Fr Iannuzzi’s curious statement about Admiral Byrd (continuing on from my previous post).
What if it turns out that Fr Iannuzzi does not believe the Earth is hollow? If that’s the case, then it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Iannuzzi has deceived his audience. I don’t claim to have divine insight into Iannuzzi’s soul, however, so I limit my comments to how things look, and what fair and reasonable people would most likely think, on the assumption that Iannuzzi doesn’t think the Earth is hollow.
In the following, I trace a reasonable thought process toward its conclusion. My intention is not to demonstrate to the reader anything about Fr Iannuzzi’s intellectual competence or moral character. My intention, rather, is to show that it is neither unreasonable nor uncharitable for someone to arrive at the proposed conclusion.
This post does not stand on its own. It is the second and final part of a discussion which begins here. To refresh the reader’s memory, I insert a quote from the previous post.
What, then, does Fr Iannuzzi believe? There are two possibilities to consider. Either Fr Iannuzzi believes in hollow Earth, or he does not.
Belief
If it turns out that he does believe it, then in my view we ought to ignore everything that he says that touches on the physical sciences. At the very least, we ought to treat his statements with a very high degree of suspicion, thoroughly fact-checking all his comments … I would even be wary of the theological statements of someone—even a trained theologian—who believes that the Earth is hollow. In my judgement, a belief of that sort … is often a sign that there is something seriously wrong with a man’s intellectual approach to the world, his way of reasoning about things …
According to his website, Fr Iannuzzi has a postgraduate degree in Medicine and a Bachelor of Philosophy (Ph.B.). In a more sane world, perhaps, it would be safe to assume that nobody in the developed world with these degrees … would ever come to believe, or even be inclined to believe, that the Earth is hollow. On the one hand, I find it very hard to believe that Fr Iannuzzi believes it. On the other hand, the whole situation with these interviews is so bizarre at times it’s hard to know what to think.
Non-Belief
What if it turns out that Fr Iannuzzi does not believe the Earth is hollow? If that’s the case, then it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Iannuzzi has deceived his audience. I don’t claim to have divine insight into Iannuzzi’s soul, however, so I limit my comments to how things look, and what fair and reasonable people would most likely think, on the assumption that Iannuzzi doesn’t think the Earth is hollow.
In the following, I trace a reasonable thought process toward its conclusion. My intention is not to demonstrate to the reader anything about Fr Iannuzzi’s intellectual competence or moral character. My intention, rather, is to show that it is neither unreasonable nor uncharitable for someone to arrive at the proposed conclusion.
First it should be noted that Iannuzzi holds up Admiral Byrd as an example of a “notable name” and “reputable person” who had an extraordinary encounter, by which I mean: an experience involving aliens or some other form of non-human embodied intelligence (“non-human earthlings”) and/or some type of non-human technology (e.g., flying saucers). He intentionally places Byrd alongside other “notable” / “reputable” men who worked for the government (in the U.S. or Canada) and had such encounters, namely: Paul Hellyer PC, Colonel Philip Corso and Sergeant Clifford Stone.
See Iannuzzi’s comment on Byrd in its context in Video 1 of the “Vatican and Aliens” series, 25:36-28:32. See also Video 3, 22:20-23:15 (see the transcript in the indented quotation after the next).
Speaking of the non-human earthlings living in hollow Earth, Michael Salla writes, “Strictly speaking, this sub-group is not extra-terrestrial in origin but simply a sub-terrestrial humanoid race that is genetically linked to humanity” (Exopolitics, 257). I coined the term “non-human earthlings” in my previous article. I do not believe there are non-human earthlings.
Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd
From Video 1 (premiered September 29, 2023):
Now at the time in ‘77 the pope was still Archbishop of Krakow but he dedicated Bruno Sammaciccia’s book to the Catholic Church. He [Sammaciccia] was visited by extraterrestrials and he wrote all about this but he did not want this to be revealed until after his death. [27:51] Much like Admiral Byrd. He [Byrd] also did not want until his death for his experience to be revealed of what he saw in the North Pole when he went there.
From Video 3 (premiered December 27, 2023):
[22:20] So to summarize these three parts of this theme of the Christian faith and the possibility of extraterrestrial life throughout the cosmos. In Part One we addressed the scientific and anthropological data as well as the declassified military and eyewitness reports supporting extraterrestrial life on other planets and its interaction with humans and even governments here on Earth. [22:52] The naval officer Admiral Richard Byrd, the Canadian minister of National Defence Paul Hellyer, Lieutenant Colonel Philip Corso, Sergeant Clifford Stone, a devout Catholic, another devout Catholic Charles Hall who is a nuclear physicist and US military worker. Also Monsignor Carrado Balducci [23:15].
This is much is clear:
Iannuzzi says to his audience in Video 1 (from 27:51) that the great Admiral Byrd had an encounter in the North Pole (the context tells us that Iannuzzi means an encounter with one or more aliens, non-human earthlings and/or UFOs; this is confirmed by the quote from Video 3) and that Byrd didn’t want to go public with this encounter in his lifetime. Let’s call this Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd.
Then in Video 3 (from 22:20) Iannuzzi includes the name of Admiral Byrd in his list of “declassified military and eyewitness reports supporting extraterrestrial life on other planets and its interaction with humans and even governments here on Earth.” Indeed, Admiral Byrd is the first name he mentions. Clearly, the comment he made about Byrd in Video 1 was not some inexplicable slip of the tongue. In this third video, published three months after the first, Iannuzzi is re-iterating the same claim, this time in a “summary of evidence”.
These are the only two instances in which Iannuzzi mentions Byrd in the three-part video series—or anywhere else, as far as I know.
So what does Iannuzzi means when he says “in the North Pole”? One reading is that he means at the North Pole (the geographic North Pole, where the Earth's axis of rotation intersects the surface in the Northern Hemisphere) or somewhere very near it—say, within half a degree of latitude, which makes for a surface area of roughly 9,700 km.
An alternative reading is that he means in the Earth at the North Pole, or more precisely: in some hollow space under the surface whose entrance is at or very near the North Pole. Let the phrase in italics be our definition of “under the North Pole”. For the sake of argument, we allow the proposed “hollow space” under the surface to be a hole or cavern or something along those lines. It need not be “hollow Earth”.
There’s no reason to think that Iannuzzi means the magnetic North Pole, which doesn’t have a fixed location. It is currently about 1,760 km from the geographic North Pole (85.762°N latitude and 139.298°E longitude) and has drifted roughly 2,000 km from its 1947 location. When it is said that Byrd was the first to reach the North Pole by plane, “North Pole” obviously signifies the geographic North Pole (this is the standard meaning of “North Pole”). None of the conspiracy theories about Admiral Byrd refers to a journey to magnetic North Pole either.
In reality, the surface of the Earth at or very near the North Pole has never been land—certainly not in the last 2000 years! The closest land to the North Pole is a rocky islet called Qeqertaq Avannarleq. Part of Greenland's archipelago, it is about 700 km (6.3 degrees of latitude) south of the North Pole.
How far south of the North Pole do we need to go before the surface is open water, rather than ice? In winter, the Arctic Ocean is almost completely frozen (on the surface), with open water not appearing until around 1500-2000 km (13.5 to 18 degrees of latitude) south of the North Pole. On average, the shortest distance from the North Pole to open water in summer is around 300-600 km (2.7 to 5.4 degrees of latitude). Lowest ice coverage is in September, and the lowest on record was in 2012 (we only have data from 1979, when continuous satellite observations began). The shortest distance from the North Pole to open water during the record low was at least 200 km (1.8 degrees of latitude). Even if we define “very near” the North Pole more generously, as anywhere less than a whole degree of latitude (around 111.7 km, here taking into account the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, slightly flatter at the Poles) south of the North Pole, there was never open water in this region during the record low in 2012.
Clearly, then, the surface of the Earth at or very near the North Pole is ice all year round. The years in which Byrd lived (1888-1957) are no exception. We don’t have satellite data for this period, but we do have the reports of explorers, and we know that global temperatures in those years were cooler, with long-term averages of 0.5–0.8°C below preindustrial levels. From the 1990s onwards, by contrast, global temperatures have been 1.1–1.2°C warmer than preindustrial levels (from Chat GPT).
None of the conspiracy theories I’ve uncovered concerning Admiral Byrd’s flight to the North Pole postulates that he flew his plane into open water (see the “Secret Diary”; publications by Giannini; Palmer; Bernard; Trench; Salla; and the History Channel’s variation on the theory—all cited in the previous post). Flying into Hollow Earth is one thing, but flying a plane through ocean water into Hollow Earth? Don’t be ridiculous! (Even conspiracy theorists have standards.) Nor is there any mention of Byrd observing something (aliens, non-human earthlings or UFOs) in ocean waters, or something emerging from ocean waters, at or near the North Pole.
It is highly unlikely that Iannuzzi had in mind the idea that Byrd flew into the ocean at or near the North Pole and somehow managed to return! And it’s unlikely that Iannuzzi believes that Byrd observed something submerged in or emerging from the ocean at or near the North Pole. We return to this point later.
General comments on sincerity and negligence
Our task is to determine the conditions under which Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd would be a deceptive statement.
First, some general comments on deception. If someone says X (that X is true) even though he believes the opposite (that X is false) then he is being deceptive. Similarly, if by his statements someone deliberately implies that he believes X is true, when he believes X is false, then he is being deceptive. Another way of being deceptive is wording something in a particular way knowing that the audience—or many people in the audience—will likely understand him to mean that X is true (when in fact he doesn’t believe it) and taking advantage of this situation. What someone doesn’t say in these situations is just as important as what he does say.
It’s also possible to speak in an ambiguous and misleading way without being deceptive. In this case the statements are factually misleading, yet the speaker himself is not engaging in the deliberate action of misleading his audience. This can happen in different ways.
Someone might not be good with words, not good with the language in general, not good with the language in a particular domain (e.g., ethics), or not good at speaking on the spot. He might have been rushed or flustered when speaking. He might not have been given the chance to construct his sentences carefully, through no fault of his own. He might be experiencing a momentary lapse in cognitive ability, or something worse.
Alternatively, someone might be culpably inattentive—insufficiently careful with his words, insufficiently attentive to the effect his words might be having on his audience. This could be part of a general intention to deceive, but it need not be. Someone can be careless with his words without being deceptive, properly speaking.
In an ecclesial context, this sort of negligence is often rooted in a false belief that, for the audience of “mere laypersons”, an error here and there doesn’t matter so much, or that errors aren’t that important when it comes down to the specifics, or that all that matters in the end is whether someone is well-intentioned. I am thinking in particular of that sinister combination of (1) a modern clericalism of low expectations and (2) situation ethics. In this case there is still a type of deception at work, insofar as the theologian, by adhering to (1) and (2), is here mis-representing the teaching and attitude of the Church. To repeat, these are general comments; I am not pointing the finger at anyone in particular.
Another possibility is that someone lacks a nuanced understanding of the different theoretical positions that need to be distinguished in a certain domain. It’s often that case that substantially different positions branch out from statements that, to the untrained eye, look the same (one might be heretical, where the other is not).
If someone lacks a sufficiently nuanced understanding in a certain domain of enquiry, this may well be an example of negligence, especially for (a) the person who speaks on such matters from a validly inherited position of authority (e.g., a priest or bishop speaking on Catholic doctrine) and (b) for the person who presumes to speak on such matters from a position of authority (e.g. a gung-ho Catholic YouTuber speaking to a wide audience when his theological understanding of a certain matter is severely lacking in nuance.) If this person genuinely believes he has a good handle on the area, then he is deluded (a delusion often rooted in pride). If he is bluffing—deliberately giving the impression that, as someone who has a good handle on the issues, he can be trusted, when deep down he knows he probably does not—then then he is being negligent and deceptive.
