Dr. Paul Thigpen
Peddling UFOs to unsuspecting Catholics

Adapted from Daniel O'Connor's book "Only Man Bears his Image" with permission

Dr. Thigpen was a Methodist pastor who studied Church history, and it led him to join the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, Dr. Thigpen dragged in a whole bunch of other spiritual baggage from his past which he is now energetically peddling on Catholics, including demonic manifestations and deep involvement in the occult.

Dr. Paul Thigpen: Each planet has its own "Judgement Day"

In his popular 2022 book promoting alien belief, Dr. Paul Thigpen argues that each of the supposedly inhabited planets will “likely” have its own Judgment Day, asserting it is merely the case that “Christ comes to Earth to draw our history to a close [emphasis in original].”[17] He concedes that the Faith teaches the whole material universe will come to a close, and that it “seems” this end will “follow Earth’s Judgment Day,” only to then imply there could actually be untold billions of years left after “our” Judgment Day, before the end of time.

Dr. Paul Thigpen: Promotion of multiple incarnations of Jesus Christ

In the year 2000, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an important document (authored by the future Pope Benedict XVI), Dominus Iesus that condemns (as heretical—that is, “in profound conflict with the Christian faith,”) multiple incarnations that the Catholic ET promoters unashamedly employ.

Dr. Paul Thigpen, acknowledges it applies against aliens, and dismisses this document as “not infallible,” and then pretends its teachings only apply to humanity. Sounds like he's just throwing ideas against the wall hoping one will stick.

The Son of Mary is absolutely alone in His status as the Word of the Father. Therefore, any theory whatsoever that refuses to accord to Jesus Christ a recognition of His unqualified singularity, supremacy, and exclusivity, or introduce any sort of separation between the Second Person of the Trinity and the humanity of Jesus, or in any way mitigate His “universal uniqueness,” is here repeatedly and rightly dismissed as contrary to the Faith. Moreover, the entire motivation for this document—to condemn those modernist, syncretic, and New Age heresies which view Jesus as just one of many manifestations of God—applies equally to the same approach taken to extraterrestrials.

Recall that the ET promoters’ entire thesis is not merely that aliens exist in some distant galaxy we will never communicate with, much less physically meet, but rather that aliens are already here among us—and long have been. Therefore, there is not the slightest difference between the ET promoters insisting these aliens have “their own Christ” and, on the other hand, a run of the mill New Ager insisting Buddhists and Hindus “also have their own saviors.” All suggestions of these “different Christs,” whether they are offered in reference to aliens, Buddhists, aboriginal Australians, or what have you, are equally heretical.

Dr. Thigpen uses the phrase “the entire universe,” from this document and claims it “could indeed be read as support for a ‘cosmic Christ.’”[21].

Advocating for a “cosmic Christ” is the move made by certain modernists and New Agers (above all Fr. Richard Rohr) to replace our focus on Jesus with the acknowledgement of an amorphous and vague notion of His nature that is amenable to alien belief. In fact, the document’s inclusion of “the entire universe,” in that one sentence, is simply an acknowledgement of Christ’s Omnipotence and His ability to rescue (from the Fall) the entire cosmos (which Adam brought down with him); it is not a reference to supposed inhabitants of another planet. One Catholic scholar, a critic of Dr. Thigpen’s argument here, astutely wrote:

...no matter how many times Dominus Jesus speaks of the uniqueness of Christ and the uniqueness of His salvation to humanity... Paul [Thigpen] still reads into this single phrase, “and to the entire universe,” what he wants to see—the possibility of alien life on other planets. As a rule, when the ambiguity of language offers Paul the slightest crack through which he can wiggle, Paul will invariably take the opportunity. Normally, [however] when phrases like “and to the entire universe” are used in a scholarly soteriological context, it refers only to St. Paul’s words in Roman 8:20-21 that when Adam sinned the whole creation was cursed and forced to decay, but which will be liberated from the curse at the Second coming of Christ...[22]

Whoever would read a document like Dominus Iesus and fail to realize it is exhorting all Christians (on pain of heresy) to ensure they accord to Jesus Christ—born on earth two thousand years ago—an absolutely unqualified uniqueness and supremacy, has said much more about himself than about (any acceptable) theology. Yet such moves as these are endemic in Christian ET promotion and its vain attempts to portray its views as amenable to the Faith.

