Posted on 05/01/2005 8:59:25 AM PDT by sinkspur
Back in the 1970s, when possession and exorcism were the cinematic and fictional flavor of the era -- one that historian Martin Marty appropriately called “the silly season” -- it fell to my lot to conduct a pre-publication review of Malachi Martin’s sensational book Hostage to the Devil. I was allied in this with an internationally celebrated clinical psychologist. Working independently, our conclusion was the same: Martin’s five “cases” were fabrications of an inventive but disturbed mind, lacking all psychological, historical, theological and pastoral credibility.
Some time later, I interviewed Malachi Martin on television. A former priest, Martin had left the Jesuit order under cloudy conditions, to say the least. (The sordid details were described in Robert Blair Kaiser’s agonized 2002 memoir, Clerical Error: A True Story.) In person, I found Martin to be a clever, charming, engaging Irish rogue who evaded every effort to document the instances of possession he so graphically described. In the end, my earlier suspicion that Martin was a deeply disturbed individual was strongly reinforced.
A decade later, when M. Scott Peck’s second book, People of the Lie, was published, I was appalled to find that he, a newly committed Christian of a vaguely evangelical stripe, had accepted and endorsed Martin’s fictional ravings as accurate and instructive case studies. Now, 20 years later, Dr. Peck has returned to the topic of possession, still idolizing the late ex-Jesuit, who died in 1999, and to whom the popular psychiatrist not only dedicates Glimpses of the Devil but draws on exclusively for reference.
Insouciant in his ignorance of the real history of and the extensive literature on possession phenomena, Dr. Peck hails Martin as “the greatest expert on the subject of possession and exorcism in the English-speaking world” and “brilliant,” despite his own misgivings and warnings from colleagues that Martin was a sociopath. The psychiatrist’s resolute adulation of Martin is thus both disturbing and misleading. Despite Dr. Peck’s claim that he was the most famous exorcist in the world, Malachi Martin had no discernible training, expertise or even adequate knowledge of the history or ministry of exorcism in -- or out of -- the Catholic faith he once professed but which he bitterly turned against at the end of his unhappy life. Moreover, by Dr. Peck’s own frequent admission, Martin was a liar and manipulator.
Not surprisingly, Martin went on to write several novels as well as pseudo-histories such as The Jesuits and The Final Conclave. And it must be admitted that Martin had a gift for writing as he did for gab. But as a theologian and pastoral minister, Martin was a fraud. Dr. Peck’s choice of a mentor in regard to possession and exorcism is therefore a multiple disaster.
Dr. Peck’s book describes in copious detail his attempt to exorcise two women who were his patients. Following Martin, Dr. Peck attributes possession to indulgence in forms of belief or behavior that he disapproves of, in the case of “Jersey Babcock,” both spiritualism (or “neo-spiritualism”) and interest in the teachings of Edgar Cayce. In that of “Beccah Armitage,” he considers a number of precipitating factors that led her to evidently schizophrenic experiences and self-destructive behavior.
Even in Jersey’s case, Dr. Peck seems torn between two explanations for her condition -- her involvement with New Age spiritualist cults versus her passive consent to having been sexually molested by her father when she was 12. Dr. Peck never decides between them, nor does he suggest that some sort of synergy between these events occasioned her “possession.” He seems, rather, to opt for either explanation at different moments in his narrative. In Jersey’s case, the exorcism Dr. Peck imposes might be called moderately successful, although she is not freed from delusional thinking. In that of Beccah, her last state is ultimately not only worse than the first, but she dies at her own hand.
It is hardly novel for ideologues to press alleged demonic phenomena into service, beginning in the late Middle Ages and reaching a climax in the witchcraft trials of the 17th century that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents. The trials and executions at Salem, Mass., in 1692 still provide an instructive case in point. Dr. Peck seems oblivious, on the other hand, to the persuasive role played by suggestion and especially hypnosis in inducing dissociative states. In his enthusiasm to enter the lists as an exorcist, he too easily dismisses dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder) as a simpler explanation and more easily treated condition. Far from being discredited, moreover, it is still listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (IV) of the American Psychiatric Association.
Dr. Peck’s dismissal rests on his claim that he had never seen a case of multiple personality. But he similarly admits that he had never encountered a case of possession before leaping to the conclusion that one of his patients was possessed. Despite his endorsement of differential diagnosis, he arguably failed quite dramatically to utilize it in either of the instances he discusses, at least one of which ended in failure and tragedy. By attempting to persuade, even “trick” his patients into accepting Christianity and even to study Christian theology, Dr. Peck also seems to have transgressed the boundaries of professional ethics. But this is a matter for his peers to evaluate.
“Beware the man of one book!” said Thomas Aquinas (perhaps). Here, clearly, it would have been wiser by far for Dr. Peck to consult more widely than Hostage to the Devil. And if one is tempted to read something by M. Scott Peck, choose The Road Less Traveled.
