

Watch from here until 32:05

[30:11] I referred to in Parts Two and Three to the Biblical meaning of stars comprising one third of not just the angels but all rational sentient beings of the cosmos that fell with Lucifer, and this may explain the millions of reported traumatic events of alien abductions many of which are also published by Dr David Jacobs. He's studied over a thousand cases of people that have claimed to have been abducted. And this phenomenon of alien abduction I've come to understand after having spoken myself with abductees is not a myth or a theory, it's a reality. And we have to come to accept it. Millions of people will not be lying throughout the world over decades and centuries. This has been going on for a long time.

[31:07] And one person I will share that I have spoken to briefly is a woman from British Columbia, Canada. And she shared with me how her mother, she, her daughter were all abducted and I did send her in the mail some holy water, holy exorcised water … and things like that because these things do stop these abductions.

[31:31] There's another report of Dr John Edward Mack. He died recently, he was a Harvard PhD Professor who interviewed and clinically studied individuals who were abducted and published two books in 1994, 1999 on the trauma that accompanies these abductions. Now these are related on my opinion to this one third that fell. And then you have of course the two thirds that are good, the majority. And these are the ones of whom Clifford Stone speaks and Philip Corso writes about and so forth.

Summary of Iannuzzi’s claims in these excerpts

• One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer

• This may explain why there are testimonies of encounters with good ETIs and also testimonies of encounters with bad ETIs.

• It is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos fell, and to read Revelation 12:4 in this way.

• The good ETIs outnumber the bad 2:1.

• Exorcists including Fr Iannuzzi testify to the fact that they have cast out evil entities that were neither human nor angelic. These have physical bodies. So they must be fallen ETIs.

• Millions of people have testified to being abducted by aliens. Fr Iannuzzi has interviewed some of them. In all cases the experience stops when the name of Jesus is invoked. Exorcised holy water and other sacramentals also prevent the abductions. But these entities are not demons (fallen angels) as many have concluded. They are fallen ETIs.

Comment

Are there any passages in Luisa’s Book of Heaven that support Iannuzzi’s view that there are fallen aliens? Or even the view there is at least one fallen alien in the universe? I am certain that no such passage exists anywhere in the 36 Volumes, and that no sound argument for Iannuzzi’s unusual view can be constructed on the basis of that text. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

The position narrated consistently throughout the Book of Heaven is that man is the only fallen being in the physical universe, as I demonstrate next. It would be odd if Luisa had also written something that blatantly contradicts these 22 passages, all of which speak directly against Iannuzzi’s view. I’m sure Fr Iannuzzi does not want to attribute that level of inconsistency to a mystic of whose cause he is a champion.

The 22 excerpts from the Book of Heaven

Currently (January 2, 2025) there is no official English translation of the 36 volumes of Luisa Piccarreta’s Book of Heaven. A critical edition with theological commentary should be released in the future (hopefully soon). Here I use the translation by Marina d'Ariano — the “Marina translation” or “MT” for short.

In the Volumes, Luisa speaks in the first person. Text inside inverted commas are the words of Jesus, as reported by Luisa. I have highlighted certain words and passages by putting them in bold.

I briefly comment on some of the passages below. For the rest, I let the quotations speak for themselves.

1. Volume 12, March 22, 1919

As I was in my usual state, I found myself outside of myself, and I could see all the order of created things. And my sweet Jesus told me: “My daughter, see what harmony, what order in all created things, and how all of them came out to life from the Eternal Fiat …” Then He added in a more afflicted tone: “It was not so in creating man. It is true that his origin is my Fiat, but this was not enough for Me. Taken by excess of love, I breathed on him, wanting to infuse in him my very Life; I endowed him with reason; I made him free, and I constituted him king of all Creation. But man, ungrateful - how did he correspond to Me? Amid all Creation, he alone has become the sorrow of my Heart, the clashing note.” [Marina translation]

2. Volume 14, August 6, 1922

“My Will contains perfect balance. Balance brings order, regimen, utility, harmony. All things harmonize together as if they were one single thing. Order brings equality; equality brings likeness. This is why there is so much harmony, order and likeness in the Three Divine Persons, and all created things are in perfect harmony - one is the support, the strength and the life of the other. If just one created thing disharmonized, all the others would tumble and end up in ruin.

Only man moved away from Us, from the balance of Our Will. Oh! how man tumbled, and from the highest place he fell into the deepest abyss!” [MT]

3. Volume 17, May 4, 1925

“Therefore, be attentive, because this is about placing in safety that Eternal Will which, with so much love, wants to dwell in the creatures [i.e., in human beings]. But It wants to be known, It does not want to be like a stranger, but wants to give Its goods and become Life of each one. However, It wants Its rights, Its place of honor; It [the Divine Will] wants the human will to be put aside – the only enemy for Itself and for man. The mission of my Will was the purpose of the creation of man. My Divinity did not depart from Heaven - from Its throne, while my Will not only departed, but descended into all created things and formed Its Life in them. But while all things recognized Me, and I dwell in them with majesty and decorum, man alone drove Me away.” [MT]

4. Volume 18, January 28, 1926

“[T]he whole Creation, including man, came out of the Eternal Creator as their source of Life, in which they were to be preserved only with the Life of the Divine Will. Everything was to be founded upon It, and this foundation of the Divine Will was to preserve all things as beautiful and noble, just as they had come out of God. And, in fact, all created things are just as they were created – none of them has lost anything of its origin; only man lost the life, the foundation, and therefore he lost his nobility, the strength, and the likeness to his Creator.” [MT]

5. Volume 19, May 27, 1926

“[T]he purpose of Creation was that, all things having come out from within the unity of this light of the Supreme Fiat, all should have remained in the unity of It. Only the creature [i.e., man] did not want to recognize this purpose; he went out of the unity of the light of the sun of my Will, and reduced himself to begging for the effects of this light, almost as the earth begs its vegetation and the development of the seeds it hides in its womb, from the sun. What sorrow, my daughter – to reduce oneself from king to beggar, and to beg from those which were to be at his service.”

...

And Jesus, sighing, added: “My daughter, feeling your nothingness more does not oppose the living in my Will; on the contrary, it is a duty of yours. All of my works are formed over nothing, and this is why the All can do what He wants. If the sun had reason, and someone asked it: ‘What good do you do? What are your effects? How much light and heat do you contain?’; it would answer: ‘I do nothing, I just know that the light given to me by God is invested with the Supreme Will, and I do whatever It wants. I extend wherever It wants, and I produce the effects It wants; and while I do so much, I remain always nothing and the Divine Will does everything in me.’ The same for all my other works - all their glory is to remain in their nothingness in order to give the whole field to my Will, to let It operate. Only man wanted to do without the Will of his Creator, he wanted to make his nothingness operate, believing himself to be good at something; and the All, feeling Himself placed after the nothing, went out of man, who reduced himself from superior to all, to inferior to all.” [MT]

Anyone who has read a substantial amount of the 36 Volumes knows that “creatures” always signifies human beings.

6. Volume 19, May 31, 1926

“Before sinning, since he [Adam] possessed the source of the unity of light with his Creator, each little act of his was a ray of light which, invading the whole Creation, went to fix itself in the center of his Creator, bringing Him the love and the return for all that had been made for him in the whole Creation. He was the one who harmonized everything and formed the note of accord between Heaven and earth. But as soon as he withdrew from my Will, his acts no longer invaded Heaven and earth like rays, but they shrank, almost like plants and flowers, within the little circle of his field. So, losing the harmony with all Creation, he became the clashing note of all Creation. Oh! how low he descended, and cried bitterly over the lost unity of light, which, raising him above all created things, made of Adam the little god of the earth.” [MT]

Jesus says that man (in Adam) became “the” clashing note, not “a” clashing note of all Creation.