Abuse of Aquinas’ Theology by ET promoters: Multiple Incarnations “Derogatory”

Catholic ET promoters frequently misuse the Christology of St. Thomas Aquinas in seeking to argue that the idea of multiple (extraterrestrial) incarnations of the Word of God can be reconciled with Christianity. Dr. Thigpen wrote:

God’s power is infinite, [Aquinas] insisted, and His capacity to become incarnate is not exhausted by a single instance or even multiple instances of that action. In addition to His incarnation in Christ, then, God could have chosen to join to His divine nature “another numerically different human nature...”[29]

The implications that appear intended in this author’s presentation of the quote above misrepresent Aquinas’ position. Indeed, in the Summa Theologica (cf., III, Q4, A5 and Q3, A7), St. Thomas discusses the hypothetical question of multiple incarnations. However, he makes it clear that his only aim is to ensure that one does not wrongly limit God’s Omnipotence, writing, “the power of a Divine Person is infinite...Hence it may not be said that a Divine Person so assumed one human nature as to be unable to assume another.”

What Aquinas is certainly not doing here is proposing that such a thing, even if not logically contradictory (i.e., something God Himself is “unable” to do), is actually a possibility we should be entertaining. The Angelic Doctor constantly argues that God absolutely has not, does not, and will not actually do certain things that He could do simply because He is Omnipotent. For example, in the Summa—Part I, Question 104, Article 3—he argues that God can indeed annihilate things—even the entire universe and all it contains (including our souls). Yet, he spends the entire next article arguing that absolutely nothing is, or ever will be, annihilated! He even insists, “we must conclude by denying absolutely that anything at all will be annihilated.” (I, Q104, A4) The same is true of multiple incarnations. Even if this idea is not intrinsically logically contradictory, it is false—not to mention blasphemous—for other reasons, and we “must” deny it “absolutely.”

In Aquinas’ day, no serious Christian writer had been so deluded as to propose belief in multiple incarnations of God, as today’s Christian and Catholic ET promoters do. Had Aquinas known that, several hundred years after his own day, Christians would begin doing precisely this, we should have no doubt he would have followed up the sections on the Incarnation noted above by likewise declaring, “we must conclude by denying absolutely that there ever has been or ever will be another Incarnation of God”!

Elsewhere in the Summa, Aquinas even ponders the question of whether God could simply assume all natures! That is, he discusses the scenario wherein each and every one of us is literally the Word of God Himself. Aquinas declares that even this is possible! But his purpose in bringing the matter up was not to entertain the possibility, but rather to determine if it was “becoming” (i.e., fitting) for Him to do so—and to answer this question, Aquinas of course gives a resolute “no.”

This passage is extremely important because it highlights the absurdity of some of these concepts. Obviously, Aquinas would be scandalized if any Christian would dare assert that each and every one of us might literally be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. This would mean each of us must be worshipped—an extreme form of idolatry. Thankfully, I know of no Catholic ET promoters (yet) advocating for this notion. They should take note, however, that the passage from Aquinas they misleadingly use to support the possibility of aliens is essentially spoken in the same breath as the present passage.

More than merely denying the reality of multiple Incarnations, Aquinas essentially—and rightly—castigates one who would dare propose such a scenario, for he declares that “[multiple Incarnations] would have been derogatory to the dignity of the incarnate Son of God... as He is the First-born of all creatures.” (III, Q4, A5) Note that even two Incarnations would be equally “derogatory” to Jesus’ status as first born—the one and only Incarnation of God in the universe.

While I have seen many Catholic ET promoters abuse Aquinas’ teachings on this point to promote aliens, I have not yet found even one of them acknowledging that this great saint bluntly declares that view to be derogatory to the dignity of Jesus Christ. This is a great scandal.

On this point and others, those who read the Summa are sure to fall into grave error if they do so incapable of distinguishing when Aquinas is discussing what is logically possible, what is theologically possible, what is theologically fitting, what is orthodox, what is unorthodox, what is likely, what is certain, etc. In pointing out that the Word of God “could” have assumed multiple natures, this was nothing but a subtle academic point within the domain of advanced philosophical theology. It is radically unjust to Aquinas (who himself opposed the ET Deception before it formally began; insisting there is only one earth and one Incarnation) to use it as grounds for speculating about extraterrestrial incarnations of the Word of God.[§§]

Dr. Paul Thigpen: Promotion of Multiple Mother's of God. Attack against the Blessed Virgin Mary

If the Blessed Virgin is just one of “many Mothers of God” scattered about the galaxies, then we have no place regarding her as the Queen of Heaven.

Dr. Paul Thigpen wrote:

If the divine Son of God should become incarnate in extraterrestrial races, then His mother on other planets could also be rightly called the “Mother of God.” He would, in fact, have several mothers ... [there may be] multiple incarnations with multiple Mothers of God and of the Church, who are also multiple Queens of the Universe through the divine Majesty of their Son...[38]

Dr. Thigpen proceeds to insist this situation he has described—which any simple and pious Catholic would easily and immediately see the blasphemy of—is entirely unproblematic, deferring to “humility,” as if this virtue demands that we be open to violations of the most basic realities of the Faith.

