Author Topic: Father Malachi Martin (Read 33438 times)

Elizabeth · « **Reply #30 on:** December 14, 2011, 09:34:18 AM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Elizabeth,

He's an eyewitness providing written testimony to a court. That's a weighty docuмent, by any standard.

Which court? A Marriage Tribunal or Divorce Court? He writes how Sue became "sexy" and goes on and on about how immature she was. Her husband went to a mental institution. They were partying in Rome. How much alcohol was consumed, for example. Where is the scrutiny of the priest who wrote this gossipy letter? You are trivialising the good work of Fr. Fiore , but silent about Fr. whats-his-name. (I need to take notes-not intending to be disrespectful of the Jesuit.) Where is the scrutiny of the character of Kaiser's wife, who sounds mentally ill. The Jesuit himself makes her sound extremely unstable, and his accusations sound petulant in the extreme.

Why do people who won't believe other non-traditionalist sources believe what Fr. Fiore says? I like to think that I look for Catholic truth whenever and wherever it appears. I absolutely trust Stephen Brady of Roman Catholic Faithful, for example.

And I am not asserting that Fr. Fiore was a bad man. I am simply pointing out that he didn't seem to notice the problems in the Church and their real causes for thirty of forty years, so he was hardly a great judge of orthodoxy, or in fact anything else. He is exactly the type to get taken in by Malachi Martin. Perhaps you have a strong opinion as to the precise nature of the problems in the Church as a layperson, who may be much younger than Fr. Fiore. He was a good priest, and if he thought that legalised abortion was the crime of the century, please have some charity. He took a lot of abuse for his position, and the American bishops run by Bernadin caused untold horrors.

I am shocked to hear you say "he was hardly a great judge of orthodoxy, or in fact anything else". You say you don't know much about him-but you are damning him with faint praise. He was a validly ordained Roman Catholic priest. "He didn't seem to notice the problems in the Church and their real causes for thirty or forty years" -- but again there he was fighting the good fight against sex education and abortion!! Maybe you are more brilliant than this simple priest, and feel that his efforts for souls were meaningless because they were too simple? Look at the times! Total revolution in the US during that time- Kennedy Assassination-crazy upheaval. Remember the huge exodus from the Church? He stayed and fought for the unborn and for parents who were rightfully horrified by sex ed in the schools!

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #31 on:** December 14, 2011, 09:48:30 AM »

Good points, Elizabeth. I have some thoughts of my own but don't have enough time to post them all right now. I'll share them this afternoon.

And you can quote different parts of someone's post by copying and pasting what you want to respond to, then type in

Quote from:

(the name of whoever you're replying to). After you've pasted it, next to the last word, press the space bar once and then put in

. Then press ENTER twice so that you're two lines below the quote, then type in your response. Hope that helps.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #32 on:** December 14, 2011, 09:50:42 AM »

LOL, my help didn't even come out right. Matthew needs to fix this quote feature.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #33 on:** December 14, 2011, 09:57:41 AM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Elizabeth,

Please read this letter and tell me if you accept that Martin committed adultery.

http://www.angelqueen.org/articles/martin_docs/van_etten.pdf

That alone is conclusive evidence, but combined with the various other sources, including of course poor Robert Kaiser, there can be no reasonable doubt.

This letter is total hogwash. I think if you re-read it you will come to the same conclusion. It goes toward establishing that she was too unfit to have made a valid marriage to Bob.

He goes on and on about Sue's instability, low intellect, flightiness, a child bride. He is just a "friend" What happened to him being a priest? Then he mentions how she got more "sexy". He spreads rumors.

Sue left her husband and got a divorce, and now this "friend" is helping them petion for an annulment! He makes her sound like a very bad mother, stupid, throwing herself at a priest. Does he counsel her to stop trying to seduce a priest? No. He's just pretending that she is innocent. Did he tell his friend to take better care of his feckless wife? Nope.

Nobody is going to believe this hogwash unless they have an axe to grind with Fr. Martin. This letter says more about its author than the serious charge of adultery that you have made.

sedetrad · « **Reply #34 on:** December 14, 2011, 10:20:34 AM »

I hate it when the posts get pushed to the side and formatting messes up.

sedetrad · « **Reply #35 on:** December 14, 2011, 10:21:05 AM »

It's doing it to my posts also.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #36 on:** December 14, 2011, 10:36:40 AM »

Fr. Casey writes page after page about how "psychically" unfit Sue is, on and on about how she is too insane to have made a valid marraige contract to Bo, what a lying unfaithful wreck she is.

