Malachi Martin-what to make of this?

[Gerard]

Today,I noticed yet another hysterical attack against Fr. Martin in which  efforts were made to create some kind of comparison between George Weigel and Fr. Martin.  

The "personality/poster" either real or merely contrived as a consensus cracker, from the site that is trying to build a reputation on "taking down" Fr. Martin, managed to squeeze in 5 references to him within 10 minutes. 

George Weigel spews the same crap that Mr. Malachi Martin spewed in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church regarding the Conversion of Constantine and the establishment of Christianity. He also spews forth the heretical nonsense of separation of Church and State.

Strange. I have my copy of Decline and Fall and I don't think George Weigel would have written a book that credits Pope John XXIII with creating the circumstances in which unity and authority in the Church were destroyed. (page 271) "The most popular of modern Popes was to prove the most dangerous of all." 

Even stranger, Fr. Martin describes Constantine as establishing a situation in which the Emperor would be the defender of the Faith in the secular world and the Pope would be the final arbiter on all matters of faith and morals. 

He is a faux-Conservative who does the work against the Church from within like Malachi Martin.

 

False assertion.

I find it interesting that George Weigel is spewing the same crap that the documented anti-Catholic double agent of Judaism Mr. Malachi Martin did in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church.

You see, this is supposed to lure people into exploring the "documents" that prove that Fr. Martin was a "double-agent" of Judaism.  It's such a forced "plug" for a series of agenda-driven hatchet jobs that avoid at all costs creating an accurate picture. 

Seeing that he parroting the same crap Malachi Martin peddles,

Again, there isn't much proof of the Weigel / Martin similarities from the title of the book he mentioned.  Nor from the contents of the book. 

...there should be an inquiry into any documentation that will show George Weigel to be the same double agent that Malachi Martin was.

They are just THAT much alike.  How about that? 

There is something especially creepy about the obsession with attacking the man nearly 10 years after his death.  Only archbishop LeFebvre has been so posthumously vilified.  Fr. Martin must have really rattled some cages and left something particularly important in his messages, teachings and warnings. 

[FatherCekada]

Malachi Martin was a pathological liar and a con man who hoodwinked gullible traditionalists for decades.

Under the pseudonym Michael Serafian and "Fitzharris-O'Boyle," he campaigned for getting Vatican II to pass the decree absolving the Jews from the death of Our Lord. (See "How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking," Look magazine, 25 January 1966. 19ff.)

In his 2002 book Clerical Errors, Robert Kaiser, Newsweek's correspondent at Vatican II, provides a whole series of anecdotes about Martin's disgusting shenanigans.

His book on the Jesuits was loaded with obvious errors — after 30 pages, I got so annoyed that I threw it across the room into the trash. A complete waste of time. His other books give you "facts" like what was going through Pius XII's mind.

I had two conversations with Martin in the late 1970s. In both conversations, I caught him in a flat-out lie. I think he would tell you anything he thought you wanted to hear if there was even the slightest advantage he could gain.

My favorite Martin lie story: he told Rama Coomaraswamy that Pius XII had secretly consecrated him a bishop.

Martin was a "traditionalist" only because he sensed that there was money to be made in telling the gullible what they wanted to hear — sensationalist conspiracy stories.

For sweeping the Malachi Martin house, you'd need a lot more than the wind — I suggest a shovel.

[Gerard]

 Malachi Martin was a pathological liar and a con man who hoodwinked gullible traditionalists for decades.  

 
Let's look at this objectively, you come out of the box with hysterical conclusions that are unsupported.  You state you believe that Fr. Martin was a liar, con man...etc."  Nothing more. 
 

Under the pseudonym Michael Serafian and "Fitzharris-O'Boyle," he campaigned for getting Vatican II to pass the decree absolving the Jews from the death of Our Lord. (See "How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking," Look magazine, 25 January 1966. 19ff.)

 
First on the issue of the names:
 
"Fitzharris-O'Boyle" is a name given to his "agent" by Joseph Roddy for the purpose of the article.   It says, "He will be known here as "Timothy Fitzharriss-O'Boyle."  No one in Rome used the Fitzharris-O'Boyle name.
 
"Michael Serafian" was Fr. Martin's pen name while he was writing in Rome during the Council.  (All one has to do is read the inside jacket to see that it's not a polemic for liberals and modernists.)
 
"F.E. Cartus" is the pen-name of an author or group of authors of a series of articles published on the issue of Catholic-Jewish relations during the period between the second and third sessions.  The article in Commonweal is anything but a capitulation to the Jews by the way,  it presents Paul VI as far stronger than he was and that the Jews are not going to get all they want out of the Council.  Which is exactly what happened at least as far as the documents themselves are concerned.
 