The Inescapable Relevance and Magisterial Weight of Pope Zachary’s Rejection of ETs

Catholic ET promoters insist that analogous “men” (that is, rational incarnate creatures, whom they call aliens) exist in physical regions that are pragmatically inaccessible to us; beings who derive not from Adam, but from some other first parent. This position is, almost verbatim, the condemned Antipodean Thesis. The “perverse anti-God abomination” which the Pope describes it as derives from the multitude of theological problems that flow from it; many discussed in preceding sections of this book, and many more to be discussed in forthcoming ones.

Not only is the substance of the position a perfect analogy, so too is its motivation. The Antipodean Thesis was presented on the basis of scientific conjecture and the prevailing mythologies of the time which posited all manner of fictional intelligent creatures living “under the earth.” This is exactly how belief in extraterrestrials is promoted today; it is supposedly derived from “astrobiology,” but the real motive force behind the theories is, likewise, the day’s prevailing mythologies: science fiction.

Nevertheless, Catholic ET promoters unfortunately do not stop at only these attempts to evade this Papal denunciation. Dr. Paul Thigpen, in his popular 2022 book on the topic, bizarrely claims that Pope Zachary merely:

...probably reject[ed] the idea on the same grounds as his predecessor: There cannot be any human beings on the underside of the earth, he reasoned, because to be human, they would have to be descended from Adam, and so would have had to arrive at their present place by crossing what was considered an impassible ocean.[44]

So, Pope Zachary would denounce Virgil’s teaching as an excommunication-worthy anti-God abomination and perversity merely because it entailed positing some children of Adam traversed an ocean thought quite difficult to sail? If, on the other hand, one objects that the “perversity” of Virgil’s teaching is not found on account of its alleging great feats of ocean-crossing, but rather on account of its alleging the existence of “men” who did not derive from Adam, then we can only again exhort such a person to return to the paragraphs above. What “perversity” could possibly exist in such a teaching that does not also exist—though more perversely still—in extraterrestrial alien belief? There are no grounds for any meaningful distinguishing between the two. If one is perverse, we must conclude the other is as well.

The final endeavor of the scholar noted above is different, and likely derives from what he perceived as the impossibility of successfully circumventing condemnation of ET promotion by this Papal Letter. Therefore, he proceeds to simply dismiss Pope Zachary’s condemnation as only a personal opinion expressed in a private letter. This is both fallacious and a category mistake. Fallacious, because this is not a mere letter: it is a clear instruction, written in response to St. Boniface’s Dubia, on a formal canonical proceeding to be undertaken against a certain priest’s “abominable” doctrine. This is not one friend writing to another to express personal opinions. It is a decree.

It is a category mistake, because the strict genres of Magisterial declarations we delineate today did not exist in the 8th century. Today, one could more validly regard a letter from a Pope as non-Magisterial, depending upon its wording.[‡‡‡‡‡]

In the 8th century, however, Popes did not write such letters simply intending to chat. Consider that one could allege St. Paul’s epistles, as well as those of St. Peter, the first Pope, were “merely letters they wrote to various addressees.” Yet they comprise much of the New Testament’s content. For centuries thereafter, Popes exercised their Magisterial authority through letters precisely like the one here authored by Pope Zachary.[§§§§§]

This fact can be illustrated with a perusal of the most renowned compilation of dogmas, the Enchiridion Symbolorum: A Compendium of Creeds, Definitions and Declarations of the Catholic Church—otherwise known simply as “Denzinger.” There, one will find several of Pope Zachary’s letters to St. Boniface—just like the letter we are currently considering—presented as true acts of the Magisterium. We are left with only one conclusion: this letter, too, is authentic Magisterium, as there is no indication that it substantially differs (in the intent of the Pope) from those already included in Denzinger.[******]

Edorsements of Teilhard heretical teaching

Dr. Paul Thigpen acknowledges that de Chardin is “highly controversial,” before moving on to appear to endorse Fr. Teilhard’s teachings, or at least concede their importance in generating modern ET belief. He presents these heresies without any refutation, noting that:

[de Chardin’s] speculations about extraterrestrial intelligence are not surprising ... Teilhard redefined original sin as “the essential reaction of the finite to the creative act” ... If sin understood in this way is a universal attribute of the entire creation, Teilhard argued, God must offer redemption to all creatures as well. But humanity could not be the sole center of redemption, ... Teilhard proposed the activity of a third, “cosmic,” nature of Christ, a nature in addition to the divine and the human natures identified in Catholic dogma.[265]

Promotion of Time travel

Dr. Paul Thigpen (a world-famous Catholic apologist) insisted that we should also:

...be open to ... ultraterrestrials... interdimensional beings (as some would insist) from another dimension of existence altogether that at times intersects with our own; or even time-traveling humans from the future...[399]

When one is asked “So what are these UFOs and beings visiting us? Are they aliens from space? Are they interdimensional visitors? Are they extraterrestrial AIs? Are they time travelers from the future?”, there is a certain one-word answer they say should be the response: “Yes!” Indeed, there is almost no sci-fi absurdity to which today’s ET-belief phenomena does not engender openness among its devotees.