Side note: I don’t have any objection in principle to people earning a living through their online Catholic commentary. There are instances of this which in my view ought to be supported and encouraged. But it certainly has its moral dangers. There is often a financial incentive to bluff in the way just described, and even to deceive oneself about (a) one’s intellectual ability and (b) the need to be more nuanced, more circumspect, more studious, more irenic, or more well-read. The incentive to bluff and self-deceive is especially tempting for strongly choleric characters. For they are more inclined to believe in themselves too readily, and others will be inclined to follow a confident leader. The temptation is there even if a person’s temperament has been supernaturally purified, since we all have our moments of weakness. It will be far worse, obviously, for the spiritually immature person with this sort of temperament. Of course, it would be a mistake to regret that there are cholerics at all in positions of leadership in the world or in the Church. They have strengths which are essential to the common good.
Under what conditions would Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd be a sincere statement?
Statements taken in the abstract, as intelligible propositions, are neither sincere nor deceptive. But a particular declarative utterance, in which someone affirms that something is the case or that something is not the case, can be sincere or deceptive, depending on what that person believes. Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd only has the property of being sincere or deceptive as a concrete utterance—it does not have that property when considered in the abstract, as an intelligible proposition.
We turn now to our particular case. Recall Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd: the great Admiral Byrd had an encounter in the North Pole and Byrd didn’t want to go public with this encounter in his lifetime.
Suppose now that Iannuzzi doesn’t believe that Byrd had any extraordinary encounter in the North Pole, whether that be (1) under the surface of the Earth, (2) above the surface of the Earth or (3) in some “complex” region that covers a region above the surface of the Earth and a region below the surface.
By “above the surface” I mean: on the surface and/or in the air above the surface.
In this scenario, Iannuzzi is being deceptive when he makes his Statement about Byrd. And this is true regardless of whether Iannuzzi means “at or very near the North Pole” or “under the North Pole” (as defined above) when he says “in the North Pole”.
On my understanding of terms, someone has an encounter in/at a certain place if and only if, during the encounter, both the person and the encountered object are physically present in/at that place. I included option (3) above to allow for the possibility of Byrd being above the surface while observing something beneath it, and the possibilty of Byrd being beneath the surface while observing something above it. (I am making extra sure to cover all bases! Admittedly, this comes at the cost of making our analysis a little more complex and our argument a little more involved).
Suppose instead that Iannuzzi doesn’t believe that the Admiral flew into a hole at or very near the North Pole, nor that he had some extraordinary encounter under the surface and/or inside the Earth. In this case, Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) may or may not be deceptive:
(T1) In this situation (the part in bold above), if Iannuzzi doesn’t believe that Byrd had some extraordinary encounter above the surface either (when he was at or very near the North Pole)—and on top of that doesn’t believe that Byrd had an encounter “above and below” the surface near the North Pole (as per option (3))—then his Statement on Byrd is deceptive, regardless of which sense of “in the North Pole” is in play.
Consider the following:
(T2) If a putative encounter “in the North Pole” (i) did not occur above the surface and (ii) did not occur beneath the surface and (iii) did not occur in some “complex region” spanning one region above and one region beneath the surface, then it did not occur at all.
Now
T1 is true unless Iannuzzi does not believe T2. However, we are more than justified in assuming that Iannuzzi believes T2 (it would likely be an implicit belief). For it would be extremely irrational not to believe T2. (Where else could the putative encounter at or near the North Pole have occurred? All possibilites for the location of the encounter have been covered.)
(T3) In this situation of disbelief (see again the part in bold above), if Iannuzzi believes that Byrd did have some extraordinary encounter above the surface at or very near the North Pole and didn’t want to go public with this in his lifetime, then Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) is sincere.
More precisely, if the antecedent (the part in italics) is true in T3, then we have no reason (as yet) to believe that Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) is deceptive. That may change once other facts and considerations are brought into the equation, however.
(T4) In this situation of disbelief (the part in bold above), if Iannuzzi believes that Byrd did have some extraordinary encounter in some “complex” region that covers a region above the surface of the Earth (at or very near the North Pole) and a region “under the North Pole” (as defined above)—with Byrd observing from above the surface something beneath the surface, never going beneath the surface himself—and didn’t want to go public with this in his lifetime, then again, Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) is sincere.
More precisely, if the antecedent (the part in italics) is true in T4, then we have no reason (as yet) to believe that Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) is deceptive.
Building on the above considerations, we are now in a position to consider the situation in which Iannuzzi does not believe in hollow Earth. Recall again Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd: the great Admiral Byrd had an encounter in the North Pole and Byrd didn’t want to go public with this encounter in his lifetime. If Iannuzzi doesn’t believe in hollow Earth, then his Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) might be sincere—but only if he believes that Byrd had at least one of the following:
an Above-the-Surface Encounter—some extraordinary encounter (i) above the surface at or very near the North Pole (ii) which he didn’t want to publicize in his lifetime.
a Below-the-Surface Encounter—some extraordinary encounter (i) under the North Pole (i.e., in some hollow space under the surface whose entrance is at or very near the North Pole) but not in hollow Earth (ii) which he didn’t want to publicize in his lifetime.
an Above-and-Below-the-Surface Encounter—some extraordinary encounter (i) at or very near the North Pole, in some complex region that covers a region above the surface of the Earth and a region below the surface (not hollow Earth) (ii) which he didn’t want to publicize in his lifetime. [There are two possibilities here: Byrd was above the surface, observing something below the surface, or he was below the surface, observing something above the surface].
I will revise this claim slightly in a moment.
Now the “Secret Diary” indicates, against the observable facts of the matter, that there is land at or very near the North Pole—add that to our long list of reasons we know it is a hoax! It’s not clear whether the surface of the Earth in this region is supposed to be all land (plus rivers and lakes), or whether it is supposed to include land and the expected sheet of ice (I mean floating ice, not land-based ice like in Greenland and Antarctica).
Our three categories of Encounter (in bold above) are worded in such a way that the surface of the Earth very near the North Pole may be thought of as (i) entirely land, (ii) entirely floating ice or as (iii) both land and floating ice (only the second option is true, of course!). For example, the mentioned “hollow space under the surface” could be in ice, or it could be in rock.
Suppose Iannuzzi believes it was a Below-the-Surface Encounter. For reasons already explained, it is safe to assume that Iannuzzi doesn’t believe that the “surface” under which Byrd had an encounter was open water. However, it is part of my method not to leave any stone unturned. So let’s accommodate the idea stated in italics as follows:
we allow the “hollow space” under the surface to be dry or filled with water (fully or partially) and
we add another category, in which Byrd simply has an Underwater Encounter at or very near the North Pole—underwater but not in some submerged cave nor in some submerged opening in rock or ice or whatever—and does not want to publicize this encounter in his lifetime.
The definitions for Above-the-Surface Encounter and Above-and-Below-the-Surface Encounter can stay as they are. For neither definition excludes the possibility of the “surface” being open water.
Here, then, is our revised statement. If Iannuzzi doesn’t believe in hollow Earth, then his Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) might be sincere—but only if he believes that Byrd had at least one of the following (see their definitions above):
An Above-the-Surface Encounter
A Below-the-Surface Encounter
An Underwater-Encounter
An Above-and-Below-the-Surface Encounter
I define a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter as an encounter that falls in one of these four categories.
A shorter but logically equivalent version of our statement can now be formulated:
If Iannuzzi doesn’t believe in hollow Earth, then his Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) might be sincere—but only if he believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow Earth Encounter.
This proposition (in bold) outlines a necessary condition for Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd being sincere (when taken as a concrete utterance).
The conditions of belief
We turn now to the next phase of our argument.
(T5) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then he must have in mind something—some account, document or testimony, for example—which he thinks counts as evidence (direct or indirect) that the encounter occurred.
If someone has X “in mind” then he has a concept of X and a cluster of beliefs about X which are retained in his memory, and upon reflection, or in response to someone’s question, he is able to bring X (and his beliefs about X) into his attention and into conversation.
(T6) To have X “in mind” as something that counts as evidence for a certain claim is (1) to be able*, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence that the claim is true, where (2) one’s citing X as evidence for that claim counts as a sincere disclosure of one’s rational being—i.e., what one believes personally and the reason(s) one has believing it.
*If someone is physically unable to communicate, the ability to offer X as evidence could still exist as a cognitive capacity or intellectual disposition. In this case the person would be able, in principle, to actualise this capacity or disposition were he to (re-)gain his physical capacity to communicate.
(T7) It is possible to have X in mind as something that one might offer as evidence for a certain claim, even when one doesn’t believe that the claim is true, and even when one believes the claim is true but doesn’t believe that X counts as evidence in support of it.
If someone doesn’t believe that X counts as evidence in support of a certain claim, then either
he doesn’t believe that X is credible in itself (e.g., he believes X is a hoax, or that X is pseudo-scientific garbage, or that X is based on invalid research, or he doesn’t know enough about X)
he believes that X is credible, but doesn’t believe that it supports the claim in question (e.g., he accepts the Deep Sea Scrolls as true documents, but doesn’t believe that they support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.)
Why would someone offer X as evidence for a certain claim when he doesn’t believe that the claim is true? There are different possibilities:
(1) He wants to deceive others—to persuade them (i) that the claim is true when he doesn’t believe that it is, and as a means to this (ii) to persuade them that he himself believes that the claim is true, when he does not.
(2) He is explicating the belief-system of someone else, presenting that belief-system not as his own belief-system (that would be deception) but as the belief-system of someone else. “As far as Aristotle is concerned, the movement of rocks toward the Earth is evidence that rocks have a teleological tendency toward the centre of the Earth.” It is not deceptive to “bracket out” one’s own beliefs about the cosmos in order to present and unpack the cosmological belief-system of someone else.
(3) He is explicating an hypothetical belief-system, which need not belong to anyone in particular. This is common in philosophical analysis. Again, there is nothing deceptive about this.
Why would someone offer X as evidence for a certain claim when he believes the claim is true but doesn’t believe that X counts as evidence in support of it? Again, there are different possibilities:
(1) He wants to convince others that his view is correct, and to this end—in order to make his position look as strong as possible—he is willing to bring in “evidence” that he doesn’t believe is valid evidence for the view he is arguing for (he intends to withhold this non-belief of his from the audience, of course). It might be that he secretly believes that this “evidence” is a hoax, or based on invalid research; it might be that he secretly understands that this “evidence”, while valid in itself, doesn’t support the view he is arguing for; or it might be that he hasn’t really looked into this “evidence” yet to see if it checks out.
(2) He is explicating the belief-system of someone else. For example, a philosophy lecturer believes that God exists and that it’s possible to prove it philosophically. He explicates Anselm’s ontological argument for his students, defending it from a number of objections for pedagogical reasons. Yet he doesn’t believe that Anselm’s argument is sound. The fact that he doesn’t let his students know this, does not mean that he is being deceptive.
(3) He is explicating an hypothetical belief-system.
In respect to point (1), generally speaking people who adopt this rhetorical strategy either don’t believe anyone in the audience would go to the effort to fact-check the offered “evidence”, or they don’t believe anyone in the audience is competent to do so. At least, they are willing to take their chances; they are confident they can “get away with it.”