But we are supposed to believe this lying mentally impaired, immoral psychopath's version when it suits Fr. Casey's goal to acquire an Annulment for Bob?

Fr. Casey calls Sue a psychopath. All psychopaths do is tell lies and hurt people.

Fr. Casy says Fr. Martin wrote a letter to Sue in code! :jester He readily believes the worst about Fr. Martin, froma woman whom he describes thusly:

"All the circuмstances taken together add up conclusively and certainly to the fact that Sue Kaiser did not have simply a weak character or a momentary lapse ofrom virtue but rather a personality that never matured and a psychic life that never evolved from its state of psychological immaturity. Any woman who would do what she did, in the substance and the manner and the timing of her actions, would clearly and certainly indicate by these actions that she had been psychically incapable of giving the proper and mature consent required for the validity of her original marriage contract. Susan Mulcahey's actins did not proceed from a temporary weakness in her character but from a psychopathological[my emphasis] state in her personality that rendered her incapable of entering upon a marriage contract with Robert Kaiser with that type of consent required for the validity of such a contract."

Fr. Casey is no eyewitness to adultery.

Who were Fr. Martin's other girlfriends, GertrudetheGreat?

Elizabeth · « **Reply #37 on:** December 14, 2011, 10:40:36 AM »

Quote from: sedetrad

It's doing it to my posts also.

:tv-disturbed: I thought I'd broken my laptop!

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #38 on:** December 14, 2011, 11:02:27 AM »

Probably some of you could figure I would show up in this thread.

Here are a couple of things to ponder:

http://www.williamhkennedy.com/articles/highrankMM.html

Please scroll down to page 129 in this docuмent on this link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41862308/Occult-History

+RIP Father Martin

SJB · « **Reply #39 on:** December 14, 2011, 12:13:35 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Quote from: SJB
I think maybe Gertrude the Great was speaking of reading the docuмents referred to, not Fr. MM's books.

No, I meant the books. Have a look at Hostage to the Devil or Windswept House. They're both heterodox in morals, and Hostage to the Devil is at least erroneous in faith. Martin actually says that the priest is the one most at risk in an exorcism. What puerile, absurd, unorthodox, CRAP. He also carries on in an unorthodox manner about the contest of wills which he insists takes place between the devil and the exorcist. That's complete codswallop. He naturalises everything, ironically by pretending to talk about the supernatural. He was as much a naturalist, probably more so, as JP2.

Martin is on record confirming what old friends of his are on record asserting, which is that he lost the faith in the 'sixites, specifically in relation to the Person and natures of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the Resurrection. He said that his fellow Jesuits started avoiding him because of his open heterodoxy. That might be true, but I'd say it was as much to do with his adultery as anything else. The man was a walking scandal, a wreck of a priest, and a wreck of a man.

He described in an interview later that his faith came back when he hit rock-bottom, driving a cab in New York. Yet he never made any public retraction of his public errors, nor did he ever make any kind of retraction of his assistance of the enemies of the Church at Vatican II.

In my judgement Martin was certainly guilty of adultery with Kaiser's wife, and he had other girlfriends as well. He was also demonstratively in the pay of non-Catholics seeking to influence the Council.

Of none of this did he repent in a way that anybody can verify. That should raise alarm bells with anybody who knows anything. But even without that consideration, it remains a public fact that he lost the faith and there is no equally public abjuration of error to undo his heresy. Therefore he stands as an unrepentant heretic.

And his books, as far as I have looked through them, are riddled with errors. They are also obviously works of fantasy. I don't know how much he actually had an agenda of misleading trads by talking about satanic rituals, with all of the technicolor and juicy detail, rather than the errors and heresies of V2 and the new mass. Maybe he was just making money by tailoring some paperback trash for a hungry audience which would be uncritical of anything which reinforced their idea that the Vatican had been taken over by evil, as it had.

Somebody once descibed him as a Walter Mitty. That seems to me very accurate. Consecrated a bishop in secret by Pius XII, allowed to read the Third Secret, running about performing dramatic exorcisms, in the know about everything, etc. It would be hilarious if only so many good people were not so blind about him!

Thanks Gertrude. I've never read any of his books although I have a copy of The Keys of the Blood, or something like that, but never read any of it. Someone gave it to me who read a little and thought it was garbage, but I never even opened it.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #40 on:** December 14, 2011, 01:02:05 PM »

I love these people who try to say he was in it for money.