7. Volume 19, August 27, 1926

“My daughter, how beautiful are Our works – they are Our honor and Our perennial glory. All of them remain at their place, and each created thing fulfills its office perfectly. Man alone is Our dishonor in Our creative work, because by withdrawing from Our Will, he walks upside down, with his head down on the earth and his feet up in the air. What disorder! What disorder! It is disgusting to see him. By walking with his head upside down, he crawls on the earth, he becomes all upset, he transforms himself.” [MT]

8. Volume 20, September 17, 1926

“So, all things, even the smallest ones, have their place. It can be said that they are in their home, secure, and no one can touch them. They possess abundance of goods, because that Will which flows in them possesses the source of all goods; they are all in the order, the harmony, and the peace of all. On the other hand, by withdrawing from Our Will, man lost his place; he remained without Our home, exposed to dangers. All can touch him to harm him; the very elements are superior to him because they possess a Supreme Will, while he possesses a degraded human will, which can give him nothing but miseries, weaknesses and passions. And because he lost his origin, his place, he remained without order, disharmonized from all, and he enjoys no peace, not even within himself. So, it can be said that he is the only being wandering in the whole Creation, to whom nothing is due by right, because We give everything to one who lives in Our Will, for he is in Our home – he is one from Our family. The relations, the bonds of sonship which he possesses by living in It, give him the right to all Our goods.” [MT]

9. Volume 20, October 24, 1926

“Now, you must know that all Creation and all my works done in Redemption are as though tired of waiting, and find themselves in the condition of a noble and rich family, whose children are all of proper stature, good looking, of uncommon intelligence, always well dressed, and with marvelous neatness. They are the ones who make always the best impression among all others. Now, after such great fortune, this family has had a misfortune: one of these children, degrading himself, descends from his nobility and goes around always dirty; he does unworthy and vile acts which dishonor the nobility of the family, and as much as they do so that he may appear together with the other brothers, they do not succeed; on the contrary, he keeps getting worse and worse, to the point of becoming the mockery and the laughingstock of all. The whole family has a constant sorrow; and as much as they feel the dishonor of this son, they cannot destroy him and say that he does not belong to them, and that he did not come from that same father to whom they belong. Such is the condition in which all Creation and all the works of my Redemption find themselves. They are all a celestial family, their origin is divine nobility; all of them have the Will of their Celestial Father as their insignia, dominion and life, and therefore they all maintain themselves in their nobility – beautiful, decorous, pure, of enchanting beauty, and worthy of that Will which possesses them. After so much glory and honor for this celestial family, they have had the misfortune that one alone – man – who came from their same Father, has degraded himself; and in the midst of such great glory and beauty of theirs, he is always dirty, he does foolish actions - unworthy and vile. They cannot deny that he belongs to them, but they do not want him in their midst so dirty and foolish.” [MT]

Jesus says that the whole family has “a” constant sorrow, which is the dishonour of “this” son (singular).

10. Volume 20, December 25, 1926

Note that whenever Luisa writes “creatures”, she means human beings.

“There was a contest between Mother and Son – I in giving, She in receiving. As this little Humanity of Mine made Its first entrance upon earth, my Divinity wanted to shine forth from It, in order to go around everywhere and make the first sensible visit to all Creation. Heaven and earth – all received this visit of their Creator, except for man. They had never received so much honor and glory as when they saw their King, their Maker, within their midst; all felt honored, for they were to serve the One from whom they had received their existence, therefore all made feast. So, my birth was of great joy and glory for Me on the part of my Mama and of all Creation; but it was for Me of great sorrow on the part of creatures.” [MT]

11. Volume 25, December 8, 1928

“So, all Creation – Heaven and earth, and even hell – felt in the immaculate conception of this Virgin little girl, just newly born in the womb of Her mama, the strength of the order which She was placing in all Creation. With my Will, She associated Herself with all as their sister, She embraced all, She loved everything and everyone; and all longed for Her, loved Her, and felt honored to adore the Divine Will in this privileged creature.

How could all Creation not celebrate? In fact, up until then, man had been the disorder among all created things; no one had had the courage, the heroism, to say to his Creator: ‘I do not want to know my will – I give it to You as gift; I want your Divine Will alone as life.’ But this Holy Virgin gave Her will in order to live of the Divine, and therefore all Creation felt the happiness of the order which, through Her, was given back to It …” [MT]

Jesus says that man has been “the” disorder, not merely “a” disorder among all created things.

12. Volume 25, March 22, 1929

“The Fiat Voluntas Tua on earth as It is in Heaven is precisely this: that man return into my Divine Will; and only when It sees again Its child happy, living in Its house, with the opulence of Its goods - then will It calm Itself. And so It will be able to say: ‘My child has come back, he is clothed with his royal garments, he wears the crown of king, he lives together with Me, and I have given back to him the rights which I gave him in creating him. So, the disorder in Creation is ended, because man has come back into my Divine Will’.” [MT]

Jesus speaks of “My child” in the singular. He also says that man coming back into the Divine Will is a sufficient condition for the disorder in Creation ending. This entails that there are no fallen intelligent creatures in the physical universe besides man.

13. Volume 26, May 16, 1929

“[N]othing is lacking to Our work of Creation – heavens, suns, works and magnificence of every kind; but one point is missing – yet a point which disfigures a work so beautiful. This point is the most important; it is the most beautiful shade, it is the most vivid color that is missing in the Creation: everyone and everything lives in my Fiat, but one point of It – that is, the human family – is outside of It, outside of my Kingdom, and it lives unhappy.” [MT]

14. Volume 26, June 27, 1929

Then my sweet Jesus continued, saying: “My daughter, the sea of Our Divinity always murmurs, without ever ceasing. But do you know what it says in its murmuring? ‘Love! Love toward the creature!’ And the ardor of Our Love is so great, that in Our continuous murmuring We overflow with Love, and We form such gigantic waves as to be able to drown Heaven and earth, and all creatures [i.e., human beings], all with Love. And seeing that they do not let themselves be filled completely with Our Love, with the desire to see creatures overflow with Our Love, the delirious Love forms within Us; and in Our delirium, putting the human ingratitude aside, and murmuring, We repeat more loudly: ‘Love! Always love to the one who denies and does not take Our Love to let herself be loved and give Us love.’“ [MT]

There is only one who does not freely receive God’s love. Not one individual, but one species. “The creature” signifies a human being, taken either individually or collectively as a species (“man”).

15. Volume 26, August 12, 1929

I was doing my round in the Divine Volition, and my sweet Jesus, drawing me outside of myself, made me see the whole Creation in the act of coming out of His creative hands. Each thing carried the mark of the creative hand of its Maker, therefore everything was perfect, of an enchanting beauty. Each created thing was animated by vivid light, either as property of nature given to it by God, or indirectly, communicated by one who possessed it. Everything was light and beauty. But amid so much light and enchantment of beauty, one could see a black speck, which appeared so ugly, especially being in the midst of so many works, so beautiful, majestic and refulgent. This black speck aroused terror and compassion, because it seemed that, in its own nature, God had not created it black, but beautiful; even more, it once was a work of the most beautiful created by the Supreme Being.

…

“We are inseparable from Our works, and We like them so much that We delight in doing them continuously, and this is why they maintain themselves majestic, beautiful, fresh, as if, there and then, they were receiving the beginning of their life. Look at them – how beautiful they are; they are the narrators of Our Divine Being and Our perennial glory. But amid so much glory of Ours, look – there is the black speck of the human will. Loving man with greater love, We endowed him with a free will, but, abusing, he wanted to breathe and palpitate in his human will, not with Ours, and therefore it changes continuously to the extent of blackening, losing its beauty and freshness, and it reaches the point of losing the Divine Life in its human nature.

