Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject: Malachi Martin 1973 interview in the Cincinnati enquirer
Jesus Now Author Not A Swashbuckler
Ben L. Kaufman - Enquirer Reporter
The Cincinnati Enquirer
December 22, 1973
Malachi Martin was nothing like anyone could have expected.
From his previous books, I knew he had been a Jesuit priest, archaeologist, rogue and strong-arm man for liberal organizers in the Vatican Council, and somewhat depressed observer of organized religion in the West.
I was not prepared for an almost elfin white-haired Irishman, impeccably dressed in tweeds and white, soft turtleneck sweater, and a limp from what he said was a fresh sabre wound.
He fences, not duels, and a partner slashed carelessly, hitting Martin's right Achilles tendon.
Painful as the wound is, it is more troublesome to explain why he drives metal detectors at airports wild as he tours the country promoting his newest book "Jesus Now."
Airport guards are willing to accept the steel brace on his right lower leg he said in a rushed late night interview in Cincinnati, and he has learned NOT to tell them it is a sabre wound.
What about the other guy? "I broke my sabre over his helmet." Martin said with a grin of satisfaction.
Martin was finishing his doctorate in Semitic languages at Louvain University in Belgium in the 1950s when he came to the attention of the liberal caucus in the Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal Bea.
His dossier included Martin's request for lay status, that is, he wanted to leave the priesthood.
Paths kept crossing and the cardinal recruited Father Martin as his aide-de-camp: Martin said, and a new career about which Martin has really written little begun.
Martin went to Rome with Bea, and as the cardinal and Pope John XXIII began rallying forces to push the Vatican Council, Martin was given exciting and seductive chores he said.
Some of his work involved intelligence gathering behind the Iron Curtain and throughout the Middle East, he said, and some of it involved shaking long-closeted skeletons in the faces of cardinals who didn't quite want to do what Cardinal Bea and the pope wanted at the Vatican council.
"I saw cardinals sweating in front of me." Martin recalled with mixed emotions. It was heady having that power, "and I began to enjoy it."
A clear understanding of this malicious joy brought Martin to decide to get out of the Vatican power game, he said with a rare calm and almost serious expression on his lively face, and he called in Cardinal Bea's promise to promote his request for lay status.
By that time Pope John was dead and Pope Paul VI was on the Throne of Peter, and no one really regretted seeing Martin go. You don't play that game without making powerful enemies Martin said, and his effectiveness had ended.
With it had ended the missions Cardinal Bea had imposed on the somewhat reluctant Jesuit scholar, and he moved on.
His first major book in the popular field was "The Encounter" where he argued that the "priceless moments" that hold men and women to Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been lost and with them, the mystery, excitement and fun of their religion.
Then came his autobiographical history of part of the Vatican Council intrigue, "Three Popes and the Cardinal" (Pius, John, Paul and Bea). Here Martin gave some pretty keen insights into what Pope John had set loose on the church and the Catholic Church's apparent inability to cope.
"Jesus Now" is the next step in Martin's journey of a soul, his and his church's, published recently by Dutton at $7.95.
"Jesus Now" operates on many levels. One is to make plain to the pious that every age has drawn its own Jesus, and these images have failed to sustain belief because the crumble when they become obsolete.
"You mean the way it was argued that Jesus would have been a labor leading in the 1930s, a warrior with the Allies or Germans in World War II and a civil rights demonstrator in 1963." Martin was asked.
That is exactly his surface theme. "If Jesus is truly Jesus, then He is more than just a Jesus of Nazareth or any of these other Jesus figures." Martin said.
Jesus is more than a "small sectarian leader." And Jesus is "dissolving" these images in order that mankind can see Him more clearly.
That's the easy part of Martin's new book.
Then he launches into what he admits is the scene-setter for his next book, saying all we have left is the "true Jesus, the Jesus-Self who is the immutable, ageless Jesus, the stumbling block of the Jews and the folly of the Gentiles, who lives within each man and from whom there is no escape, the Jesus-Self which every man inexorably is"
Martin believes in the Jesus who "did not come in order to depart, and need not come again because he (sic) never went away. Jesus past, Jesus future, Jesus now."
Whether Martin is working up his own Jesus image after damning Jesus images is for each reader to judge.
Disagreement is possible, yes, he said with a wily smile, but rejection of his views as beyond acceptable belief, no.
"Jesus is the expression of man's desire for universal truth and harmony." Martin said almost as a teaser to classic theologians, saying he is not quite that blunt in his book. To do that would risk losing the agreement he wants from readers whom he expects to help save the church from itself. "I must bring the people along."
Martin bemoaned the situation in the Catholic Church where "the power to command obedience is gone." Because the "cement" that held the church together for almost 2000 years, its "authority" has withered as impotence has faced demands for renewal.
"Jesus images" are impotent idols, Martin said, and they cannot satisfy each individual's "longing" for God which besieges Christians and others today.
"How am I going to survive" remains a primary question or religion, Martin writes and says, and life today is a "theater of longing" where Jesus-images are poor companions.
To the extent that Jesus is dissolving these images men cast of Him, the fragments are merging into His spirit, what Martin called the "primary ingredient in the religious experience" in every person.
This will allow mankind to combat this longing as each person newly aware of Jesus says, "Let us be human together," according to Martin. If Jesus is anything, "He is the spirit moving among men. This experience is genuine" and what believers say about it will provide the new "cement" for the church and belief.
Martin grinned when he conceded that in his thinking he has gone "beyond conventional belief" but not necessarily beyond what others can believe without a wrenching dislocation.
"I'm not traditional, I'm not heretical." Martin said, reaching down to knead his right calf beneath the steel support. "I've put it too carefully for that."
As to where it may lead him, Martin said the last six chapters of "Jesus Now" give a hint to those who can cope with the complex, lively and free-swinging debunking of conventional Christian imagery.
Last edited by servitium on Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:12 am; edited 1 time in total
For those who contend that Martin was always a traditionalist and on our side, even during the council, this article completely sinks that notion. Martin with his own lips admits to being a calculating operative under Cardinal Bea, and tells us in 1973 that he is not a traditionalist.