Thigpen's promotion of Padre Pio's bogus quote on Aliens

Dr. Paul Thigpen’s popular 2022 book promoting ET belief, furthers the notion that Padre Pio endorsed aliens, only quotes a paper publfished by Balducci. This paper itself claims to be quoting a certain book (Così parlò Padre Pio). This book itself, however, only allegedly quotes Padre Pio on the basis of anonymous hearsay.

Dr. Thigpen’s footnotes do not mention where Msgr. Balducci’s paper was found, and I have not been able to locate it in any reputable journal or other reliable source (although I have scoured many academic databases for it).

After extensive searching, I have only been able to find the paper posted on two fringe websites (ufoevidence.org and another site reposting it from the “Paranormal & UFO Information Network,” pufoin.com). The website most people cite when promoting this quote is that of a certain St. Catherine of Siena parish (where Dr. Thigpen worked; so one is inclined to assume he simply posted it there); that website, however, does not cite the source of the quote, therefore it is doubtless simply an uncredited reposting of the same material. Here is what the paper I found declares:

From St. Fr. Pio, the following dialogue is documented and officially published by the Cappuchin [sic] Order:

Question: Father, some claim that there are creatures of God on other planets, too.

Answer [allegedly from Padre Pio]: What else? Do you think they don’t exist and that God’s omnipotence is limited to this small planet Earth? What else? Do you think there are no other beings who love the Lord?

Another question: Father, I think the Earth is nothing compared to other planets and stars.

Answer [allegedly from Padre Pio]: Exactly! Yes, and we Earthlings are nothing, too. The Lord certainly did not limit His glory to this small Earth. On other planets other beings exist who did not sin and fall as we did. (Don Nello Castello: Così parlò Padre Pio ; Vicenza, 1974).

While the first claim included here from Balducci—i.e., that the dialogue is “documented and officially published” by St. Pio’s order—is often made by others (who are doubtless simply deferring to Balducci’s assertion), it is unclear what he means by this. The book’s publisher is listed as being an Italian hospital, not the Capuchin order, and I have not been able to find any mention of the book on any lists of Capuchin publications. Indeed, the book itself appears virtually impossible to find, and it is highly unlikely that anyone now reiterating this alleged conversation of St. Pio has himself read it recorded in this book. I am not claiming the book does not contain the quote. My point is only that when no one reiterating this claim has access to the book from which it derives, we are completely detached from context and from the ability to assess this claim with respect to other claims made in the same book (which is always an important task, especially for controversial remarks).

Instead, whenever this quote is being relayed today, it is almost certainly being taken from a fringe Ufology website, which itself is purportedly quoting a paper written by Balducci, which itself claims to quote this 1974 book, which itself is allegedly recounting a conversation Padre Pio had, but which does not even indicate who had this supposed conversation.

We are, therefore, so many degrees removed from reality here that no one should give any credence whatsoever to this account unless and until it can be proven who exactly is the person who had this alleged conversation with the saint, so that this person can be consulted to verify its authenticity.

Thigpen's Promotion of bogus JP II quote:

Dr. Thigpen’s book says:

Finally of note in this regard is a remark by the popular Polish Pope Saint John Paul II (1920–2005). According to a report of his visit to the parish of Sant’Innocenzo I Papa e San Guido Vescovo in Rome on November 28, 1999, the pope had a brief but significant exchange with a child who was attending the event. When the little one asked him, “Holy Father, are there any aliens?” the saint did not respond, “We don’t know,” or even “If they exist, then ...” Instead, he replied simply, “Always remember: They are children of God as we are.” [447]

At no point does Dr. Thigpen (or any other author I have read who relays this quote) indicate where exactly this “report” was published or by whom. There is, however, an actual report of this visit on the Vatican’s official website,[448] and nowhere within it is there any mention of this exchange (or anything about aliens). Moreover, I have not even been able to find this “report” described within Balducci’s own papers. Dr. Thigpen cites a document by Balducci posted on the “Scribd” website. However, the document he cites says nothing about this matter. Nevertheless, I will assume Thigpen simply accidentally cited the wrong thing, and that he did indeed read this quote within something Balducci wrote somewhere. Regardless of that assumption, we have no grounds whatsoever for believing this event took place. No one knows anything about this “report,” so we cannot even begin to attempt to verify it.