So, who will put to flight the thick darkening of the human will? Who will give back to it the freshness, the beauty of its creation? The acts done in Our Divine Will. They will be light which will dispel the darkness, and heat which, molding it with its heat, will destroy in it all the bad humors that have rendered it ugly. The acts done in my Will will be the rebound to all the human acts done with the human will. This rebound will restore the freshness, the beauty, the order, as the human will was created. Therefore, many acts are needed, done by the creature in Our Divine Volition, in order to prepare the counterpoison, the beauty, the freshness, the act opposite to everything evil that the human will has done. Then will Our works in Creation appear all beautiful; the black speck will disappear, and it will convert into a point, the most luminous one, in the midst of the magnificence of Our created works; and Our Divine Will will take the dominion of all, and will reign on earth as It does in Heaven.” [MT]

Again, man’s returning to the Divine Will is a sufficient condition for the Divine Will taking “the dominion of all.” This means that there are no fallen intelligent creatures in the physical universe other than man.

16. Volume 27, November 14, 1929

“The first rights of how all things were created, including man, are sacred, are holy and just; and, with justice, all should stick to the first act, as they were created. Only man was unable to maintain for himself the great honor of the way he was created by God; but this cost him so much, and therefore all evils swooped down upon him.” [MT]

17. Volume 28, November 20, 1930

“And since my Will fills heavens, sun, sea and everything, even though they do not have reason, they are dominated freely by the powerful Strength and Reason of my Fiat, from which they never moved away.

Therefore, in the name of the heavens, sun and everything, you can, by right, ask for Its Kingdom, because the smallest thing as well as the greatest, animated and dominated by my Divine Will, is always superior to man. In fact, without It [the Divine Will], man occupies the last place; he is the degraded one and the most humiliated in the midst of all created things; he is the neediest, the poorest who, in order to live, has to stretch out his hand to all created things to receive the charity of their beneficial effects.” [MT]

If there were other fallen beings in the physical universe besides man, he would not occupy the “last place”, nor would he be the “neediest” or “most humilitated” or “poorest” in the universe.

18. Volume 29, May 31, 1931

“The sea, as it murmurs, the water, as it gives itself to creatures, the earth, as it becomes green and produces plants and flowers – so many multiple acts of my Will do they perform. My Will is the motor of everything and keeps all Creation in act of doing Its Will; and this is why they are all happy, they never lose their place of honor, nor are they subject to dying – because my Will operating in created things gives them perennial life. Only the creature, the one who was to make the greatest display in doing a continued act of my Will, is the only one that goes out of the motor of It, and reaches the point of placing herself against a Will so holy.” [MT]

To repeat: “the creature” is man.

19. Volume 30, April 2, 1932

“My daughter, all the works of Our Supreme Being are perfect and complete – none of Our works is by half. The Creation is all complete and perfect; even more, there are many things which are not of absolute necessity, but like luxury and pomp of Our power, love and magnificence. Should man alone, for whom all things were created, remain like an incomplete and imperfect work of Our own, without the purpose for which he was created – which is for Our Fiat to have Its Kingdom in each creature? And this, because he sinned and remained stained and degraded, which rendered him like a collapsing house, exposed to his thieves and enemies – as if Our Power were limited and did not have all the power to do what It wants, the way It wants it, and when It wants it? Whoever thinks that the Kingdom of Our Will cannot come puts Our very Supreme Power in doubt. We can do anything; We might lack the willingness, but when We want it Our Power is so great, that whatever We want We do – there is nothing that can resist before Our Power.” [MT]

20. Volume 31, September 8, 1932

“My daughter, created things were made by Us in order to form many ways, so that man might make use of them in order to come to Us. In fact, We left them all open, so that, whenever he wanted to come, he would have no need to knock, or to open in order to come to Us. He was Our son – it was right and reasonable that he would have all the ways open to go to His Celestial Father and spend time with Him, to love Him and be loved, and, as son, to ask Him for graces and favors. But do you know what the ungrateful son did? He himself shut the ways closed, formed the bars and, by sin, formed the doors, closing the correspondences with the One who had given him life. Now, do you want to know who returns to open the doors, to burn up the bars? One who loves Me and lives in my Divine Will. The love and my Fiat are the powerful forces that burn and empty everything, and open all the ways, so as to place the distant child once again in the arms of his Celestial Father.

21. Volume 33, May 12, 1934

“[A]ll things, and the very human nature, draw from the eternal motion of God, in such a way that everything revolves around Him. The whole of Creation, the breath, the heartbeat, the blood circulation, are under the empire of the eternal motion; and since everyone and everything receives life from this motion, they are inseparable from God; and as they have life, so do they revolve around the Supreme Being with a unanimous race. So, the breath, the heartbeat, the human motion – it is not in their power to breathe, to palpitate, to move; whether they want it or not, given the incessant motion of the Eternal One, they too feel the incessant act of breathing, of palpitating and of moving. It can be said that they live life together with God and with all created things, which revolve around Him without ever stopping.

Only the human will, as We had created it with the great gift of the free willing, that it might tell Us, freely, that it loved Us – not because it was forced, as the breath is forced to breathing, or the heart to beating and to receiving the motion of its Creator; but out of its wanted will, not forced, it might love Us and remain together with Us, to receive the operating life in Our Volition… [ellipsis in original] It [The Divine Volition] was the greatest honor and gift We gave to the creature, and she, ungrateful, moves away from Our union and inseparability, and therefore from the union of all and of everything, and therefore she gets lost, she degrades herself, becomes debilitated, loses the one strength, and is the only one in the whole Creation to lose her race, her place of honor, her beauty, her glory, and goes wandering, shifted from her place that she has in Our Will, which calls her, longs for her to be at her place of honor. So, all have a place, even the human breath and heartbeat; and since everyone and everything has a place, they never lose life and their incessant motion – none of them feels poor, weak, but rich in the eternal motion of their Creator. Only the human will, because it does not want to be in the royal place of the Divine Volition is the lost one and the poorest of all …” [MT]

22. Volume 36, April 25, 1938

“This is why I call the creature [i.e., the human being] to live in Our Will – so that she may be sustained and strengthened by It, and so give honor to Our creative work. In fact, only man is voluble, while all Our other works never change: the heavens are always fixed, nor do they tire of remaining stretched out; the sun always runs its course, nor does it ever change the action of giving its light for the good of all the earth; the air is always in act of letting itself be breathed. All things remain just as they were created by Us, and they keep doing the same action. Only man, by not wanting to live in Our Divine Will, descends from the manners of his Creator and is incapable of bringing his works to completion, therefore he can’t love them or appreciate them, nor can he receive the merit of his works.” [MT]

Conclusion

My stated objective was to demonstrate that

• Luisa Piccarretta’s clear and consistent position throughout the Book of Heaven is that man is the only fallen EIC (as per Thesis A)

  • This was acheived in the previous section. An overabundance of evidence was given in support of this point. There is no room for doubt.

• Fr Iannuzzi’s position is that ETIs exist and that some of them are fallen

  • This was acheived in the section just before that, entitled “Quotations from Fr Iannuzzi on fallen aliens”. An overabundance of evidence was given in support of this point also. There is no room for doubt.

• Fr Iannuzzi therefore (i) contradicts Thesis A and (ii) in this respect departs from the cosmology outlined in the Book of Heaven.

  1. This has been acheived. The conclusion follows from the previous two points, both of which have been demonstrated.

How far does Iannuzzi depart from the cosmology outlined in the Book of Heaven in general? That is another question, which we have not addressed here. To begin to answer it, we would have to ask whether Iannuzzi’s belief in ETIs (not just fallen ETIs) contradicts Luisa’s cosmology. Toward the beginning of this article I indicated in passing that there is no room in Luisa’s cosmology for the existence of embodied intelligent creatures other than man. However, I didn’t provide any evidence for this. This will be the objective of a future research article.

In a follow-up article I will

• discuss the significance of Iannuzzi’s (very obvious and very public) departure from the cosmology outlined in the Book of Heaven, in light of the fact that Iannuzzi is an internationally renowned scholar, expert, teacher and champion of the spirituality of Luisa Piccarreta, and

• draw attention to some of the negative aspects of this bizarre and unfortunate situation.