Anyone who posted the nonsense he’s coming up with here would be banned from AQ less than a nano-second. He doesn’t sound like any holy Catholic priest I know, his statements to the reporter should make any traditionalist squirm. He makes John Paul II sound like Bishop Williamson.
Also, the stuff about wanting to be released from his vows being in his dossier is coming from him; it may or may not be true.
Quote:
A clear understanding of this malicious joy brought Martin to decide to get out of the Vatican power game, he said with a rare calm and almost serious expression on his lively face, and he called in Cardinal Bea’s promise to promote his request for lay status.
This contradicts other statements he gave on the reason why he wanted to be laicized, when he said that it was because his Jesuit superiors lacking holiness.
Quote:
Some of his work involved intelligence gathering behind the Iron Curtain and throughout the Middle East, he said, and some of it involved shaking long-closeted skeletons in the faces of cardinals who didn’t quite want to do what Cardinal Bea and the pope wanted at the Vatican council.
“I saw cardinals sweating in front of me.” Martin recalled with mixed emotions. It was heady having that power, “and I began to enjoy it.”
I think this is an important post, as too many traditionalists automatically think Malachi Martin is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But what he says in this interview is pure modernism, not to mention the nefarious role he claims to bave played in aiding Cardinal Bea. I remember reading a book he wrote, the "decline and fall of the Roman Church" which in my opinion was quite liberal, as it blames the papacy's decline on the Catholic powers allowing it to have wealth, ie the papal states. He is not my "cup of tea" at all. _________________ http://credidimuscaritati.blogspot.com
This will allow mankind to combat this longing as each person newly aware of Jesus says, “Let us be human together,” according to Martin. If Jesus is anything, “He is the spirit moving among men. This experience is genuine” and what believers say about it will provide the new “cement” for the church and belief... I’m not traditional...
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject:
[quote="servitium"]
Quote:
This will allow mankind to combat this longing as each person newly aware of Jesus says, “Let us be human together,” according to Martin. If Jesus is anything, “He is the spirit moving among men. This experience is genuine” and what believers say about it will provide the new “cement” for the church and belief... I’m not traditional...
Don't forget the bolded above. Always a red flag per Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
_________________ The Blessed Sacrament is Heaven on Earth
Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 4848 Location: Heavenly places
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject:
servitium wrote:
Quote:
I think this is an important post...
That's why I ordered the microfische from the Library of Cincinnati and typed this out by hand.
I really DO NOT like saying "The Emporer Has No Clothes", I used to defend Martin although I didn't know much about him.
One thing I DO like however, is punching holes in the corrupted "Nosta Aetate". I'm having lots and lots of fun with that.
Oops. Forget my previous question. I'm have trouble with my mouse today. The scrolling is sticking, messing up a lot. Better head out tonight and get a new one.
Some will still want to kiss the blarnney stone of Malachi Martin unfortunately. The problem is that there are "icons" within the trad movement as a whole who have been referenced over and over solely because they said the right things. To question them or their veracity is akin to questioning dogma. OTOH there are those who would want to discredit Martin for their own weird agenda (BLEEPS! and others primarily).
The root of the problem, I suppose, is that there is a "network" of both clergy and lay people who network with each other to sell literature and conferences of what after 30-35 years has become the same old material in many ways. I suppose many laymen are somewhat well versed in theological arguments and that's not a bad thing. How does that stack up against a little old lady who faithfully prays her daily Rosary. Fr Malachi Martin played to this crowd and was probably the most successful at it financially. This statement does not in any way detract from the statements made by others that Fr Martin gave a lot of his royalties away to others less fortunate than him. If he did do that well then great what a splendid way to practice the corporal works of mercy.
Playing devil's advocate though what if Malachi Martin had a thorough change of heart after 1973 and became a sincere dedicated Traditionalist? Any acts prior to that conversion would be a horse out of the barn so to speak and hard to explain even if the only difficulty was the embarrasment his previous positions gave him. The only remedy I suppose is that one lays ones cards on the table and lets the chips fall where they may so to speak.
But Martin to my knowledge never did that. He said all the right things about much but left so many questions upon his death about so much. Compare and contrast Fr Malachi Martin with Bishop Richard Williamson and Bishop Daniel Dolan. Disagree with either Williamson or Dolan but one thing cannot be said against either man. A layman can know who they are and what their history and stands are in the Church in clear,precise and unambiguous terms. Such a statement cannot be made about Malachi Martin.
Playing devil's advocate though what if Malachi Martin had a thorough change of heart after 1973 and became a sincere dedicated Traditionalist?
The "conversion" theory is a possibility, though it does - as you point out later in your post - have problems. The problems go beyond matters not contained in your post, which highlights the fact that he never repudiated his past actions in any substantive manner.
I also have the "Cartus" (Martin) article that appeared in the January, 1965 edition of "Commentary", the monthly that at the time was put out by the American Jewish Committee. If anyone thinks the article that appears at the top of this post is bad, read THAT ONE.
The reason I haven't posted it is because believe it or not the intended target isn't Martin, he's just a satellite. Although it would be nice for people to objectively re-visit this pied piper, if people insist on sentimentally falling at his heels - it's distressing - but ultimately their problem.
The big fish here is Nostra Aetate, which I'm convinced will dissolve because it is thoroughly corrupt and brought into existence through a thoroughly corrupt process.
The only question is how long it will take for it to dissolve.
The root of the problem, I suppose, is that there is a "network" of both clergy and lay people who network with each other to sell literature and conferences of what after 30-35 years has become the same old material in many ways. I suppose many laymen are somewhat well versed in theological arguments and that's not a bad thing. How does that stack up against a little old lady who faithfully prays her daily Rosary. Fr Malachi Martin played to this crowd and was probably the most successful at it financially.
I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Martin played to the "little old lady who prayed her rosary" types?