I'm sure most of these same people trying to argue that, were not even aware that he was offered a HUGE deal with a big movie company for his book, "Hostage to the Devil" that was supposed to be bigger than one of the most popular movies of all time, "The Exorcist." He was offered a VERY LARGE sum of money... a sum that even Mel Gibson probably wouldn't be able to say no to.

But, guess what? He said, "NO."

So if he were in it for the money, and so self-absorbed, prideful, et cetera, why didn't he say, "Yes!" to such a large offer?

I'll let you come to that conclusion yourself.

Another thing that just boggles my mind, are these people that continue to slander him about him having an affair, when they have ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence that he ever had an adulterous affair with anyone except the rantings of a CLEARLY INSANE man who checked himself into a MENTAL HOSPITAL because of his insano self. I wonder if people are even checking out the history of the man lodging most of these erroneous allegations about Father Martin?

People doing that should really check their sources.

Really? You'd rather side with a certified lunatic rather than Father Martin?

He was very benevolent with his money. Ask anyone who knew him. He gave most of his money away! He didn't -want- the money. He helped so many people out. Gave a lot to charity.

I wonder if any of you even knew Father Fiore. That was one of his BEST FRIENDS, and the people slandering Fr. Martin should be ashamed of themselves! Fr. Fiore was a very reputable, devout man, and I doubt he could make such a mistake of character about one of his best friends.

sedetrad · « **Reply #41 on:** December 14, 2011, 01:20:42 PM »

I had heard about the money offer for "Hostage".

Elizabeth · « **Reply #42 on:** December 14, 2011, 01:29:43 PM »

I have heard many people say they returned to a devout practice of the Catholic faith after reading Hostage to the Devil.

I have heard people complain about its graphic nature. I would compare that to people complaining about the use of graphic pictures to show what abortion is.

Plenty of people are in denial and people can only learn by graphic example. There are others who already know. That's life.

SJB · « **Reply #43 on:** December 14, 2011, 01:37:58 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
Martin's book "Jesus Now" (1975) had the following on the front cover: "How Jesus has no Past, Will not come Again and in loving actions is Dissolving the Molds of Our Spent Society."

Now just in case you think that clear heresy was a publisher's literary license (even though Martin never disavowed it), take a look inside and discover the most direct apostasy one could imagine.

Here's a tid-bit, but I encourage you to buy a copy and see for yourself.
Quote
Jesus was taken away, lived a short while, and then died. A marvellous plot! A complete stranger posing as Jesus carried off the part about the resurrection. There was no real resurrection, of course. It all rather reminds one of the those stories about Hitler being alive and well in Acapulco. P. 166.

Sickening, isn't it?

And trust me, that isn't the worst stuff in there. What he says about the Mother of God is unrepeatable. If Martin were in reach, I'd rearrange his face.

What really amazes me is how open Martin's heresy was, and how nobody who defends him seems to know about it.

What if performing an exorcism knocked some sense into him, made a true believer out of him? He would not have been the first soul to have a profound conversion as a result of demonic experiences.

Anyway, just a thought. By the way, my replies in red are not meant to be abrasive; I just don't understand how to intersperse comments with quotes.

What we know are the externals, and he never did this.

He was required to abjure his very public errors, and he never did. He cannot be thought of as anything but an unrepentant heretic.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #44 on:** December 14, 2011, 02:34:01 PM »

SJB...

Can heretics perform exorcisms that work? A priest has to be in the state of grace to perform exorcisms with any effect whatsoever.

Please explain that even up to his death, he was performing exorcisms, and they were effectual.

I argue that one in the state of mortal sin (which is what a heretic is, in fact, publicly denouncing a truth of the Catholic Church, spreading scandal to others by publicly holding an heretical position, leading others to apparent error) cannot effectually do an exorcism that would do any good whatsoever, because the devil still has the priest trying to do such a thing in his grip.

If you knew the circuмstances in which his death occurred, you would be praying for him rather than regurgitating the rantings of an insane person and repeating unsubstantiated claims of adultery about a struggling soul. He was, during his life, no different than the people on this forum.

He was a man. He had great responsibility, he did his best to expose those that are currently in power. He wasn't perfect. He was edifying to a great many people.

His last moments of consciousness were a plea to the people that were there with him, to pray for him, in his final sufferings and battle with the Devil before his judgment.

Please pray for the repose of his soul, as you should for any traditional Catholic that left this world with the monstrous temptations that effect us at the inevitable moment of death.