Final Comments

Respectful comments are welcome either through this website (there are two methods: the “Contact” page or the comments section) or by email directly: brendan.philosophy [at] gmail.com

If you’d like to support my work — a lot of work has gone into this project, and I mean a lot— you might

• share this article

• write to me

• subscribe and/or

• pray for me, for my family and for this work.

At this stage I have not set up the right platform(s) for donations. If you’d like to do that in the future (for the price of a coffee, for example), you might express your interest/pledge through email or the Contact page.

I’d be very grateful for any form of support.

God bless you.

Dr Brendan Triffett

Father Iannuzzi’s Flights of Fancy: Transcripts of Video 1.

Introduction

In this post I provide some excerpts from the first video in the three part series called "The Vatican, Christianity and Aliens.” The three videos appear on a YouTube Channel called Divine Will Era. Fr Joseph Iannuzzi is the presenter and the host is a certain Dr Michael James. The description under this first video is as follows:

Citing from Christian and official sources, Fr. J.L. Iannuzzi, STL, S.Th.D. demonstrates the existence of intelligent alien life.

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

The title of the video is Fr. Dr. Iannuzzi: Vatican & Aliens PART 1: Intelligent Life throughout Cosmos - Padre Pio - Prophecy. That is quite a mouthful and has too many colons and dashes, so I will be calling it simply, “Video 1”. It is found here.

In my critical analysis of Video 1, I will debunk many of the claims made by Fr Iannnuzzi and point out numerous logical errors. The purpose of the post you are reading is to prepare the ground for my critical analysis in a future post.

Here you will find resources (“the evidence”): transcripts for a number of excerpts from Video 1, links to the corresponding video footage along with time stamps, relevant images from the video footage, and a summary list of the claims that I will be evaluating. I will be referring back to this evidence in my critical analysis.

The context and motivation for this project is explained in my first post here.

*

Both Fr Iannuzzi and Dr James are known for promoting the writings and spirituality of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta (1865—1947). So let me be clear: my intention is not to cast doubt on the authenticity of Luisa’s writings nor on the spirituality that is called “living in the Divine Will.”

In fact, one of the concerns motivating this project is that Fr Iannuzzi has drawn upon the writings of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta in his arguments for the existence of aliens (extraterrestrial intelligence, ETI). I firmly believe that Fr Iannuzzi is causing confusion by appropriating Luisa’s writings (and the commentary of St Annibale de Francia) in this way for his own personal speculations on ETI. In this case—I do not say “in general” or “as a rule” but simply “in this case”—he has taken passages out of context and mangled their meaning.

In a future post I will highlight the sections in Video 2 where Fr Iannuzzi brings the writings of Luisa and St Annibale into his argument for the existence of ETIs (see here until the end of the video).

This way of presenting Luisa’s writings may or may not be dishonest. For it’s possible that Father genuinely believes that the cited passages mean what he wants them to mean. If that’s the case, that is a great concern in itself! There are two possibilities here, as I see it: either Iannuzzi was careless and incompetent when it came to interpreting a certain portion of Luisa’s writings, or he has acted dishonestly. But in any case it is highly irresponsible of him to be so careless in his interpretation and presentation of these passages.

I understand that I haven’t yet made my case for these claims about Iannuzzi’s reading of Luisa—I have only directed the reader to the evidence (two paragraphs above). And we must presume that a person is “innocent” until proven “guilty”. May nobody violate this principle of justice when it comes to their judgements about Fr Iannuzzi.

The difficulty I face is that this has expanded into a larger project with many parts and I want to start at the beginning. But at the same time it’s necessary to provide the context of the project, and to communicate my motivation, my intentions, the reasons for my concern, and the direction in which the project is going. I have confessed my concerns; I have not yet made my case.

*

So let’s look at the evidence! Links to the excerpts of video are provided in case the reader would like to check the content or accuracy of the transcript. Watching the excerpts is not strictly necessary, however. My comments are in square brackets. Italics indicate emphasis given by the speaker. I draw attention to parts of the text by using bold.

The reader who wants to “cut to the chase” might prefer to skip to the final section, the summary.

Excerpts of Video 1

Excerpt 1a

Video 1: 5:40 – 6:05

See the 25 second clip here or watch from here until 6:05.

They [i.e., different types of Church documents cited in the Catechism] do not all enjoy the same level of authoritative teaching. So when we are speaking you know the teaching of the Church on extraterrestrials which is not definitive, you're open to believe it. Actually the Church encourages to … encourages you to believe it. Even the Vatican priest in charge of the [Vatican] Observatory has said we should believe because there's a lot of reason to.

According to Iannuzzi, then:

• The Church encourages you to believe in ETIs.

Excerpt 1b

Video 1: 9:14 – 10:04

See the 50 second clip here or watch from here until 10:04.

And as I mentioned the Vatican chief astronomer Father José Funes [Director of the Vatican Observatory from 2006 to 2015] said that – and I'm going to quote you from him – “In my opinion the possibility of life on other planets exists.” The possibility of life on other planets exists. This is a statement from the Vatican chief astronomer and he says there’s no conflict between believing in God and then the possibility of extraterrestrial brothers. He uses that word “brothers”. So they're not all evil as some of these cracker barrel theologians who have no degree in theology are claiming on the internet [context: Iannuzzi is taking a shot at Daniel O’Connor without naming him], saying oh they're all evil, they're fallen angels, they're possessing. No. They're not angels. They're not humans. They are entities as Saint Padre Pio stated, that are visible, that are physical but that are not on Earth. They may visit the Earth but they're not from here.

Iannuzzi’s claims:

• Some theologians claim that all encounters with aliens are actually encounters with demons, but this is incorrect.

• ETIs exist, but not all ETIs are evil.

• At least some of them are our “brothers”.

• ETIs may visit the Earth but they are not from here.

Excerpt 1c

Video 1: 15:36 – 15:51

See the 14 second clip here or watch from here until 15:51.

Well you mentioned that one-third of the beings fell and this goes all the way back to Revelation chapter 12 verses 4 through 9 that one third of the stars fell. It does not mention a third of the angels fell […]

 Iannuzzi claims that

• One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer.

 The same theme will appear again multiple times, more clearly expressed.

Excerpt 1d

Video 1: 16:11 – 17:29

See the 46 second clip here and the 31 second clip here.

Alternatively watch from here until 17:29.

But in scripture “stars” also refers to all rational beings including those throughout the cosmos. This is alluded to in Daniel chapter 12 verse 3, Philippians 2:15. The point is, one must avoid theological reductionism which takes “stars” and applies it to only one group of individuals like the angels. And in Christian circles this has been the case. They interpret this passage of Revelation referring to a third of the stars as meaning only … only the third of the angels. The Church does not teach that it refers only to the angels. Yes, it includes the angels. Because stars is referred to as angels, as is Jesus Christ, as are believers. But it doesn’t limit it to just the angels.

[16:58] So it is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings fell with Lucifer. Therefore this may explain in part the difference between the good beings throughout the cosmos that are supported by many eyewitness testimonies as well as the bad ones throughout the cosmos. Well, considering that only one third fell, the good outnumber the bad.

Iannuzzi claims: 

• One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer [as above]

• This may explain why there are testimonies of encounters with good ETIs and also testimonies of encounters with bad ETIs.

• It is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos fell, and to read Revelation 12:4 in this way.

• The good ETIs outnumber the bad 2:1.

Excerpt 1e

Video 1: 17:37 – 17:53 …

See the 16 second clip here or watch from here until 17:53.

Iannuzzi claims that

• His view on ETIs is “founded theological speculation grounded upon eyewitness reports, traditional teachings, apparition, revelations approved by the Church. And Scripture itself.”