A common strategy that such people use to minimise (in their mind at least) the chances of being exposed, is to bombard the audience with an overwhelming amount of “evidence”. The intended effect is to impress the audience so much that they simply accept, passively, that there is a lot of evidence for the view being argued for and that the person speaking must know what he is talking about. In this case the person speaking “goes all in” in order to “minimise” his chances of losing. But in many situations, the more someone bluffs, the more risk he takes. If in the audience of the bluffer there is someone who is willing and able to fact-check each of these supposed pieces of evidence, he (the bluffer) stands to lose everything (i.e., his reputation and his credibility).
As someone gains a wider following, his confidence increases, and he is more likely, by my reckoning, to engage in bluffing if he is that sort of person. He will believe more readily that he can “get away with it”, that people will simply take him at his word, and that none of his followers would call his bluff or fact-check his claims. He might even come to think of his “true followers” as a certain “buffer” or “layer of protection” against potential critics.
In the extreme case, he comes to think of himself as “untouchable”, as it were. Admittedly, sometimes this is true, or true enough. Sometimes people are virtually untouchable. There are many examples of people who have managed to keep their status and influence, even after objective criticism has exposed their incompetence and irrationality, and the extent of the deception for which they are responsible.
Recall T6:
To have X “in mind” as something that counts as evidence for a certain claim is (1) to be able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence that the claim is true, where (2) one’s citing X as evidence for that claim counts as a sincere disclosure of one’s rational being—i.e., what one personally believes and the reason(s) one has for believing it.
To repeat, if someone puts forward X as evidence for a certain claim, it’s possible that he doesn’t believe that X counts as evidence for that claim. (As explained above, he might be deceiving the audience about his beliefs. Alternatively, he might be explicating someone else’s belief-system, or an hypothetical belief-system.) That’s why it’s necessary to include point (2) in T6.
Suppose Alice is explicating the belief-system of someone else—Aquinas’ doctrine of the angels, for example—and in the process puts forward a piece of evidence (a premise in an argument) that Aquinas gives for a certain claim (e.g. the claim that every angel is its own genus). And suppose Alice completely agrees with Aquinas (1) that the premise is true, (2) that the claim being argued for is true and (3) that the premise supports the claim being argued for. It is entirely possible for Alice to explicate this belief-system for her students without disclosing her own rational being—i.e. what she believes about angels and the reasons she has for believing what she believes about angels. To be sure, she will be disclosing what she believes is the rational position of Aquinas (if she is a good teacher, of course, these beliefs will amount to knowledge of Aquinas.) But just because her own view on angels corresponds to that of Aquinas, it does not follow that, when as a teacher she cites X as evidence for the conclusion (every angel is its own genus), this in itself counts as a sincere disclosure of her own rational being (her own view about angels).
Now suppose someone (i) puts forward X as evidence for a certain claim, (ii) doesn’t believe that X counts as evidence for that claim and (iii) is lying (attempting to deceive his audience) by putting forward X as evidence for that claim. The person’s goal in this case is to make others think that the presented belief-system (the doxastic* connection between X and the claim it supposedly supports) is his own belief-system**—that it is part of his rational being (what he believes and the reason(s) he has for believing it)—when it is not. But this is not the goal when a person explicates someone else’s belief system or an hypothetical belief system.
*Doxastic = belief-related.
**A belief-system can be “one’s own” in this sense, even when there is nothing “original” about the belief-system.
This goal—to deceive others about what one believes—may be sought as a means toward convincing others that one’s “beliefs” are true. But there are cases in which someone attempts to deceive others about what he believes, without attempting to convince others that his “belief” (the belief which he doesn’t have) is true. It’s possible to have a strong incentive to deceive others about one’s own beliefs, but no incentive to convince others that these “beliefs” are true (there will still be an incentive in this case to convince others that he wants to convince others of the truth of these beliefs; this will be part of “the act” in which one deceives others about what one believes). An example of this situation: a non-communist attempting to infiltrate the communists by convincing them that he (the non-communist) is a true communist. Indeed, it is entirely possible for someone in a situation like this to have a strong incentive not to convince anyone of the truth of the “beliefs” he is posing as his own. Our hypothetical spy wants to pass as a communist, but he doesn’t want to convert anyone to communism in the process (to convert someone to communism might go against his moral principles or against the instructions he was given).
Recall T5 and T6:
(T5) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then he must have in mind something—some account, document or testimony, for example—which he thinks counts as evidence (direct or indirect) that the encounter occurred.
(T6) To have X “in mind” as something that counts as evidence for a certain claim is (1) to be able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence that the claim is true, where (2) one’s citing X as evidence for that claim counts as a sincere disclosure of one’s rational being—i.e., what one personally believes and the reason(s) one has for believing it.
From T5 and T6 it follows that
(T8) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he is able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence for this encounter, where (2) his citing X as evidence for that encounter counts as a sincere disclosure of his rational being—i.e., what he believes and the reason(s) he has for believing it.
X here stands for some account, document, artefact, testimony, etc.
Testing our proposition
In this section we ask whether there are any plausible exceptions to T8.
It’s theoretically possible for someone to have divinely infused knowledge about something or some other form of claivoyant insight (gained from demonic influence, for example). If this occurs, then the person who “just knows” something to be true by direct insight, might not have in mind (as yet) any evidence to support his belief—or at least, no evidence in mind apart from his testimony (and the experience it is based on) that he “just knows” or that God revealed it to him.
Is it possible for someone to believe that something is true, while having no reason at all for believing it to be true? No reason at all means: not trust in another person who assured him it is true, not trust in God or the Church, not weak or partial or inconclusive evidence, not an argument or thought-process which (as it turns out) is invalid or based on false premises—the list goes on.
One might think that “belief for no reason” is possible in the case of first principles, which are self-evident. Take, for example, the principle of non-contradiction: something cannot be A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect. However, it is not that we accept the principle of non-contradiction for no reason (not when we are in our right minds, anyway). The reason (or the primary reason) we accept it is that we intellectually see that it is self-evidently true.
Infused knowledge, clairvoyant insight and our intellectual perception of the truth of the principle of non-contradiction, are three examples of direct insight into an object. The light by which something is known by direct insight to be true might be (1) the divine light or a special infusion of grace, (2) demonic influence or (3) the natural light of the intellect or the natural “splendour” of the intelligible object (the object being some first principle or intelligible essence).
We can safely assume (1) that Iannuzzi does not have direct insight into any of the relevant facts about Byrd’s life, and that he never did and (2) that Iannuzzi does not believe that he does (or did). He has certainly never claimed that he does (or did)—it would be a worry if he had!
Philosophers might argue about whether direct acquaintance with Byrd—for example, being his co-pilot and observing Byrd’s actions in flight—would count as “direct insight” into some of the facts about Byrd’s life, or whether this mode of knowledge ought to be named differently and placed in a different category (I take the latter view). But this semantic disagreement is irrelevant here, because Iannuzzi did not know Byrd personally (Iannuzzi is too young, for starters), and has never been with him to the North Pole! Nor does he claim to have known Byrd personally.
To repeat: Is it possible for someone to believe that something is true, while having no reason at all for believing it to be true (not even an experience which he thinks is a direct insight into the object)? Either such a thing is impossible altogether, or it is impossible for anyone in their right mind.
We can safely assume, then, that Iannuzzi has in mind some reason for believing (if he does) that Byrd had an encounter at or near the North Pole. It might not be a good reason, objectively speaking. But there would have to be a reason (at least one), assuming Iannuzzi was neither out of his mind when he formed this belief, nor out of his mind each time he expresses or reflects on his belief and re-affirms it.
In some cases a truth is not self-evident, but can be demonstrated a priori. In this case, our justification of our belief and our knowledge that something is true do not essentially rest on our experience of things in the world. This is how mathematicians know that the Pythagorean Theorem (the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle adjacent to the right angle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse) is universally true. If knowing the truth of the theorem essentially depended on our experience of things in the world, it would be necessary to check every right-angled triangle to see if there are any exceptions to the proposed rule. But this is not the case.
We can safely assume that Iannuzzi does not believe on the basis of some a priori demonstration, that Byrd had an encounter at or near the North Pole. No valid a priori demonstration exists for any of the contingent facts about Byrd’s life, and only a completely unhinged person could believe, in all honesty, a contingent fact about someone’s life on the basis of some (supposed) a priori demonstration.
TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE
Let’s take stock. Recall T8:
(T8) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he is able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence for this encounter, where (2) his citing X as evidence for that encounter counts as a sincere disclosure of his rational being—i.e., what he believes and the reason(s) he has for believing it.
X here stands for some account, document, artefact, testimony, etc.
Our question was whether there are any plausible exceptions to T8.
In the following we assume for argument’s sake that the antecedent in T8 is true: Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole.
Even if it is possible to believe that something is true and to believe it for no reason at all, nobody in their right mind is able to. In any case, it’s safe to assume that Iannuzzi doesn’t believe what he believes (i.e., that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole) for no reason at all.
Note that Iannuzzi could hardly gain anything by objecting to my argument at this point!
What reason might Iannuzzi have for this belief of his, then? So far we have excluded the following modes of knowledge. We can be confident that Iannuzzi does not believe he has ever had
direct insight into the relevant facts about Byrd’s life (infused knowledge, clairvoyance, or intellectual intuition of a first principle or intelligible essence)
direct acquaintance with Admiral Byrd (especially the details of his flight to the North Pole) or
knowledge by a priori demonstration of Byrd’s encounter at the North Pole.
Can we exclude any other modes of knowledge? Let’s draw up a taxonomy (an exhaustive catalogue) of the different types of reasons one might have for believing something. Our taxonomy of reasons will have the same categories and divisions as a taxonomy of the different types of human knowledge.
First we divide human knowledge into natural, supernatural and praeternatural.
Natural knowledge divides into a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge.
A priori knowledge is either direct or indirect.
Direct a priori knowledge is intellectual intuition of something self-evident, such as a first principle (perhaps also the phenomenological intuition of an intelligible essence, though some might say that this is an a posteriori intuition—I’m actually not sure).
Indirect a priori knowledge is knowledge by way of demonstration from self-evident first principles.
Both these modes (direct and indirect) of a priori knowledge have already been excluded.
This leaves a posteriori knowledge, which divides into direct and indirect.
Direct a posteriori knowledge would be direct acquaintance with Admiral Byrd. Some might argue that there is a form of direct insight (not what I am calling “direct acquaintance”) that also belongs in this category. But we have already excluded direct insight (all types) along with direct acquaintance.
This leaves indirect a posteriori knowledge—this is the only type of natural knowledge that remains.
Someone might object that there are types of natural knowledge that do not fall neatly into either of these two categories (a priori and a posteriori). Here is a list of potential candidates of natural knowledge-types which (one might argue) are neither a priori nor a posteriori, strictly speaking:
Kant’s synthetic a priori
practical and procedural knowledge (“know-how”)
types of innate knowledge (e.g. linguistic structures, biological instinct)
scientific theories, which combine observation and theoretical assumptions
connatural knowledge (intuitive or affective grasp of things, a non-propositional “attunement” to things based on habit or disposition)
knowledge of values (moral, aesthetic, spiritual)
knowledge of universals (e.g. the intelligible logos of a horse)
paranormal forms of direct insight (e.g. psychic ability, clairvoyance)
The last category has already been excluded. None of the other ways of knowing could possibly give us (in isolation or in combination) knowledge of the historical facts of Byrd’s life. Knowledge of values in this case only builds on the historical knowledge that one already has by other means. While knowledge of universals is implicit in historical knowledge, it is never sufficient for historical knowledge, which deals in contingent facts. Scientific theories don’t give us historical knowledge of facts either, though they might come into play when an historian evaluates narratives and putative evidence for their credibility. The same can be said for any other theoretical or narrative framework that one might apply to available data or evidence. The general framework as such is blind to factual details.
