I get asked this question most of all:

“But how do you reconcile your theories on human origins with your Catholicism?!”

While I gave an answer in the book, further conversations I had with beta readers made me aware of some questions that apparently they still think are not answered satisfactorily, which just proves the point I made in the book, rather gently there, and less so here, that the reason I most often don’t understand why this is even a question is basically people’s lack of imagination, as well as Biblical knowledge. So… let me do what I do best, and upset a few more people.

First an axiom though: The part about our human origins having extraterrestrial roots is not “my theory”. It is an undeniable fact, composed of multiple, absolutely undeniable, factual, objective, real evidence, which in each case on its own points to the same thing, and taken all together become overwhelming. It is “my theory” only insofar as I am the first one to have put it all together already some 31 years ago, and in the latest book, providing a level of detail and proof that was not available back in 1995, but absolutely is today and completely vindicates my original theory.

So what we are dealing with here is the REALITY of our human origins being extraterrestrial. You can go crazy, start believing in Aliens being our masters, turn to atheism or Buddhism, or L. Ron Hubbard, for all I care, but this is now simply a fact. How you deal with it is ultimately up to you, what I am doing in this post is only answering the question *I* get asked, which is basically: Ok so we have extraterrestrial origins, but you are a Catholic. How is that reconciled for you?

And as I said in the book, the short answer is: Easily. Because there is zero conflict. But now allow me to present the variformed and rather silly (from my perspective) reasons people give for why this should be a problem (some of these are taken verbatim from discussions I have had. Others are an agglomeration of various discussions/questions posed to me from various people):

1. If humans were not made directly by God but their DNA was shaped/tampered with by Aliens, what does that say about human nature? The Church teaches that, effectively, man is to return to the Original State of Adam before The Fall. But if Adam’s nature was already tampered with, that renders the goal suspect.
2. In short, if men were made by Aliens, how exactly are we made in the “Image of God”?
3. The Catholic Church has a very explicit, widely accepted view on this question which, while not ex-cathedra, still means that your model presents a strong deviation from the norm (which Catholics are taught to regard as highly suspect).
4. The Catholic Church has a very explicit, widely accepted view on this question which, while not ex-cathedra, still means that your model presents a strong deviation from the norm (which Catholics are taught to regard as highly suspect).
5. Because our DNA affects our behaviour and thoughts which affects our actions which interact with the moral law.
6. Do those same aliens have free will?And if so they could (and probably would from free-will driven malice) screw up our DNA/Morality. The issue is that the baseline teaching of the Church is that God made man in a state of perfection. If we were created by lesser beings, mankind is not just a step down from God but a step down from these lesser beings, too. No matter how advanced. That’s why the whole idea of them tampering with us is a problem.
7. III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer? Answer: In the negative. [The Replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission On questions of Sacred Scripture approved and published under the authority of Pope Pius X, 1909:]

The error is really the same one repeated in a recursive loop that inevitably always has its origin in the same place, which, as far as I am concerned, is a reality I was aware of since I was a teenager, from the very scant reading I did of a Bible I had asked my grandma for, and she had posted to me. An understanding that is obvious to anyone that has done any kind of research at all into Babylonian, Assyrian, and Chaldean mythology and history, and that is, that a great big chunk of the Old Testament is a rehashing of some of those mythologies slanted to a Judaic version of the events. And here is the real issue:

A reading of the Bible that is absolutely limited, narrow, literal, and ultimately something I would call “Calvinistic” and basically Protestant in methodology, if I were being polite; but since this is my blog, I will call it what it is: Moronic. Limited. Unintelligent. And more importantly, not at all in keeping with ACTUAL relevant, scholarly, accurate Bible reading/understanding/study.

It is the very reason why a lot of idiots currently believe in the flat Earth. Because according to them, the words in the “Bible” that says “firmament” means “the inside of a snow-globe”. It’s idiotic. The original word, translated from the Hebrew is literally “The Expanse”. Yes, like the science fiction series by the same name (here’s a hint: It’s not a coincidence it’s called that!). In essence it’s just an ancient word for SPACE. And similarly, if you read the story of Adam and Eve as being perfectly literal, and them being the only humans that were ever created initially by God, then you have to explain how the entire human race was necessarily populated by wanton incest throughout, and consequently still is today. Which is both morally repugnant, thus not in keeping with my experience of God at all, as well as we know with certainty, from genetic studies, absolute nonsense. Not to mention, Biblically repugnant as well, since incest is punishable by death in the Old Testament. So, OBVIOUSLY, a LITERAL reading to the exclusion of a metaphorical or allegorical one, is, to put it mildly, due to a severe lack of reasoning capacity.