Excerpt 1f

Video 1: … 17:53 – 18:25 …

See the 32 second clip here or watch from here until 18:25.

Let’s go to Scripture, the Book of Genesis. When Adam and Eve were created, according to biblical genealogies 4000 BC, six thousand years ago … after he committed original sin, Cain and Abel … Cain just walked up and killed Abel because God preferred Abel’s sacrifice. Then God puts a mark on Cain, why? So that nobody would harm him. Well if Adam and Eve were the only two people there why would he have to put on a mark unless others were there that could harm him?

The rhetorical question, seen in context, is a claim:

• Since God had to put a mark on Cain to protect him, there must have been other rational beings on Earth at that time outside the human race (Adam and Eve and their descendants).

Excerpt 1g

Video 1: … 18:26 – 20:00 …

See the 55 second clip here and the 39 second clip here.

Alternatively watch from here until 20:00.

We also find in the same Book of Genesis, Deuteronomy, there were these beings that fell from above they called the Nephilim. Now what are these beings that fell from above? The word “Nephilim” in Hebrew doesn't mean “angels”. It means beings that didn't come but fell from above. And this is found in Genesis 6:4, it's found in Numbers 13:31. But these Nephilim are just one of several unexplained beings in the Old Testament that were here.

But what's interesting about these Nephilim is that they had relations with the daughters of men. Who were these beings? The Church does not teach definitively on this. It only gives us suggestions or opinions or theories in footnotes. But we do know that as soon as these Nephilim that fell from above were having relations with the daughters of men, the inhabitants were so evil, God sent the flood.

The Anakites, these were another unknown civilization of beings in Canaan around the time, shortly after Adam. Or … it was actually, they were probably there before Adam.

But we know that they're described in a way that suggests that they were very large beings, almost giants. For example, Deuteronomy 2:10, 21, Deuteronomy 9:2, Numbers 13 32-33. And then you have these other beings called the Emites that were very strong people and as tall as the Anakites. This is found in Deuteronomy 2:10. And the list goes on.

Here Iannuzzi claims:

• The Nephilim are not fallen angels.

• “Nephilim” means a being that didn’t come but fell from above.

• There were several unexplained groups of beings in the OT that existed on Earth, including the Nephilim.

• The Nephilim had relations with the daughters of men.

• The Flood was God’s response to widespread evil.

• The book of Genesis associates the widespread evil that immediately preceded the Flood with the Nephilim having relations with the daughters of men.

• There were a number of civilizations of unknown beings in Canaan in OT times (from Adam to Joshua), including the Anakites.

• The Anakites probably existed before Adam.

• The Anakites and Emites were very large beings: giants or almost giants.

Excerpt 1h

Video 1: … 20:00 – 21:05 …

See the 36 second clip here and the 28 second clip here.

Alternatively watch from here until 21:05.

We also have evidence of archaeological findings that revealed that there were civilizations buried underground for millennia that pre-date 4000 BC. For example there's a place called Çatalhöyük, it's a funny word […] it was apparently founded, has been dated to 9000 BC [official sites say around 7500 BC, others say 9000 BC]. That was discovered by archaeologists. And then we have these pictographs, etchings in caves throughout the world that go so far as almost 39 000 BC.

And the oldest known pictograph is in the upper Paleolithic area of Mount Castillo. Point is, it's very likely and it's proven archaeologically and historically that there are images and writings in stone, cuneiform, hieroglyphics that pre-date the 4000 BC creation of Adam and Eve. These were not humans. These were very likely beings but from where we don't know.

Iannuzzi claims:

• Archeological findings tell us that there were civilizations of (embodied) rational beings on Earth millennia before 4000 BC.

• But Adam and Eve were created around 4000 BC.

• Therefore these more ancient rational beings were not human.

Excerpt 1i

Video 1: … 21:05 – 22:10

See the 23 second clip here and the 41 second clip here.

Alternatively watch from here until 22:10.

The Sumeran texts [he must mean “Sumerian” because “Sumeran” means something else entirely!], they are witness to this and the scholar [sic!] that recently died, Zecharia Stitchen [he must mean “Sitchin”] who interpreted Sanskrit and Sumeran [i.e., Sumerian] which only like four people on Earth can read, he was very clear that and he can show the actual cuneiforms, they knew the solar system thousands of years before we discovered it. [At 21:10 an image is shown of Sitchin with a Sumerian artefact, the VA 243 Cylinder Seal. A section of the seal shows a star-like image with eleven smaller circles surrounding it.] You could see nine planets.

Relevant images that appear in this excerpt:

This is a zoomed-in version (shown at 21:23 — the lower circle or “planet” has been cropped out) of a close-up of the VA 243 cylinder seal that has added markings. The close-up with added markings can be found on pseudo-scientific websites — and on sites devoted to debunking Sitchin’s claims. I don’t know who added the markings originally.

This image doesn’t appear in the excerpt; it appears on this site. Note that in this version the lower circle (the so-called “planet”) has not been cropped out.

In Excerpt 1i Iannuzi claims that:

• There are Sumerian texts which support the existence of pre-Adamic rational beings on Earth.

• Zecharia Sitchin is a reliable scholar and translator of these Sumerian texts.

• Only about four people on Earth can read Sumerian texts.

• Reading the cuneiform script on Sumerian artefacts, Sitchin was able to demonstrate that the Sumerians knew about the solar system (Sun and nine planets) thousands of years before we knew about it.

• There is a Sumerian artefact (the VA 243 cylinder seal) where you can see our solar system depicted with nine planets.

• Scientists have confirmed that a ninth planet (after Neptune, but not Pluto) may well exist with a long orbit around the Sun of between ten thousand and twenty thousand Earth years.

Excerpt 1j

Video 1: 22:21 – 22:45

See the 23 second clip here or watch from here until 22:45.

So you say to yourself, how could these Sumerans [i.e., Sumerians] know this, have this knowledge? And how can Cain receive this Mark if there was no one but Adam and Eve? Who were these Nephilim, these Emites etc? [at 22:38 an image of the “flying aircraft” hieroglyphics is shown] And the Egyptian hieroglyphics you look at some of them, you find flying aircraft engraved in them. Things that look like helicopters, discs.

In Excerpt 1j a number of questions are raised by Fr Iannuzzi:

• How could the ancient Sumerians have such detailed knowledge of our solar system?

• From which rational beings on Earth did God protect Cain, given that there were no other humans on Earth that might harm him at that time?

• Who were the Nephilim, the Anakites and the Emites?

He claims that

• There are flying aircraft engraved in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs; these look like helicopters and flying discs.

From Iannuzzi’s perspective, this raises another question:

• How do we explain archaeological artefacts that suggest the existence of advanced technology (e.g., flying aircraft, electricity [edit 03/05/2025: see excerpt 3d, watch from here until 16:30]) in ancient times?

It is clear that Iannuzzi raises these questions in order to lead us to a conclusion:

• There were embodied rational beings on Earth prior to Adam and Eve with advanced scientific knowledge and technology.

Iannuzzi’s argument would be as follows (I’ve added steps of the argument that are clearly implied):

• That such beings existed on Earth is the most probable explanation of the four mysteries mentioned.

• 1. How could the ancient Sumerians have such detailed knowledge of our solar system?

  • It was given to them by another race of embodied rational beings.

• 2. From which rational beings on Earth did God protect Cain, given that there were no other humans on Earth that might harm him at that time?

  • A non-human race or races existed on the Earth at that time.

• 3. Who were the Nephilim, the Anakites and the Emites?

  • A non-human race or races existed on the Earth at that time.

• 4. How do we explain archaeological artefacts that suggest the existence of advanced technology in ancient times?

  • Some non-human civilization (or civilizations) shared some of their technologies with ancient humans, or some of these technologies were witnessed by ancient humans, or both.