In his 2002 book Clerical Errors, Robert Kaiser, Newsweek's correspondent at Vatican II, provides a whole series of anecdotes about Martin's disgusting shenanigans.

 
You mean Kaiser's disgusting fantasies, don't you?  From pages 178-179
 

"Now, bound no longer by my Jesuit vows, I lay in silence with my wife.  We were as close-fitting as two spoons, Mary's back to my front, and Mary sobbed quietly before she went to sleep.  I was thinking about the Novitiate, and about Joseph, the guy who had had all kinds of doubts about his Mary, a young woman who had started to look suspiciously pregnant before they had come together.
 
I had a primal dream.  I was in a large room kneeling on the floor in a large circle of Novices.  One of them was unmistakably Malachy Martin, who stood and announced to the group that I had been rejecting him.  He proceeded to remove his cassock, lay it down and put his arms around my neck.  Just as he was about to kiss me I woke up.
Now what, I asked myself, was this all about?  A Freudian Psychiatrist would undoubtedly call this a homosexual dream.  If it was, however, I didn't see it as a sign of my homosexuality, but of Malachy's.  My dream was a warning that Malachy wanted me."

I sure as hell didn't want him. By now, I had no special fondness for Malachy Martin."

 
You can't possibly consider that book a credible source can you?  Robt. Blair Kaiser is not and was not a defender of orthodoxy in any way.  It is Kaiser that writes the perversities.  Did you even read the book? 
 

His book on the Jesuits was loaded with obvious errors — after 30 pages, I got so annoyed that I threw it across the room into the trash.
A complete waste of time.

 
Therefore, emotion = justification for prejudice?
 
The first 30 pages would part of be the introductory chapter called "the War" in which Fr. Martin sketches out the nature of the Jesuits and their corruption and turning on the papacy.  I didn't see any errors, I read past the first 30 pages and have not found it to be a complete waste of time.  On the contrary, it's excellent. 
 
Father, you sound like Fr. Mitch Pacwa who misrepresents Fr. Martin for the neo-Catholics.  He pretends that Fr. Martin was taking JPII to task for not demanding that the Father General discipline a priest who was not a Jesuit.  This is a silly trick because Pacwa doesn't make known that Fr. Martin was discussing the Cardenal brothers, one who was a Jesuit and the other who wasn't. Pacwa doesn't make that distinction in order to make Fr. Martin look incompetant.
 
Surely, the chapter on Tielhard de Chardin alone is one of the most beautiful attacks on an enemy of the Church ever written.  Fr. Martin dismantles Tielhard's "teachings" beyond repair. It's a wonder anyone still reads, let alone subscribes to that man's bizarre inventions.
 

His other books give you "facts" like what was going through Pius XII's mind.

 
In Three Popes and the Cardinal, Fr. Martin explains in the beginning of the book that it was through his relationship with Cardinal Bea and public knowledge that he came to understand Pius XII. John XXIII and Paul VI he knew about from that method as well along with his personal knowledge. 
 
From that, he made a study in contrasts, taking in the pertinent factors affecting the Church and the world. 
 

I had two conversations with Martin in the late 1970s. In both conversations, I caught him in a flat-out lie. I think he would tell you anything he thought you wanted to hear if there was even the slightest advantage he could gain.

 
What specifically were the lies?  What advantage did he have to gain over you? 
 
I know current seminarians who were helped by Fr. Martin in discerning their vocation.  He presented them with questions in order to help them decide what kind of vocation they should look into and where to go for formation.  He's now dead almost 10 years, again, what advantage was he to gain? 
 
Why did he give so freely of his resources and time?  Why did he say Masses for victims of crimes he read about in the newspapers?  Why did he pay for tuition for poor students? Why defend priests like Fr. Cippola and "out" bishops like Donald Wuerl?   Why give people like Gerry Matatics letters of recommendation and introductions to other people as well as accomodations when he came to New York?
 

My favorite Martin lie story: he told Rama Coomaraswamy that Pius XII had secretly consecrated him a bishop.

 
How do you know it's a lie?  Is it just a "gut" feeling?  It seems to be prejudice and not any fact that makes you conclude it's a lie.
 
I never heard Fr. Martin say anything like that. 
 
This is another one of those "mysteries" that only comes out after his death, like Kaiser's book. 
 
