Fact is stranger than fiction—we have entered the Twilight Zone!
I copy this from The Deacon’s Bench:
Newsweek is wondering if the Vatican knows something we don’t:
Pressure is growing on the Vatican to shed light on whether it was aware of a UFO being retrieved from Italy in the 1930s, amid a slew of claims about the U.S. government’s knowledge and handling of contact with alien life.
It follows claims made by David Grusch, a U.S. Air Force veteran who previously worked at the National Reconnaissance Office on UFOs, in an interview in June that an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP) was recovered from Magenta, a town near Milan, in 1933, before becoming a U.S. possession with the help of the papal state.
The “whistleblower” was among three people to recently testify to the House Oversight Committee on the allegations. He repeated his earlier claim that the federal government had been aware of non-human activity since the 1930s…
Grusch alleged that then-Pope Pius XII had “backchanneled” knowledge of the UFO to the U.S., which “ended up scooping it” from them. When asked explicitly whether he was saying the Catholic church knew about the existence of alien life, Grusch responded: “Certainly.”
… Ross Coulthart, one of the journalists who interviewed Grusch prior to the congressional hearing, told NewsNation that other, unnamed sources had confirmed the story to him, and suggested that the Vatican’s silence may be a sign of the claim’s truth.
“It’s a very difficult situation for the Vatican because if Mr Grusch is telling the truth—and I’m told he is—it’s a difficult thing for the Vatican to admit without the U.S. concurring,” he said. “I’m told the Vatican does have a very efficient intelligence service and it’s long collaborated with intelligence services like the CIA providing useful intelligence, and especially in the wake of the Second World War.”
The possibility of alien life poses a complex theological question for the Catholic church, which holds that humans were created as intelligent creatures by God and have a special connection to him through Jesus Christ—but this does not necessarily mean that the same cannot be said of another, similar life form.
In 2008, Jesuit Father Jose Funes, then-director of the Vatican Observatory, told the state’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, that there was no conflict between faith and the possibility of “extraterrestrial brothers.”=
19 comments:
I find "My Favorite Martian" discussions to be uncomfortable. It's weird. I think that's normal. Mostly, I hope to never meet one.
That said, God created "all things visible and invisible". We know about that which is both visible and immediate. What's to say that in the vastness of the cosmos there isn't something distant, or invisible that hasn't been revealed to us?
I don't know that I think sci-fi is wholly incompatible with Christianity. It's just that the Christianity that we know has not yet had to deal with such matters.
As I've said before, should there be Martians, and should they be as intelligent as we think them to be, if they really wanted to make contact with us, they likely would have done so by now. I suspect, however, if they have observed how society has deteriorated in our cities and the way life is grid-locked on the New Jersey Turnpike, they might have decided that turning around and going the other way is the best course of action.
"Of all visible creatures, only man is able to know and love his creator."
"The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works by the natural light of human reason."
-Catechism of the Catholic Church
The idea that rational beings exist elsewhere contradicts the Catechism. A rational being can know and love God and only man is capable of doing that.
UFO's, aliens and the rest of the pop narrative that is just beginning to explode is B.S., nonsense and a deception. Any Catholic with integrity who buys into such rot needs to find a religion congruent with their newfound beliefs.
"The idea that rational beings exist elsewhere contradicts the Catechism."
No, it does not.
How do I know this with certainty? Because there is MORE to the Catechism passage that you have not included.
To wit: "He is 'the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake', and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity."
See those two words... "on earth?"
It does not say "On Mars" or "On Pluto" or "On 51 Pegasi b" or "Anywhere in the known and/or unknown universe."
I always wonder if, because of our anthropocentrism and our carbon-based existence (all living things that we know contain carbon) we have not missed another form of life simply because we did not know how to look for it or to recognize it when it is, possibly, right in front of our noses.
I have witnessed two strange airborne items, one when in mid teens and one only 3-4yrs ago.