Excerpt 1k

Video 1: 28:00 – 28:32

See the 32 second clip here or watch from here until 28:32.

But Bruno Sammaciccia again is a reputable individual, he's an academic. He published over a hundred books. He was a distinguished figure in academic circles. Basically in 1956 a group of ETs appeared to him according to his memoirs and they were good. And they shared to him things about how to be better in the world, improve the society in which we live and things like that. But on the flip side as I mentioned you have the bad ones and that in my opinion refers to that one third that fell with Lucifer.

Relevant images shown:

In Excerpt 1k Iannuzzi claims:

• Bruno Sammaciccia is a reputable individual and a distinguished academic, and has published over 100 books.

• According to Sammaciccia’s memoirs, good ETIs appeared to him in the 1950s and they spoke with him about how to be better and how to improve the world.

• Sammaciccia’s descriptions of these “good ETIs” are credible.

• Nonetheless some ETIs are bad; again these are the “one third of the stars” that fell with Lucifer.

Excerpt 1l

Video 1: 31:07 – 31:30

See the clip here or watch from here until 31:30.

So there is ample evidence and I'm not even going into other reputable exemplars of the Church that have testified to this reality that these extraterrestrials are neither angels nor they're [sic] humans but they are sentient beings, rational beings with an intellect, with a volition … that are like we do [sic].

Iannuzzi claims that

• Several reputable exemplars of the Church have testified that

  • ETIs exist

  • ETIs are neither angels nor humans

  • ETIs are sentient, rational beings with intellect and will like us.

Summary

Fr Iannuzzi makes a number of claims in Video 1. The claims uncovered above are gathered together and listed below. Note that it was not my intention to uncover all of the claims that Iannuzzi makes in the excerpts, let alone in Video 1 as a whole. Nor do the excerpts cover the whole of the video.

I round off the list of claims with a summary statement made by Iannuzzi at the start of Video 2 in the series, about the (supposed) evidence he provided in Video 1 for the existence of ETIs. This summary statement gives us further evidence that some or all of the non-human rational beings that Iannuzzi mentions in Excerpt 1j are understood by him to be ETIs. In Excerpts 1f through 1j, then, Iannuzzi sometimes argues indirectly for the existence of ancient ETIs on Earth — the ancient astronaut theory — by arguing for the existence of ancient non-human rational beings on Earth. But he also argues directly for the ancient astronaut hypothesis by describing the Nephilim as corporal, non-angelic beings (i.e., not demons) who fell from above.

Given everything that Iannuzzi says previously in Video 1, and given where his argument is headed, it is safe to assume that Iannuzzi here means “above” as a reference to outer space (“the heavens”) and thus to other planets. There is certainly precedence for this. Sitchin and other ancient astronaut theorists claim that the original meaning (or one of the original meanings) of “Nephilim” in Genesis and 1 Enoch is “those who came down from above” (see The Twelfth Planet, pp. vii, 128ff) where “above” means outer space. The late Dr Michael Heiser critiques Sitchin’s etymology here.

Excerpt 1a

1a1: The Church encourages you to believe in ETIs.

Excerpt 1b

1b1: Some theologians claim that all encounters with aliens are actually encounters with demons, but this is incorrect.

1b2: ETIs exist, but not all ETIs are evil.

1b3: At least some of them are our “brothers”.

1b4: ETIs may visit the Earth but they are not from here.

Excerpt 1c

1c1: One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer [see 1d1].

Excerpt 1d

1d1: One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer [same as 1c1].

1d2: This may explain why there are testimonies of encounters with good ETIs and also testimonies of encounters with bad ETIs.

1d3: It is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos fell, and to read Revelation 12:4 in this way.

1d4: The good ETIs outnumber the bad 2:1.

Excerpt 1e

1e1: Fr Iannuzzi’s view on ETIs is “founded theological speculation grounded upon eyewitness reports, traditional teachings, apparition, revelations approved by the Church. And Scripture itself.”

Excerpt 1f

1f1: Since God had to put a mark on Cain to protect him, there must have been other rational beings on Earth at that time outside the human race (Adam and Eve and their descendants).

Excerpt 1g

1g1: The Nephilim described in Genesis are not fallen angels.

1g2: “Nephilim” means a being that didn’t come but fell from above.

1g3: There were several unexplained groups of beings in the OT that existed on Earth, including the Nephilim.

1g3: The Nephilim had relations with the daughters of men.

1g4: The Flood was God’s response to widespread evil.

1g5: The book of Genesis associates the widespread evil that immediately preceded the Flood with the Nephilim having relations with the daughters of men.

1g6: There were a number of civilizations of unknown beings in Canaan in OT times (from Adam to Joshua), including the Anakites.

1g7: The Anakites probably existed before Adam.

1g8: The Anakites and Emites were very large beings: giants or almost giants.

Excerpt 1h

1h1: Archeological findings tell us that there were civilizations of (embodied) rational beings on Earth millennia before 4000 BC.

1h2: But Adam and Eve were created around 4000 BC.

1h3: Therefore these more ancient rational beings were not human.

Excerpt 1i

1i1: There are Sumerian texts which support the existence of pre-Adamic rational beings on Earth.

1i2: Zecharia Sitchin is a reliable scholar and translator of these Sumerian texts.

1i3: Only about four people on Earth can read Sumerian texts.

1i4: Reading the cuneiform script on Sumerian artefacts, Sitchin was able to demonstrate that the Sumerians knew about the solar system (Sun and nine planets) thousands of years before we knew about it.

1i5: There is a Sumerian artefact (the VA 243 cylinder seal) where you can see our solar system depicted with nine planets.

1i6: Scientists have confirmed that a ninth planet (after Neptune, but not Pluto) may well exist with a long orbit around the Sun of between ten thousand and twenty thousand Earth years.

Excerpt 1j

1j1: There are flying aircraft engraved in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs; these look like helicopters and flying discs.

1j2: There were embodied rational beings on Earth prior to Adam and Eve with advanced scientific knowledge and technology.

1j3: That such beings existed on Earth is the most probable explanation of four mysteries:

• How could the ancient Sumerians have such detailed knowledge of our solar system?

• 1j4: It was given to them by another race of embodied rational beings.

• From which rational beings on Earth did God protect Cain, given that there were no other humans on Earth that might harm him at that time?

• 1j5: A non-human race or races existed on the Earth at that time (same as 1f1).

• Who were the Nephilim, the Anakites and the Emites?

• 1j6: A non-human race or races existed on the Earth at that time.

• How do we explain archaeological artefacts that suggest the existence of advanced technology in ancient times?

• 1j7: Some non-human civilization (or civilizations) shared some of their technologies with ancient humans, or some of these technologies were witnessed by ancient humans, or both.

Excerpt 1k

1k1: Bruno Sammaciccia is a reputable individual and a distinguished academic, and has published over 100 books.

1k2: According to Sammaciccia’s memoirs, good ETIs appeared to him in the 1950s and they spoke with him about how to be better and how to improve the world.

1k3: Sammaciccia’s descriptions of these “good ETIs” are credible.

1k4: Nonetheless some ETIs are bad; these are the “one third of the stars” that fell with Lucifer [see 1d1 - 1d4].

Excerpt 1l

1l1:  Several reputable exemplars of the Church have testified that ETIs exist, that they are neither angels nor humans, and that they are ETIs are sentient, rational beings with intellect and will like us.

*

Excerpt 2A

Video 2: 1:49 – 2:05

See the 16 second clip here or watch from here until 2:05.

The first part addressed the scientific and anthropological data as well as the military and eye-witness reports in support of extra-terrestrial life or the possibility thereof on other planets.

2a1: There is scientific and anthropological evidence, and military and eye-witness reports, in support of the existence of ETIs.

Fr Joseph Iannuzzi on the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI): A critical analysis.