In my experience those types liked Martin exactly because he played into their "bleep" tendencies when he said that there was nothing left of the Church, it was just a shell, a sham. One of these little old ladies ( a nun in fact) gave me one of her tapes of a Martin interview where he did say these things and he certainly did not sound at all liberal.
As was stated, people can change their minds when they look back. He would not be the only Catholic, or only priest, who has regretted what he had done in the name of VII. I can off the top of my head think of one that has helped the SSPX quite a bit since being suspended by his diocese, and he has made apologies for his role in the early post_VII days.
Also, I would say that the "little old lady" types, are not the ones who were apt to struggle through his rather long and complex novels.
But he has, I would say, added fuel to the fire of "bleep" thinking. I don't know if he was really a TRAD though, although he maintained in the taped interview that he still said Mass daily. Mind you his being an exorcist does not fit in with the idea of his being Modernist, but it is possible, I think, that he liked being sensationalist and it probably helped with the successful sale of his books.
I have yet to read "The Jesuits," although I intend to when and if I get a little time. I certainly enjoyed "Windswept House."
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:15 pm Post subject: MARTIN CITED in LOOK MAGAZINE 1966
The following paragraphs are excerpted from
How The Jews Changed Catholic Thinking
By Joseph Roddy, Look Senior Editor
from LOOK Magazine, January 25, 1966, Volume 30, No. 2
All of the pseudonyms refer to Malachi Martin.
"Similar stories in the Times foretold Council failings before they
happened. Most of these were substantiated in magazine pieces and books
published later, though some had traces of special pleading. The
American Jewish Committee's intellectual monthly, Commentary, had
offered a most bleak report on the Council and the Jews by the
pseudonymous F. E. Cartus. In a footnote, the author referred the
reader to a confirming account in The Pilgrim, a 281-page book by the
pseudonymous Michael Serafian. Later, in Harper's magazine, Cartus,
even more dour, added to the doubts on the Jewish text. To buttress his
case, he recast Pilgrim passages and cited Council accounts in Time,
whose Rome correspondent had surfaced for by-line status as author of a
notably good book on the Council. At the time, both Time and the New
York Times were glad to have an inside tipster. Just for the
journalistic fun of it, the inside man's revelations were signed
"Pushkin," when slipped under some correspondents' doors.
But readers were served no rewritten Pushkin on the Council's last
sessions. The cassock had come off the double agent who could never
turn down work. Pushkin, it turned out, was Michael Serafian in book
length, F.E. Cartus for the magazines, and a translator in the
Secretariat for Christian Unity, while keeping up a warm friendship
with the AJC. 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.
Apart from his taste for pseudonyms, fair ladies, reports on the
nonexistent and perhaps a real jester's genius for footnotes,
Fitzharris-O'Boyle was good at his job in the Secretariat, valuable to
the AJC and is still thought of by many around Rome as a kind of
genuine savior in the diaspora. Without him, the Jewish declaration
might well have gone under early, for it was Fitzharris-O'Boyle who
best helped the press harass the Romans wanting to scuttle it. The man
has a lot of priests' prayers.
Other years, Fitzharris-O'Boyle was around Rome when the declaration
needed help. At Vatican II's fourth and last session, there was no help
in sight. And things were happening very fast. The text came out
weakened, as the Times said it would. Then, the Pope took off for the
UN, where his jamais plus la guerre speech was a triumph. After that,
he greeted the president of the AJC in an East Side church. That looked
good for the cause. Then, at the Yankee Stadium Mass, the Pope's lector
intoned a text beginning "for fear of the Jews." And on TV that sounded
quite astonishing. Everywhere, there were speeches on the rises and
falls of the Jewish declaration, many of them preparing for a final
letdown. Lichten's executive vice-president, Rabbi Jay Kaufman, had
told audiences of his own puzzlement "as the fate of the section on
Jews is shuttled between momentary declaration and certain confutation,
like a sparrow caught in a clerical badminton game." Shuster could hear
about the same from the AJC. He could also hear the opposition. Not
content with a weakened declaration, it again wanted the total victory
of no declaration at all. For that, the Arabs' last words were
"respectfully submitted" in a 28-page memorandum calling on the he
bishops to save the faith from "communism and atheism and the
Jewish-Communist alliance.""
I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Martin played to the "little old lady who prayed her rosary" types?
No that is not what I am saying. What I believe (and poorly communicated) is that broadly speaking too much effort is expended by many to attain a theological knowledge and not enough effort is expended in the works of prayer and corporal works of mercy. I did have one particular little old lady in mind when I wrote my words-my grandmother. She prayed her rosary until her death in 1977 and was what would now be called a conservative novus ordo Catholic. She did not understand why my father insisted upon attending a Mass 50 miles away in Latin while Mgr. Donovan would say the Mass in English. A good woman but someone who could not grasp the situation in the Church. I was taking one group, those who gained much of their knowledge of the situation in the Church from Malachi Martin while hanging breathlessly upon his every word. They spend much of their time researching the latest outrage from Father XXX or the latest heretical statement from Bishop YYY. I compared them unfavorably with those little old ladies like my grandmother (a stereotype I know but a good one)who just practice their faith even if they do not attend the Tridentine Mass under any auspices. I do not say that research and publication of outrages is not good quite the contrary. But not enough energy has been expended upon prayer by all including myself.
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: QUOTATIONS FROM MARTIN'S BOOKS & BIBLIOGRAPHY
Martin refers to certain historical references of Our Lord as confusing to modern man. He even likens His Holy Name to some sort of sexual gratification:
"In the hands of the historians, the only stature conceded to Jesus -- rather grudgingly -- is meager and mind shrivelling. A man who lived at one time in one place. About
whom we know a few sparse, insignificant facts. Of whom we have no flesh-and-blood picture appreciable to us moderns, as we conceive reality, beyond his name -- and even that can sometimes now be given a mere orgasmic touch: 'How come they called you Jesus?', wrote Lucille (in Frederick
Buechner's novel "Open Heart"). 'Jeeezzus sounds like it had vaseline on it to make it slip easy.' As a person of 'unusual significance', there are still some facts to discover and tabulate about Jesus, some more safe to sift and test, much more to puzzle us indefinitely, and still much more to discard daily and yearly. . . ." (p. xii)
AN ADDITIONAL INTERVIEW WITH BEN KAUFMAN IN 1974 TO PROMOTE "THE NEW CASTLE":
* From an interview given to Ben Kaufman of the Cincinnati Enquirer (October 26, 1974) on the occasion of his book "The New Castle", Malachai Martin explains a new vision he has for modern man based on a new "spirit" of our age. After recounting the failures of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, he says that he stands as a new warrior for human hope. He is the member of a new castle, where individuals, not
institutions, control their lives.
