So what's the verdict on Fr. Malachi Martin?

[rogerclemensfan]

Is it okay to read his books on demonic possession? I know that Fr. Martin has been harshly criticized by some within the Church.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Is it okay to read his books on demonic possession? I know that Fr. Martin has been harshly criticized by some within the Church.

I would be interested in hearing about him also. I read about him on the web and listened to a few of his interviews on youtube. I recall that someone on this site stated that they knew him and questioned his mental stability. But unless I heard evidence to corroborate that, I would be inclined to dismiss it.
But I do find him fascinating.

 

[JoabAnias]

[Note: Although Mr. Martin died in 1999 the following comments are still useful, given the continuing interest in his writings and positions.]​

We get many questions about Malachi Martin, his books and his credentials. Not all of them can be answered due to an absence of information. The following is what is known.

Malachi Martin states, and the Holy See will confirm if asked, that "In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination." [Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, 25 June 1997, Prot. N. 04300/65].

Concerning the allegations about churchmen found in Windswept House under the guise of fiction, they would certainly be sad if true, and other sources have suggested the basic factualness of some of the accounts. However, even if they were based on fact the Church is in no more danger of being overcome by the gates of hell today than it was during any of the other crises of history. Jesus had his Judas and history shows that His Mystical Body has had its share, as well. To deny the past and present Judases within the Church would be wrong. However, to act as if it made any difference to our obligations of obedience would be to take scandal (called passive scandal) from those who are giving scandal. Jesus warns us about those who would give scandal to his little ones (Mt. 18:6) and thereby sought by that warning to provide an antidote for passive scandal, as well. In his Summa Theologiae St. Thomas Aquinas tells us,

Passive scandal implies that the mind of the person who takes scandal is unsettled in its adherence to good. Now no man can be unsettled, who adheres firmly to something immovable. The elders, i.e. the perfect, adhere to God alone, Whose goodness is unchangeable, for though they adhere to their superiors, they do so only in so far as these adhere to Christ, according to 1 Cor. 4:16: "Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ." Wherefore, however much others may appear to them to conduct themselves ill in word or deed, they themselves do not stray from their righteousness, according to Ps. 124:1: "They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion: he shall not be moved for ever that dwelleth in Jerusalem." Therefore scandal is not found in those who adhere to God perfectly by love, according to Ps. 118:165: "Much peace have they that love Thy law, and to them there is no stumbling-block [scandalum]." [ST II-II question 43, article 5, answer]

Perfect men sometimes fall into venial sins through the weakness of the flesh; but they are not scandalized (taking scandal in its true sense), by the words or deeds of others, although there can be an approach to scandal in them, according to Ps. 72:2: "My feet were almost moved." [ibid., response to objection 3]
​

So even if the crimes alleged in Windswept House actually occurred they do no more than confirm what the Catholic striving to be perfect should already know, human beings, even priests and bishops, are potentially capable of the most heinous acts of insubordination to God. This knowledge, as we conclude from St. Thomas' teaching, must not change our own unswerving fidelity to ecclesiastical authority in matters that fall under the competence of that authority.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp

 

[Gwendolyn]

I didn't know a thing about him, so I went and googled his name. Interesting stuff.

What do you mean by "is it okay to read his books..."? If you suspend your judgement on the matter, and do not take it seriously, would it really be sinful? Reading them just to know more about him and his beliefs shouldn't be a problem, should it?

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp

The article you quote is very ambiguous. It is if the writer is supporting the allegations of Malachi Martin with his tepid defense. Martin also was highly critical of the Jesuits, with there support od the Sandinistas and Marxist leanings.

Liberation Theology was the perfect blueprint for the Sandinistas. It incorporated the very aim of Marxist-Leninism. It presumed the classic Marxist "struggle of the masses" to be free from all capitalist domination. And above all, the Marxist baby was at last wrapped in the very swaddling clothes of ancient [Roman] Catholic terminology.

I find some of his other comments regarding the church to be almost as if from a movie.

Malachi Martin documents that a Black Mass was held in St Paul's Cathedral in 1963. During this heinous affair, several cardinals "installed Lucifer to his appropriate place" in the Vatican, as "head of the church."
Martin claims that a good deal of the child molestation occurring now is actually Satanic worship. Part of the Luciferian rites of many of the priests, nuns, and hierarchy. He intimates that many who engage in this kind of "worship" are indeed secret Masons.
Malachi Martin was himself a Jesuit priest, in a high official capacity in the Vatican. "In God's Name" has a photograph of Malachi Martin, seated right next to Pope John Paul I--the Pope that was murdered. Martin is seated between Pope John Paul I (who is on the Papal Throne) and Diego Lorenzi, an aide who accompanied John Paul I from Venice, where he was previously.
Alberto Rivera also says that he attended, as a Jesuit, a Black Mass in the Vatican. With the Jesuits. Martin himself did not attend the Black Mass, but he knew of it. He later resigned the Jesuits--around 1972.He was "Laicized" so that he could write books on the corruptions he had seen in the Vatican.
He recently passed away in 1999. Some Catholics think he was murdered. He also wrote a blockbuster entitled "The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church." In that book, he details how the Jesuits became Communists in the 1960's, under their then Secretary General, Pedro Arrupe. And he documents how they fomented Communist revolutions in several countries--especially in Latin American and Africa.