We can safely assume that Fr Iannuzzi does not believe what he believes about Admiral Byrd on the basis of some (putative) evidence which in his mind he gained through one or more of these forms of knowledge (the 8 dot points above).
We can safely assume that Iannuzzi does not believe what he believes about Byrd on the basis of some (putative) evidence which he actually gained through one or more of these forms of knowledge (the 8 dot points above).
It would be difficult to prove that this list includes every type of natural knowledge that is strictly speaking neither a priori nor a posteriori. However, the list does take into account classical and contemporary theories of knowledge, and it is highly improbable that, our efforts notwithstanding, we’ve missed a type of natural knowledge that wouldn’t turn out to be irrelevant like all the others.
With confidence, then, we can move on to supernatural knowledge and praeternatural knowledge.
The ordinary sources of supernatural knowledge are sacred Scripture, sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. Sometimes other sources are added to the list: the sacraments, prayer and contemplation, creation viewed sacramentally, and the lives of the Saints. Extraordinary gifts of supernatural knowledge include infused knowledge, inner locutions and other forms of private revelation, mystical insight, and the charismatic gifts of prophecy, discernment and wisdom. Underlying all of this is the supernatural gift of faith. One might add charity here as a source of supernaturally connatural knowledge. (God the Trinity is the primary source of all supernatural gifts.)
We can safely assume that Iannuzzi does not believe he was given information about Admiral Byrd’s life and his (supposed) encounter at the North Pole through any of these supernatural means. If he were to claim that he did, I wouldn’t believe him!
Praeternatural knowledge is human knowledge that is above the natural powers of man but (unlike supernatural knowledge) not above the created order altogether. This includes:
1. An expansion of the capacities of the human mind through demonic influence
This is forbidden and extremely dangerous! See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2115-2117.
2. Information conveyed during communication (one-way or two-way) with angels, demons, the souls in hell, the souls in purgatory, or the saints in heaven.
While the Church acknowledges that certain mystics and saints have received knowledge in some of these ways (e.g. Joseph’s dreams in Matthew 1:20-25, 2:13-15, 2:19-21), one should never attempt to communicate with demons or the souls in hell (exorcisms performed by exorcists might be an exception, under strict conditions), and it is not good practice to seek out special knowledge in any of the other ways either (from angels, from the souls in purgatory, from the saints in heaven).
Caution, discernment and submission to Church teaching and authority are always necessary when it comes to received “special revelations”.
Actively seeking out visions, locutions and other supernatural experiences is never recommended. See, for example, St John of the Cross, Ascent of Mount Carmel, Chapters 21-22.
We can safely assume that Fr Iannuzzi did not gain knowledge or evidence of Byrd’s encounter at the North Pole through any of the means listed under the first and second types of praeternatural knowledge.
We can be confident that Iannuzzi does not believe that he did, either.
If a priest were to claim, very publically, that through demonic influence, or by communicating with a demon, an angel, or a departed soul, he gained special knowledge of Byrd’s encounter with non-human intelligence at the North Pole, that would be enough, potentially, to ruin his credibility and reputation as a priest. At the very least he would be required by his superior to seek mental help.
3. Sometimes “praeternatural” is understood in a third way, in reference to special assistance from God given to natural human powers for a specific purpose in accordance with God’s Will, where that assistance does not, in itself, elevate the human power in a supernatural way, properly speaking. Christians are not the only ones who receive praeternatural assistance. The Magi understood the signs in the heavens and found their way to the child Jesus in this way. Praeternatural assistance from God is often mediated by his angels and saints [this means there is some overlap with the second category of praeternatural knowledge]. Angels and saints influence our actions in hidden but positive ways—more so when we ask for their assistance or dedicate something to their patronage. God might give a political leader, or a team of doctors, or a married couple (to mention just three examples) special guidance and assistance for His own hidden purposes and in response to prayer. The recipients need not be aware of this assistance; in my view, they usually are not. I’ve already pointed out that the recipient of such assistance need not be Christian. As a matter of fact, he or she might not even be a morally good person. God is able to focus the mind and steady the hand of a brain surgeon (qua surgeon) in response to someone else’s prayer, regardless of the evil that might have taken root in the surgeon (qua man). Finally, it’s plausible that intellectual and artistic genius might be the effect of God’s praeternatural assistance—in this case a permanent gift rather than occasional assistance.
Praeternatural knowledge in the third sense does not represent a distinct category of human knowledge; it merely qualifies natural human knowledge. If the Holy Spirit (acting through an angel perhaps) subtly directs the course of someone’s thought or gives his mind a greater facility, so that he arrives at an important insight (or so that he does so more quickly), that person still has to go through a natural reasoning process in order to arrive at the conclusion. He does not have the insight without doing cognitive work.
To repeat, praeternatural knowledge in the third sense is not an independent source of knowledge in addition to the natural ones. So even if Fr Iannuzzi was praeternaturally assisted (third sense) in his research, this is irrelevant to our discussion.
This ends our exploration of the different types of human knowledge. Indirect a posteriori knowledge is the only type of human knowledge that was not excluded. This mode of knowledge alone can be plausibly applied to Iannuzzi’s beliefs about Byrd’s encounter. It follows that there are no plausible exceptions to T8. The significance of this result is explored below.
No discussion of empirical evidence is complete without a photo of someone looking down a microscope.
TYPES OF EVIDENCE
Let’s rehearse our argument from the beginning.
If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then he must have a reason for believing that Byrd had this encounter.
The only possible exception to this (if we limit ourselves to natural causes) is if his reason is severely incapacitated because of (say) mental illness, neurological disease or extreme stress. But there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this is the case. Fr Iannuzzi certainly doesn’t come across as mentally incapacitated in any of the video-recorded interviews I’ve watched so far, and somehow I doubt that Fr Iannuzzi is going to argue with me over this!
If Iannuzzi has a reason for believing that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then he must have in mind some X—some account, document or testimony, for example—which he thinks counts as evidence that the encounter occurred.
Therefore
If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then he must have in mind some X which he thinks counts as evidence that the encounter occurred.
Now
If Iannuzzi has in mind some X which he thinks counts as evidence that the encounter occurred, then (1) he is able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence for the encounter, where (2) his citing X as evidence for the encounter counts as a sincere disclosure of his rational being—i.e., what he believes and the reason(s) he has for believing it.
Therefore
If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he is able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence for the encounter, where (2) his citing X as evidence for the encounter counts as a sincere disclosure of his rational being—i.e., what he believes and the reason(s) he has for believing it.
Our task now is to specify what X might be.
The only mode of knowledge by which Iannuzzi might know something about Byrd’s encounter at the North Pole, is indirect a posteriori knowledge. Other modes of knowledge such as infused knowledge and demonic influence are theoretically possible for this object (Admiral Byrd’s encounter at the North Pole). But indirect a posteriori knowledge is the only mode of knowledge that is remotely plausible in this case—all other modes of knowledge are in this case either impossible or extremely unlikely.
We can safely assume that Iannuzzi himself doesn’t believe what he does about Byrd’s encounter on the basis of an insight or experience which he believes was a special revelation from God, or a direct insight into the historical facts of the case, or any of the other modes of knowledge we excluded above.
Now within this one mode of knowledge—indirect a posteriori—the categories of primary evidence that might convince someone that a subject (another person) had an encounter at a particular location include:
testimonial evidence from the subject him/herself, or from someone who was with the subject, or from someone who knows/knew the subject personally.
documentary evidence (e.g. photographs, videos, official government documents)
physical / real evidence (e.g. objects of unknown origin, samples of alleged alien DNA or tissue, artefacts of non-human technology)
forensic evidence (e.g. anomalous radiation levels, soil anomalies, inexplicable vegetation damage).
In the case of Admiral Byrd, the testimonial evidence would have to be a documented testimony of Byrd himself (in a secret diary, for example), the testimony of someone who was with Byrd at the time, or the testimony of someone who knew Byrd personally.
If there were a secret diary, this would be documentary evidence and testimonial evidence.
In respect to testimonial, documentary, physical and forensic evidence—and any other type of evidence that belongs in this list (categories of primary evidence within this one mode of knowledge)—one might know (or “know”) the primary evidence
directly (first-hand)
indirectly (second-hand), relying on secondary publications—(alleged) copies, reports or accounts of (alleged) primary evidence
indirectly (third-hand), relying on tertiary publications—publications referring (accurately or not) to one or more secondary publications
indirectly (even more distant), relying on the opinion or judgement of someone else who has done (or claims to have done) their own research. I call this vicarious research.
What should we call publications which are (a) neither secondary nor tertiary and (b) refer to a tertiary publication? Quarternary publications? What then should we call publications that are even further removed from the primary evidence they indirectly refer to? Let’s group all these together with tertiary publications, calling them higher-order publications.
Let these four groups—primary evidence, secondary publications, higher-order publications and vicarious research—be called classes of evidence.* Note that primary evidence (the foundational class of evidence) itself contains (at least) four categories of its own: testimonial, documentary, physical and forensic evidence.
*It would be more accurate to call them “classes of indirect a posteriori evidence”.
(T9) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he is able, in speech or writing, to offer X as evidence for the encounter, and (2) his citing X as evidence for the encounter counts as a sincere disclosure of his rational being, where (3) X is one or more items from any of the four classes of evidence (primary evidence, secondary publications, higher-order publications and vicarious research).
Note that it is unreasonable to expect any piece of evidence, abstracted from its meaningful context, to have the evidential power to persuade, or even begin to persuade, a rational person of anything. There is no such thing as a piece of evidence whose strength does not rely upon an assumed background of established knowledge. In a legal setting, evaluating evidence requires that we distinguish between
established knowledge that needs to be demonstrated in court, such as the scientific consensus in respect to a rare disease,
established knowledged that can be presumed (the doctrine of judicial notice “provides that a court may take cognisance of facts which are generally known, without requiring them to be proved”), and
the facts in issue.
A simplified version of T9 is:
(T10) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he must have in mind some X which he thinks counts as evidence that the encounter occurred, where (2) X is one or more items from any of the four classes of evidence.
It’s possible that Iannuzzi is mistaken in thinking that this “evidence” actually supports his claim that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole.
It’s possible that Iannuzzi is mistaken in thinking that the primary evidence he has in mind actually exists. He might have relied on non-primary evidence—secondary publications, higher-order publications and/or vicarious research—which presented false claims about primary evidence. Or he might have misinterpreted non-primary evidence. Or he might have a false or confused memory about the evidence he has looked into.
It’s possible that Iannuzzi is mistaken in thinking that the non-primary evidence he has in mind actually exists. He might have relied on false or misleading citations given in another publication, or he might have misinterpreted the citations. Or again, he might have a false or confused memory about the evidence he has looked into.
What’s not possible (assuming he believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole), is Iannuzzi not having in mind some X which in his mind counts as evidence for his belief.
At least, such a thing is impossible assuming
(A) that Iannuzzi is not having a moment of insanity
(B) that he does not have clairvoyant insight into Byrd’s movements at the North Pole, nor insight into these movements via any of the other modes of knowledge that we excluded above.
Four Scenarios
Now that we have established T9 and T10, there are four scenarios to consider in respect to the “evidence” that Fr Iannuzzi must have in mind if he truly believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter. Either the “evidence” that Iannuzzi has in mind is the “Secret Diary” or it is not. If it is the “Secret Diary”, then either he has a good understanding of the contents of this document (first scenario) or he does not (second scenario). If it is not the “Secret Diary”, then either this “other evidence” exists (third scenario) or it does not (fourth scenario). The four scenarios are mutually exclusive and exhaustive (if they were not exhaustive, the argument below wouldn’t be valid).