"He finds the vision of the new castle in Mecca, the center of Islam; in Jerusalem, the focus of Judaism; Constantinople, where Christianity gave Greek beauty new life; Rome, where the 'person' gained unique stature in history; Pekin where Chariman Mao has given the Chinese a new sense of
dignity; Angkor Wat, where the smile of Buddha took life; Wittenberg, where reason was freed from religious bondage and let loose in an uncontrolled way, and in Peru, Indiana, where the spirit lives."
Kaufman gives this analysis:
"Martin is harshest regarding the Roman Catholic Church, possibly because it has failed him and he sees it failing masses in similar ways despite its one-time vision. He refers to bishops and popes as 'power brokers', oblivious to the 'spirit, man, spirit' which generates greatness."
===
After this Martin churned out books to appeal to conservatives until he switched to the traditional market.
One must understand his entire body of work and antire career as that of being an agent of disinformation, to sow confusion and to perpetually muddy the waters - up until the end.
I groan when I hear lay people and clerics insist that he never offered the novus ordo missae. After reading these quotations, go to the library, check out the books and see for yourself.
He also never "changed" in his beliefs. He merely told anyone whatever they wished to hear.
This is one example of what I am speaking about. I place no veracity in the contents of the URL. Please read it should you choose to click on the link with the same credence you might give a supermarket tabloid.
...Mind you his being an exorcist does not fit in with the idea of his being Modernist, but it is possible, I think, that he liked being sensationalist and it probably helped with the successful sale of his books.
FWIW, in "Malachi Martin - God's Messenger" Father Fiore clarifies that Father Martin never served as a "lead" exorcist but always acted in the role of exorcist's assistant.
FWIW, in "Malachi Martin - God's Messenger" Father Fiore clarifies that Father Martin never served as a "lead" exorcist but always acted in the role of exorcist's assistant.
In a May 5, 1998 interview sitting in a folder on my desktop labeled "Martin", I have the audio (mp3) where he claims to have performed "thousands" of exorcisms.
Besides that fact that "thousands" would amount to an exorcism a day for - at the very least - five years (without accounting for preparation), he doesn't offer any qualifiers such as being an "assistant". I'd be willing to be corrected, but nothing I've come across has him being an assistant or ever mentioning anyone he's worked with.
Does anyone have anything from Martin where he claims to be an "assistant" or mentions someone he worked under? If so, please post it as it would be helpful.
Also, if anyone knows whether or not someone who can't even refer to himself as "father" or wear clerical garments in public can perform exorcisms that would be helpful.
Also, if anyone knows whether or not someone who can't even refer to himself as "father" or wear clerical garments in public can perform exorcisms that would be helpful.
From the CDF's "Instruction on Prayers for Healing":
Art. 8 -- § 1. The ministry of exorcism must be exercised in strict dependence on the Diocesan Bishop, and in keeping with the norm of can. 1172, the Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of September 29, 1985,(31) and the Rituale Romanum (32).
§ 2. The prayers of exorcism contained in the Rituale Romanum must remain separate from healing services, whether liturgical or non-liturgical.
§ 3. It is absolutely forbidden to insert such prayers of exorcism into the celebration of the Holy Mass, the sacraments, or the Liturgy of the Hours.
Servitium,
I remember ~20 years ago listening to Martin on the Phil Donahue Show saying that he had always "assisted" at exorcisms because he was too intellectual to have been the main exorcist, and had he been the actual exorcist, he would have been tricked into carrying on a conversation with the particular demon rather than giving it orders which is what is required from the exorcist. He warned against ever answering questions put forth from the demon, but only give commands to it.
Could you explain what you meant by Nostra Aetate being brought into existence by a totally corrupt process? While I am quite unnerved by the document itself, I would like some clarification on what you are getting at by your previous remark. Thanks. _________________ Jim
As a self-proclaimed intellectual, Malachi Martin had an "open mind" and attempted to see every side of every issue. This creates some personal confusion. I see his evolution over the years as a man who finally came down on one side of the modernist/traditionalist spectrum. It was that traditionalist side which occupied his later years and his later novels.
My traditionalist-minded, cradle Catholic wife insisted that I read several anti-Vat II polemics when I said I wanted to convert from Anglican to Roman Catholic. We eventually learned of Malachi Martin and bought and read multiple novels and many, many interviews. These "revelations" from 1973 go a long way in explaining the strange background to me.
On the other hand, I think they have helped me understand better the Malachi Martin whom I met on the novel's page or the interview. This urge to keep "balance" as an intellectual is important to the intellectual and goes against the general thrust of a hierarchical system of dogma. Nonetheless, one may eventually come to the same conclusions after much prayer and study.
As an aging physician, I have spent my life trying to emulate this intellectual balancing act. It pays great dividends in diagnosis in people who are ill. The apparent diagnosis is not always correct, though "fits" at a certain time. By keeping this "open mind" a more accurate diagnosis eventually is made. Thus, I can feel a certain empathy with a searching Malachi Martin and can see him making that progress into the more certain from the carefully considered and even a few false intellectual dead-ends.
St. Martin? Maybe so, in spite of intellectual mis-steps. But it sounds very unlikely in the current climate of the Church.
In conclusion, I find Malachi Martin an interesting and inspiring man in his essential message---though he was very concerned about certain forces in his Church. I see the fruits of those forces today. I would say that I still see him warmly, reinforced by these "new" items from the archives.