The Bible, and Catholicism, absolutely do NOT require us to be blinkered binary thinkers that assume everything in the Old Testament is meant literally. Because:

1. Hebrew is a language that has three modes of being read in any given sentence: Factual/historical, allegory, and metaphor. It is the language of the Pharisees that have words mean just exactly what they want it to mean at any given time, just like the mad Queen in Alice in Wonderland. It’s essentially an inbuilt “feature” of that language.
2. If you actually read the Bible, Jesus Himself OFTEN uses allegory, analogy, and metaphor. Pretty much everything he says can be read that way.

So, to answer the more detailed questions (if honestly dumber) identified above:

1. Adam was not ONE MAN. Adami in the original language literally means mankind. The Adami was us. The Humans. When it says the “sons of the gods” (yes it’s plural) mixed with the daughters of man, and made the Nephilim, it was PHYSICAL beings doing so. And if you read a bit wider, it is also clear that Adam and Eve were NOT the only types of humans or humanoid people around. Which takes care of the massive forever-incest-problem that people who think that Adam and Eve were the literal only progenitors of humanity don’t like to think about (because they literally don’t think very much beyond thumping their Bible with great certainty and fortitude! And also abysmal ignorance of its actual contents).
2. The whole “purity spiral” about “but what about our perfect nature?!” Is nonsensical too. If you read the Bible, the related boo of Enoch, and, again, have an imagination and a contextual understanding a little above that of a goldfish, it will be abundantly clear that what the concern is with regard to the Adami (humanity) is their contamination GENETICALLY by the fathers of the Nephilim/Titans/Giants with human females, And so much so that the “God” of the Old Testament wipes out EVERYONE who was considered impure GENETICALLY. Which by the way, re-perpetuates the entire problem of everlasting incest if Noah’s family were the only survivors in the whole world.
3. As for us being made “in the image of God” my view is that being conscious, capable of rational thought (which logic being absolutely a primary attribute of God, since the very word Logos is the etymological root of Logic) and able to create (other humans as well as various objects, structures, concepts and so on) is what makes us essentially made in His image. And the fact we may have been the product of aliens messing around with petri-dishes, or fetching monkeys for that matter, as disturbing as that image may be, makes no difference from my perspective, to our potentially divine nature. Just as I see no logical reason to assume a dog has any more or less right to exist than a cat based on their supposed “purity” or similarity to, or nearness to, God. We are all created beings, and while some of us are obviously more intelligent than others, that in and of itself certainly doesn’t make us any more special to my view than any other created creature, other than in that specific respect.
4. That my interpretation may be disagreed with by other Catholics, including priests and bishops, is entirely irrelevant to me. None of what I stated here goes against ex-cathedra pronouncements and I am in fact, in good company, since there are Cardinals that were made Cardinals AFTER they stated that there are obviously a multitude of inhabited worlds in the Universe.
5. Even if it were true that our DNA did all that, so what? An African pygmy has different DNA to a Japanese Ainu. So? Are we to grade them on a hierarchy of holiness on that basis? Why? Where does it say so in Catholicism?
6. I obviously assume creatures with intelligence of the kind to make or at least modify us from genetic materials have free will. And again, so what? The unstated premise that humans being have to be perfect from a physical perspective in the first creation instance, is, again, from my perspective, idiotic. If any aspect of us MIGHT be capable of a perfection good enough t merit God’s approval, it would be our souls, not our bodies or our DNA. The logical extension of such limited thinking is that ugly people are clearly cursed for their evil and corrupt DNA! My natural instinct to such nonsensical “thought” (which is nothing of the sort, but is instead an emotional reaction) is to ask the speaker to look in the mirror, and the perhaps write an essay on how aside from a bit of original sin, which he really had nothing to do with, he is CLEARLY a PERFECT specimen of God’s creation of humans. Actually attempting such an exercise might just make them realise how absurd their position is.
7. While if taking things in their proper context, it could be argued that NONE of my above points are in fact, in disagreement (in broad metaphorical terms) with that statement, the simple reality is that even if they were in DIRECT OPPOSITION to it all, it would not matter. Those are NOT ex cathedra pronouncements. So it is absolutely possible, that even if you try to make it all literal, I am correct and on those specific points the Church (not in its Magisterium) has been wrong. it would not be the first time, nor is it likely to be the last time such a thing has happened.

But now a couple of counter-questions to these intellectual giants of theology:

1. Explain how we are not the product of perpetual incest given Adam and Eve.
2. Ditto after the flood when supposedly only Noah’s family was left.

I’ll leave I there for now.