Here is a sneak-preview of the conclusion of this section:
[I]f Fr Iannuzzi has in mind some X which he takes as evidence that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter, then one of these four scenarios is true. But it is highly unlikely that any of the four scenarios is true. Therefore it is highly unlikely that Fr Iannuzzi has in mind some X which he takes as evidence that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter.
In the following we do consider the possibility of Iannuzzi relying on what I have called “vicarious research”. In this section “evidence” refers to primary evidence, a secondary publication, or a higher-order publication.
First Scenario. Suppose the “evidence” that Iannuzzi has in mind is the “Secret Diary” and that he has a good understanding of the contents of this document. In this case, Iannuzzi believes the following:
(a) an alleged report of an extraordinary encounter taking place in Hollow Earth counts as evidence supporting Iannuzzi’s “more reasonable” belief in a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter and
(b) a document whose main thesis (that the Earth is hollow) is risibly false is nonetheless a piece of evidence supporting Iannuzzi’s “more reasonable” belief.
If Iannuzzi honestly believes (a) and (b), then he hasn’t got the faintest clue what he is talking about; he lacks the intellectual competence to speak on these matters and be taken seriously.
However, it is difficult to believe that someone of Fr Iannuzzi’s stature would be stupid enough to believe (a) and (b). So the first scenario is highly unlikely.
Second Scenario. Suppose instead that the “evidence” that Iannuzzi has in mind is the “Secret Diary” and that Iannuzzi is mistaken about the contents of the document. In this case the connection that Iannuzzi makes between the (imagined) contents of the document, and his own belief, might be quite reasonable—it is just that he has a false concept or memory of the document.
In this case too, Iannuzzi doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about—intellectual disorganisation and/or incompetent research have led him to believe, and then publically affirm, that Byrd saw something extraordinary at the North Pole.
This is slightly more likely, perhaps, than the first scenario. Still, it is very unlikely that the fantastic contents of the “Secret Diary”, including its very loud affirmation of hollow Earth theory, would have slipped from Iannuzzi’s mind despite his interest in the topic and his willingness to bring the case of Byrd into his argument explicitly—and this before a worldwide audience of many thousands.
The video of the interview from September 2023 has 20k views (as of November 14 2025) and the channel currently has 17.1k subscribers.
Nor is it likely that Iannuzzi got a false impression of the “Secret Diary” by quickly reading a blurb of one of the books in which the “Diary” is published. For the blurbs and other summaries all mention Byrd’s descent into hollow Earth (see my previous post for images). Of course they do, for this is essentially what the “Secret Diary” is all about!
It’s theoretically possible that Iannuzzi depended entirely on someone else’s (Dr Michael James’s?) poor research or inaccurate description of the “Secret Diary”, honestly believed it was a reliable description, and did not check out the document for himself. This, of course, would count as incompetent research. But how likely is this? Consider the following situations (these are all hypothetical possibilities within the second scenario):
(1) Someone—either Fr Iannuzzi or a research assistant—looks into Admiral Byrd’s alleged encounter at the North Pole and somehow doesn’t notice the only relevant document in circulation, the only relevant document mentioned in the alternative literature and YouTube videos concerning Byrd and the North Pole, the only relevant document mentioned in respectable academic literature (in this case as a comic aside, before the author refutes the claim with eyes rolling), namely: the “Secret Diary” in which Byrd discovers hollow Earth, a discovery that is always presented front-and-centre in the narrative; the “Secret Diary” which stands out immediately in a Google search with the terms “Byrd”, “North Pole” and “aliens” (or “UFO” or “encounter”)—one simply cannot miss it. There just isn’t any other “rabbit hole” or alternative path that one might be drawn down instead, if the question on one’s mind is, what did Admiral Byrd encounter at the North Pole? If that is your research question, and you’re interested in aliens and UFOs and all that (as a believer or as a skeptic), then all roads lead immediately into Hollow Earth. So no—this hypothetical possibility is not plausible in the least.
(2) An assistant (let’s call him Jack) looks into Admiral Byrd’s alleged encounter at the North Pole and intentionally deceives Fr Iannuzzi about the evidence and narratives surrounding it, and as a result of this Iannuzzi remains in ignorance of the ubiquitous Hollow Earth narrative, believing instead that there is evidence in favour of a “more plausible” encounter at the North Pole, one that doesn’t involve Hollow Earth; though if Iannuzzi had known that the “Secret Diary” is actually about Hollow Earth, he wouldn’t have mentioned Admiral Byrd in his argument.
This far-fetched story is highly unlikely.
(i) Jack would know that he could be caught out with a very simple fact-check.
(ii) What would be his motivation?
(iii) Why didn’t Iannuzzi do a very quick fact-check himself (that would be enough) or ask Jack to provide a reference that he (Iannuzzi) could check himself? It is not plausible that Iannuzzi would be so blindly reliant on an assistant.
(3) Jack the assistant is supposed to look into Admiral Byrd’s alleged encounter at the North Pole, but he doesn’t do the work; John then deceives Fr Iannuzzi about the research he hasn’t done; as a result of this Iannuzzi remains in ignorance of the ubiquitous Hollow Earth narrative, etc.
This too is highly unlikely.
Jack would know that he could be caught out with a very simple fact-check.
There is no work involved in digging up a couple of facts about the alleged encounter compared to making up a couple of facts about it and then lying about it.
See (iii) above.
(4) Jack the assistant looks into Admiral Byrd’s alleged encounter at the North Pole and there is a failure in communication; as a result of this, Fr Iannuzzi remains in ignorance of the ubiquitous Hollow Earth narrative, etc.
Again this is highly unlikely.
It’s hard to see how something as fantastic and absurd as Hollow Earth could get missed in an email or conversation.
See (iii) above.
In situations (2), (3) and (4), Fr Iannuzzi doesn’t even do 3 minutes of simple fact-checking on the internet for himself, before being interviewed as a Catholic priest and esteemed academic scholar and making a claim about Admiral Byrd before an online audience of tens of thousands, as part of his argument for the existence of (respectable military and government reports of) aliens. And yet (the story goes), if Iannuzzi had only known that the “Secret Diary” is actually about Hollow Earth, he wouldn’t have mentioned Admiral Byrd at all. However plausible you might think this is, it does not put Fr Iannuzzi in a positive light.
In respect to the second scenario as a whole, if Iannuzzi was so confident that the “Secret Diary” supports his case (his “more reasonable belief”), and had no inkling that the document presents itself as evidence for a hollow Earth, then why did he not cite the document in support of his argument?
If the second scenario is true—and we have determined that this is highly unlikely—then Fr Iannuzzi doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about, and he acts incompetently, irresponsibly and possibly even dishonestly in presenting his so-called “research”.
A third scenario to consider is that the “evidence” that Iannuzzi has in mind is not the “Secret Diary” and this “other evidence” exists. The latter would have to be an extremely obscure piece of (putative) evidence. For it is neither included nor cited in the academically respectable literature on Admiral Byrd, and my extensive research into the “alternative” literature could not uncover it. If Fr Iannuzzi and his interviewer Dr Michael James want to claim, and have us believe, that this third scenario is what actually happened, the onus is on them to produce this mysterious “other evidence”. And why wasn’t this special evidence cited or produced in the first place?
This scenario is highly unlikely, for the reasons just given.
A fourth scenario is that is that the “evidence” that Iannuzzi has in mind is not the “Secret Diary” and this “other evidence” does not exist. In this case, Iannuzzi doesn’t know what he is talking about. (Unless the “other evidence” used to exist when Iannuzzi came across it, but no longer exists. Theoretically possible, but who would believe it?)
It is difficult to believe that Fr Iannuzzi would be so irrational, or so intellectually disorganised, that he honestly believes that a certain piece of (putative) evidence exists, even though it never did. In this case too, one wonders why Iannuzzi didn’t cite the “evidence” whose existence and validity he was so sure about. This scenario is just as unlikely as the first and third scenarios.
In summary: it is more than reasonable to conclude, on the basis of what we know, that each of these four scenarios is highly unlikely, with the second scenario being the least unlikely.
To repeat, if Fr Iannuzzi has in mind some X (from the four classes of evidence) which he takes as evidence that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter, then one of these four scenarios is true. But it is highly unlikely that any of these four scenarios is true. Therefore it is highly unlikely that Fr Iannuzzi has in mind some X which he takes to be evidence that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter.
Conclusion
Recall T10:
(T10) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he must have in mind some X which he thinks counts as evidence that the encounter occurred, where (2) X is one or more items from any of the four classes of evidence.
It is appropriate now to specify the encounter as a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter:
(T11) If Iannuzzi genuinely believes that Byrd had an Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter at or very near the North Pole, then (1) he has in mind some X which he thinks counts as evidence that this Encounter occurred, where (2) X is one or more items from any of the four classes of evidence.
Now suppose that
(T12) Iannuzzi does not have in mind (as evidence that a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter occurred) any item from any of the four classes of evidence.
If that’s the case, then the consequent in T11 (the part in italics) is false. From this it follows that the antecedent in T11 (the underlined part) is also false (the logical rule applied here is called modus tollens). Therefore:
(T13) If T12 is true, then Iannuzzi does not genuinely believe that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter at or very near the North Pole.
Now it is highly likely that T12 is true. We know this from the conclusion of the previous section (i.e., it is highly unlikely that Fr Iannuzzi has in mind some X which he takes as evidence that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter). Therefore, from T13:
It is highly likely that Iannuzzi does not genuinely believe that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter at or very near the North Pole.
*
Let’s zoom out now. There are exactly three possibilities to consider when it comes to the question of what Iannuzzi actually believes:
(1) Iannuzzi believes in hollow Earth, that Byrd had an extraordinary encounter in hollow Earth, and that Byrd did not want this encounter revealed until after his death.
(2) Iannuzzi does not believe in hollow Earth; he believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter at or very near the North Pole and that and Byrd did not want this encounter revealed until after his death.
(3) Iannuzzi does not believe in hollow Earth; nor does he believe that Byrd had an encounter at or very near the North Pole.
The conclusion of Part One of this study was that (1) is highly unlikely. The conclusion at which we arrived in the previous section is that (2) is highly unlikely. From this perspective it is only rational to conclude that (3) is the most likely to be true.
The minor conclusion of the section above called “Under what conditions would Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd be a sincere statement?” was as follows:
If Iannuzzi doesn’t believe in hollow Earth, then his Statement about Byrd (taken concretely) might be sincere—but only if he believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow Earth Encounter.
This proposition (in bold) outlines a necessary condition for Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd being sincere (when taken as a concrete utterance).
If we accept that option (3) is the most likely to be true and that options (1) and (2) are highly unlikely, it follows from the minor conclusion (in bold above) that it is highly unlikely that Iannuzzi was being sincere when he made his Statement about Byrd. To see the latter in context, see again the part in bold from this quote (from Video 1):
Now at the time in ‘77 the pope was still Archbishop of Krakow but he dedicated Bruno Sammaciccia’s book to the Catholic Church. He was visited by extraterrestrials and he wrote all about this but he did not want this to be revealed until after his death. [27:51] Much like Admiral Byrd. He [Byrd] also did not want until his death for his experience to be revealed of what he saw in the North Pole when he went there. But Bruno Sammaciccia again is a reputable individual, he's an academic, he published over a hundred books, he was a distinguished figure in academic circles. Basically in 1956 a group of ETS appeared to him according to his memoirs and they were good, and they shared to him things about how to be better in the world, improve the society in which we live and things like that.
