It’s been a while since I’ve posted on Msgr. Balducci’s conundrum. The rabbit trails have been good, though, and we’ll revisit some of them in more detail in the future. Those who didn’t catch the previous four posts on this can find them on the blog. Briefly, though, the conundrum is as follows. Many people who have experienced or now experience UFO sightings have processed the event in theological ways — specifically, UFOs and their presumed occupants have often been cast as messianic, divine, or “spiritually enlightened” figures. That is, the UFO subject is NOT a religiously neutral one. The same goes for abductions. (In this post we’ll get into “abduction spiritualities”). Now the problem for Msgr. Balducci who wants to claim that UFOs and ETs have *nothing* to do with what Christianity references as the demonic. It’s the “nothing” that creates the problem for Balducci, whether he or his followers realize it or not. One simply needs to ask what kind of spiritual message is conveyed by the presumed ETs, whether at contact or during abductions. Does what they say jive with (for Balducci’s sake) doctrinal teachings that are core to Catholic Christianity? It is easily demonstrated that ET messages contradict doctrinal teachings about human depravity, sin, salvation, the person of Christ, and the saving work of Christ. Typically, religious teachings that contradict these doctrines — which are the very defining points of Christianity — would be viewed as “anti-Christ” or “anti-Christian” and therefore associated with (at best) error and (at worst) evil or the demonic, since they would be viewed as affronts to the faith. For someone who isn’t catholic or Christian, these things of course don’t matter. But Balduccci is a priest with theological commitments (one would assume). Hence the conundrum. IF he doesn’t think the UFO and abduction stuff (he hangs with popular ufology) isn’t a theological problem for him (as presented in popular ufology), he’s disturbingly naive.
“Abduction Spiritualities”
The second part of Partridge’s first chapter deals with “abduction spiritualities.” Were Msgr. Balducci aware of the scholarly research in this regard (or even the popular non-fiction works in the field), he would perhaps change his position.
Partridge overviews the work of scholars whose focus is the abduction experience. He cites the work of Brenda Denzler, author of The Lure of the Edge: Scientific Passions, Religious Beliefs, and the Pursuit of UFOs. Denzler’s book is based on her Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Duke University. She contributes a chapter to Partridge’s edited book; we’ll spend some time in that chapter in the future.
Partridge notes that Denzler’s work very capably demonstrates that although “there are those in the UFO community who consider themselves to be engaged in a purely scientific enterprise, eschewing religious interpretations, this is not the case for abductees.”1 Partridge adds that “there is a conspicuous emphasis in abduction narratives on personal spiritual experience.”2 David Jacobs, known more broadly in ufology than Denzler, reaches the same conclusion when he notes that abductees “found spiritual enlightenment and an expansion of their consciousness” via the experience.3 In Harvard psychiatrist John Mack’s first work on alien abductees, ABDUCTION: HUMAN ENCOUNTERS WITH ALIENS
Many abduction experiences are unequivocally spiritual, which involves some sort of powerful encounter with, or immersion in, divine light . . . The alien beings, although resented for their intrusive activities, may also be seen as intermediaries, closer than we are to God or the source of being. Sometimes . . . they may even be seen as angels or analogous to God. A number of abductees with whom I have worked experience at certain points an openingup to the source of being in the cosmos.4
Partridge moves from this literature to make the observation that:
“[It] is hard to avoid the fact that the ‘enhanced spirituality’ (Mack) typical of abductees is consistent with the Eastern-influenced New Age spirituality that has emerged in the West, particularly since the 1960s, much of which can be traced back to theosophical thought. That is to say, whilst strictly speaking much of it is not theosophical, it is part of a stream of alternative spirituality which is indebted implicitly to Theosophy and explicitly to ideas found within the Indian religious tradition.5
Partridge goes on to cite a specific example. Quoting Professor Andrew Rawlinson’s work (University of Lancaster), Book of Enlightened Masters: Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions
1. Human beings are best understood in terms of consciousness and its modifications.
2. Consciousness can be transformed by spiritual practice.
3. There are gurus / masters / teachers who have done this.
4. They [the masters] can help others to do the same by some form of transmission . . . [which] ranges from formal initiation to a glance from the eye of the beloved.6
Partridge notes that all four of the elements above “can be found in UFO religions and abduction spiritualities, as can a host of other beliefs popular within the New Age network: e.g. reincarnation, chakras, past lives, future lives, psychic therapy, oneness with the Earth, channeling, astral travel, and so on.”7 The same conclusions, with abundant citation in the contactee literature, were drawn by journalism professor William Alnor in his book Ufo Cults and the New Millennium
The point again for Msgr. Balducci is simple: Where in the belief systems put forth by ETs to their contactees or abductees do we see the core doctrines of your faith upheld, or at least not undermined? Who is Jesus, besides an alien creation or an alien emissary — merely one of the ascended masters, not virgin born, not uncreated, not the dead and risen Savior? Msgr. Balducci has yet to address or even recognize these issues. Naturally, he may not be in the least bit interested. But if that’s the case, he could at least be honest and divorce himself from catholicism and go his own spiritual way, rather than pretend he or his faith is something that it is not.
Michael:
Balducci is right….mostly.
The “experience” of abductees doesn’t mimic the experiences of those who have had contact with “others” in the course of (religious) life:
Thomas Aquinas, St. Theresa, Joan of Arc, et al.
The religious experience — ecstasy — isn’t mundane, as the abduction experience usually turns out.
And the aftermath of such events — religious or UFO oriented — are totally different.
Those who have a religious experience always altered or alter their lives.
Abductees go on about their lives, as usual, with, admittedly, a patina of neuroticism or even psychosis.
Abductees don’t settled into an ecstatic state of ennui but, rather, behave as one with a slight element of dementia.
The Satanic and/or Divine experience isn’t get anywhere near the abduction experience.
Balducci’s position derives from a profound understanding of the Cosmic Consciousness scenarios outlined in Bucke’s tome on the matter.
But more importantly, Balducci, rightly, eschews the slotting of UFO abductions into a theological framework.
Abductions can be many things, but an encounter with the Divine or Lucerian Malevolence is a stretch for anyone familiar with the tales of the saints and the tales of “experiencers.”
Rich
RRR: I think you define things too narrowly here to make Balducci “right” (i.e., to create a dichotomy between the two experiences). You reference only ONE type of religious experience, for instance. Further, you define the experience in ONLY sensate terms, skipping the messages given in the experience (which are quite religious and theological) entirely.
It is one thing to resist seeing the overlap between the experiences (Balducci) but quote another to demonstrate the overlap doesn’t exist. To do so means committing what appears to me (above) to be methodological errors and to deny the content of a truckload of abductees, as well as how they process the experience (in religious and theological terms). There’s a LOT of data on my side of this that you need to (pardon the ET sort-of-pun) vaporize before your position is convincing.
Of course, Michael, the panoply of experiences by religious and abductees are many and varied, beyond the ecstasy noted by me for saints.
It’s that aftermath, however, that rankles.
Experiencers (abductees) get a little goofy — rightfully so? — while those who have a “genuine” religious encounter settle to a state of calm, even while being burned at the stake.
Balducci’s overlap is constrained, as are your arguments by intellectual sense and decorum.
What worries me is that opening the door further for UFO nuts with a religious bent will create an hybrid group that will destroy UFOs as a proper venue for science and media.
You know that ufology and UFOs have always been on life-support with media, and science has written them off (virtually) completely.
A serious confluence (exacerbated by Balducci unfortunately) of UFOs and theological religious symbols is tantamount to giving a child a box of dynamite to play with.
You operate in an environment of quasi-sedateness and ratiocination.
My experience with the UFO crowd and religious idealogues told me, long ago, that both groups are intellectually deficient, and clouding either group with an intertwining of devils and demons, even angels, will create a real mess.
But I’m sure you will make a real effort to stem any such chaos.
Rich
RRR: Okay; this is a bit clearer. I share your concern since “one religious experience (aftermath) isn’t as valuable or even valid as another.”