The older happening was in the evening on a dead still night with low fog ceiling, out in the country, could hear moisture dripping from trees and also hear the insects and frogs, and the rare car on the highway half a mile away. Passing from south to north across my view came a pulsing white hemisphere of light, nearly 2sec long on/off cycles, seemed just uo inside fog, which was quite low, and not a single sound. No searchlight or aircraft nav light would operate or be colored in such a manner.
The second instance was a normal red blinking light in early evening above the nearby treeline, which light moved back and forth at a distance, while making absurd moves in ascent and descent, not quite instantaneous, but very close. That one I could perhaps see as atmospheric disturbance over rough terrain in this more arid and hot climate distorting view.
In neither case did or does it inspire thoughts of alien visitation. If aliens can cross the gulfs of interstellar space, they likely can avoid running into planets.
If aliens are visiting and do not care if we see them, then likely such seeings would be beyond doubt and seen by millions.
If aliens are visiting and DO care if we see them, then given their interstellar travel technology, they likely would have no trouble remaining unseen.
If aliens are visiting, their only purposes could be curiosity and/or exploitation. If only curiosity, then all the above points apply. If here for exploitation, we should by now have some irrefutable evidence, whether of colonization, harvest of resources/lifeforms, whatever.
If we are being visited by aliens from within the solar system, why have we not spotted them beyond the atmosphere? And if an advanced terrestrial lifeform inhabiting suchlike oceans, the same basic questions apply.
If interstellar idiots have managed to crash into planets, where are the wrecks, and where is the exploitation by our own governments of material and scientific bonanzas? Anybody seen sudden advances in metals, flight, electronics, energy production? Any country now dominating the world due to such advances?
I believe in a variety of reasons for sightings, including military technology trials. It is finally admitted we had a hypersonic vehicle years ago which failed, and why the SR71 was brought back for a spell, and with it now largely unused, we likely now have something better.
I am highly skeptical of the UFO stuff in the news and side pretty much with my nemesis, Fr. K in this. I try to let God The Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth take the lead on those things. That being said, if you have ever been the target of a coordinated attack by fire ants you can gain a respect for the fact that relatively limited intelligence and a complete lack of reason can still accomplish some incredible feats, much to our dismay. So if aliens finally reveal themselves we will need to ensure that we are rational and guided by God's will even if they are not. That should be the same goal we strive when dealing with each other, as well.
Yes, there are those who insist that because of those two words "on earth" are used in the cited passage from the Catechism, that we are free to reject what came before those words which I cited, telling us that man is the ONLY rational incarnate creature in existence.
The sentence mentioning on earth EMPHASIZES that ON EARTH only man is rational. However, there is nothing that says the same is not true elsewhere as well. If we were able to travel to another galaxy, we would still be the only rational beings in that galaxy or elsewhere. The Catechism doesn't contradict itself.
Taking it a step further, those who are selling this narrative are insisting that aliens ARE ALREADY on earth, being hidden from us at Area 51 and other "secret" locations that fascinate the tin-foiled hat crowd--not that I am accusing anyone here of being part of that group--I am not. But those who insist we have these aliens or alien remains here are certainly contradicting that we are the only rational creatures willed by God "on earth" since they insist we have these "others" here with us.
I can understand how those two words "on earth" could be a way to look at this differently, but I would like to focus on two more words in the same passage: HE ALONE. Specifically, "...God has willed for its own sake', and HE ALONE is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life."
Jerome, do you think that the reference to ‘earth’ refers to that which is not ‘in heaven’, a different plane of existence. In the mortal realm mankind has a soul. If an alien has a soul that alien would be ‘of man-kind’ as well. His morphology would be irrelevant, or an accident in theological terms. All consistent with the teachings of the Church.
The Vatican entered the Twilight Zone? Hat is new about that?
The Catechism doesn't say "...man is the ONLY rational incarnate creature in existence." "On earth" is pretty darn specific. Understanding "on earth" to mean "on earth" does not mean rejecting the teaching of the Catechism.