[Watch from here until 28:32 to listen to the entire quote, or from here to listen just to the part in bold (from 27:51).]
*
Is there any rational way to get around the conclusion that Iannuzzi was being deceptive here? Indeed there is. Plausibility and probability aside, here are the options.
(A) Fr Iannuzzi believes in Hollow Earth.
(B) Fr Iannuzzi believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter but he has no reason whatsoever for believing this—he doesn’t have in mind any (putative) evidence that might support his belief.
(C) Fr Iannuzzi believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter and he believes this on the basis of
(i) the “Secret Diary”, and he has a good understanding of the contents of the latter.
(ii) the “Secret Diary”, and is quite mistaken about the contents of the latter.
(iii) some other published document, article or book (not the “Secret Diary”), and this putative evidence actually exists (it need not be objectively plausible).
(iv) some other published document, article or book (not the “Secret Diary”), and this putative evidence does not exist (Iannuzzi has a false memory, or his research is very poorly organised).
(v) someone else having told him that there is plausible evidence for the Encounter, and he didn’t do a simple fact-check.
(vi) a misunderstanding of something he read or something somebody said, and he didn’t do a simple fact-check.
(vii) (what he takes to be) an a priori demonstration.
(viii) a delusion—that he was there with Admiral Byrd when the Encounter happened.
(ix) (what he takes to be) infused knowledge or some other form of direct insight into Byrd’s movements at the North Pole.
(x) (what he claims is) knowledge gained by communicating with an angel, demon, or departed soul.
(xi) Scripture, Tradition or Magisterium, or some other supernatural source of knowledge.
(xii) occult knowledge or practices.
If I were Fr Iannuzzi’s PR assistant, and had to answer some difficult questions, I would certainly avoid inserting (A) or (B) into the narrative. They imply wild irrationality, if not a moment of insanity. [Option (A) also implies deception—why did Fr Iannuzzi withhold his belief in Hollow Earth, and the nature of the document on which he (secretly) bases his claim about Byrd?] For the same reason I’d definitely avoid options (vii) to (xi). For obvious reasons I’d steer way clear of (xii). This leaves the options written in blue.
I would avoid options (ii), (iv), (v) and (vi), because these entail that Iannuzzi doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about—that his “research” in this area is so incompetent it is embarrassing; this would be virtually impossible to recover from. It would be foolhardy to take seriously any of the other “research” of somebody who was this incompetent. This leaves options (i) and (iii).
What about option (i)? If this is true, then (as I said above) Fr Iannuzzi believes that
(a) an alleged report of an extraordinary encounter taking place in Hollow Earth counts as evidence supporting Iannuzzi’s “more reasonable” belief in a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter and
(b) a document whose main thesis (that the Earth is hollow) is risibly false is nonetheless a piece of evidence supporting Iannuzzi’s “more reasonable” belief.
Would I go with this narrative, as a PR assistant? To be honest, this doesn’t look any better, in the end. The objective implication is the same—that Iannuzzi doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, and his “research” is so incompetent it’s embarrassing.
This leaves option (iii), which is underlined. This is the only possible scenario or “narrative” in which Fr Iannuzzi is able to save face, it would seem. Unfortunately, and as I’ve explained already, it is highly unlikely to be true. Until this “other evidence” is produced, it is more than reasonable to assume it doesn’t exist. (If it exists, why doesn’t it turn up anywhere in an extensive search? And why didn’t Iannuzzi cite it in the first place?).
*
If my argument is sound—and I’m open to being corrected on this score—then Fr Iannuzzi has put himself in a position that is unenviable, to say the least. In this particular case in which Fr Iannuzzi presented his “research” authoritatively before an audience of tens of thousands, it very much appears that he has acted incompetently and/or deceptively. I cannot see any way around this conclusion—though again, I’m happy to be corrected.
A Christian does not take pleasure in pointing out something of this nature. We need to be on guard against the vice of “vengeance” (Msgr Charles Pope has a good article on this topic). There is no need to claim high moral ground. But for the sake of Iannuzzi’s viewers and “followers”—especially those who are more vulnerable, less educated, or otherwise unable to get past Fr Iannuzzi’s “authority” to see through his rhetorical strategies—the truth has to be exposed (see my first post for more on this topic).
As far as I can see, there are four potentially face-saving strategies that someone in his position might adopt.
(1) He might produce the “other evidence”, assuming he has it. It is highly unlikely that this new “evidence” for Admiral Byrd’s encounter would be credible before a panel of world experts. But there’s no need to impose such a high standard here. The withheld “evidence” would merely have to be sufficiently credible and respectable that Iannuzzi is able to avoid the appearance of being deceptive, wildly irrational and/or grossly incompetent.
I am willing to present Iannuzzi’s “new evidence” on this site if it is ever produced and brought to my attention (contact details can be found in the “Contact” section up top).
(2) He might find and expose an error in my argument. For example, he might introduce new information or give more context, which my argument did not take into account. He might dispute one or more of the “facts” that my argument relies upon. Or he might point out a logical error.
I am willing to publish and engage with any response made in good faith (contact details can be found in the “Contact” section up top).
(3) He might admit his mistake publically, admitting that he made an error and acted incompetently and/or dishonestly.
(4) He might attempt to steer people’s attention away from the inconvenient facts.
One approach is to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.
Another is to “muddy the waters”, engaging with the argument only in a superficial way (not in good faith)—e.g. distracting the audience with finicky disputes which are ultimately irrelevant.
He might go on the attack, poisoning the well or using ad hominem for example.
He might flex his credentials, his expertise or his clerical status.
He might try to minimise the significance of the facts. “I only mentioned Admiral Byrd twice. My argument doesn’t depend solely on that particular claim. I gave so many other pieces of evidence—did you even consider the other evidence? You can’t dismiss all of it.” “This is one small mistake. Everyone makes mistakes.” “You’re making far too much of this.”
He might “double down”, simply re-asserting his view with more force.
I am not saying that Fr Iannuzzi is the sort of person who would be willing to engage in any of the “dirty” tactics listed under (4). I am simply mapping out the hypothetical possibilities.
*
What, then, is my final conclusion in respect to Fr Iannuzzi’s comments about Admiral Byrd (pasted again here for easy reference)?
From Video 1 (premiered September 29, 2023):
Now at the time in ‘77 the pope was still Archbishop of Krakow but he dedicated Bruno Sammaciccia’s book to the Catholic Church. He [Sammaciccia] was visited by extraterrestrials and he wrote all about this but he did not want this to be revealed until after his death. [27:51] Much like Admiral Byrd. He [Byrd] also did not want until his death for his experience to be revealed of what he saw in the North Pole when he went there.
From Video 3 (premiered December 27, 2023):
[22:20] So to summarize these three parts of this theme of the Christian faith and the possibility of extraterrestrial life throughout the cosmos. In Part One we addressed the scientific and anthropological data as well as the declassified military and eyewitness reports supporting extraterrestrial life on other planets and its interaction with humans and even governments here on Earth. [22:52] The naval officer Admiral Richard Byrd, the Canadian minister of National Defence Paul Hellyer, Lieutenant Colonel Philip Corso, Sergeant Clifford Stone, a devout Catholic, another devout Catholic Charles Hall who is a nuclear physicist and US military worker. Also Monsignor Carrado Balducci [23:15].
Have I proven that Fr Iannuzzi was being deceptive when he made his statement about Admiral Byrd? No, I have not. But unless there’s some crucial flaw in my argument, what I have shown is three-fold:
(1) It is entirely reasonable, and not at all uncharitable, for someone to come to that conclusion after (i) consulting the facts and (ii) carefully and impartially thinking things through.
(2) If Fr Iannuzzi’s Statement about Byrd is not deceptive, then it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Iannuzzi doesn’t have the faintest clue what he is talking about, and that his “research” (in this case at least) is so incompetent and irrational in nature that it is embarrassing. We come to this particular conclusion on the assumption that Iannuzzi
(a) does not have in mind some existing “other evidence” on the basis of which he believes that Byrd had a Non-Hollow-Earth Encounter
(b) is neither insane nor has occasional moments of insanity when doing his research and/or presenting his results
(d) does not believe he has direct insight into the historical life of Byrd by infused knowledge or praeternatural means.
(3) Apart from public admission of his mistake, the only scenario under which Fr Iannuzzi might be able to “save face” (in an honest way) is if he produces the elusive “other evidence”.
Final Comments
Respectful comments are welcome either through this website (there are two methods: the “Contact” page or the comments section) or by email directly: brendan.philosophy [at] gmail.com
If you’d like to support my work — a lot of work has gone into this project, and I mean a lot— you might
share this article
write to me
subscribe and/or
pray for me, for my family and for this work.
At this stage I have not set up the right platform(s) for donations. If you’d like to do that in the future (for the price of a coffee, for example), you might express your interest/pledge through email or the Contact page.
I’d be very grateful for any form of support.
God bless you
Dr Brendan Triffett
On Father Iannuzzi’s bizarre claim that there are fallen aliens.
Late last year I scoured all 36 volumes of Luisa Piccarreta’s Book of Heaven again and found 22 excerpts which demonstrate, beyond all possible doubt, that Luisa’s clear and consistent position is that man is the only fallen intelligent being in the physical universe. More precisely, the excerpts demonstrate that this — the statement in bold — is the clear and consistent position of Jesus as narrated to Luisa over the course of at least 19 years (Volume 12 to Volume 36). In this article I show that Father Joseph Iannuzzi contradicts Luisa when he claims that there are fallen aliens.
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:
Luisa’s writings support exclusivism and therefore the view that ETIs do not exist.
Luisa’s writings neither support nor contradict exclusivism.
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
Luisa Piccarretta’s clear and consistent position throughout the Book of Heaven is that man is the only fallen EIC (as per Thesis A)
Fr Iannuzzi’s position is that aliens exist and that some of them are fallen
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.
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.
Bottom Centre: The so-called “Abydos Helicopter” in the Temple of Seti I at Abydos. These hieroglyphic marks are taken as “evidence” by pseudo-archeologists for their belief in ancient aliens. The claim that these marks are evidence of ancient advanced technology was debunked decades ago. This is just one example of the sort of pseudo-scientific BS that Fr Joseph Iannuzzi (Bottom Right) has swallowed uncritically and then regurgitated to an audience of well over 15,000 on a platform provided by Dr Michael James (Bottom Left). Top Centre: Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, producer and presenter for the History Channel series Ancient Aliens. Known in popular culture for his outrageous beliefs, outrageous hair, and for the “I’m not saying it was aliens … but it was aliens” meme. While Tsoukalos and Fr Iannuzzi are both ancient astronaut theorists, Iannuzzi attempts to “baptise” the theory, filtering parts of Zechariah Sitchen’s first book (Top Left) through to a Catholic audience.
Introduction
In this post I provide some excerpts from the first video in the three part series called "The Vatican, Christianity and Aliens.” The three videos appear on a YouTube Channel called Divine Will Era. Fr Joseph Iannuzzi is the presenter and the host is a certain Dr Michael James. The description under this first video is as follows:
Citing from Christian and official sources, Fr. J.L. Iannuzzi, STL, S.Th.D. demonstrates the existence of intelligent alien life.
Part 1: Fr. JL Iannuzzi introduces the Church’s position on extraterrestrial life, and a brief overview of its overwhelming evidence in Sacred Scripture, tradition, hagiography, anthropology, historical archives, declassified and military documents and more.