We recently switched from attending Mass at an independent chapel to an indult site. I'm not sure where we go from here, but the future will unfold as we arrive there.
For those who contend that Martin was always a traditionalist and on our side, even during the council, this article completely sinks that notion. Martin with his own lips admits to being a calculating operative under Cardinal Bea, and tells us in 1973 that he is not a traditionalist.
1) The article does not "sink" the fact that Fr. Martin was always traditional.
2) Fr. Martin is not quoted as saying he was a liberal calculating operative under Cardinal Bea.
3) Fr. Martin rejected the term "Traditionalist" in 1991 and other interviews with Bernard Janzen. He said, "Some call me a conservative, some call me a traditionalist. But I'm a "Catholic".
Quote:
Anyone who posted the nonsense he’s coming up with here would be banned from AQ less than a nano-second. He doesn’t sound like any holy Catholic priest I know, his statements to the reporter should make any traditionalist squirm. He makes John Paul II sound like Bishop Williamson.
Excerpts from "Jesus Now" have been posted on AQ to the applause of tradtionalists for quite a while. They haven't been spun by reporters and they aren't taken out of context. The "personalism of Jesus" is the most extraordinary refocusing of modern thought on the essential need for Jesus and is a beautiful argument against Indifferentism or Syncretism.
I remember when I first read "Jesus Now" some of the purposely provocative statements made me squirm. But I was wrong to squirm, because I dutifully went to my Catechism of the Council of Trent and found out to my shock that Fr. Martin was correct. The squirming was because of my ignorance, not Fr. Martin's orthodoxy.
The comparison of Bishop Williamson is interesting as well. People seem to forget that like Fr. Martin Bishop Williamson does not want to return to "50's Catholicism" "Bing Crosby Catholicism" "Sunday Catholics" or the like. He expressed the same complaints as Fr. Martin in simpler terms because they were geared to different audiences.
Bishop Williamson also refers to the Church "as having run out of gas." which is exactly what Fr. Martin described in loftier terms.
The last six chapters of "Jesus Now" are very challenging but they are orthodox. They don't deny a single teaching of the Church and they add nothing new. They are
Fr. Martin expresses powerfully how man-made religions like Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Confucianism or Platonism all speak of good things that are almost identical to quotes that would later be used by Jesus in the Gospels , but the difference between those statements and the statements of Jesus is how Jesus made himself the reason for doing good.
"In my name.." "Because of me.." etc.
Fr. Martin challenges intellectuals in "Jesus Now" to really think about Jesus in the way that St. Bonaventure, "The Seraphic Doctor" thought of Him.
Here are some blatant errors in the Kauffman article by the way:
Quote:
From his previous books, I knew he had been a Jesuit priest, archaeologist, rogue and strong-arm man for liberal organizers in the Vatican Council, and somewhat depressed observer of organized religion in the West.
He had not been a strong arm for liberal organizers. He takes enough shots at both liberals and conservatives for their politicking in the Church.
Quote:
His dossier included Martin’s request for lay status, that is, he wanted to leave the priesthood.
False. He never stated that.
Quote:
Martin went to Rome with Bea, and as the cardinal and Pope John XXIII began rallying forces to push the Vatican Council, Martin was given exciting and seductive chores he said.
That's a neat trick since Bea was sent to Rome when Fr. Martin was 3 years old.
Quote:
By that time Pope John was dead and Pope Paul VI was on the Throne of Peter, and no one really regretted seeing Martin go. You don’t play that game without making powerful enemies Martin said, and his effectiveness had ended.
Why would liberals want to see another liberal go? Seeing a trad go, they would surely not regret.
Some of the more accurate and interesting statements from the article are:
Quote:
“Jesus Now” operates on many levels. One is to make plain to the pious that every age has drawn its own Jesus, and these images have failed to sustain belief because the crumble when they become obsolete.
This is why the Conciliar Church is failing. Due to the Jesus figure of "Jesus as Just-One-of-the-Boys" which Fr. Martin describes as a type that diminishes the role of Jesus to one of a group of outstanding leaders that have helped people. Putting him on a level with Buddha or Moses or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“
Quote:
You mean the way it was argued that Jesus would have been a labor leader in the 1930s, a warrior with the Allies or Germans in World War II and a civil rights demonstrator in 1963.” Martin was asked.
That is exactly his surface theme. “If Jesus is truly Jesus, then He is more than just a Jesus of Nazareth or any of these other Jesus figures.” Martin said.
On the other hand, I think they have helped me understand better the Malachi Martin whom I met on the novel's page or the interview. This urge to keep "balance" as an intellectual is important to the intellectual and goes against the general thrust of a hierarchical system of dogma. Nonetheless, one may eventually come to the same conclusions after much prayer and study.
There's a bit of difficulty in taking that position. When you look at St. Thomas' Summa Theologica, it is covered with "objections" that St. Thomas uses to support an incorrect conclusion before the traditional "contrary" argument which has always been taught and then followed by his personal answer in "I answer" section. After that St. Thomas addresses each of the objections.
Fr. Martin follows that pattern in a less formal and more conversational style. It is quite traditional and orthodox and has a long history in the teaching style of the great theologians of the Church.
Martin refers to certain historical references of Our Lord as confusing to modern man. He even likens His Holy Name to some sort of sexual gratification:
The "he" you are referring to is not Fr. Martin, it is Frederick Buechner. Fr. Martin is not praising this framing of Jesus at all. "Jesus Now" lists a whole series of criminal and blasphemous framings of Jesus. There is a particularly interesting section on modern day Jews bigoted portrayals of Jesus that should be made widely known to rebut the lame accusations brought on by the ADL and other liberal organizations against the Church and other "Christians" in general.
Martin refers to certain historical references of Our Lord as confusing to modern man. He even likens His Holy Name to some sort of sexual gratification:
The "he" you are referring to is not Fr. Martin, it is Frederick Buechner. Fr. Martin is not praising this framing of Jesus at all. "Jesus Now" lists a whole series of criminal and blasphemous framings of Jesus. There is a particularly interesting section on modern day Jews bigoted portrayals of Jesus that should be made widely known to rebut the lame accusations brought on by the ADL and other liberal organizations against the Church and other "Christians" in general.
