A priest stripped of his faculties CANNOT exorcisms. Period, end of story. Martin's career as a priest ended in Rome during Vatican II, when, among other things, he fled the Jesuits after he was found to be in an adulterous relationship with the wife of a Time Magazine correspondent. That he was defrocked in the late 60s is without question.
He also, at that time, wrote secretly under a pen name for the American Jewish Committee and other periodicals promoting VII. He was a leftist who disgraced himself who made up a lot of crap about himself and others to sell books.
Not to dis you, but objectively speaking you obviously have very little knowledge of the man, and you don't know what a real exorcist is.
Do your homework on the man - his "works" are nothing but pure trash.
He remained a priest. He said daily Mass. He was given relief of his vows of obedience and poverty in 1964 after asking permission - and this was granted by Pope Paul VI. He was also a close friend of Pope John XXII.
I am an ex-Catholic and now a born again Christian. I will tell you that the "permission" of the Catholic church has nothing really to do with the power over the demonic. It is the name and power of Jesus Christ that they must answer to. I have seen deliverances from the demonic performed by Christians using the name and authority of Jesus Christ.
In the interviews I have listened to with Martin, he said he had to obtain permission from the Catholic church to perform exorcisms. I don't know what source you are using to say that he didn't.
I have heard the accusations of Robert Blair Kaiser (a former Jesuit) who said Martin had an affair with his wife. He as at best a stringer for Time - he was not on the regular staff of the magazine (although he touted that title all the time). I don't know if the allegation of the affair with Martin and his wife is true or not. Even if true, we are all sinners (Romans 3:23). Even you and me.
In the movie "Hostage to the Devil", I thought Kaiser came across as a vindictive liar himself - but that is only my perception.
He was a leftist who disgraced himself who made up a lot of crap about himself and others to sell books.
A leftist? What is the proof of that, or these other things you are saying?
I think you and I should agree to disagree on this subject.