The title of the video is Fr. Dr. Iannuzzi: Vatican & Aliens PART 1: Intelligent Life throughout Cosmos - Padre Pio - Prophecy. That is quite a mouthful and has too many colons and dashes, so I will be calling it simply, “Video 1”. It is found here.
In my critical analysis of Video 1, I will debunk many of the claims made by Fr Iannnuzzi and point out numerous logical errors. The purpose of the post you are reading is to prepare the ground for my critical analysis in a future post.
Here you will find resources (“the evidence”): transcripts for a number of excerpts from Video 1, links to the corresponding video footage along with time stamps, relevant images from the video footage, and a summary list of the claims that I will be evaluating. I will be referring back to this evidence in my critical analysis.
The context and motivation for this project is explained in my first post here.
*
Both Fr Iannuzzi and Dr James are known for promoting the writings and spirituality of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta (1865—1947). So let me be clear: my intention is not to cast doubt on the authenticity of Luisa’s writings nor on the spirituality that is called “living in the Divine Will.”
In fact, one of the concerns motivating this project is that Fr Iannuzzi has drawn upon the writings of Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta in his arguments for the existence of aliens (extraterrestrial intelligence, ETI). I firmly believe that Fr Iannuzzi is causing confusion by appropriating Luisa’s writings (and the commentary of St Annibale de Francia) in this way for his own personal speculations on ETI. In this case—I do not say “in general” or “as a rule” but simply “in this case”—he has taken passages out of context and mangled their meaning.
In a future post I will highlight the sections in Video 2 where Fr Iannuzzi brings the writings of Luisa and St Annibale into his argument for the existence of ETIs (see here until the end of the video).
This way of presenting Luisa’s writings may or may not be dishonest. For it’s possible that Father genuinely believes that the cited passages mean what he wants them to mean. If that’s the case, that is a great concern in itself! There are two possibilities here, as I see it: either Iannuzzi was careless and incompetent when it came to interpreting a certain portion of Luisa’s writings, or he has acted dishonestly. But in any case it is highly irresponsible of him to be so careless in his interpretation and presentation of these passages.
I understand that I haven’t yet made my case for these claims about Iannuzzi’s reading of Luisa—I have only directed the reader to the evidence (two paragraphs above). And we must presume that a person is “innocent” until proven “guilty”. May nobody violate this principle of justice when it comes to their judgements about Fr Iannuzzi.
The difficulty I face is that this has expanded into a larger project with many parts and I want to start at the beginning. But at the same time it’s necessary to provide the context of the project, and to communicate my motivation, my intentions, the reasons for my concern, and the direction in which the project is going. I have confessed my concerns; I have not yet made my case.
*
So let’s look at the evidence! Links to the excerpts of video are provided in case the reader would like to check the content or accuracy of the transcript. Watching the excerpts is not strictly necessary, however. My comments are in square brackets. Italics indicate emphasis given by the speaker. I draw attention to parts of the text by using bold.
The reader who wants to “cut to the chase” might prefer to skip to the final section, the summary.
Excerpts of Video 1
Excerpt 1a
Video 1: 5:40 – 6:05
See the 25 second clip here or watch from here until 6:05.
They [i.e., different types of Church documents cited in the Catechism] do not all enjoy the same level of authoritative teaching. So when we are speaking you know the teaching of the Church on extraterrestrials which is not definitive, you're open to believe it. Actually the Church encourages to … encourages you to believe it. Even the Vatican priest in charge of the [Vatican] Observatory has said we should believe because there's a lot of reason to.
According to Iannuzzi, then:
The Church encourages you to believe in ETIs.
Excerpt 1b
Video 1: 9:14 – 10:04
See the 50 second clip here or watch from here until 10:04.
And as I mentioned the Vatican chief astronomer Father José Funes [Director of the Vatican Observatory from 2006 to 2015] said that – and I'm going to quote you from him – “In my opinion the possibility of life on other planets exists.” The possibility of life on other planets exists. This is a statement from the Vatican chief astronomer and he says there’s no conflict between believing in God and then the possibility of extraterrestrial brothers. He uses that word “brothers”. So they're not all evil as some of these cracker barrel theologians who have no degree in theology are claiming on the internet [context: Iannuzzi is taking a shot at Daniel O’Connor without naming him], saying oh they're all evil, they're fallen angels, they're possessing. No. They're not angels. They're not humans. They are entities as Saint Padre Pio stated, that are visible, that are physical but that are not on Earth. They may visit the Earth but they're not from here.
Iannuzzi’s claims:
Some theologians claim that all encounters with aliens are actually encounters with demons, but this is incorrect.
ETIs exist, but not all ETIs are evil.
At least some of them are our “brothers”.
ETIs may visit the Earth but they are not from here.
Excerpt 1c
Video 1: 15:36 – 15:51
See the 14 second clip here or watch from here until 15:51.
Well you mentioned that one-third of the beings fell and this goes all the way back to Revelation chapter 12 verses 4 through 9 that one third of the stars fell. It does not mention a third of the angels fell […]
Iannuzzi claims that
One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer.
The same theme will appear again multiple times, more clearly expressed.
Excerpt 1d
Video 1: 16:11 – 17:29
See the 46 second clip here and the 31 second clip here.
Alternatively watch from here until 17:29.
But in scripture “stars” also refers to all rational beings including those throughout the cosmos. This is alluded to in Daniel chapter 12 verse 3, Philippians 2:15. The point is, one must avoid theological reductionism which takes “stars” and applies it to only one group of individuals like the angels. And in Christian circles this has been the case. They interpret this passage of Revelation referring to a third of the stars as meaning only … only the third of the angels. The Church does not teach that it refers only to the angels. Yes, it includes the angels. Because stars is referred to as angels, as is Jesus Christ, as are believers. But it doesn’t limit it to just the angels.
[16:58] So it is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings fell with Lucifer. Therefore this may explain in part the difference between the good beings throughout the cosmos that are supported by many eyewitness testimonies as well as the bad ones throughout the cosmos. Well, considering that only one third fell, the good outnumber the bad.
Iannuzzi claims:
One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer [as above]
This may explain why there are testimonies of encounters with good ETIs and also testimonies of encounters with bad ETIs.
It is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos fell, and to read Revelation 12:4 in this way.
The good ETIs outnumber the bad 2:1.
Excerpt 1e
Video 1: 17:37 – 17:53 …
See the 16 second clip here or watch from here until 17:53.
Iannuzzi claims that
His view on ETIs is “founded theological speculation grounded upon eyewitness reports, traditional teachings, apparition, revelations approved by the Church. And Scripture itself.”
Excerpt 1f
Video 1: … 17:53 – 18:25 …
See the 32 second clip here or watch from here until 18:25.
Let’s go to Scripture, the Book of Genesis. When Adam and Eve were created, according to biblical genealogies 4000 BC, six thousand years ago … after he committed original sin, Cain and Abel … Cain just walked up and killed Abel because God preferred Abel’s sacrifice. Then God puts a mark on Cain, why? So that nobody would harm him. Well if Adam and Eve were the only two people there why would he have to put on a mark unless others were there that could harm him?
The rhetorical question, seen in context, is a claim:
Since God had to put a mark on Cain to protect him, there must have been other rational beings on Earth at that time outside the human race (Adam and Eve and their descendants).
Excerpt 1g
Video 1: … 18:26 – 20:00 …
See the 55 second clip here and the 39 second clip here.
Alternatively watch from here until 20:00.
We also find in the same Book of Genesis, Deuteronomy, there were these beings that fell from above they called the Nephilim. Now what are these beings that fell from above? The word “Nephilim” in Hebrew doesn't mean “angels”. It means beings that didn't come but fell from above. And this is found in Genesis 6:4, it's found in Numbers 13:31. But these Nephilim are just one of several unexplained beings in the Old Testament that were here.
But what's interesting about these Nephilim is that they had relations with the daughters of men. Who were these beings? The Church does not teach definitively on this. It only gives us suggestions or opinions or theories in footnotes. But we do know that as soon as these Nephilim that fell from above were having relations with the daughters of men, the inhabitants were so evil, God sent the flood.
The Anakites, these were another unknown civilization of beings in Canaan around the time, shortly after Adam. Or … it was actually, they were probably there before Adam.
But we know that they're described in a way that suggests that they were very large beings, almost giants. For example, Deuteronomy 2:10, 21, Deuteronomy 9:2, Numbers 13 32-33. And then you have these other beings called the Emites that were very strong people and as tall as the Anakites. This is found in Deuteronomy 2:10. And the list goes on.
Here Iannuzzi claims:
The Nephilim are not fallen angels.
“Nephilim” means a being that didn’t come but fell from above.
There were several unexplained groups of beings in the OT that existed on Earth, including the Nephilim.
The Nephilim had relations with the daughters of men.
The Flood was God’s response to widespread evil.
The book of Genesis associates the widespread evil that immediately preceded the Flood with the Nephilim having relations with the daughters of men.
There were a number of civilizations of unknown beings in Canaan in OT times (from Adam to Joshua), including the Anakites.
The Anakites probably existed before Adam.
The Anakites and Emites were very large beings: giants or almost giants.
Excerpt 1h
Video 1: … 20:00 – 21:05 …
See the 36 second clip here and the 28 second clip here.
Alternatively watch from here until 21:05.
We also have evidence of archaeological findings that revealed that there were civilizations buried underground for millennia that pre-date 4000 BC. For example there's a place called Çatalhöyük, it's a funny word […] it was apparently founded, has been dated to 9000 BC [official sites say around 7500 BC, others say 9000 BC]. That was discovered by archaeologists. And then we have these pictographs, etchings in caves throughout the world that go so far as almost 39 000 BC.
And the oldest known pictograph is in the upper Paleolithic area of Mount Castillo. Point is, it's very likely and it's proven archaeologically and historically that there are images and writings in stone, cuneiform, hieroglyphics that pre-date the 4000 BC creation of Adam and Eve. These were not humans. These were very likely beings but from where we don't know.
Iannuzzi claims:
Archeological findings tell us that there were civilizations of (embodied) rational beings on Earth millennia before 4000 BC.
But Adam and Eve were created around 4000 BC.
Therefore these more ancient rational beings were not human.
Excerpt 1i
Video 1: … 21:05 – 22:10
See the 23 second clip here and the 41 second clip here.
Alternatively watch from here until 22:10.
The Sumeran texts [he must mean “Sumerian” because “Sumeran” means something else entirely!], they are witness to this and the scholar [sic!] that recently died, Zecharia Stitchen [he must mean “Sitchin”] who interpreted Sanskrit and Sumeran [i.e., Sumerian] which only like four people on Earth can read, he was very clear that and he can show the actual cuneiforms, they knew the solar system thousands of years before we discovered it. [At 21:10 an image is shown of Sitchin with a Sumerian artefact, the VA 243 Cylinder Seal. A section of the seal shows a star-like image with eleven smaller circles surrounding it.] You could see nine planets.
Relevant images that appear in this excerpt:
This is a zoomed-in version (shown at 21:23 — the lower circle or “planet” has been cropped out) of a close-up of the VA 243 cylinder seal that has added markings. The close-up with added markings can be found on pseudo-scientific websites — and on sites devoted to debunking Sitchin’s claims. I don’t know who added the markings originally.
This image doesn’t appear in the excerpt; it appears on this site. Note that in this version the lower circle (the so-called “planet”) has not been cropped out.
In Excerpt 1i Iannuzi claims that:
There are Sumerian texts which support the existence of pre-Adamic rational beings on Earth.