Gerard, I see your point. Having barely scratched the surface of St. Thomas Aquinas, I did not recognize that style. Nonetheless, some of my own view of "keeping an open mind" may have been in play with Malachi Martin, too.
I regard him as an inspired priest with a very warm heart and an enormous intellect. He was also an excellent author, though I thought some digressions a bit too long in his novels.
Unfortunately, humans as they are, there can only be few of this ability and depth that appear from time to time. The world needs many, many more to restore the Faith.
Listening episodically to the Malachi Martin interviews with Bernard Janzen makes up for less intellectual or less warm priests.
I think this is an important post, as too many traditionalists automatically think Malachi Martin is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Father, I'm confused by that statment. How many traditionalists is too many? What is an acceptable number?
If you think Fr. Martin is dangerous, you should state why and give a concrete example to back up your accusations. Please be clear, this is a real man's good name we are discussing.
Quote:
But what he says in this interview is pure modernism,
No. It isn't. It's an antidote to modernism. And "Jesus Now" was/still is a fresh and sophisticated debunking of modernist beliefs in their own high fallutin' style and language. It totally disarms a modernist who is prepared to dismiss the simplified Thomism that was prevalent in the late 19th and early 20th century. Fr. Martin uses the mystics like St. Bonaventure as a model for taking the perversions of modernism and exposing them. It just goes to show you that Holy Mother Church has provided the weapons necessary to beat whatever heresy invades.
Remember St. Thomas called his writings (as useful and valuable as they are) "straw" after his mystical experiences. St. Thomas is not the end for Catholics. He is a means. That is why the Church gave us a variety of Saints, Theologians and Doctors as well as various modes of spiritual practice whether the majestic pomp of papal processions and high pontifical masses or the holy poverty of monks and quiet low masses in the early hours of the morning.
Quote:
not to mention the nefarious role he claims to have played in aiding Cardinal Bea.
Read "Three Popes and the Cardinal" carefully and you will understand much better. Throwing Bea and John XXIII in with Kung et al is wrong and it is a convenient simplification for our minds but it just reframes the issue into a Hegelian dialectic of "good guys" and "bad guys" and all the good guys were on the one side and all the bad guys were on "the other side".
The liberals use this tactic against archbishop LeFebvre all the time.
Quote:
I remember reading a book he wrote, the "decline and fall of the Roman Church" which in my opinion was quite liberal, as it blames the papacy's decline on the Catholic powers allowing it to have wealth, ie the papal states.
Would you rather have a Pope that has enormous wealth or one that says, "Silver and gold I have none; but what I have I give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."
I can't think of the reference at the moment but a Pope was reputed to have actually made the comparison between the wealth of the Church and the ability to work miracles referencing Acts 3.
The wealth of the Church is a secondary matter. If the Church is stripped naked and left in the street that is God's will and the Good Samaritan will come along and save us.
Quote:
He is not my "cup of tea" at all.
That's fine as an individual but do you, as a priest believe him to be unsuitable as a "cup of tea" for all Catholics? Or, do you not have enough information to make a call like that?
The article that I linked in an earlier thread comes from the Angelus in 1978, five years after this interview, and he said there that he "bore a heavy cross" for his past writings. What else did the man have to do, call a national press conference and declare his conversion? Hasn't anyone else here ever changed their thinking or had a conversion? It isn't necessary to believe that Fr. Martin was always a Trad, or that he was some kind of double agent trying to harm the Church. I think it's very clear-he was a progressive during his years in Rome, and then he gradually saw the errors in that way of thinking, and came closer and closer to authentic Catholicism. It happens to other people all of the time.
On another note: Martin has been dead for seven years, what good does digging all of this dirty linen do anyone now?
I can't think of the reference at the moment but a Pope was reputed to have actually made the comparison between the wealth of the Church and the ability to work miracles referencing Acts 3.
It was St. Thomas Aquinas. The Pope of his day said to him "No longer can Peter say 'silver and gold I have none'. To which Thomas replied "and no longer can Peter say 'arise and walk!'.
Gerard, I see your point. Having barely scratched the surface of St. Thomas Aquinas, I did not recognize that style. Nonetheless, some of my own view of "keeping an open mind" may have been in play with Malachi Martin, too
.
It's okay. I'm just trying to help out my friends not jump to hasty conclusions. I know exactly where they are in their thinking and I want to help them navigate the pitfalls of understanding Fr. Martin in the context of his life, his work and his critics. ]
It could save them a lot of time and help them see him for what he actually was and reap the benefits of his wisdom.
Fr. Martin in the totality of his work is one of those priests that helps us not fall into "camps" and caricatures of our history of our faith. Instead he helps us abandon our prejudices, face reality and surrender to Christ.
I'm sure everyone has felt a sinking feeling at least a bit when Bishop Williamson talks about the possibility of the SSPX becoming corrupt and selling out. We dont' like to think that way and it's horrific to contemplate and we wish Bishop Williamson would give us more concrete assurances that we can grip on. But he won't do that. He even posits the possibility of his own corruption.
Ultimately we have to stand with Christ and no one else.
It was the same with Fr. Martin, He always said, "Always keep your eye on Christ" and "Don't let any creature keep you from your Creator." As well as, "In the end Christ is the only one who can stand with you."
This is no different than St. John of the Cross saying you have to surrender everything in order to achieve holiness.
The best teachers show us how us to stand up on our own two feet in order to make the leap of faith in Christ.
I can't spend the whole weekend on this. It's Lent. I'll try and address any other arguments or points I see later.
Thanks so much, Gerard, for your insights into Father Martin. Personally, I'm kind of torn between certain apparent inconsistencies in his life and what he said, and the enlightenment he provided - at least for me - in his later books and the interviews with Bernard Janzen.
Question: I've tracked down a slightly pricey used copy of Jesus Now. Would you recommend it? (I.e. is it, um, suitable Lenten reading?)