Earthrise from Apollo 8 by William Anders (1968)

Introduction

CONTEXT

Late in November 2023 I happened to watch a video presentation given by Fr Joseph Iannuzzi and hosted by Dr Michael James. This was Part 2 of a three part series posted on the Divine Will Era Ministries YouTube channel.

I already knew about Fr Iannuzzi. I have a hard copy of his doctoral dissertation, The Gift of Living in the Divine Will in the Writings of Luisa Piccarreta. My aunt had put me onto this work. After reading it and listening to a few of his podcasts, I came to respect Father for his clarity and piety. For me and many others he has been a sure guide for understanding the writings of Luisa in accordance with Catholic tradition.

For years I saw him as someone who had both spiritual depth and psychological balance. I appreciated his warnings to steer clear of false prophets and opportunists who run “false doomsday websites”, sometimes for financial gain. I agreed with Father that the fear and disturbance that these sorts of websites typically encourage are not from Our Lord.

After that I moved on. I don’t mean that I went “off” Fr Iannuzzi. His dissertation is still there as a stable point of reference on my bookshelf and in the back of my mind. If you’re anything like me, you receive what’s good from one person and next season you move onto other writers and role models. Though you might end up circling back.

As for Dr Michael James, at this point in time I don’t know anything about him except that he “works with Fr. Iannuzzi and has a ministry” (positive things are said in the comments section here). I have seen a short video of him visiting Fr Iannuzzi after saying goodbye to his daughter.

[Edit December 23 2024: The content of that video suggested that he’s a lecturer of some sort—he said he had to take time off teaching to visit Fr Iannuzzi, and he showed a brief clip inside a college. The short video has since been made private, however.

I couldn’t find any information about this “Dr Michael James”. It would help if I knew which university he attended or where he works, or the title of his doctoral thesis, or the title of any one of his publications. Or even just his area of expertise. I will continue to look into this. I will try reaching out to him via the comments section in the videos he is in.]

THE VIDEOS

The description of the video series found under each video on YouTube is as follows:

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

To say that Fr Iannuzzi “demonstrates the existence of intelligent alien life” is an overstatement. It’s more accurate to say that he “argues for” the existence of intelligent alien life.

Here are the links to the three parts and the number of views as of March 15, 2024:

• Part 1 premiered on Sep 29, 2023. 17,497 views. [Edit: 20,389 views as of Dec 23rd 2024]

• Part 2 premiered on Nov 23, 2023. 8,098 views. [Edit: 9,496 views as of Dec 23rd 2024]

  • This is the video we’ll be focusing on.

• Part 3 premiered on Dec 27, 2023. 10,400 views. [Edit: 11,402 views as of Dec 23rd 2024]

MY REACTION

Several times during my first watch of the video (Part 2) I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Iannuzzi’s* talk was riddled with basic logical errors and quite a few errors of fact! I noted some of these and watched the video again. I typed out a transcript. I looked again. More odd things began to surface. Iannuzzi appeared to be subtly misleading his audience (unintentionally?) and failing to give the proper context when it came to some of the “evidence” he was giving for his position. I dug deeper. The more fact-checking and critical thinking I applied to the transcript, the more problems I found.

*Referring to Father Iannuzzi by surname only should not be taken as a sign of disrespect. It is normal practice in writings of an academic nature.

The whole thing began to look bizarre. And emotionally I was a bit torn. How could a priest this qualified, with this many academic achievements (see here), fail to notice his research mistakes? How could he not be aware of the undergraduate level — yes, undergraduate level — philosophical errors that he was making? What was going on here? Was I out of my mind?

I don’t believe so. I was a bit torn because on one hand, I felt it was my duty to set things straight — to uncover these logical and factual errors for the public and show people that Iannuzzi’s arguments were deeply flawed. And I don’t mean that they were respectable arguments that another critical thinker might take issue with, something that often happens between academics. Rather, I mean that most of the arguments didn’t even rise to that level of respectability. On the other hand, I didn’t want to cause embarrassment. Nor did I feel comfortable with the idea of “correcting” a priest.

WHAT TO DO?

I sought counsel from a number of wise people and after a period of discernment I decided to take their advice and publish. Two months ago in the comments section under the video, I had offered to do an interview in response (I indicated my belief that Fr Iannuzzi had misinterpreted Nicholas of Cusa, though as it turned out, that was only the tip of the iceberg) but I got no reply. There were some important considerations that friends had pointed out to me:

1. It is appropriate to reply publicly to statements made in the public forum (my thanks to Prof. Larry Chapp).

2. If Iannuzzi had misled people or given flawed arguments, then people deserve to know. Thousands have already seen the video.

3. In the intellectual or academic sphere where the truth of ideas is tested, if a priest turns out to be superior as an intellectual (because he has done more research, has a better handle on the discipline, offers better arguments, etc.), that is accidental to the fact that he is a priest. In other words, questioning the intellectual integrity of an argument does not amount to questioning the spiritual authority of the priest who made the argument.

4. It is not my desire or intention for Fr Iannuzzi to end up with egg on his face. But it is not unjust if that should happen. Rather, it is Iannuzzi’s fault for publishing shoddy material. Each of us is responsible for what we put our name to.

5. Given the above, there is nothing essentially uncharitable about what I was proposing to do. Granted, reflecting on our motivations is necessary, since it is always possible to do things uncharitably.

At this point you may be thinking: the more likely scenario, Dr Triffett, is that you are out of your mind. Or you are letting your emotions get the better of you. Perhaps you are stressed, or not seeing things clearly for some other reason. Indeed you are probably out of your depth. This is Fr Iannuzzi after all. Go home, go to sleep. Let it go. Whatever you do, don’t embarrass yourself over this.

I understand if that’s what you’re thinking, given the context. And I agree that nobody should simply take my word for it when it comes to the sorts of claims that I am making. People need to look at the evidence themselves. That is my purpose in these posts: to exhibit the evidence and present arguments to support my case.

AN UNNECESSARY OBSTACLE

It gets worse. It even appears that Fr Iannuzzi took certain passages of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta out of context, and falsely interpreted a couple of sentences by St Annibale di Francia, in support of his belief in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETIs). If that is what Iannuzzi has done, then this is a serious matter. In a later installment we will look at the evidence that led me to that conclusion (Part 2, from 11:44 onwards).

I know. I didn’t expect that either. And yes, it is bizarre that Fr Iannuzzi of all people would have gotten things wrong in this area, his area of expertise (the writings and spirituality of Luisa)! And it is both ironic and concerning that the same scholar priest who (rightly) warns about the dangers of taking passages of Luisa’s writing out of context and spreading erroneous interpretations would do precisely that. (Again, these claims of mine are yet to be substantiated. I don’t want anyone to simply take my word for it. My purpose here is to explain the context of the work you are reading and give some indication of its contents.)

We are all human. In this case, I think, Father got over-excited about the (possible) existence of ETIs. And in his enthusiasm he left behind sound reasoning and sound principles of interpretation. Not to mention pastoral prudence. For (1) he was speaking authoritatively to a wide audience. And (2) he didn’t consider the fact that using (or misusing) passages from Luisa Piccarreta’s writings to support his view that ETIs exist will inevitably create obstacles for people who might otherwise have been open to the writings.

It is perfectly rational and well within the boundaries of orthodoxy to believe that the Catholic faith, understood correctly (including everything we know about God’s revealed will for man and creation), excludes the possibility of ETIs existing in our universe. (Whether God has the absolute power to create ETIs is another matter. One of Iannuzzi’s undergraduate-level errors in the interview is to conflate absolute possibility with suppositional possibility, and God’s absolute power [potentia absoluta] with his ordained power [potentia ordinata]. The error pops up multiple times. But we will get to that.) And it is neither against reason nor against revelation to hold that it is certain (or extremely likely) that God in His wisdom has created man (descended from Adam and Eve) as the only species of rational animal, the uniquely embodied image of God.