Zecharia Sitchin is a reliable scholar and translator of these Sumerian texts.
Only about four people on Earth can read Sumerian texts.
Reading the cuneiform script on Sumerian artefacts, Sitchin was able to demonstrate that the Sumerians knew about the solar system (Sun and nine planets) thousands of years before we knew about it.
There is a Sumerian artefact (the VA 243 cylinder seal) where you can see our solar system depicted with nine planets.
Scientists have confirmed that a ninth planet (after Neptune, but not Pluto) may well exist with a long orbit around the Sun of between ten thousand and twenty thousand Earth years.
Excerpt 1j
Video 1: 22:21 – 22:45
See the 23 second clip here or watch from here until 22:45.
So you say to yourself, how could these Sumerans [i.e., Sumerians] know this, have this knowledge? And how can Cain receive this Mark if there was no one but Adam and Eve? Who were these Nephilim, these Emites etc? [at 22:38 an image of the “flying aircraft” hieroglyphics is shown] And the Egyptian hieroglyphics you look at some of them, you find flying aircraft engraved in them. Things that look like helicopters, discs.
In Excerpt 1j a number of questions are raised by Fr Iannuzzi:
How could the ancient Sumerians have such detailed knowledge of our solar system?
From which rational beings on Earth did God protect Cain, given that there were no other humans on Earth that might harm him at that time?
Who were the Nephilim, the Anakites and the Emites?
He claims that
There are flying aircraft engraved in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs; these look like helicopters and flying discs.
From Iannuzzi’s perspective, this raises another question:
How do we explain archaeological artefacts that suggest the existence of advanced technology (e.g., flying aircraft, electricity [edit 03/05/2025: see excerpt 3d, watch from here until 16:30]) in ancient times?
It is clear that Iannuzzi raises these questions in order to lead us to a conclusion:
There were embodied rational beings on Earth prior to Adam and Eve with advanced scientific knowledge and technology.
Iannuzzi’s argument would be as follows (I’ve added steps of the argument that are clearly implied):
That such beings existed on Earth is the most probable explanation of the four mysteries mentioned.
1. How could the ancient Sumerians have such detailed knowledge of our solar system?
It was given to them by another race of embodied rational beings.
2. From which rational beings on Earth did God protect Cain, given that there were no other humans on Earth that might harm him at that time?
A non-human race or races existed on the Earth at that time.
3. Who were the Nephilim, the Anakites and the Emites?
A non-human race or races existed on the Earth at that time.
4. How do we explain archaeological artefacts that suggest the existence of advanced technology in ancient times?
Some non-human civilization (or civilizations) shared some of their technologies with ancient humans, or some of these technologies were witnessed by ancient humans, or both.
Excerpt 1k
Video 1: 28:00 – 28:32
See the 32 second clip here or watch from here until 28:32.
But Bruno Sammaciccia again is a reputable individual, he's an academic. He published over a hundred books. He was a distinguished figure in academic circles. Basically in 1956 a group of ETs appeared to him according to his memoirs and they were good. And they shared to him things about how to be better in the world, improve the society in which we live and things like that. But on the flip side as I mentioned you have the bad ones and that in my opinion refers to that one third that fell with Lucifer.
Relevant images shown:
In Excerpt 1k Iannuzzi claims:
Bruno Sammaciccia is a reputable individual and a distinguished academic, and has published over 100 books.
According to Sammaciccia’s memoirs, good ETIs appeared to him in the 1950s and they spoke with him about how to be better and how to improve the world.
Sammaciccia’s descriptions of these “good ETIs” are credible.
Nonetheless some ETIs are bad; again these are the “one third of the stars” that fell with Lucifer.
Excerpt 1l
Video 1: 31:07 – 31:30
See the clip here or watch from here until 31:30.
So there is ample evidence and I'm not even going into other reputable exemplars of the Church that have testified to this reality that these extraterrestrials are neither angels nor they're [sic] humans but they are sentient beings, rational beings with an intellect, with a volition … that are like we do [sic].
Iannuzzi claims that
Several reputable exemplars of the Church have testified that
ETIs exist
ETIs are neither angels nor humans
ETIs are sentient, rational beings with intellect and will like us.
Summary
Fr Iannuzzi makes a number of claims in Video 1. The claims uncovered above are gathered together and listed below. Note that it was not my intention to uncover all of the claims that Iannuzzi makes in the excerpts, let alone in Video 1 as a whole. Nor do the excerpts cover the whole of the video.
I round off the list of claims with a summary statement made by Iannuzzi at the start of Video 2 in the series, about the (supposed) evidence he provided in Video 1 for the existence of ETIs. This summary statement gives us further evidence that some or all of the non-human rational beings that Iannuzzi mentions in Excerpt 1j are understood by him to be ETIs. In Excerpts 1f through 1j, then, Iannuzzi sometimes argues indirectly for the existence of ancient ETIs on Earth — the ancient astronaut theory — by arguing for the existence of ancient non-human rational beings on Earth. But he also argues directly for the ancient astronaut hypothesis by describing the Nephilim as corporal, non-angelic beings (i.e., not demons) who fell from above.
Given everything that Iannuzzi says previously in Video 1, and given where his argument is headed, it is safe to assume that Iannuzzi here means “above” as a reference to outer space (“the heavens”) and thus to other planets. There is certainly precedence for this. Sitchin and other ancient astronaut theorists claim that the original meaning (or one of the original meanings) of “Nephilim” in Genesis and 1 Enoch is “those who came down from above” (see The Twelfth Planet, pp. vii, 128ff) where “above” means outer space. The late Dr Michael Heiser critiques Sitchin’s etymology here.
Excerpt 1a
1a1: The Church encourages you to believe in ETIs.
Excerpt 1b
1b1: Some theologians claim that all encounters with aliens are actually encounters with demons, but this is incorrect.
1b2: ETIs exist, but not all ETIs are evil.
1b3: At least some of them are our “brothers”.
1b4: ETIs may visit the Earth but they are not from here.
Excerpt 1c
1c1: One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer [see 1d1].
Excerpt 1d
1d1: One third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos/universe fell with Lucifer [same as 1c1].
1d2: This may explain why there are testimonies of encounters with good ETIs and also testimonies of encounters with bad ETIs.
1d3: It is theologically sound to propose that one third of all rational beings throughout the cosmos fell, and to read Revelation 12:4 in this way.
1d4: The good ETIs outnumber the bad 2:1.
Excerpt 1e
1e1: Fr Iannuzzi’s view on ETIs is “founded theological speculation grounded upon eyewitness reports, traditional teachings, apparition, revelations approved by the Church. And Scripture itself.”
Excerpt 1f
1f1: Since God had to put a mark on Cain to protect him, there must have been other rational beings on Earth at that time outside the human race (Adam and Eve and their descendants).
Excerpt 1g
1g1: The Nephilim described in Genesis are not fallen angels.
1g2: “Nephilim” means a being that didn’t come but fell from above.
1g3: There were several unexplained groups of beings in the OT that existed on Earth, including the Nephilim.
1g3: The Nephilim had relations with the daughters of men.
1g4: The Flood was God’s response to widespread evil.
1g5: The book of Genesis associates the widespread evil that immediately preceded the Flood with the Nephilim having relations with the daughters of men.
1g6: There were a number of civilizations of unknown beings in Canaan in OT times (from Adam to Joshua), including the Anakites.
1g7: The Anakites probably existed before Adam.
1g8: The Anakites and Emites were very large beings: giants or almost giants.
Excerpt 1h
1h1: Archeological findings tell us that there were civilizations of (embodied) rational beings on Earth millennia before 4000 BC.
1h2: But Adam and Eve were created around 4000 BC.
1h3: Therefore these more ancient rational beings were not human.
Excerpt 1i
1i1: There are Sumerian texts which support the existence of pre-Adamic rational beings on Earth.
1i2: Zecharia Sitchin is a reliable scholar and translator of these Sumerian texts.
1i3: Only about four people on Earth can read Sumerian texts.
1i4: Reading the cuneiform script on Sumerian artefacts, Sitchin was able to demonstrate that the Sumerians knew about the solar system (Sun and nine planets) thousands of years before we knew about it.
1i5: There is a Sumerian artefact (the VA 243 cylinder seal) where you can see our solar system depicted with nine planets.
1i6: Scientists have confirmed that a ninth planet (after Neptune, but not Pluto) may well exist with a long orbit around the Sun of between ten thousand and twenty thousand Earth years.
Excerpt 1j
1j1: There are flying aircraft engraved in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs; these look like helicopters and flying discs.
1j2: There were embodied rational beings on Earth prior to Adam and Eve with advanced scientific knowledge and technology.
1j3: That such beings existed on Earth is the most probable explanation of four mysteries:
How could the ancient Sumerians have such detailed knowledge of our solar system?
1j4: It was given to them by another race of embodied rational beings.
From which rational beings on Earth did God protect Cain, given that there were no other humans on Earth that might harm him at that time?
1j5: A non-human race or races existed on the Earth at that time (same as 1f1).
Who were the Nephilim, the Anakites and the Emites?
1j6: A non-human race or races existed on the Earth at that time.
How do we explain archaeological artefacts that suggest the existence of advanced technology in ancient times?
1j7: Some non-human civilization (or civilizations) shared some of their technologies with ancient humans, or some of these technologies were witnessed by ancient humans, or both.
Excerpt 1k
1k1: Bruno Sammaciccia is a reputable individual and a distinguished academic, and has published over 100 books.
1k2: According to Sammaciccia’s memoirs, good ETIs appeared to him in the 1950s and they spoke with him about how to be better and how to improve the world.
1k3: Sammaciccia’s descriptions of these “good ETIs” are credible.
1k4: Nonetheless some ETIs are bad; these are the “one third of the stars” that fell with Lucifer [see 1d1 - 1d4].
Excerpt 1l
1l1: Several reputable exemplars of the Church have testified that ETIs exist, that they are neither angels nor humans, and that they are ETIs are sentient, rational beings with intellect and will like us.
*
Excerpt 2A
Video 2: 1:49 – 2:05
See the 16 second clip here or watch from here until 2:05.
The first part addressed the scientific and anthropological data as well as the military and eye-witness reports in support of extra-terrestrial life or the possibility thereof on other planets.
2a1: There is scientific and anthropological evidence, and military and eye-witness reports, in support of the existence of ETIs.
Fr Joseph Iannuzzi on the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI): A critical analysis.
Late in November 2023 I happened to watch a video presentation given by Fr Joseph Iannuzzi and hosted by Dr Michael James. The topic was the Catholic faith and the possible existence of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). This was Part 2 of a three part series posted on the Divine Will Era Ministries YouTube channel. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. The talk was riddled with basic logical errors and quite a few errors of fact! I noted some of these and watched the video again. I typed out a transcript. I looked again. More odd things began to surface. Fr Iannuzzi appeared to be subtly misleading his audience (unintentionally?) and failing to give the proper context when it came to some of the “evidence” he was giving for his position. I dug deeper. The more fact-checking and critical thinking I applied to the transcript, the more problems I found.
Earthrise 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:
It is appropriate to reply publicly to statements made in the public forum (my thanks to Prof. Larry Chapp).
If Iannuzzi had misled people or given flawed arguments, then people deserve to know. Thousands have already seen the video.
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.
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.
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.
Luisa’s writings support exclusivism and therefore the view that ETIs do not exist.
Luisa’s writings neither support nor contradict exclusivism.
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:
Those who are interested in the question of whether belief in ETIs is compatible with the Catholic faith, or more generally with Christianity.
Those who are interested in the philosophical and theological history of this question.
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!]