Joined: 06 Feb 2006 Posts: 501 Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:30 am Post subject:
There is something worth mentioning on this topic that I just came across rather accidentally this morning. I was watching one of the taped conversations with Rev. Canon Gregorius Hesse and for the second time he mentioned that Malachi Martin was a good friend of his. Now, whatever one may think of Canon Hesse, I don't think anyone can say that he was not a traditional Catholic nor that he was not highly educated or up on current events. He did not seem to have any issues with Malachi Martin. I wonder how this plays into the position we should have towards Martin. A fair research into Martin should include at least looking into this. I don't have the answers on Martin's life, I'm just putting this fact about Canon Hesse's friendship with him out there for discussion.
Joined: 06 Feb 2006 Posts: 501 Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:34 am Post subject:
I guess all I am trying to say with my above comment is that Malachi Martin continues to be an enigma and I don't think his life is the open and shut case that this thread is trying to make it to be.
Chesterbelloc said it all. Fr. Martin admitted that he had been on the wrong side, and so "bore a heavy cross". Obviously a cross of guilt.
What is the point of focusing on the fact that he worked on the wrong side? St. Paul worked on the wrong side, too.
Hey, Paul (or should I say Saul) was right there when they stoned Steven! He persecuted the Christians! How can you read those letters he wrote? What a wordy guy. What's this "not I but Christ in me stuff"? What was that thorn in the flesh, Hmm? And that weird claim that he went to heaven and had a special revelation. Yeah, right.
(And please don't claim that my analogy equates Malachi Martin with St. Paul.)
I'm getting tired of this stuff. Servitum made his points: Malachi Martin apparently was a modernist and worked for the modernists. And he was always kind of a quirky guy. Fair enough.
But then Fr. Martin helped a lot of people by his ability to articulate the essence of the disaster that has blighted the Church and the world in our day. He defended the SSPX, saying that no knowledgeable person in the Vatican really thinks that the "excommunications" are valid. And he pointed to Fatima as the ultimate solution to the Great Apostasy. I'm afraid that some people on the forum don't quite get it about Fatima. Not to worry, they will. Enough already.
Thanks so much, Gerard, for your insights into Father Martin. Personally, I'm kind of torn between certain apparent inconsistencies in his life and what he said, and the enlightenment he provided - at least for me - in his later books and the interviews with Bernard Janzen.
I know what you mean concerning the inconsistencies. That's what prompted me to explore a lot further than most it seems. I had an e-mail correspondence with Bernard Janzen and he explained some of his thoughts to me on the issue.
The long and short of it is, Fr. Martin grew increasingly disillusioned with JPII during the 1990's. To follow this, you have to listen to Fr. Martin's interviews in chronological order. He also got much sharper in his points as he got older. In the second tape of "Peter in Chains" he explains a lot about concepts that are covered in his early books. It's from those interviews that I understood better where he was coming from in his earlier books.
His agent Lila Karpff made an interesting point. When she became his editor she would walk with him and they would talk about what he was writing on. She said that helped her understand the subjects and his points better from an editorial point of view. And she would then tell him where to fill in more background and flesh some ideas out further. She said he was so gifted that he would make connections that ordinary people could not and he didn't always see that. So she would have him fill in the gaps. This is why his books exploded in size from an average 300 to 600+ pages.
This is also why trads and some conservative Catholics have no trouble with the later books. They have all the gaps filled in.
Quote:
Question: I've tracked down a slightly pricey used copy of Jesus Now. Would you recommend it? (I.e. is it, um, suitable Lenten reading?)
It's a difficult book to slog through, it's fascinating as well seeing how images of Jesus have been used to steer men the wrong way. (Calvin's image of Jesus, Luther's version, Jewish images of Jesus, Muslim's images, as well as different forms within the Church throughout history. We're in the Jesus-my buddy phase nowadays).
But there are plenty of sections worth reflecting on. If you've ever read "Hostage to the Devil", read the concluding chapters on "Good Evil and the Modern Mind, The Human Spirit and Lucifer, The Human Spirit and Jesus and youll get a taste of how it's written.
I think there's an online edition of it somewhere.
The concluding pages of "Jesus Now" do give an amazingly inspiring summation of the concepts Fr. Martin is trying to express. I had transcribed it and was looking around for it, but it haven't been able to find it. I dread doing it again, but I may give it a whirl.
I can point to chapters and sections of his books that would be useful, (eg. the concluding chapter of There is Still Love is overpoweringly moving) for Lent, but I personally like to make it a point to read a Bishop Sheen book each Lent for simplicity's sake.
Public scandal requires public retration. This whole thing is only getting more shistyer and shistyer. A defense of Malachi Martin is like defending ambiguous documents of vatican 2.
Chesterbelloc said it all. Fr. Martin admitted that he had been on the wrong side, and so "bore a heavy cross". Obviously a cross of guilt.
No. Fr. Martin didn't admit that he'd been on the "wrong side" (Hegelian dialectic) and knowing the third secret of Fatima I believe is a "heavy cross" from what he'd said.
Quote:
I'm getting tired of this stuff. Servitum made his points: Malachi Martin apparently was a modernist and worked for the modernists. And he was always kind of a quirky guy. Fair enough.
Unfortunately it's not all that simple. Trying to slice things down the middle Solomon-style just doesn't get along with the facts.
I remember not too many years ago, trads of all stripes were willing to toss Bishop Williamson overboard because in debates because he was "too hot" to defend against the criticism of neos and liberals. There were only a few of us willing to fight for him then.
The attacks against Fr. Martin were and are similar. LIberals accuse him of being a phoney who changed like a chameleon and some trads and conservatives were coming up with the "change of heart" explanation.
Neither of them is the truth. I know that's difficult to accept when we want Fr. Martin to fit into a stereotype. It would be a lot easier but then dangling out there we have this thing called "the Truth"
Fr. Martin was not a modernist. And slipshod breezing through his writings, innacurate reports and ugly rumors isn't going to give you the Truth about what he was writing on and doing throughout his priestly career.
