K
KMXV
Guest
Yes. Just what you’d expect them to say.
- Status
G
GerardP
Guest
**JKirkLVNV wrote: **
That’s probably due to the fact that Milingo is not of sound mind. Milingo by the way was very conservative and reknowned as an Exorcist. My personal speculation is that he’s possibly possessed due to a failed exorcism.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Yes, and we know what fibbers occupy the Holy See. How blessed we are to have prophets among us to set us straight!
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Sound mind? That’s what’s questionable about the Thuc line, because he may have been unstable.
G
GerardP
Guest
**JKirkLVNV wrote: **
Milingo on the other hand did an instantaneous 180 degree turn in his ecclesiology.
Yet the Holy See has never rendered any judgement against the validity of the Thuc line of bishops. With Milingo it was quick and decisive. Thuc was always traditionally minded. He was lucid enough to recant some of his associations (eg. the Palmar de Troya group) He was quick on the draw with consecrations and not prudent with his choices but there is no evidence that his form, matter and intent were invalid.
Milingo on the other hand did an instantaneous 180 degree turn in his ecclesiology.
G
GerardP
Guest
Sobieski wrote:
And it makes perfect sense that there are pressures being put on the Popes to prevent them from restoring the Church as they might if they weren’t under duress.
That was a great speech for Human Life International and he was right on the money. It’s no different in its essence than the “Hudge” and “Gudge” model of society of G.K. Chesterton.
No. It probably was valid. Fr. Martin knew his sacramentology far better than most. His leanings were Thomistic so, the rubrics would have been more thorough, traditional and exacting than someone with a more liberal position on the essential forms.
No. His last book was Windswept House. And the working title for the book following was rumored to be, “Primacy: How the Institutional Roman Catholic Church became a creature of the New World Order” That book never got past the outline stage according to Fr. Fiore.
He was very credible. From his 1965 book “the Pilgrim” in which he was predicting the European Union and the upcoming battle over genetic manipulation (see page 21 of the book) to the prophetic nature of his speculation in 1993 about the World Trade Center eventually coming down to his 1996 warnings about Cardinal Law and the flat out accusation of Bishop Keith Symons being a pedophile. Everyone called Fr. Martin a quack and one by one his comments have proven true.
And it makes perfect sense that there are pressures being put on the Popes to prevent them from restoring the Church as they might if they weren’t under duress.
There are also plenty of problems with all of the sacraments since the council in the diocesan organization.
S
Sobieski
Guest
I listened to the whole speech and there were some real [edited by Moderator] ideas being thrown around. I can’t exactly remember them right now. But, when I get some time I’ll listen again and write down specifically what I am talking about.
Leaving the validity issue aside, what was Martin doing at a sedevacantist ordination?
So, you are not denying that this title was most likely going to be used?
Oh no, not the European Union! We’ll just keep small little nation states and let China rule the world as a superpower.
“Restore the Church”? What do you mean by that?
G
GerardP
Guest
**Sobieski wrote: **
As in clean up the “filth” that the current Holy Father talked about just before he became Pope when he did the Stations of the Cross in 2005:
When you do, try to find some objective criteria for making your judgements. [edited by Moderator]
He worked with any number of groups of traditionalists as long as they were providing valid sacraments. He worked with Fr. Charles Fiore of the FSSP, Fr. Paul Wickens, an Independent traditionalist priest, He worked with Fr. Alfred Kunz a diocesan priest and he worked with the SSPX and the SSPV as well as Fr. Gommar DePauw and many others.
I’m correcting you on the title. You left out the title which was “Primacy” and just referenced the subtitle. I have no idea whether that would have been the final title. I have no problem with it, if it was. I would have been more interested in what the book had to say than whether or not I liked the title. Knowing what I know about Fr. Martin he was appalled at the loss of papal stature in the world after the Council, the growing Gallicanism among the bishops and the focus of the popes on the temporal issues to the neglect of clearly defining Catholic doctrine within the Church and cleaning up the “spirit of Vatican II” which has been a catalyst for the current crisis.
??? That’s quite a tangent you’re going on. Unfortunately hit has nothing to do with the discussion. It certainly doesn’t invalidate Fr. Martin’s ability to forecast the global trends from the 1960s’ onwards.
I mean restore the Church as in stop the auto-demolition of the Church that Paul VI talked about.
As in clean up the “filth” that the current Holy Father talked about just before he became Pope when he did the Stations of the Cross in 2005:
- "Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own Church? How often is the holy sacrament of his Presence abused, how often must he enter empty and evil hearts! How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! What little respect we pay to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where he waits for us, ready to raise us up whenever we fall!
G
GerardP
Guest
**Sobieski wrote: **
Fetuses being smuggled in Catholic statues into the U.S. from Columbia:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4293934.stm
Priest kills nun in satanic ritual:
msnbc.msn.com/id/12318219/
And William H. Kennedy points out in “Lucifer’s Lodge” any number of connections to Satanism by such infamous clergy as Fr. Sean Fortune, Fr. Paul Shanley and a whole host of other shining lights.
That would be very comforting if true. But, unfortunately there are Satanists within the Church
Fetuses being smuggled in Catholic statues into the U.S. from Columbia:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4293934.stm
Priest kills nun in satanic ritual:
msnbc.msn.com/id/12318219/
And William H. Kennedy points out in “Lucifer’s Lodge” any number of connections to Satanism by such infamous clergy as Fr. Sean Fortune, Fr. Paul Shanley and a whole host of other shining lights.
I
Imryl
Guest
Just because someone kills another person and cuts a cross into their chest, doesn’t make it a satanic ritual.
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
Please return to the original topic of this thread, folks. Thank you for your cooperation.
S
Sobieski
Guest
search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=0826413846&itm=5
Bill Mazzella (hevean@optonline.net), A reviewer, 03/25/2003
Here is a sleeper, Robert Blair Kaiser’s 'Clerical Error, ’ a memoir about the Second Vatican Council that is better than most novels. (I would make a great movie.) Kaiser is a Jesuit scholastic for ten years. He leaves the Order, Time magazine grabs him and sends him to Rome. He covers the Council in prize-winning fashion, entertaining most of the Council’s liberal wing during Sunday night buffet suppers that go on past midnight. He even has his own Council Father-in-Residence who hands him the conciliar documents (marked sub secreto) every afternoon. Kaiser’s apartment becomes the El Dorado of think tanks, and Kaiser’s weekly accounts help the world understand the revolutionary nature of the Council as seen through the eyes of the surprising conciliar majority engaged in writing a charter to give the Church back to the people. You meet many of the Council’s movers and shakers at the Kaiser Sunday nights: Council Fathers like Denis Hurley of Durban, South Africa, Mark McGrath of Panama, and John Wright of Pittsburgh, theologians like Bernard H䲩ng, Jean Danielou, Piet Fransen, Gregory Baum, Karl Rahner and Hans Kí±ºí·¬ top European journalists like Henri Fesquet of Le Monde and Tom Burns of the Tablet, and U.S. journalists like John Cogley, then of Commonweal, and Michael Novak (then on assignment for Harper’s), practically the whole editorial staff of America magazine, and whole slew of Jesuits from around the world who know this is where the action is. Official Protestant and Jewish observers at the Councill make their weekly Sunday night appearances. After all these years, Gregory Baum says he still has ‘the taste of the meat and the conversation in his mouth.’ The sight and the sounds of these players elicit strong memories from a super charged time when hopes were strongest that Christ would be put back into Christendom. What a time this was. And Kaiser makes it all come alive. While Kaiser is as involved (some might say over-involved) in reporting Vatican Hill as his Washington colleagues were reporting Capitol Hill, he fails to notice that one of his better sources is moving in on his wife. The source is Malachy Fitzmaurice Martin, Irish Jesuit biblical scholar, sociopath, charlatan, consummate liar, seducer of married women and full service con artist who has one objective: his own pleasure, and a perverse kind of revenge directed at Kaiser, the first one in conciliar Rome to unmask Martin as a mythomaniac. Few believe Kaiser. He’s a layman. The clerics circle the wagons around Martin, even the great John Courtney Murray, who becomes Martin’s unwitting confederate. Kaiser isn’t even sure he believes himself, and, under Murray’s urging that he check out his own ‘paranoia,’ signs himself in at Hartford’s Institute of Living, while Martin moves into the Kaiser apartment in Rome – with Mrs. Kaiser. In fact, it was Murray himself who took Kaiser to Hartford in the borrowed, chauffeured limousine of a wealthy New York dowager. No wonder Murray found it impossible to admit his own error. When the truth about Martin finally emerged, Murray was still telling Kaiser he needed psychotherapy. Laymen had an easier time unmasking Martin. See, for example, an article by Joseph Roddy in Look magazine, January 25, 1966, where Roddy references Martin’s invasion of Kaiser’s apartment and Kaiser’s bedroom, though he names Martin under some of Martin’s favorite aliases. ‘At the time, Pushkin-Serafian-Cartus was living in the Biblical Institute, where he had been known well since his ordination in 1954, though he will be known here as Timothy Fitzharris O’Boyle, S.J. For the journalists, the young priest’s inside tips and tactical leaks checked out so well that he could not resist gilding them every now and then with a flourish of creative writing. And an imprecision or two could even be charged off to exhaustion in his case. He was known to be working on a book at a young married couple’s flat. The book finally got finished, but so did half of the friendship. Father Fitzharris-O’Boyle knew it was time for a forced march before his religious superior could inquire too closely into the reasons for that crisis in camaraderie. He left Rome then, sure that he could be of no more use locally.’ Joe Roddy also interviewed many Jesuits who were amazed at how deeply they were taken in by ‘Pushkin-Serafian-Cartus-O’Boyle.’
Bill Mazzella (hevean@optonline.net), A reviewer, 03/25/2003
Here is a sleeper, Robert Blair Kaiser’s 'Clerical Error, ’ a memoir about the Second Vatican Council that is better than most novels. (I would make a great movie.) Kaiser is a Jesuit scholastic for ten years. He leaves the Order, Time magazine grabs him and sends him to Rome. He covers the Council in prize-winning fashion, entertaining most of the Council’s liberal wing during Sunday night buffet suppers that go on past midnight. He even has his own Council Father-in-Residence who hands him the conciliar documents (marked sub secreto) every afternoon. Kaiser’s apartment becomes the El Dorado of think tanks, and Kaiser’s weekly accounts help the world understand the revolutionary nature of the Council as seen through the eyes of the surprising conciliar majority engaged in writing a charter to give the Church back to the people. You meet many of the Council’s movers and shakers at the Kaiser Sunday nights: Council Fathers like Denis Hurley of Durban, South Africa, Mark McGrath of Panama, and John Wright of Pittsburgh, theologians like Bernard H䲩ng, Jean Danielou, Piet Fransen, Gregory Baum, Karl Rahner and Hans Kí±ºí·¬ top European journalists like Henri Fesquet of Le Monde and Tom Burns of the Tablet, and U.S. journalists like John Cogley, then of Commonweal, and Michael Novak (then on assignment for Harper’s), practically the whole editorial staff of America magazine, and whole slew of Jesuits from around the world who know this is where the action is. Official Protestant and Jewish observers at the Councill make their weekly Sunday night appearances. After all these years, Gregory Baum says he still has ‘the taste of the meat and the conversation in his mouth.’ The sight and the sounds of these players elicit strong memories from a super charged time when hopes were strongest that Christ would be put back into Christendom. What a time this was. And Kaiser makes it all come alive. While Kaiser is as involved (some might say over-involved) in reporting Vatican Hill as his Washington colleagues were reporting Capitol Hill, he fails to notice that one of his better sources is moving in on his wife. The source is Malachy Fitzmaurice Martin, Irish Jesuit biblical scholar, sociopath, charlatan, consummate liar, seducer of married women and full service con artist who has one objective: his own pleasure, and a perverse kind of revenge directed at Kaiser, the first one in conciliar Rome to unmask Martin as a mythomaniac. Few believe Kaiser. He’s a layman. The clerics circle the wagons around Martin, even the great John Courtney Murray, who becomes Martin’s unwitting confederate. Kaiser isn’t even sure he believes himself, and, under Murray’s urging that he check out his own ‘paranoia,’ signs himself in at Hartford’s Institute of Living, while Martin moves into the Kaiser apartment in Rome – with Mrs. Kaiser. In fact, it was Murray himself who took Kaiser to Hartford in the borrowed, chauffeured limousine of a wealthy New York dowager. No wonder Murray found it impossible to admit his own error. When the truth about Martin finally emerged, Murray was still telling Kaiser he needed psychotherapy. Laymen had an easier time unmasking Martin. See, for example, an article by Joseph Roddy in Look magazine, January 25, 1966, where Roddy references Martin’s invasion of Kaiser’s apartment and Kaiser’s bedroom, though he names Martin under some of Martin’s favorite aliases. ‘At the time, Pushkin-Serafian-Cartus was living in the Biblical Institute, where he had been known well since his ordination in 1954, though he will be known here as Timothy Fitzharris O’Boyle, S.J. For the journalists, the young priest’s inside tips and tactical leaks checked out so well that he could not resist gilding them every now and then with a flourish of creative writing. And an imprecision or two could even be charged off to exhaustion in his case. He was known to be working on a book at a young married couple’s flat. The book finally got finished, but so did half of the friendship. Father Fitzharris-O’Boyle knew it was time for a forced march before his religious superior could inquire too closely into the reasons for that crisis in camaraderie. He left Rome then, sure that he could be of no more use locally.’ Joe Roddy also interviewed many Jesuits who were amazed at how deeply they were taken in by ‘Pushkin-Serafian-Cartus-O’Boyle.’
S
Sobieski
Guest
With the many aliases and the wild imagination (more like incredible if one reads his books) that Malachy Martin had, he served as a virtual widows cruse for all those hungry reporters, and individual advocates like the American Jewish Committee, which was so eager to advance its agenda at the Council that it made Martin a paid lobbyist. Kaiser’s marriage-break up follows a familiar pattern. The non-working spouse stays home with the kids while the breadwinner wins awards and recognition. Enter the beach bum, gigolo, liar seducer, or social climber who becomes an irresistible attraction, despite his inability to make it on his own What makes this story different and notable, however, is that the paramour-intruder in this case is a Roman Catholic priest, Jesuit no less, and that prominent Jesuits help seal the destruction of Kaiser’s marriage. Their ham-handed efforts show little celibate minds understand the dynamics of a marriage. Clerical Error has a resonance today. Many bishops refuse to see the truth about their own priest-scoundrels. Many of them ridicule the victims of clerical pedophilia; Priest right, Layperson wrong, priest innocent, laity guilty. There’s a huge lesson here. How did so many priests wrongly assess the Kaiser situation? No question, Martin was a wily manipulator but in the final analysis the clerics chose to believe one of the boys, a member of the club, over a lay person. Maybe the time has come for all of us to focus on a problem that has Endured for 1700 years; the exaltation of the clerical caste over the laity. This Council attempted to change this by its emphasis on the ‘Priesthood of All Believers,’ a notion that dates all the way back to the Primitive Church. Though the last third of Clerical Error reads more like a detective thriller than a memoir, the book has an unexpected bonus. Kaiser presents a vivid retelling of the drama of Vatican II, with its marvelous Pope John XXIII in the background, bringing in the bishops of the world to help him fight through the resistance of those in Rome who wanted nothing to change in a Church that provided them with status and security. In the foreground, of course, were the Council’s periti. Bob Kaiser made sure that these movers and shakers had a place in his home, courtesy of a Time Inc. expense account, and a place, too, in his book. In The Sociology of Philosophies, Randal Collins makes a convincing case: Put great minds together for a long period of time, and you cannot help getting great results. If you accept that theory you can understand the importance of what Kaiser was providing at Vatican Council II. Interestingly enough, Lord Acton, a young journalist who opposed the Church’s declaration on papal infallibility, had the same kind of salon at his apartment on the Via Margutta in Rome in 1869-70. Acton, like Kaiser, was in his early thirties. Unlike Kaiser, he ended up on the losing side. The Fathers of Vatican I voted overwhelmingly for papal infallibility, while the Fathers of Vatican II voted just as overwhelmingly to redefine that infallibility down to nothing. Clerical Error came as a blow to many die hard right wing former and present Catholics who believed to the end that Malachi Martin (he changed the ‘y’ to an ‘i’ as he moved his allegiances from the Catholic left to the lunatic right) was a priest in good standing and a prophet as well. (The Jesuit Curia in Rome had Martin listed as fugitivus until the day in 1999 when he died of a stroke in the Manhattan apartment of a woman he had been living with for more than 30 years.) To their credit, many of Martin’s right wing fans have thanked Kaiser for unmasking Martin, whose tales were becoming more unbelievable with each new title.
S
system
Guest
Stunning revelation!
It’s amazing he had three decades to write this book, but he waited over 30 years until Martin was dead to do so…
IT’S QUIZ TIME
If some smooth talking priest moved in on your wife would you:
a) go right to tell-all TV News ? (80% say yes!)
b) stop at the bishop first, to see if they’ll pay you hush money ? (19.999% say yes!)
or
c) Wait 30+ years until the man was dead, then write a book, and try to have it published? (well, there was this one guy…dropped out the Jesuits and got married…and wanted to get back in good with the Jesuits…and this other guy - a priest who had written a book the Jesuits were really mad about and…well …it’s a long story)
Makes you wonder
(yeah, I used the roll-eyes!)
It’s amazing he had three decades to write this book, but he waited over 30 years until Martin was dead to do so…
IT’S QUIZ TIME
If some smooth talking priest moved in on your wife would you:
a) go right to tell-all TV News ? (80% say yes!)
b) stop at the bishop first, to see if they’ll pay you hush money ? (19.999% say yes!)
or
c) Wait 30+ years until the man was dead, then write a book, and try to have it published? (well, there was this one guy…dropped out the Jesuits and got married…and wanted to get back in good with the Jesuits…and this other guy - a priest who had written a book the Jesuits were really mad about and…well …it’s a long story)
Makes you wonder
Above quote from Wikipedia - not a great source, but open to challenge and editing, unlike a Barnes and Noble Book Review
(yeah, I used the roll-eyes!)
S
Sobieski
Guest
@ max37:
So what if Kaiser waited 30 years to write the book? Maybe he had more important stuff to do. I do not really see why the time he took to write the book matters.
Also, do a search for Malachi Martin on the traditional Catholic forum, www.angelqueen.org
All this stuff about Martin, and more, is presented there in divers threads. Everyone, both on the right and left, now knows that Martin was a fraud.
So what if Kaiser waited 30 years to write the book? Maybe he had more important stuff to do. I do not really see why the time he took to write the book matters.
Also, do a search for Malachi Martin on the traditional Catholic forum, www.angelqueen.org
All this stuff about Martin, and more, is presented there in divers threads. Everyone, both on the right and left, now knows that Martin was a fraud.
S
system
Guest
30 years of more important stuff than his marriage? 30 years of being to busy to confront the man who allegedly stole your wife?!
Interesting take on it. It’s more like an obvious case of cowardice…I mean, who would WANT to argue with Fr. Martin!? Much easier to slander the dead.
Nope. Incorrect. Many, many people, however, are catching on that there is a campaign to ruin his reputation. The good news is that these people (your linked page included) can’t argue with real facts.
G
GerardP
Guest
**Sobieski quoted: **
Here are some other gems from your source:
“Their ham-handed efforts show little celibate minds understand the dynamics of a marriage.”
So, the Church is wrong about celibacy? I don’t think so.
“Maybe the time has come for all of us to focus on a problem that has Endured for 1700 years; the exaltation of the clerical caste over the laity.”
1700 years? Oh! That’s right. The Catholic Church was invented by Constantine. No reason to think your source didn’t have an axe to grind against the Church. Caste?
“Lord Acton, a young journalist who opposed the Church’s declaration on papal infallibility, had the same kind of salon at his apartment on the Via Margutta in Rome in 1869-70. Acton, like Kaiser, was in his early thirties. Unlike Kaiser, he ended up on the losing side…The Fathers of Vatican I voted overwhelmingly for papal infallibility, while the Fathers of Vatican II voted just as overwhelmingly to redefine that infallibility down to nothing.”
Really? What vote was that? What document was that?
“Clerical Error came as a blow to many die hard right wing former and present Catholics who believed to the end that Malachi Martin (he changed the ‘y’ to an ‘i’ as he moved his allegiances from the Catholic left to the lunatic right) was a priest in good standing and a prophet as well.”
Anyone who knows Fr. Martin’s books knows that he was neither right nor left but only Catholic. He was consistent and loyal from his earliest writings to his last interviews.
People are willing to quote any source for rumors, no matter how dubious if it advances their agenda against a good and holy priest.
**Sobieski wrote: **
The moderator of angelqueen has an axe to grind and has banned anyone who opposes his opinion of Fr. Martin. I was one of them even though my name doesn’t have “former member” written under it. I have the facts. I know the sections of the books he quoted and people he interviewed that he purposely avoided quoting. The credibility of the Angelqueen moderator is for the grave through his own fault.
The moderator also admits that he has read none of Fr. Martin’s books and refuses to do so.
Aside from the lies, this person can’t get their facts straight. It was Malachi Brenden Martin.
Here are some other gems from your source:
“Their ham-handed efforts show little celibate minds understand the dynamics of a marriage.”
So, the Church is wrong about celibacy? I don’t think so.
“Maybe the time has come for all of us to focus on a problem that has Endured for 1700 years; the exaltation of the clerical caste over the laity.”
1700 years? Oh! That’s right. The Catholic Church was invented by Constantine. No reason to think your source didn’t have an axe to grind against the Church. Caste?
“Lord Acton, a young journalist who opposed the Church’s declaration on papal infallibility, had the same kind of salon at his apartment on the Via Margutta in Rome in 1869-70. Acton, like Kaiser, was in his early thirties. Unlike Kaiser, he ended up on the losing side…The Fathers of Vatican I voted overwhelmingly for papal infallibility, while the Fathers of Vatican II voted just as overwhelmingly to redefine that infallibility down to nothing.”
Really? What vote was that? What document was that?
“Clerical Error came as a blow to many die hard right wing former and present Catholics who believed to the end that Malachi Martin (he changed the ‘y’ to an ‘i’ as he moved his allegiances from the Catholic left to the lunatic right) was a priest in good standing and a prophet as well.”
Anyone who knows Fr. Martin’s books knows that he was neither right nor left but only Catholic. He was consistent and loyal from his earliest writings to his last interviews.
People are willing to quote any source for rumors, no matter how dubious if it advances their agenda against a good and holy priest.
**Sobieski wrote: **
He waited till Fr. Martin was dead in order to avoid a lawsuit or a rebuttal. I have Kaiser’s book. It’s demented. Kaiser even writes about sex dreams he had about Fr. Martin and then comes to the conclusion that Fr. Martin “wanted” him even though it’s Kaiser’s dream. The book is laden with Kaiser’s brand of homo eroticism. It’s crude and ugly.
An article about the deception on Angelqueen will be coming out shortly.
The moderator of angelqueen has an axe to grind and has banned anyone who opposes his opinion of Fr. Martin. I was one of them even though my name doesn’t have “former member” written under it. I have the facts. I know the sections of the books he quoted and people he interviewed that he purposely avoided quoting. The credibility of the Angelqueen moderator is for the grave through his own fault.
The moderator also admits that he has read none of Fr. Martin’s books and refuses to do so.
Wrong. If you want to debate me on the facts, I’ll be more than willing to go at it with you. But you’ll lose.
R
Ruben
Guest
A letter written by Father Malachi Martin
addressing the attacks from critics prior to his death
…I am sending you these few lines as my commentary on the abuse and calumnies flung in my direction by certain members of our Roman Catholic Church. Many of my friends and well-wishers have urged me to respond to the abusers and the calumniators; and remember that this abuse and calumnious attack has been going on for over thirty-three years! That is a long time; and I have become a veteran of such oppression, so much so that in a certain sense I know much better than any of my friends and well-wishers how to deal with this sustained harsh treatment.
The basic lesson I have learnt over those thirty-three years is: not allow myself be diverted from fulfilling my mission as a priest and a servant of the Holy See of Peter. This means not merely refusing to pick up the stones thrown at me and returning them on the heads of my abusers. It means principally that I fulfill my duties as a priest—celebrate daily Mass, recite my breviary, fulfill my pastoral obligations to those under my care. It means that I never allow the distortions—doctrinal and other—of these very zealous abusers and calumniators to enter into my optic or cloud my angle of vision. It means, of course, praying for their spiritual welfare—and also that the Holy Spirit grant them some measure of understanding. For understanding is chiefly what lacks to them.
Well over twenty-five years ago, I wrote to my Superior in Rome complaining about a recrudescence of these attacks, and suggesting a certain course of action. He wrote back quoting that passage of John’s Gospel where Christ warns His disciples that the time would come when they would be ostracized and persecuted by people who would do that to them and think they were doing God’s will. “Can’t you suffer, too, for Christ’s sake?” This was my Superior’s answer.
Besides all that, all these years have taught me a few central lessons; you have to have undergone it all to be able to appreciate the principal lesson. Which is: abusers and calumniators are not out to get the truth, to build up, to edify. Their bent is to destroy, to liquidate. Hence, no matter what information you give them, they will not desist; they will use it to further their distrustful ambition. Hence, I found that there was no point in even trying to communicate with them; anything they learned became merely grist for their grindstones of hate.
A second valuable lesson I learned was this: they don’t really matter in the kingdom of God and in the daily warfare between Christ and Lucifer. There are too many Confessions to be heard, too many Masses to be said, too many souls seeking and needing spiritual direction, too many confused priests to be enlightened, too many aberrant bishops to be corralled back into the fold of Christ, too many holydays in honor of Angels and Saints, too many exorcisms of the possessed and the obsessed, too many of the faithful dying and needing Extreme Unction, too many children needing Confirmation—in a word, too many needy ones for any priest to hesitate for one moment and to tarry over the spewings and spittings coming from the unclean mouths, the jealous souls and the erroneous pens of pigmy men who fancy themselves upon a solid rock and who crave to ascend to fame and vanity over the dead bodies and soiled reputations of their victims.
I have always let such people know that I personally have no difficulty in waiting for the final showdown in the presence of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus, as the Just Judge of the living and the dead.
In sum, I have no time to wait—there’s too much work to be done. I know that many of my friends and well-wishers now and again answer some of my attackers. I generally discourage any sustained effort in that direction; the reason? Nothing will ever change the minds of these people—nothing except the grace of God. As I said, I am most willing to wait for God to change their minds. In the meantime, I have far too much to do. I can’t afford to waste time on them.
+Malachi
addressing the attacks from critics prior to his death
…I am sending you these few lines as my commentary on the abuse and calumnies flung in my direction by certain members of our Roman Catholic Church. Many of my friends and well-wishers have urged me to respond to the abusers and the calumniators; and remember that this abuse and calumnious attack has been going on for over thirty-three years! That is a long time; and I have become a veteran of such oppression, so much so that in a certain sense I know much better than any of my friends and well-wishers how to deal with this sustained harsh treatment.
The basic lesson I have learnt over those thirty-three years is: not allow myself be diverted from fulfilling my mission as a priest and a servant of the Holy See of Peter. This means not merely refusing to pick up the stones thrown at me and returning them on the heads of my abusers. It means principally that I fulfill my duties as a priest—celebrate daily Mass, recite my breviary, fulfill my pastoral obligations to those under my care. It means that I never allow the distortions—doctrinal and other—of these very zealous abusers and calumniators to enter into my optic or cloud my angle of vision. It means, of course, praying for their spiritual welfare—and also that the Holy Spirit grant them some measure of understanding. For understanding is chiefly what lacks to them.
Well over twenty-five years ago, I wrote to my Superior in Rome complaining about a recrudescence of these attacks, and suggesting a certain course of action. He wrote back quoting that passage of John’s Gospel where Christ warns His disciples that the time would come when they would be ostracized and persecuted by people who would do that to them and think they were doing God’s will. “Can’t you suffer, too, for Christ’s sake?” This was my Superior’s answer.
Besides all that, all these years have taught me a few central lessons; you have to have undergone it all to be able to appreciate the principal lesson. Which is: abusers and calumniators are not out to get the truth, to build up, to edify. Their bent is to destroy, to liquidate. Hence, no matter what information you give them, they will not desist; they will use it to further their distrustful ambition. Hence, I found that there was no point in even trying to communicate with them; anything they learned became merely grist for their grindstones of hate.
A second valuable lesson I learned was this: they don’t really matter in the kingdom of God and in the daily warfare between Christ and Lucifer. There are too many Confessions to be heard, too many Masses to be said, too many souls seeking and needing spiritual direction, too many confused priests to be enlightened, too many aberrant bishops to be corralled back into the fold of Christ, too many holydays in honor of Angels and Saints, too many exorcisms of the possessed and the obsessed, too many of the faithful dying and needing Extreme Unction, too many children needing Confirmation—in a word, too many needy ones for any priest to hesitate for one moment and to tarry over the spewings and spittings coming from the unclean mouths, the jealous souls and the erroneous pens of pigmy men who fancy themselves upon a solid rock and who crave to ascend to fame and vanity over the dead bodies and soiled reputations of their victims.
I have always let such people know that I personally have no difficulty in waiting for the final showdown in the presence of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus, as the Just Judge of the living and the dead.
In sum, I have no time to wait—there’s too much work to be done. I know that many of my friends and well-wishers now and again answer some of my attackers. I generally discourage any sustained effort in that direction; the reason? Nothing will ever change the minds of these people—nothing except the grace of God. As I said, I am most willing to wait for God to change their minds. In the meantime, I have far too much to do. I can’t afford to waste time on them.
+Malachi
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
This thread is closed.
- Status