Even here, we should consider the proper understanding of this encounter, if we pretend that it did happen. The Pope would have been answering an impromptu question from a small child. The Pope likely would have wanted the child to simply understand that every rational creature is a child of God. Alternatively, perhaps he was even “playing along,” like an adult might do if asked by a child about Santa Claus, or with a child’s imaginary friend, or with the fictional plotline of one of his favorite stories. Ultimately, we must consider how bizarre it would be for so prolific an author and speaker as John Paul II/Karol Wojtyla, if he did believe in aliens, to be incapable of finding a single opportunity to clearly address it; instead choosing to relay this remarkable (remarkably problematic, that is) view only by way of a random remark to a small child. This, despite publishing tens of thousands of pages worth of material (between his own writings and his talks, homilies, etc.), all of which can validly be attributed to him.

Clearly, to attempt to draw meaningful conclusions from this supposed encounter, relayed in a “report” that evidently is nowhere to be found, is not merely to build a castle on the sand—it is to attempt to build one floating midair. Yet Dr. Thigpen exercises some elaborate imaginative powers here to squeeze out of this myth an argument for extraterrestrials. In recent podcasts, he has even attempted to use this particular “encounter” with the Pope to outright dismiss all considerations of Paragraph 356 of the Catechism with respect to aliens. Instead of trusting the word of the Catechism, he trusts his interpretation of the non-existent reports of this likely non-existent encounter: he insists that if anyone understood the Catechism, it was John Paul II, and if he was okay with aliens, we likewise must assume the Catechism presents no problems for belief in extraterrestrials. (In fact, as we saw in Part Two, the Catechism is entirely unambiguous in ruling out aliens, with language so clear that no one may interpret them away with sophistical acrobatics.) The bankruptcy of such approaches as these, regularly employed by Catholic ET promoters, testifies to the bankruptcy of their thesis. They cannot dispute that the Catechism (and other authoritative texts and demonstrative arguments) rules out aliens, therefore they resort to condemning as “fundamentalists” or “proof texters” (as Dr. Thigpen regularly does) those who acknowledge and submit to the Catechism’s teachings on this topic. ***

Pope St. Paul VI and Aliens

The other saint Dr. Thigpen defers to in supposed support of alien belief is Pope St. Paul VI. Thigpen writes:

According to a report by Reginaldo Francisco, the French Catholic philosopher and theologian Jean Guitton once had a conversation with Pope Saint Paul VI (1897–1978) in which they discussed ETI. The pope found the possibility of extraterrestrials to be reasonable and could see how “the universal Church” would in that case include more than the human race [449]

We are not even dealing with a quote here, only a general description of an alleged conversation, so very little could be made of this even if we could have confidence in what Jean Guitton relayed. All we have is one man’s claim that from a conversation he had, Paul VI found some possibility “reasonable.”

Dr. Thigpen cites Thomas O’Meara for this claim. O’Meara, in turn, cites an author by the name of Francesco Bertola. Bertola, in turn, is apparently citing Reginaldo Francisco. And Reginaldo Francisco, in turn, is reporting on something that allegedly transpired with Jean Guitton. And Jean Guitton is the one we are told is relaying the gist of this supposed conversation. Here as usual with claims such as these in support of ET belief, we are playing the game of telephone with several layers of removal from reality and no realistic way of knowing what actually transpired. If one is willing to believe all claims of that nature when they pertain to things allegedly said by Popes, he would have stopped being Catholic long ago.

Note that we are not even presented with a claim that the Pope believed in aliens, but only that he supposedly said such belief could be “reasonable” in some conversation. It is unlikely that Paul VI said even that, but if he did, he was simply mistaken, as popes often are in their personal opinions. If would not have been that sainted Pope’s only mistake. ***

Dr. Thigpen also cites other saints in supposed support of his thesis, when in fact their quotations have no bearing whatsoever on it. For example, he quotes St. John Chrysostom’s teaching that

“with God, nothing is difficult... with God it is easy to make worlds without number and end.”

Obviously, there is no grounds here for supposing that Chrysostom believed God actually did do this, or might have. As we will see in a forthcoming appendix, this is a theological point on God’s Omnipotence, not an encouragement to speculate about aliens. St. John Chrysostom was a Father of the Church, and whoever is interested in seeing how the teachings of the Fathers rule out aliens should consult Part Two of this book.

What About St. Jerome and the Satyr?

“Satyrs” are entities descibed in Greek tragedies and other pagan religions. They were “daimones,” an umbrella term for certain supposed beings who stand “between gods and men,” and “bring the prayers of men to the gods.” St. Augustine famously refuted this demonic mythology in City of God. “Daimones” or “daimons” are either demons or fictions.

The term could have been used for certain deformed humans, but the norm of demon or fictions is not controversial.