Why is Coomaraswamy not the liar?  Or, did Coomaraswamy misunderstand Fr. Martin?  Or was Fr. Martin telling the truth and Fr. Coomaraswamy got it correct? 
 
I have no reason to believe it is a lie nor an accurate quote.  It's just a rumor.
 

Martin was a "traditionalist" only because he sensed that there was money to be made in telling the gullible what they wanted to hear — sensationalist conspiracy stories.

 
We've got to do something about "Big Traditionalism" and all that money.
 
But he did mention to Michael Cuneo a few years before he died that there was a "cottage industry" growing around him that was dedicated to calumniating him. 
 
Funny how Kaiser thought he could make a buck off of Fr. Martin after his death, also who would buy a video of Fr. Coomaraswamy that didn't have a juicy bit of gossip about Fr. Martin?  
 
Father, how do you know you're not the one buying into the sensationalism? 
 

For sweeping the Malachi Martin house, you'd need a lot more than the wind — I suggest a shovel.

 
That's a clever phrase with the shovel and all that, but considering you haven't done any "digging" at all on this matter, you really aren't attaching any substance to your recommendations or your conclusions about Fr. Martin.  So why should anyone agree with you?
 
Intellectuals sometimes are like gun-slingers of the old west. It seems that priests especially are tempted to try and take down the "fastest draw."  It's a testament to Fr. Martin's effectiveness that people are still taking shots at him now that he's dead. 
 

[FatherCekada]

Gerard said:

 Intellectuals sometimes are like gun-slingers of the old west. It seems that priests especially are tempted to try and take down the "fastest draw."

When I talked to Martin, it wasn't a gun he was slinging.

As for the rest, he was the "fastest draw" only for the unverifiable anecdote based on equally unverifiable "inside knowledge."

For those who buy into the Martin mystery-inside-a puzzle-wrapped-in-an-enigma theories, I have a bridge to sell them, not far from his old Sutton Place apartment.

[Gerard]

  When I talked to Martin, it wasn't a gun he was slinging.

As for the rest, he was the "fastest draw" only for the unverifiable anecdote based on equally unverifiable "inside knowledge."

For those who buy into the Martin mystery-inside-a puzzle-wrapped-in-an-enigma theories, I have a bridge to sell them, not far from his old Sutton Place apartment.

Father,

With all respect, I get it. You hated the man. 

Now, that that's understood, what else have ya got?

Do you have anything else to contribute it seems besides the cruelty? 

You won't answer questions to verify your own accusations, you haven't given a fact yet but instead made ad hominem attacks against the late Father. 

You don't like the man's books which you have not bothered to read.

You non-critically cite dubious sources like Robt. Blair Kaiser as if they are divine revelations as evidence against him.

You won't answer the question about the "lies" that you caught him in. 

And interestingly, you only reply to refute the point about people being jealous of Fr. Martin's intellectual/academic achievements.  And the reply is simply more insults and hyperbole which seem designed to reduce the man to nothing. 

At this point, I don't expect any answers to my simple questions.  I've been down these back and forths forever trying to get people to answer questions they don't want to answer or can't answer.

But this phenomena by enemies of Fr. Martin has something deeper at work which is particularly interesting.  He must have rattled something that had touched an emotional core on the part of those who hate him.  I think there's an ugly truth that they don't want to face and therefore we get the emotional, irrational attacks, the calumny to discredit him and the willingness to believe only the worst of the rumors about Fr. Martin. 

It's a sign of weakness and it does a lot of damage to those who would otherwise be helped into the faith by Fr. Martin's work. 

[QuisUtDeus]

My favorite Martin lie story: he told Rama Coomaraswamy that Pius XII had secretly consecrated him a bishop.

 
How do you know it's a lie?  Is it just a "gut" feeling?  It seems to be prejudice and not any fact that makes you conclude it's a lie.
 
I never heard Fr. Martin say anything like that. 
 
This is another one of those "mysteries" that only comes out after his death, like Kaiser's book. 
 
Why is Coomaraswamy not the liar?  Or, did Coomaraswamy misunderstand Fr. Martin?  Or was Fr. Martin telling the truth and Fr. Coomaraswamy got it correct? 

Actually, Fr. Coomaraswamy states that Fr. Martin was a bishop and conditionally ordained him:

However, my close friend and mentor, Bishop Malachi Martin, stated that he wished there to be absolutely no doubt about my ordination. He therefore proceeded to conditionally re-ordain me. Hence it is that I received the graces of Ordination from a double source.

