FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Controversy involving Malachi Martin
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I'm sure if you've seen any videos or articles from Church Militant recently, you may know that they are currently reporting on sexual abuse committed by the late Cardinal Bernardin. Malachi Martin makes references to him in his book Windswept House allegedly participating in a satanic ritual. This site (http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/wind.txt) claims that the character Cardinal Leonardine is a reference to Bernardin.

Aside from that, I'm sure some of you are aware that there is a lot of controversy surrounding Martin. Perhaps one of the most startling claims is that during Vatican II, he was an agent for the American Jewish Committee. This claim is made in the biography Spiritual Radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, 1940-1972 by Edward K. Kaplan. The book delves into those claims on pages 243 and 254 (https://imgur.com/a/vlH7H1g).

What do you guys think about these claims made about Martin? Should they be taken seriously or not?
I honestly think Malachi Martin was right about a lot of the things he talked about regarding the Church. As for the accusations against him, I take them with a grain of salt given that he seems to have had a conversion later in life that lead to an alignment with the stance of the SSPX. I also believe the supposed "affair" he had was a complete fabrication to undermine him.
I find Malachi Martin to be a truly intriguing figure, he wore more hats at one time than most would in a lifetime.
Though many of his own (trads) threw him under the bus, I never heard Fr Martin say an unkind word about anyone. Even after his death, when obviously he couldn't defend himself trads came out against him. So I'm happy to see Fr Martin's been vindicated--at least with regard to Bernadine. 

It's really too bad we'll probably never know what Fr Martin's next book was going to be about, because all record of it mysteriously disappeared upon his demise. I'm sure it was gonna be a doozy.
(06-28-2019, 09:00 AM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: [ -> ]Though many of his own (trads) threw him under the bus, I never heard Fr Martin say an unkind word about anyone. Even after his death, when obviously he couldn't defend himself trads came out against him. So I'm happy to see Fr Martin's been vindicated--at least with regard to Bernadine. 

It's really too bad we'll probably never know what Fr Martin's next book was going to be about, because all record of it mysteriously disappeared upon his demise. I'm sure it was gonna be a doozy.
What I find particularly interesting is that he knew the Third Secret of Fatima, alluded to its contents many times, died in 1999, and then the false Third Secret was revealed the very next year in 2000.
Dr Taylor Marshall discussed this issue on YouTube just two days ago:
[quote pid='1400051' dateline='1561727034']
What I find particularly interesting is that he knew the Third Secret of Fatima, alluded to its contents many times, died in 1999, and then the false  Third Secret was revealed the very next year in 2000.
[/quote]

Alternatively one might say, "What I find particularly interesting is that he claimed to know the Third Secret of Fatima, alluded to its contents many times, died in 1999, and then was proven wrong when the real Third Secret was revealed the very next year in 2000."
(06-28-2019, 11:20 AM)spasiisochrani Wrote: [ -> ][quote pid='1400051' dateline='1561727034']
What I find particularly interesting is that he knew the Third Secret of Fatima, alluded to its contents many times, died in 1999, and then the false  Third Secret was revealed the very next year in 2000.

Alternatively one might say, "What I find particularly interesting is that he claimed to know the Third Secret of Fatima, alluded to its contents many times, died in 1999, and then was proven wrong when the real Third Secret was revealed the very next year in 2000."
[/quote]


Oh, I don't think so. No. If anything what was released in 2000 was 3A. There's another part of the third secret (3B) that hasn't been released yet.
I don't think we have enough evidence to judge the merits of Malachi Martin's assertions. However, there's enough weird stuff in his background that I don't think he can be taken as gospel, and he should not be considered orthodox.

Additionally, the Bernardin story in Windswept House is given exactly zero additional credibility by the whole Church Militant report. Martin's source for that story was the same person who allegedly made the reports to the Archdiocese of Chicago. So just the fact that that person made the same report to multiple people does not mean the story is more trustworthy.

Note that I'm not saying the story is not trustworthy, just that there's no more reason to believe it now than there was twenty years ago. I think it's best to withhold judgment... on that particular story.

The new allegation of abuse I actually think is more credible, but for it to mean anything there needs to be corroborating evidence.
(06-29-2019, 06:39 AM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-28-2019, 11:20 AM)spasiisochrani Wrote: [ -> ][quote pid='1400051' dateline='1561727034']
What I find particularly interesting is that he knew the Third Secret of Fatima, alluded to its contents many times, died in 1999, and then the false  Third Secret was revealed the very next year in 2000.

Alternatively one might say, "What I find particularly interesting is that he claimed to know the Third Secret of Fatima, alluded to its contents many times, died in 1999, and then was proven wrong when the real Third Secret was revealed the very next year in 2000."


Oh, I don't think so. No. If anything what was released in 2000 was 3A. There's another part of the third secret (3B) that hasn't been released yet.
[/quote]

I'm not saying this can't be true... but there's absolutely no evidence warranting this level of certainty. It's nothing other than a guess.