Dr. Paul Thigpen argues that St. Jerome wrote about St. Anthony’s travels in the desert, and the latter encountered one such creature that claimed it was a “satyr.” (To this list of supposed non-human, non-angelic intelligences he adds nymphs, fairies, pixies, leprechauns, elves, dwarfs, trolls, brownies, menehune, and stick people).

Jerome emphatically rejected the ET belief of Origen, and it is disingenuous to use any writings from this saint to argue for a belief he condemned as heretical.

Thigpen argues they are real—but non-demonic, non-human, and non-angelic—and that they likewise prove his point about non-human interlligence (NHI) Dr. Thigpen writes:

Satyrs are one of many creatures portrayed by the ancients but now considered mythical. ...Jerome reported that the satyr was a manlike creature, but with “a hooked snout, horned forehead, and extremities like goats’ feet.” When Anthony asked him who he was, the rather friendly satyr replied: “I am a mortal being and one of those inhabitants of the desert whom the Gentiles deluded by various forms of error worship under the names of Fauns, Satyrs, and Incubi. I am sent to represent my tribe.”

Then he entreated Anthony to pray for him, because his fellows had heard that Christ had come to Earth and that the gospel was being proclaimed throughout the world. Anthony shed tears of joy and marveled that “beasts speak of Christ.” Then the satyr departed quickly. ...

Though the satyr was not extraterrestrial (today he might be designated “other terrestrial” or “ultraterrestrial”), he represented a form of non-human, non-angelic intelligence. And Saint Jerome believed that such creatures actually existed... Our point here is not to claim that satyrs are real. Our point is that Saint Jerome apparently had no problem believing in the existence of non-human, non-angelic intelligences. ... if such a brilliant, devout, and well-catechized Catholic Christian [as Jerome] saw no conflict between his faith and the existence of intelligent creatures neither human nor angelic, we need not fear that such an openness is somehow foolish or heretical.[453]

Dr. Thigpen’s pulls excerpts which appear to support his thesis (while ignoring those which refute it), a misinterpretation of what St. Jerome actually wrote, and a contradiction of his (Thigpen’s) own argument for the orthodoxy of belief in aliens. Let us consider each of these flaws below.

Thigpen ignores the sentences immediately preceding

In the sentences immediately preceding the ones Thgpen quotes, St. Jerome says:

All at once he [Anthony] beholds a creature of mingled shape, half horse half man, called by the poets Hippocentaur. At the sight of this he arms himself by making on his forehead the sign of salvation, and then exclaims, “Holloa! Where in these parts is a servant of God living?” The monster after gnashing out some kind of outlandish utterance, in words broken rather than spoken through his bristling lips, at length finds a friendly mode of communication, and extending his right hand points out the way desired. ... But whether the devil took this shape to terrify him, or whether it be that the desert which is known to abound in monstrous animals engenders that kind of creature also, we cannot decide.

There is no consideration whatsoever that these creatures are anything but animals or demons. The fact that this “centaur” even “utters words” and manages to engage in “a friendly mode of communication” does not shake St. Jerome’s conviction that this is no child of God; no creature of another species than us having reason.

The description Jerome provides of the “Satyr” is much more similar to a normal human being than the centaur. It simply has a deformed nose, forehead, and feet. It could even have been a member of a particular race of humans who suffer from various deformities.

Rightly does St. Augustine categorically rule out the very possibility of a race of rational mortal creatures who are not also, like us, descendants of Adam and Eve.

The contrast between Jerome’s adjacent descriptions of Anthony’s encounters with the centaur and the satyr is deeply telling, and it directly refutes Dr. Thigpen’s thesis. It is precisely because the centaur could not possibly be regarded as a human (no degree of deformation in a human birth or a human race could assume the form of a half-horse, “half-man”) that Jerome is certain it was either a mere animal or a demonic apparition. In other words, it is precisely because Jerome realizes there are no “intelligent creatures neither human nor angelic” (Thigpen, Ch. 10) that he realizes he can discern possibilities for the satyr that were not possible for the centaur. Jerome presupposes the opposite of the very conclusion Thigpen tries to extract from Jerome!

Nevertheless, reasons remain to consider that this “satyr” which Anthony encountered could simply have been another demonic apparition. Thigpen claims that the “satyr” simply “departed quickly.” In fact, Jerome writes:

“[Anthony] had not finished speaking when, as if on wings, the wild creature fled away.”

Such a manner of travel would not appear natural to a creature with two legs, as this Satyr is described. A critic may say that a demon would not speak the way the Satyr did—beseeching prayers, referring to the Gentiles as deluded into erroneous worship, and referring to “your Lord and ours.” But this is begging the question (i.e., circular reasoning).