Claire Giangravè writes for CRUX: "For Catholics, enriched by Greco-Roman philosophy, the question of whether there were other worlds had a pretty early onset. In the 13th century,Thomas Aquinas was already arguing for the existence of other worlds and beginning to wrap his mind around its theological implications in his Third Book of Sentences. For the French priest and philosopher John Buridan (1295-1363), saying that no other worlds existed implied imposing a limit to the power of God. “We hold from faith that just as God made this world, so he could make another or several worlds,” he wrote."
Philip Pullella writes: "The Vatican’s chief astronomer says there is no conflict between believing in God and in the possibility of “extraterrestrial brothers” perhaps more evolved than humans." The astronomer: Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, scientific adviser to Pope Benedict.
Sabrina Ferrisi writes in the National Catholic Register: "Catholic theologians are not just interested in the question of intelligent life appearing on other planets, but if those intelligent beings have a soul. Some, like Father (Robert) Spitzer, contend that higher intelligence is actually the sign of being ensouled. “If there is any other intelligent life in the universe that can do the things we do, they would have to have a transphysical soul,” he said.
The Society of Catholic Scientists says: "The discovery of life on other worlds would not at all be inconsistent with Catholic belief, since it reflects the ability of the Creator to establish creatures wherever and whenever he wishes. Indeed, just as far more species of higher organisms have existed on the Earth in the past than exist today, we might imagine a universe populated with an enormous variety of life forms as an expression of the infinite power of God’s creativity and his desire to give being to many wondrous forms for which there simply is no room in Earth’s ecosystems."
Etc., etc., etc..
I find the tempest in a tea cup wrangling over the existence of extraterrestrial life to be time wasting arguments over that which absolutely zero participants have any right to any opinion whatsoever.....musing, yes...opinion, no.
We have no evidence either way at this time, and even discovery of the most primitive signs of life past or present is no proof further advancement exists or ever happened at all.
To argue with authority from quotes of others is specious, including the meaning of such life, as it has yet to be discovered, and akin to arguing over which superhero is stronger.
Despite assurances of astronomers for now decade after decade that odds approach certainty of a very crowded cosmos, same decade after decade of most diligent and exspensive s3arching has turned no scrap of evidence of even one other civilization or even microbe, and now we have conjecture from the same expert sphere that we might in fact be quite alone.
There might be others out there, and again there might not, while actual evidence still persistantly stands firmly in NOT. When and if we find it is the time to argue meaning, since what is found is all which can determine meaning, and any pre-guesses will be certainly wrong. We can burn that bridge when we come to it, and not before.
They have already taken over the British government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPZ9IIJoLyo
It’s only a matter of time before we discover the truth about the U.S. government too. Orange hair, for example, is a dead giveaway. -:)
Bob - To argue with quotes from others - Saints, theologians, popes, scientific researchers, or mechanical engineers, etc., - is not specious. We do it all the time, citing recognized authorities whose experience and understanding of certain things are greater than out own.
Yes, this question is largely speculative, but that doesn't mean that it is without value. Christopher Baglow, PhD, a professor at The McGrath Institute for Catholic Life at Notre Dame has written a superb article on this: "What Can Catholic Theology Say About Extraterrestrials" which appeared in the Church Life Journal 9 February 2022. In it he references St. Thomas Aquinas, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Robert Jastrow's famous book "God and the Astronomers," Nicholas de Cusa, Cardinal John Henry Newman, and Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, among others. Most do not speak directly to the question of extraterrestrials, but their thinking and understanding and application of Catholic doctrine makes the article, in my opinion, a worthwhile read.
BTW, Baglow will be the speaker at the upcoming biennial Assembly of Bishops and Priests of the Province of Atlanta where the topic will be "Science, Faith, and Truth."
Well Bob, I gotta agree with ONE point. This argument IS a waste of time.
Now excuse me, I don't want to miss the next episode of Ancient Aliens.
Kavanaugh, don't let me ruin your fun in quotimg others who have yet to meet an alien while expounding upon their possible meaning. I will point out, though, that a sign of invasion by a machime race/not intelligence is that the machines will only draw upon the works of humans while putting forth nothing original themselves.
The Catechism was very careful to neither attempt to prove or disprove anything, and essentially and only said that with God anything might be possible, which is not saying anything IS possible, and meanwhile it focused on its known duty to humanity.
Bob, I don't know that there is much difference between saying something "is possible" and that something "might be possible."
"It is possible to make millions investing in cryptocurrency" and "It might be possible to make millions investing in cryptocurrency" mean the same thing. The possibility exists.
Some people read into Scripture what, for some reason, they want Scripture to say. As evidenced by Jerome above, some people do the same with doctrinal statements or the Catechism.
As for your ruining my fun, rest assured that I am still enjoying life in most every way. God is good, and getting better.
Not sucking up, Fr. MJK's reflections are consistent with that of the Church.
I haven't much time to devote to this, however, I think some might be taking an overly narrow view of this possibility. That's reasonable. We're mortals who occupy a very, very, small piece of real estate relative to the whole of the cosmos.
"And of all things visible and invisible". From the Nicene Creed and I believe derived from Colossians. We know not the vastness of the cosmos, what God might have created perhaps in greater perfection elsewhere. Again, I find this to be slightly strange to discuss, but, like everyone else, my reference point is my mortal existence on this little blue ball.
'Text: Romans 4:17-21. God is a specialist in dealing with impossibilities. 'Impossibility' means something that cannot be done or occur." If not for the explanation I found, I might have glossed over this passage reading "nations" in a narrow sense. God is infinite. We have to think beyond ourselves and our mortal state on Earth to recognize this possibility.
Without me rambling, below is a good apologetic on the subject. I found this to be easily digested. Note: Even the saints kicked this topic around.
https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/02/catholicism-handle-discovery-extraterrestrial-life
Kavanaugh, have your fun, but stop speaking as if you have some authority merely because you quote musing/conjecture by others.
The Catechism leaves many doors open to further review of things outside its own competence of the moment, and it was very careful to avoid any pronouncements on the issue.
You are not much of an arguer able to make legitimate points past quotes of others, and often out of context, same as another poster, because you cannot tell the difference between even simple things such as the definite "is" and indefinite "might" and try to run with a simple phrase all past its meaning. The Catechism was intentionally ambiguous and took great care as crafted by far more logical and learned people than you, in order to avoid pronouncements which it might later regret.
They knew the ancient saying, "A closed mouth gathers no foot", while you try to take the intentionally vague and try to argue definite statements/positions from it, and this a ploy you use to excess. It is easy to see you greatly admire Jesuits and seek to emulate them.
It is a great loss for the Church that you save your skepticism only for orthodoxy and do not apply it to what often passes for science or often passes for modern theology and sociology. But THEY never err in your book, and seem in that book to outrank even scripture.
Bob - When one quotes another it USUALLY means that the person being quoted is the authority. When I quote Aquinas, it is because he is a greater authority on theology. When I quote Fr. Jose Gabriel Funes, it is because he is a greater authority on astronomy/cosmology. It's a very simple notion.
Tell me, please, the difference between "It is possible to make millions investing in cryptocurrency" and "It might be possible to make millions investing in cryptocurrency." It seems to me in either case one might or might not become a millionaire. What am I missing?
I am quite aware of the limits of the "pronouncements" in the Catechism. My post of August 3, 2023 at 11:13 AM was to point our that Jerome does not seem to have that awareness.
I don't think the Catechism is "ambiguous" at all. It is written, rather, very precisely in order to convey without ambiguity what the Church teaches and, importantly, what it does not.
I am as orthodox as any here. I don't know what makes you think that correcting what I know to be an erroneous understanding of the Catechism makes me skeptical of orthodoxy.
I wonder what will be the the reaction of the Aliens when they find out the Mother of God is from earth? Perhaps they will come to accept this, as peoples of once Alien (to European) earthly cultures came to accept and venerate her, through the heroic and exemplary efforts of our Catholic missionaries.
Post a Comment