Dear Eric:

Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been in the hospital.

I am not prepared to go into detail about Martin at this time, but I can give you a few points (which will not be backed-up now, but will be later, and I can back up each of the assertions below with documentary evidence mostly of his own words).

Malachi Martin, in my opinion, did more damage to the Church than any other single individual in the last twenty years of the 20th century. He was a grossly duplicitous person who exploited the fears of the Catholic public to sell books. He damaged many people's faith with his alleged conspiracy theories, none of which he proved even a shred of proof.

He shamelessly wrote his criticisms of the Church in what he called "fact-ion" (part fact, part fiction). Of "Windswept House" he said that 80% of the book was fact, but he refused to tell which parts were in that 80%. This is an old trick in the publishing world to sell books.

When asked why he wrote a novel instead of a non-fiction book exposing the corruptions he claimed he responded that he could not write a non-fiction book because he wanted to protect the public. Give me a break!

He is already telling the "public" but telling them in a novel that he says is 80% fact leaving the public to speculate on which parts are true and which are not. This, of course, feeds controversy and imagination of the public leading them to think the Holy See is in the hands of the devil. Actually, it is a marketing technique to take a few actual facts, mix them with speculation called facts, mixed with fiction.

There is only two reasons to write a novel instead of a non-fiction book: 1) a non-fiction book requires footnotes and proof. He had none. 2) a shadowy novel that tantalizes the public with alleged "truth" and "conspiracies" sells books.

To quote from the EWTN Q&A FAQ on Martin concerning the claims of "Windswept House":

Concerning the allegations about churchmen found in Windswept House under the guise of fiction, they would certainly be sad if true, and other sources have suggested the basic factualness of some of the accounts. However, even if they were based on fact the Church is in no more danger of being overcome by the gates of hell today than it was during any of the other crises of history. Jesus had his Judas and history shows that His Mystical Body has had its share, as well. To deny the past and present Judases within the Church would be wrong. However, to act as if it made any difference to our obligations of obedience would be to take scandal (called passive scandal) from those who are giving scandal. Jesus warns us about those who would give scandal to his little ones (Mt. 18:6) and thereby sought by that warning to provide an antidote for passive scandal, as well. In his Summa Theologiae St. Thomas Aquinas tells us,

Passive scandal implies that the mind of the person who takes scandal is unsettled in its adherence to good. Now no man can be unsettled, who adheres firmly to something immovable. The elders, i.e. the perfect, adhere to God alone, Whose goodness is unchangeable, for though they adhere to their superiors, they do so only in so far as these adhere to Christ, according to 1 Cor. 4:16: "Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ." Wherefore, however much others may appear to them to conduct themselves ill in word or deed, they themselves do not stray from their righteousness, according to Ps. 124:1: "They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion: he shall not be moved for ever that dwelleth in Jerusalem." Therefore scandal is not found in those who adhere to God perfectly by love, according to Ps. 118:165: "Much peace have they that love Thy law, and to them there is no stumbling-block [scandalum]." [ST II-II question 43, article 5, answer]

Perfect men sometimes fall into venial sins through the weakness of the flesh; but they are not scandalized (taking scandal in its true sense), by the words or deeds of others, although there can be an approach to scandal in them, according to Ps. 72:2: "My feet were almost moved." [ibid., response to objection 3]

So even if the crimes alleged in Windswept House actually occurred they do no more than confirm what the Catholic striving to be perfect should already know, human beings, even priests and bishops, are potentially capable of the most heinous acts of insubordination to God. This knowledge, as we conclude from St. Thomas' teaching, must not change our own unswerving fidelity to ecclesiastical authority in matters that fall under the competence of that authority.

He asserted that the direction of the Church today was Satanically inspired. Then cleverly in a separate statement he identified Pope John Paul II as the architect of the Church today. Thus, he called Pope John Paul II in league with the devil but did it cleverly and with obfuscation. This is dishonorable and evil.

He became the leader of the wacko-jobs out there who think they know more than the Church, have lost their faith, and rebel against the Church -- the ultra-traditionalist.

Although laicized, he continued to allow people to call him "Father" which is illegal and performed illegal exorcisms claiming he had some personal permission from the Pope to act independently. Yet he never produced a document to prove this extremely odd status that is normally contrary to Canon Law. An indult, if he had one, would have been in writing.

He was, in a word, a con man who caused dissension in the Church, caused many to doubt the Holy See, and damaged the faith of millions.

I had planned to do a full exposé on this con man when he died. After his death I thought it was moot. But, in true con man fashion, his groupies continue on even after his death. Thus, an exposé is still probably in order.

I will do an exposé when I have the time someday, but it is not a priority.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary