Malachi Martin--evidence?

[CTCatholic5]

Alright, I really don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, but I was wondering if anyone has any official or firm evidence that Malachi Martin was ever a Jesuit… or any of the other things he claimed to be?

It would just set my mind at ease, because I enjoy his writing–I just try to ensure that my source is credible before leaning on it too hard…

 

[nansialex1959]

I just did a quick bit of online research, but yes, he apparently was. According to Wikipedia, “Upon completion of his degree in Dublin, Malachi was sent to the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium to continue his education. During the four year stay in Leuven he completed masters degrees in philosophy and theology and got doctorates in Semitic languages, archeology and Oriental history. On August 15, 1954, the Feast of the Assumption, Martin was ordained a Jesuit priest at the age of thirty-three.”

I hope that helps.

 

[Bigcat71]

Well, since the man is long dead and seeing that he never taught doctrine and never represented himself to be a spokesman for the Church, what difference does it really make?

That he was indeed a Jesuit has been pretty much independently confirmed over the years as is the fact that shortly after Vatican II, by his own admission, he requested and received laicization due to disagreements that he had with the changes in the Liturgy and with the Doctrines of the Church itself after Vatican II. . He claimed that both had been heavily influenced by modernism and relativism and were inconsistent with Traditional Catholicism. He also claimed that a great many of the Bishops at that time were products of what he said was a Germanic school of thought in which the Bible itself was viewed as being mere literature rather than as statements of truth concerning the faith. Anything supernatural was viewed with suspicion and thought to be mere natural occurences that were later thought to be miraculous. That supposedly included the resurrection of Jesus itself.

As far as him being an exorcist, I have seen no proof that he wasn’t, just as I have seen no proof that he was. He did however seem to have a very good and accurate knowledge of the rituals involved in it and spoke quite knowledgeably about it. That also has been pretty much confirmed.

Just about the only people that I have seen on these forums go after him at all seem to be pretty much the very progressive types.

Incidentally, if you haven’t read it read his book “The Jesuits” read it. It is an outstanding history of the order and the problems that it suffered after Vatican II, including the battles it had with the Vatican over Liberation Theology, which actually forced Pope John Paul II to step in.

 

[sojo]

I was given a first edition of his most famous book. It came from the estate of a priest, and it was hand inscribed (a good, long, personal inscription - not the kind you get at book signings) to the priest. Tucked inside were various clips and letters from Martin. It was a consignment item (sell for others on the internet), but I had permission to read the book and clippings and letters before I sold it (it sold for about $125 if I remember correctly). The book had been left to a relative when the priest died, apparently, who left it in a storage unit that went unclaimed at some point. My client got it with some other very interesting items, including a book inscribed to the priest by a famous death row inmate he had counseled and which has since been pretty much proven innocent.

Anyhow, back to Malachai Martin - some of the early letters were from when he was still working as a priest and exorcist. It appeared the owner of the book had gone to seminary with Fr. Martin, but as with all personal letters, not entirely possible to figure out the history.

It sounds like he had a very tortured life as a result of his work doing exorcisms.

Interesting stuff.

 

[CTCatholic5]

I just did a quick bit of online research, but yes, he apparently was. According to Wikipedia, “Upon completion of his degree in Dublin, Malachi was sent to the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium to continue his education. During the four year stay in Leuven he completed masters degrees in philosophy and theology and got doctorates in Semitic languages, archeology and Oriental history. On August 15, 1954, the Feast of the Assumption, Martin was ordained a Jesuit priest at the age of thirty-three.”

I hope that helps.

Thanks for the thought, but anyone can edit Wiki–in fact, I think I just read that, and if I remember correctly** his own works are cited** as evidence.

 

[CTCatholic5]

Well, since the man is long dead and seeing that he never taught doctrine and never represented himself to be a spokesman for the Church, what difference does it really make?

That he was indeed a Jesuit has been pretty much independently confirmed over the years as is the fact that shortly after Vatican II, by his own admission, he requested and received laicization due to disagreements that he had with the changes in the Liturgy and with the Doctrines of the Church itself after Vatican II. . He claimed that both had been heavily influenced by modernism and relativism and were inconsistent with Traditional Catholicism. He also claimed that a great many of the Bishops at that time were products of what he said was a Germanic school of thought in which the Bible itself was viewed as being mere literature rather than as statements of truth concerning the faith. Anything supernatural was viewed with suspicion and thought to be mere natural occurences that were later thought to be miraculous. That supposedly included the resurrection of Jesus itself.

As far as him being an exorcist, I have seen no proof that he wasn’t, just as I have seen no proof that he was. He did however seem to have a very good and accurate knowledge of the rituals involved in it and spoke quite knowledgeably about it. That also has been pretty much confirmed.

Just about the only people that I have seen on these forums go after him at all seem to be pretty much the very progressive types.

Incidentally, if you haven’t read it read his book “The Jesuits” read it. It is an outstanding history of the order and the problems that it suffered after Vatican II, including the battles it had with the Vatican over Liberation Theology, which actually forced Pope John Paul II to step in.

St. Augustine (d. 430) is ‘long dead.’ Malachi Martin died in 1999.

No need to be defensive; as you point out he never represented himself as an official spokesman for the Church (debatable, but no need to argue this).** However, this further emphasizes that the only authority he can lay claim to are his own experiences.** Therefore, its necessary to verify these independently.

Simply saying (1) what he writes is good, (2) if you disagree you’re a “liberal progressive type,” and (3) don’t question him doesn’t really work for me.

 

[CTCatholic5]

I was given a first edition of his most famous book. It came from the estate of a priest, and it was hand inscribed (a good, long, personal inscription - not the kind you get at book signings) to the priest. Tucked inside were various clips and letters from Martin. It was a consignment item (sell for others on the internet), but I had permission to read the book and clippings and letters before I sold it (it sold for about $125 if I remember correctly). The book had been left to a relative when the priest died, apparently, who left it in a storage unit that went unclaimed at some point. My client got it with some other very interesting items, including a book inscribed to the priest by a famous death row inmate he had counseled and which has since been pretty much proven innocent.

Anyhow, back to Malachai Martin - some of the early letters were from when he was still working as a priest and exorcist. It appeared the owner of the book had gone to seminary with Fr. Martin, but as with all personal letters, not entirely possible to figure out the history.

It sounds like he had a very tortured life as a result of his work doing exorcisms.

Interesting stuff.

Wow, that’s quite a Martinian post, haha! Interesting, but totally anecdotal.

 

[Bigcat71]

St. Augustine (d. 430) is ‘long dead.’ Malachi Martin died in 1999.

No need to be defensive; as you point out he never represented himself as an official spokesman for the Church (debatable, but no need to argue this).** However, this further emphasizes that the only authority he can lay claim to are his own experiences.** Therefore, its necessary to verify these independently.

Simply saying (1) what he writes is good, (2) if you disagree you’re a “liberal progressive type,” and (3) don’t question him doesn’t really work for me.

Not being defensive just pointing out a few things. I reccomended one of his books, which is a long from saying everything he wrote was good. I never said if you disagree you are a liberal progressive type. I said just about the only people that come after him seem to be progressives. I never said don’t question him. I merely wondered why you would do so given the totality of the situation.

As I said, what difference does it make?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

williamhkennedy.com/articles/highrankMM.html

 

[CTCatholic5]

Not being defensive just pointing out a few things. I reccomended one of his books, which is a long from saying everything he wrote was good. I never said if you disagree you are a liberal progressive type. I said just about the only people that come after him seem to be progressives. I never said don’t question him. I merely wondered why you would do so given the totality of the situation.

Q:As I said, what difference does it make?

I like books that compellingly vindicate my viewpoint (i.e., Catholic traditionalism), but not at the expense of truth. I firmly believe that my beliefs are true, and therefore like-minded people shouldn’t need to resort to sensationalism or exaggeration–but can stand on clear scholarship.

Malachi Martin does the former, but not the latter. His books are sorely lacking footnotes, and Google searches to verify some of his claims often turn up with nothing. The only reason why anyone knows his name is because he’s claimed to have done everything: a Jesuit, a scripture scholar, an exorcist, theologian, professor, a Vatican insider–and the only objective verification is the man’s own word.
*
I’m a fisheater: I know ‘fishy’ when I smell it.*

A:This matters because Mr. Martin’s books aren’t presented as fiction: they’re non-fiction, history, or what have you. However, the author is not (1) connected officially with the institution he’s talking about (e.g., in the way that a former FBI director can write a book about the Federal Bureau of Investigation without footnotes), (2) using any sort of reliable citations. Its all based on his word alone. It may as well be fiction, if there is not evidence for his word being reliable.

 

[CTCatholic5]

williamhkennedy.com/articles/highrankMM.html

I really hate to ‘shoot down’ this fair attempt to provide external evidence for Malachi Martin’s being who he says he is, but… (1) the e-group is not cited, (2) there’s not an actual conversation cited, (3) even if there were, it could’ve been easily forged.

The clarification appeared on the Malachi Martin yahoo e-group posted by a member who communicated with Fr. Tom Widner SJ, Secretary for Communication of the US Jesuit Conference, concerning Martin’s status.

Sorry to be NegativeNancy, but it looks like we’ll never find proof of this walking mystery. :-\

 

[Biedrik]

Well here’s what the Vatican had to say on him:

“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]."

So yeah, it seems he was an actual Jesuit.

 

[CTCatholic5]

Well here’s what the Vatican had to say on him:

“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]."

So yeah, it seems he was an actual Jesuit.

Finally!

Thanks, and my compliments on your blog.

 

[Adonia]

Alright, I really don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, but I was wondering if anyone has any official or firm evidence that Malachi Martin was ever a Jesuit… or any of the other things he claimed to be?

It would just set my mind at ease, because I enjoy his writing–I just try to ensure that my source is credible before leaning on it too hard…

I’ve got some good interviews in audio form that Fr. Martin did on the Art Bell Coast to Coast show back in the late 90’s. It was so interesting to hear his views on a variety of topics, especially when he talked about the exorcisms he had been involved in. I have also read some of his stuff. I would like to think that some folks came back or joined the Church because of him. I know my faith was strengthened by hearing/reading him.

 

[Planty_Pall]

Alright, I really don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, but I was wondering if anyone has any official or firm evidence that Malachi Martin was ever a Jesuit… or any of the other things he claimed to be?

It would just set my mind at ease, because I enjoy his writing–I just try to ensure that my source is credible before leaning on it too hard…

I don’t think his critics deny that he was a Jesuit priest. I know that some Traditionalists think he was an opportunist and others approve of him. I don’t know.

My criticism is that his historical work is only credible on the basis of unnamed sources. The Keys of This Blood was very interesting and timely when it came out. But you can’t confirm anything. That is one criticism that I have that is unrelated to his sterner critics who seem to want to accuse him of unfaithfulness to his vows. Another is a tendency to sensationalism, again claimed without reference to verifiable sources. If he claimed that there was some kind of Satanic ritual in the Vatican back in the 50’s, we need more than just his word for it. Part of the problem is that his “fans” take Windswept House which is a work of fiction as reflecting history. He never to my knowledge issued any disclaimer. Finally in his book on exorcism, I was disturbed with picturesque descriptions of lewd and perverted behaviors which I don’t doubt are associated with demonic possession. If anyone should read it, I don’t think I am among them. It was very readable, even inspiring in showing the victory of Christ over evil, but I had to put it down. I don’t recall, maybe it had some kind of warning in the book about the language and graphic descriptions. If so, I think it should be heeded by most of us

Overall, I am dissatisfied enough with these difficulties that I have taken his books out of our parish library. Assuming that the stronger criticisms against his character are unwarranted, I don’t find him to be a reliable source for understanding the issues in the Church which he tried to address during his day.

 

[Biedrik]

I don’t think his critics deny that he was a Jesuit priest. I know that some Traditionalists think he was an opportunist and others approve of him. I don’t know.

My criticism is that his historical work is only credible on the basis of unnamed sources. The Keys of This Blood was very interesting and timely when it came out. But you can’t confirm anything. That is one criticism that I have that is unrelated to his sterner critics who seem to want to accuse him of unfaithfulness to his vows. Another is a tendency to sensationalism, again claimed without reference to verifiable sources. If he claimed that there was some kind of Satanic ritual in the Vatican back in the 50’s, we need more than just his word for it. Part of the problem is that his “fans” take Windswept House which is a work of fiction as reflecting history. He never to my knowledge issued any disclaimer. Finally in his book on exorcism, I was disturbed with picturesque descriptions of lewd and perverted behaviors which I don’t doubt are associated with demonic possession. If anyone should read it, I don’t think I am among them. It was very readable, even inspiring in showing the victory of Christ over evil, but I had to put it down. I don’t recall, maybe it had some kind of warning in the book about the language and graphic descriptions. If so, I think it should be heeded by most of us

Overall, I am dissatisfied enough with these difficulties that I have taken his books out of our parish library. Assuming that the stronger criticisms against his character are unwarranted, I don’t find him to be a reliable source for understanding the issues in the Church which he tried to address during his day.

I will agree somewhat on the matter of sensationalism. I’m currently reading Hostage to the Devil, and it’s clear to em that some things are exaggerated. Having read a few books on the subject of exorcism, such as The Rite along with Exorcism and the Church Militant, it’s clear to me that he’s exaggerated exorcism and some of the accounts. I have no doubt that there’s a lot of truth behind them, but Martin tweaked some of the details to make it more impressive.

 

[CTCatholic5]

I don’t think his critics deny that he was a Jesuit priest. I know that some Traditionalists think he was an opportunist and others approve of him. I don’t know.

My criticism is that his historical work is only credible on the basis of unnamed sources. The Keys of This Blood was very interesting and timely when it came out. But you can’t confirm anything. That is one criticism that I have that is unrelated to his sterner critics who seem to want to accuse him of unfaithfulness to his vows. Another is a tendency to sensationalism, again claimed without reference to verifiable sources. If he claimed that there was some kind of Satanic ritual in the Vatican back in the 50’s, we need more than just his word for it. Part of the problem is that his “fans” take Windswept House which is a work of fiction as reflecting history. He never to my knowledge issued any disclaimer. Finally in his book on exorcism, I was disturbed with picturesque descriptions of lewd and perverted behaviors which I don’t doubt are associated with demonic possession. If anyone should read it, I don’t think I am among them. It was very readable, even inspiring in showing the victory of Christ over evil, but I had to put it down. I don’t recall, maybe it had some kind of warning in the book about the language and graphic descriptions. If so, I think it should be heeded by most of us

Overall, I am dissatisfied enough with these difficulties that I have taken his books out of our parish library. Assuming that the stronger criticisms against his character are unwarranted, I don’t find him to be a reliable source for understanding the issues in the Church which he tried to address during his day.

My sentiments, exactly. However, I was surprised that Biedrik provided proof that he was a Jesuit–that in itself would be difficult to disprove, and a massive feather in his ‘Believe Me’-cap.