 

So, unless Fr. Coomaraswamy was a liar, and I did not know the man to be that based on the few personal interactions I had with him, he 1) for some reason believed Fr. Martin to be a bishop, and, 2) received a conditional ordination from Fr. Martin.

 

I don't know any more than what I've said, but it's clear according to Fr. Coomaraswamy that he believed Fr. Martin was a bishop.  Maybe something is confused and Fr. Martin was consecrated by a Thuc-line bishop? 

[Gerard]

Actually, Fr. Coomaraswamy states that Fr. Martin was a bishop and conditionally ordained him:

However, my close friend and mentor, Bishop Malachi Martin, stated that he wished there to be absolutely no doubt about my ordination. He therefore proceeded to conditionally re-ordain me. Hence it is that I received the graces of Ordination from a double source.

 

So, unless Fr. Coomaraswamy was a liar, and I did not know the man to be that based on the few personal interactions I had with him, he 1) for some reason believed Fr. Martin to be a bishop, and, 2) received a conditional ordination from Fr. Martin.

 

I don't know any more than what I've said, but it's clear according to Fr. Coomaraswamy that he believed Fr. Martin was a bishop.  Maybe something is confused and Fr. Martin was consecrated by a Thuc-line bishop? 

So we are left with a real mystery.  It may be true or there may be some miscommunication that occurred somewhere along the line. 

The point is, Fr. Martin should not be judged according to hearsay.  He did a lot of good for a lot of people and now malevolent forces are trying to stop that good from continuing on based on hearsay, rumor and innuendo. 

If he really was made a bishop (or Cardinal as I've heard),  he never made it a point to speak publicly on it. 

This could be because it never happened or it was such a potentially dangerous and scandalous thing to occur in the context of the Church crisis that it would be best to keep that kind of thing secretive unless absolutely necessary. 

Gerry Matatics told me once something along the lines that he heard that a number of married men had been secretly ordained priests and taught to say the old mass for the sole purpose of preserving the mass. 

I believe Fr. Martin also said something along the lines of a number of Novus Ordo priests had been secretly conditionally re-ordained and were hiding vestments and chalices at homes and doing double duty in their "off" hours completely without a hint being given to the local bishops.  Additionally some of these priests had also been secretly consecrated bishops as well. 

All of that is rumor and it could easily be true, partially true or false.  If it is true, it should stay a rumor and I wouldn't be that upset about it either way.  God will sort it all out.

[QuisUtDeus]

All said and done, I agree, Gerard.  The man is dead (+RIP) and there is no point to a lot of this.  Commenting on his works can be productive, but commenting on his life I don't think is productive unless he were up for sainthood.

We'll never know everything, but as you said, God does and He will take care of it.

Fr Cekada, I read The Jesuits and having been educated by the Jesuits in the 80's and 90's, a lot of what Fr. Martin said either rang true to me either in facts I heard from the Jesuits or personal experience (especially the Revolution Theology we were constantly spoonfed along with Hans Kung nonsense - they actually used one of his books as the text for a theology course I took).

Do you remember what it was he said in those early pages of the book you found in error?

[FatherCekada]

Quis said:

All said and done, I agree, Gerard.  The man is dead (+RIP) and there is no point to a lot of this.  Commenting on his works can be productive, but commenting on his life I don't think is productive unless he were up for sainthood.

We'll never know everything, but as you said, God does and He will take care of it.

True enough, but whether or not MM was a liar is, in fact, pertinent.

Much of his stuff is based on "inside knowledge" for which we have nothing more than his own say-so. If he was unreliable — a liar and a teller of tall tales — what he wrote should be given no credence.

Quis said:

Do you remember what it was he said in those early pages of the book you found in error?

No, alas. It was a long time ago. I just remember my reaction.

[FatherCekada]

Quis said:

So, unless Fr. Coomaraswamy was a liar, and I did not know the man to be that based on the few personal interactions I had with him, he 1) for some reason believed Fr. Martin to be a bishop, and, 2) received a conditional ordination from Fr. Martin.
 
I don't know any more than what I've said, but it's clear according to Fr. Coomaraswamy that he believed Fr. Martin was a bishop.  Maybe something is confused and Fr. Martin was consecrated by a Thuc-line bishop?

Rama was a parishioner, a medical advisor and a friend of mine. I knew him very, very well. He was an honest, direct man, and would never lie.

Unfortunately, he had a gullible side, and if a glib charmer like Martin told Rama that Pius XII had consecrated him a bishop in secret, Rama would have believed it.

But, how likely is it that Pius XII would have done this?

Given Martin's record of double-agentry and mystification, it can't be anything more than a tall tale.