Let exclusivism be the claim that the Catholic faith, understood correctly, excludes the possibility of ETIs existing in our universe. Non-exclusivism is the claim that the Catholic faith, understood correctly, does not exclude the possibility of ETIs existing in our universe. In both cases, a commitment to the Catholic faith is assumed.

It is neither against reason nor against revelation to be an exclusivist. Exclusivism is neither irrational nor heretical. It is neither eccentric nor laughable. Nor is it a “fringe” belief amongst Catholics. Iannuzzi has said that certain passages in Luisa’s writing imply that ETIs exist or might exist. This amounts to the claim that certain passages in Luisa’s writing contradict exclusivism. For “ETIs might exist” contradicts exclusivism, as does “ETIs exist” (it does not contradict exclusivism to say that God has absolute power to create ETIs).

One likely effect of Iannuzzi’s argument, then, is that an obstacle has been placed between (a) the writings of Luisa and (b) all Catholics who are committed to exclusivism or strongly inclined toward it. Iannuzzi did indicate that the question of whether Luisa’s writings are true and her spirituality authentic is separate to the question of whether ETIs exist. But that does not remove the obstacle. To agree with Iannuzzi that certain passages in Luisa’s writing imply that ETIs exist or might exist, is already to believe that the two questions are not separate questions, after all.

Iannuzzi cannot have it both ways. He should either (1) confirm that the two issues are separate and keep the writings of Luisa out of his arguments for the (possible) existence of ETIs or (2) concede that the two issues are connected, after all.

The following imaginary dialogue might help the reader appreciate the significance of the situation that Iannuzzi has created:

“What do you think of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta?”

“I was already suspicious of them. But now I’ve heard that Luisa believes in aliens. This is not hearsay. It was confirmed by the official Vatican-supported world expert on Luisa Piccarreta! That decides it for me. No authentically Catholic mystic would receive messages from our Lord saying that God created ETIs. I advise you to stay clear!”

AN OBJECTION

But you are begging the question. Suppose Luisa’s writings actually do support the view that ETIs exist. If someone then demonstrates that this is the case, that demonstration neither puts an obstacle in the way nor inhibits the acceptance of Luisa’s writings. If people have an issue with belief in ETIs, then of course they are going to have an issue with Luisa’s writings once they understand them. But either Luisa is right to say (or imply) that ETIs exist, or she is not. If she is right, then whoever has an issue with belief in ETIs is in the wrong, in which case the obstacle lies within the person who has the issue. If she is wrong, then the obstacle is in Luisa’s writings, and one who correctly explains Luisa’s position (or implied position) on ETIs does not thereby place an obstacle between the writings and the person who is unsure about them.

RESPONSE

That is a valid point. I concede that the link that Iannuzzi makes between Luisa’s writings and the existence or possible existence of ETIs — i.e., his claim that certain passages in Luisa’s writings imply that ETIs exist or might exist — becomes an added obstacle if and only if Iannuzzi is reading that link into Luisa’s writings. There are three scenarios to consider.

1. Luisa’s writings support exclusivism and therefore the view that ETIs do not exist.

2. Luisa’s writings neither support nor contradict exclusivism.

3. Luisa’s writings contradict exclusivism and support the view that ETIs exist or might exist.

Recall that exclusivism is the claim that the Catholic faith, understood correctly (including everything we know about God’s revealed will for man and creation), excludes the possibility of ETIs existing in our universe. When we ask whether Luisa’s writings support exclusivism, for argument’s sake we assume that Luisa’s writings are true, and we understand that “everything we know about God’s revealed will for man and creation” includes the teachings of Luisa on the subject.

If the third scenario is true then Iannuzzi is not reading a link into Luisa’s writings. Rather, he is bringing into view a link—an implication—that is objectively founded in Luisa’s writings. But if the first or second scenario is true, then Iannuzzi is reading the link into Luisa’s writings.

A RESEARCH QUESTION

In order to prepare a detailed response to the video, I re-read all 36 volumes of Luisa’s Book of Heaven from the beginning to the end (I had already read and re-read most of the work prior to that, over about 20 years) along with The Hours of the Passion, The Virgin Mary in the Kingdom of the Divine Will and Luisa’s letters. Finally I re-read Fr Iannuzzi’s dissertation. I looked through all of this material carefully and always in light of my research question: which of the three scenarios is true?

I came to the conclusion that the first scenario is true. Luisa’s writings support exclusivism. In fact, there are several lines of argument beginning from different passages and themes in the writings and converging on the same conclusion.

My contention is (1) that Iannuzzi is wrong to claim that the writings support the (possible) existence of ETIs and (2) that to make such a claim is to place an unnecessary obstacle in the way between the writings and Luisa’s potential readers. However, it is not strictly necessary to demonstrate that Luisa’s writings support exclusivism (the first scenario) in order to demonstrate the truth of my contention. It is enough to demonstrate that the third scenario is false. If the third scenario is false then either Luisa’s writings support exclusivism (first scenario) or they neither support not contradict exclusivism (second scenario).

In one of the later chapters I will demonstrate that in his talk, Fr Iannuzzi gives us no reason to believe that the writings support the (possible) existence of ETIs. If everything goes to plan, the final chapters will provide comprehensive support for my contention that the writings support exclusivism and therefore the view that ETIs do not exist.

Note that this particular research question forms only part of my investigation, albeit an important one.

THE STAKES

In light of the above, it is clear that the stakes are high. Either I come out of this analysis looking like a fool, or someone else does.

Whatever the outcome, let it be for the glory of God. Nobody who wants to live in the Divine Will should be fundamentally opposed to being humbled and made to look like a fool. The ego that feeds on its own glory instead of the Holy Will of God: who cares if that gets “destroyed by facts and logic”? I shouldn’t care in the slightest; nor should Fr Iannuzzi.

Mind you, I have not set out to humiliate anyone. I have set out to set things straight. It is right and just to let the truth of things shine. If someone — me or anyone else — gets in the way of the Truth and their ego or reputation is damaged in the process, then who’s fault is that? It’s the fault of the person who got in the way of the Truth instead of making way for It.

The purpose of this work is to get to the truth of the matter, where “the matter” is certain claims made by Fr Iannuzzi in the video series, especially Part 2. I am not interested in “winning for the sake of winning”. I am interested in the truth: finding it, clarifying it, communicating it, defending it. I am not encouraging anyone to “take sides” or to engage in any other form of petty tribalism. That’s the last thing we need in the Church today.

THE AUDIENCE

I will proceed through the transcript of the video in chronological order [Edit 23rd Dec 2024: actually, I will not proceed in strict chronological order]. My critical analysis should be of interest to the following groups:

1. Those who are interested in the question of whether belief in ETIs is compatible with the Catholic faith, or more generally with Christianity.

2. Those who are interested in the philosophical and theological history of this question.

3. Those who are interested in the writings of Luisa Piccarreta for one reason or another (e.g., a devoted reader, someone who has concerns, or an impartial researcher).

CARITAS IN VERITATE

Even if every judgement of mine in these chapters proves to be correct, it does not follow that Fr Iannuzzi is a bad person or an unholy priest. Nor does it follow that we should no longer read his writings or listen to his talks. But I don’t think anyone should be “following” Fr Iannuzzi — just as I don’t think anyone should be “following” any other mere human, however holy and well-educated he or she may be.

1 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. 9 For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.

1 Cor 3:11-9 (NIV).

May Charity and Truth incarnate overcome every human will that stands in His Way.

---

In the next post (Chapter 1) I show how Iannuzzi appears to engage in “false advertising” right from the beginning of Video 2, and fails to deliver on his promise. For he is unable to show that there is any Patristic support whatsoever for his view that ETIs exist (or might exist) on other planets or even for the view that there are “multiple worlds”. [Edit May 3rd, 2024: The content I intended to deliver in the “next post” will actually appear after a few more posts that lay the foundations. But I will get there!]