 

[Protinus]

He wrote harshly about the Jesuits in "The Jesuits". I therefore have no time for him.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

He's a Holy and Venerable Priest of our Lord's One Holy Catholic Church; May our Blessed Lord Iesus Christ judge him righteously and if it be his will, may Father Martin abide one day in Heaven with our Blessed Lord. Amen.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

He's a Holy and Venerable Priest of our Lord's One Holy Catholic Church; May our Blessed Lord Iesus Christ judge him righteously and if it be his will, may Father Martin abide one day in Heaven with our Blessed Lord. Amen.

You have a knack for the dramatic. Does that mean you find his writings valid ?

 

[Protinus]

You have a knack for the dramatic. Does that mean you find his writings valid ?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

You have a knack for the dramatic. Does that mean you find his writings valid ?

I cannot decide that; For now, they seem to be. I cannot condemn him, for I have not evidence nor witness to decide otherwise. I have a book, entitled, "The Thunder of Justice." the "foreward" prologue in the book is by Father Malachi Martin; it seems orthodox enough.
God bless ye,
In Christ's Charity,
Matthew



P.S. Have I a knack for the dramatic, eh?!----I guess so!:o

 

[JoabAnias]

He's a Holy and Venerable Priest of our Lord's One Holy Catholic Church; May our Blessed Lord Iesus Christ judge him righteously and if it be his will, may Father Martin abide one day in Heaven with our Blessed Lord. Amen.

I thought I read he was laicised by his own request.

Re-read my first post, it says he was dispensed from the Priesthood. That means he was no longer a priest, does it not?

 

[JoabAnias]

The article you quote is very ambiguous. It is if the writer is supporting the allegations of Malachi Martin with his tepid defense. Martin also was highly critical of the Jesuits, with there support od the Sandinistas and Marxist leanings.

Perhaps its defense is the correct stance to take?

 

[JoabAnias]

I cannot decide that; For now, they seem to be. I cannot condemn him, for I have not evidence nor witness to decide otherwise. I have a book, entitled, "The Thunder of Judgement." the "foreward" prologue in the book is by Father Malachi Martin; it seems orthodox enough.
God bless ye,
In Christ's Charity,
Matthew



P.S. Have I a knack for the dramatic, eh?!----I guess so!:o

Thunder of Judgement or Thunder of Justice?

I think I read that book back in the 90's and wound up throwing it out I think.

It was apocryphal and most everything in that was purported as prophesy never came to pass.

Its leads one into scrupulosity and attempting to predict the end times does it not?

If we have the same book that is?

 

[Quijote]

He wrote a couple of good novels. Also, "Hostage to the Devil" is very good (IMHO). I heard him once on "Coast to Coast" talking about UFO's...

 

[isshinwhat]

I thought I read he was laicised by his own request.

Re-read my first post, it says he was dispensed from the Priesthood. That means he was no longer a priest, does it not?

No, he was still a priest, but he was released from the obligations of the priesthood except for that of chastity.

I spoke with Fr. Vincent O'Keefe, former vicar general of the Society of Jesus who is now retired. According to Fr. O'Keefe, Malachi Martin was indeed dispensed from his vows of poverty and obedience but not the vow of chastity. At the time Martin requested such dispensation, the Vatican was not dispensing priests who so requested such dispensation from the vow of chastity or celibacy...

Tom Widner SJ
Secretary for Communications
U.S. Jesuit Conference
1616 P St. N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036-1420
202-462-0400
Fax: 202-328-9212

 

[JoabAnias]

No, he was still a priest, but he was released from the obligations of the priesthood except for that of chastity.

IC, so whats that mean exactly. He was a priest who didn't practice his vows, except for celibacy?

Why would someone want to do that?

 

[isshinwhat]

Heck if I know. He didn't like the liberalization of the Jesuit order, no the Modernism he saw creeping in. I don't think that's the time to bail, rather hole up and fight, but I don't know... Maybe he thought that's what he was doing with his books... At any rate, I've heard he continued to say Mass until he was no longer able.

 

[JoabAnias]

I've heard he continued to say Mass until he was no longer able.

Ah, so although he requested a dispensation he continued to say Mass anyway? Hmmm, makes me wonder even more about why request a dispensation at all then. Makes me speculate about some sort of imbalance perhaps.

Oh well, as near as I can tell the OP at this point is that there seems to be no clear verdict on this one, at least that I can find.

Save maybe for the caution about lack of imprimatur with all those implications.

Always better to err on the side of caution I would think.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

The book, my girlfriend introduced me to, was the "The Thunder of Justice" sorry, about the mis-type. The book's not bad; it's what woke up my girlfriend and her mother to the faith.

 

[JoabAnias]

The book, my girlfriend introduced me to, was the "The Thunder of Justice" sorry, about the mis-type. The book's not bad; it's what woke up my girlfriend and her mother to the faith.

Yup thats the one. I read it. I thought it was good at first too and then I developed a scrupulosity problem and noticed 10 years later everything in it that was supposed to happen didn't. I have been convinced of the need for an Imprimatur in such matters ever since. Great that some of yours found the faith through it though just the same. Might not be the best to base ones faith on though if you know what I mean but I guess it could be a start. Wish I hadn't tossed it now, I could pull some examples of what I mean for you. I recommend to try and maintain a healthy degree of skepticism and balance if possible. I almost lost my faith for a while after reading that by going down the wrong path.