Demons constantly deceive and try to appear as if they were pious creatures, in order to seduce men. This is not merely generally true, it was a constant experience of St. Anthony himself. As Anthony noted, recounted in the work written of him by St. Athanasius:

...[Demons] are treacherous, and are ready to change themselves into all forms and assume all appearances. Very often also without appearing they imitate the music of harp and voice, and recall the words of Scripture. Sometimes, too, while we are reading they immediately repeat many times, like an echo, what is read. They arouse us from our sleep to prayers... At another time they assume the appearance of monks and feign the speech of holy men, that by their similarity they may deceive and thus drag their victims where they will.[454]

Note that the Satyr did not utter specific words that would be categorically outside of the willingness of demons to employ. For example, it did not specifically adore Jesus Christ by name, or make the sign of the cross on itself. It only referred to the “Lord” and asked for prayers. Such words are easily within the scope of what a demon might be willing to say in order to deceive. (Adoring the name of Jesus—confessing with faith that He is God come in the Flesh—on the other hand, would entail too much of a torment for them, even as a means to the end of deceiving a soul.)

Granted, Jerome does then speak of “a man of that kind” being brought alive to Alexandria during the time of Constantine, and thus exhorts, “let no one scruple to believe this incident.” This might incline one toward the former interpretation (i.e., the “Satyr” as simply a deformed human). But Jerome does not insist that this was the case with the particular Satyr in question; only that he has heard of another case of a Satyr-like individual being seen in Alexandria and Antioch.

Yet, Thigpen argues, “Jerome thus left no doubt that he believed the creature was real and the incident truly took place.” But we cannot, from Jerome’s claim, draw conclusions about the particular “Satyr” now under consideration. Jerome only says that the truth of the Satyr incident “is supported” by what allegedly once happened in Alexandria. Nevertheless, we should not rule out the possibility. A human sufficiently deformed to resemble a “Satyr” is not at all unpalatable. Even Socrates was said to look very much like a Satyr (cf. Symposium). Consider that we have no reliable accounts of entire groups of “Satyrs” being proven to be truly incarnate beings. We only see accounts of one individual “Satyr’s” corpse (i.e., a deformed human’s corpse) being brought before the Emperor. Even if, however, there truly was a whole race of “Satyrs” (which seems highly unlikely), the proper interpretation of that situation would be the one given above by St. Augustine, who insisted that any rational, mortal creature is “unquestionably” a man—a descendant of Adam.

Satyr possibility 3

A third possibility is that this “Satyr” simply was a strange animal which was miraculously or demonically given the power of speech. This interpretation appears supported by Jerome’s account of Anthony’s own words, wherein he says “Woe to you, Alexandria, who instead of God worships monsters... What will you say now? Beasts speak of Christ, and you instead of God worship monsters.” Anthony would never refer to this satyr as a “beast” if it was a rational creature as men are.

Satyr possibility 4

The final possibility is the obvious one—the one that almost everyone would prefer today, but which I did not want to pounce upon immediately lest I be mistaken for an incredulous “de-mystifier” who simply will not believe anything extraordinary and desires to render all such claims boring and ordinary! It is quite possible that this encounter simply did not happen. St. Jerome might have misunderstood what was reported to him (recall that this account is not in St. Anthony’s own words), or the portions of text in question could be apocryphal additions, or the passage might be intended to be understood in a more legendary than literal fashion. The latter is what scholars tend to prefer (though I am not necessarily condoning their take). Theologian Fr. John Gavin even regards the whole text as essentially similar, in motivation and method, to the Chronicles of Narnia, writing:

...the popular elements of the story were certainly meant to attract a wider audience. [Jerome] clearly drew upon pre-existing stories and legends surrounding the titular saint and presented them in a form that would both entertain and inspire. It has been noted, for example, that Jerome borrows images of the “weird”—bizarre, striking examples of the supernatural and magic found in ancient romances—in order to embellish his tales and enchant his readers. ... In the wilderness Antony encounters two beasts that epitomized savagery for the ancient world: the centaur and the faun, symbolic of humanity’s bestial tendencies and unfettered passions ... Yet, in his meetings with these hybrids Antony is shocked to discover a transformation in their characters ... The prophecy of Isaiah regarding the defeat of Babylon and the establishment of a new order is fulfilled before Anthony’s eyes: “But wild beasts will lie down there and its [Babylon’s] houses will be full of howling creatures; there ostriches will dwell, and there satyrs will dance” (Is. 13:21). All has been redeemed in Christ ... Antony was the witness of a new heaven and new earth in the making ... Despite the temporal and cultural divide, Jerome’s fanciful Life of Paul the Hermit and Lewis’s enchanting [Narnia] share a common vision of the Christian struggle in a creation groaning for redemption. In both worlds, Christ or Aslan recover a paradise that had been long subjected to corrupt, demonic despots.[455]

In other words, under Fr. Gavin’s reading, St. Jerome simply provided a legend that symbolized the Triumph of Christ even in the order of creation. Jerome knew that all his readers were aware of the presence of beings like centaurs and satyrs in Pagan myths, and to refer to even these being conquered by grace provides an inspiring story. Yet, Catholic dogma of course holds that no demon can ever repent, therefore as most historical references to “Satyrs” and such are clearly references to demons (this fact is uncontroversial in Catholic thought), we must carefully reserve any story about their “conversion” to the status of mere myth. ***

Whichever of those four interpretations one chooses—the “Satyr” as a deformed man, a demonic apparition, an animal, or a mere legend not intended as nonfictional—one thing remains certain: it was not a “non-human, non-angelic intelligence.”