And to make the parallel with St. Paul, Let me paraphrase St. Peter. Just as there are certain things in St. Paul that are difficult to read and understand, there are difficult things in Fr. Martin to read and understand. You can't "get him" without either doing a great deal of research or getting some guidance.
Public scandal requires public retration. This whole thing is only getting more shistyer and shistyer. A defense of Malachi Martin is like defending ambiguous documents of vatican 2.
You're just slinging mud.
But you've provided a good 'teaching moment".
It's not about defending anything but the truth.
Read pages 322 and 323 of "The Jesuits" and see if that is a "defense" or an "attack" on a document of Vatican II. You'll find that it's neither but only an accounting of the truth of the matter.
Take a nap if you're tired, or leave the forum altogether if it bothers you, because "this stuff" is going to continue, and continue some more.
I just spent another day (and there will be many more) finding out a lot more of "this stuff" about father Martin. I'm about ill by now. I guess I'll have to offer it up for lent, since I'm doing such lousy job of giving up cigars.
Without boring you with the details, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that while Martin was charged by the Holy See to be working for Holy Mother Church doing work that would affect millions of us for generations, he was a mole and a traitor.
Gosh he's telling us with his own wagging tongue that he was digging up dirt on cardinals in order to BLACKMAIL them with, and all some can do is bleat the sentimental "leave poor father Martin alone" nonsense at me. Catholics used to know how to take out the trash, now they don't even know what it is when they see it. Worse even, some go and stick it in their mouths and chew on it.
No thanks.
Charity demands that I tell everyone I know about what he did, and how enormously successful he was in taking Holy Mother Church and everyone in it for a ride in the 1960s. It is no more charitable to keep "this stuff" from them, than it would be for me to keep from you that I knew who it was who robbed your house.
That's not to say I enjoy doing it, but it must be done.
Whatever good he did after the council - if he did any beyond any further damage - is akin to sinking an ocean liner, then going around with a row-boat and plucking a few survivors out of the oil slick.
And NO, expressing some ambiguous, second hand statement of regret (or not regret now according to Gerard) at a dinner with a few priests is not making amends and is in no way commensurate with the damage he caused, and the evil he engaged in.
I was very surprised at finding out how few Catholics knew about his work during the council, as I didn't. Being that I have the ability through AQ to tell lots of people (great and small) about the disaster known as "Nostra Aetate" and Martin's role in corrupting it, I'm going to do so.
Anyone who doesn't like that or doesn't have the stomach for it, is welcome to leave.
I just spent another day (and there will be many more) finding out a lot more of "this stuff" about father Martin. I'm about ill by now. I guess I'll have to offer it up for lent, since I'm doing such lousy job of giving up cigars.
Without boring you with the details, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that while Martin was charged by the Holy See to be working for Holy Mother Church doing work that would affect millions of us for generations,
I am personally grateful to you for what you've done. Your endeavors regarding fr Martin are an exercise in the spiritual works of mercy-counseling the doubtful and instructing the ignorant. While I wanted to give Martin the credibility many others did there was a doubt in my mind that said something wasn't right.
The first time I saw Malachi Martin was on the Larry King show in the mid 80's on CNN. Frankly he was a breath of fresh air. He was identified as an former Jesuit on Larry King and has always been identified as a former Jesuit on his bookjackets. He is a former Jesuit that much is widely established. However that identification in combination with his appearance in lay clothes conveyed an impression to me. An impression that is not unreasonable to me under the circumstances of what I had read. Malachi Martin is a former Jesuit priest who has been laicized.
Imagine my suprise when someone gave me a copy of The John Birch publication The New American in 1997. It contained an interview with the explicitly identified Fr Malachi Martin regarding his Windswept House novel. Now either a man is a Catholic priest or not. Further a man can be a functioning Catholic priest or not but status as a functioning Catholic priest is not something a priest can turn on and off like a lightswitch. I imagine a religious superior would get irked too. It was this identification that got my antennae up and made me wonder about him.
The point is not to trash the reputation of a deceased Jesuit but to clear up real and perplexing ambiguities to ordinary laymen in the pew like me. Fr Martin left too many open questions about his actions unlike as I said earlier either Bishop Richard Williamson or Bishop Daniel Dolan.
You might want to be more careful pushing an outspoken BLEEP! such as Bishop Daniel Dolan? Or was Bp. Dolan a good friend of MM?
I am not trying to push a BLEEP! like Bishop Daniel Dolan. I am not a BLEEP!. My point from the earlier post is that Dolan is clear and unambiguous about his BLEEP! beliefs and makes no bones about his BLEEP! beliefs. Agree or disagree with Dolan you know where he stands and what he is all about just like the non-BLEEP! Bishop Williamson. I was comparing Williamson with Dolan to show how people who hold different opinions can be forthright and speak their mind about the situation in the Church. The works of Fr Malachi Martin are a different story. In his later career he played to the trads I believe but they are a 180 degree turn from his action in the 60's.
Well, there you go. Bp. Williamson was a convert...
For all of his faults, Bishop Williamson is a good egg through and through. I personally can't always dig his sociological/anthropological/political musings, but as far as a Catholic formation is concerned - his is almost second to none.
Sure he lets his mouth get out ahead of his Christian wisdom now and again, and I've given him a hard time for that, but when all is said and done it's all only a matter of being unwise or perhaps engaging in sin. Despite perceptions, he's never really done any major damage.
Also, the contention here is not that Martin may not have converted towards the end. I have my doubts but at this point still hold out the possibility that he may well have.
The issue is that Martin played a major role in earthshaking events in our Church, and by extension the human condition. This bad-thinking which has it that we should ignore the man behind the curtain because we may not like what we find simply does not resolve logically and goes against all wisdom.
Everyone who knows about such matters, knows instinctively that Nostra Aetate was a corruption, whether they would like to admit it or not. (Then) Father Martin and Cardinal Bea played a large part in that corruption. It's all there for those who are really interested.
Those who have the facilities to deal with such matters, and even those who don't, must get as close to the truth as possible.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
TL