Despite immense amounts of Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition (which we reviewed in Parts One and Two) indicating there are no “intelligent creatures neither human nor angelic,” Thigpen asserts that there are. In this context, he does so solely on the basis of this one brief paragraph from Jerome discussing an alleged encounter of Anthony’s, which certainly is irrelevant to his claim. (He provides no other foundations for this claim in the argument he makes in that chapter, and he even brings up the Satyr again in another chapter to attempt to justify the orthodoxy of other NHI claims.) From this basis alone, he declares, “we need not fear that such an openness is somehow foolish or heretical.” But he has only succeeded in demonstrating that such an openness is precisely that: utterly foolish.

In conclusion, we must recall that the entire defense that Catholic ET promoters like Dr. Thigpen employ to portray their thesis as orthodox is that the various Magisterial documents (which teach that only man is capable of knowing and loving God) only apply to earth. (As if the force of Magisterial truths runs up against some impenetrable barrier somewhere in the stratosphere.)

We already saw, in Part Two, how this restriction is false (the Catechism, and other Magisterial documents, do not say only earth is being referred to—they say “all” is being referred to, and the word “all” is unambiguous), and self-contradictory (the ET promoters’ whole point is that “aliens” are actually on earth!). Yet we should also note that even this attempt to phrase ET belief in an orthodox manner itself completely undermines their “Satyr” thesis. There are no “Satyrs” (if by that one means non-angelic, non-demonic, non-human intelligent creatures), but if there were, they would obviously be just as earthly as we are. Therefore, they are ruled out by Church teaching even as the ET promoters interpret it.

Dr. Thigpen says that, “Our point here is not to claim that satyrs are real. Our point is that Saint Jerome apparently had no problem believing in the existence of non-human, non-angelic intelligences. ... [therefore] we need not fear that such an openness is somehow foolish or heretical.” But this caveat does not give him the ability to have his cake and eat it too. Does he, or does he not, stand by his interpretation of paragraph 365 of the Catechism (and other similar Magisterial teachings)? If he does, he must concede that his own interpretation of Jerome only describes this saint as succumbing to unorthodoxy. If, instead, he stands by his interpretation of Jerome, then he is undermining his own insistence about what the Catechism “really” means. One thing is certain: he cannot have it both ways.

In still another manner, however, Thigpen’s argument seeks to have it both ways. He and many other Catholic ET promoters insist that the various condemnations of ET belief one can find throughout Church History are actually just “object[ions] to the idea that the human race is not all one family, descended from the same first parents.”[456] And they are right, Polygenism is a heresy. But what, then, of the Satyr? While the Satyr which Anthony encountered is referred to as a “beast,” St. Jerome specifically referred to the individual Satyr brought to Alexandria as “a man.” Thigpen inserts a bracketed remark where he includes that quote, instructing us to interpret the word, ”man,” as simply, “creature.” But that is not what Jerome said. Whatever deformed individual was brought to Alexandria was, simply, a man. Yet Thigpen would have us believe in NHI because of this account, although the text itself repudiates his interpretation. As, therefore, this individual “Satyr” was indeed “a man,” Thigpen is (by claiming that it was not, but was rather some other type of creature) contradicting the very defense of ET belief he offers elsewhere to try to rescue it from various condemnations by saints and popes. He is implying that ”men” exist who are not like us, but rather originate from other first parents.

There is no way to rescue the NHI Deception from censure by Catholic orthodoxy. Whenever one tries to defend it in one context, he only—in the very act of doing so—illustrates how thoroughly it succumbs to contradicting yet another Truth of the Faith.

(Note that I am only focusing on Dr. Thigpen’s argument here because he is the most prominent author to recently make it. Many others have similarly argued, and what is considered above addresses their claims as well.)

Is Paul Thigpen a strategic plant for the apocalypse

Paul Thigpen shares characteristics with infiltrators of Christianity and freedom movements that are resisting the "Great Reset."

If an influencer talks about UFOs, aliens, alternate dimensions, entities, ascended masters, Christ consciousness or Jesus as only an example (not a saviour).... RUN!