Fr. Richard Woods, OP, is professor of theology at Dominican University, Chicago.
I'll let Fr. Martin's own words respond to your comment:
in a word, [there are] too many needy ones for any priest to hesitate for one moment and to tarry over the spewings and spittings coming from the unclean mouths, the jealous souls and the erroneous pens of pigmy men who fancy themselves upon a solid rock and who crave to ascend to fame and vanity over the dead bodies and soiled reputations of their victims.I have always let such people know that I personally have no difficulty in waiting for the final showdown in the presence of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus, as the Just Judge of the living and the dead.
Was Martin tending to "the needy ones" when he was hanging out with rich socialites in New York City?
Those who ardently defend Martin are the people I'd fully expect to defend him. No surprise at all.
Thank you ... no flames intended. Carry on ...
Scott Peck is a very angry man and something of a sociopath himself. It is not surprising that he would be sucked in by Malachi Martin. In "The People of the Lie" he acts as if he alone deserves credit for discovering the fact of the presence of evil in the modern world. Duh.
I was just curious as to why you described yourself as "cute" and seemed proud of the fact that married men came on to you.
You are a male, correct?
...and again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Matthew 19:23-29
Sounds like Fr. Martin was definitely tending to the needy ones
Re: "...described yourself as "cute" and seemed proud of the fact that married men came on to you."
Stop projecting. It wasn't bragging. Most me have been in that situation cute or otherwise. Picky is not a trait that goes with many men on the make (straight or otherwise). Keep it up, my patience is wearing thin.
In an interview with Bernard Janzen, Fr. Martin speaks of a Protestant man, who he does not name, but says that he is well known, who requested to be instructed in exorcisms. Fr. Martin recounts that he warned this man not to try an exorcism without an experienced Catholic priest because of the danger, however the man did not listen. Fr. Martin goes on to say that as a result of this man doing this on his own, this man became possessed himself. I've often wondered to whom Fr. Martin was referring.
Again, I'll let Fr. Martin's own words answer you again:
Besides all that, all these years have taught me a few central lessons; you have to have undergone it all to be able to appreciate the principal lesson. Which is: abusers and calumniators are not out to get the truth, to build up, to edify. Their bent is to destroy, to liquidate. Hence, no matter what information you give them, they will not desist; they will use it to further their distrustful ambition. Hence, I found that there was no point in even trying to communicate with them; anything they learned became merely grist for their grindstones of hate. [snip]
I have always let such people know that I personally have no difficulty in waiting for the final showdown in the presence of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus, as the Just Judge of the living and the dead.
I read Hostage to the Devil a long time ago.It is a good book.
I heard an interview with Fr. Martin, and the incident he was referring to involved a Jewish psychiatrist, rather than a Protestant. This was the doctor going by the pseudonym "Dr. Hammond" in the case "The Virgin and the Girl-Fixer, in Hostage to the Devil. In a lapse and unauthorized interference, Dr. Hammond, attempted treatment of the possessed girl as a case of multiple personality and became possessed himself. He was exorcized, converted to Catholicism and left psychiatry shortly after.
If you actually interested in the truth about Fr. Martin's life instead of the slander and calumny that is constantly repeated about him I refer you to post #36.
Thank you. I've always been very curious about the death of Fr. Fiore's friend from WI. I had heard he was working with RCF. RCF was very proud of Fr Martin's endorsement of them.
Fr. Martin is a controversial figure: hated, loved, feared, respected, maligned, etc. Fr. Woods doesn't really add anything to the controversy. As to Fr. Martin's writings, they ring true. I noted that America magazine cited over 200 "factual errors" with "The Jesuits" when it came out but the overall work was clearly on the mark from my experience.
Bottom line: there appears to be two sets of "prevailing wisdom" depending on which side of the fence you're on. I've read most of the corpus and I'm impressed. Fr. Woods' article seems like calumny from where I'm sitting, worse for maligning the dead and is not credible to me. Less so for writing in NCR (not Register).
As to Scott Peck, who cares.
I didn't realize he died such a brutal death. He was murdered?
Was Martin tending to "the needy ones" when he was hanging out with rich socialites in New York City?
Yes as a matter of fact he was. After his death Bernard Janzen related stories of there interviews over more than a decade. He mentioned that Fr. Martin was late on one occassion because he had been out buying groceries for a family in the Bronx that was destitute.
After his death, his folders of Mass intentions were given to Fr. Paul Wickens and Fr. Paul Trinchard. They said there were "thousands of names on them....newspaper clippings of murder victims, children that had died and handwrittend notes and requests."
Those who ardently defend Martin are the people I'd fully expect to defend him. No surprise at all.
You mean Catholics obviously. The people who slander him are the usual suspects as well.
Just curious:
(If you want unconditional love with skin, and hair and a warm nose, get a shelter dog.)
Don't believe in Jesus or Mary?
Fr. Kunz was murdered in a satanic fashion in that his throat was slit and body virtually mutilated. He was a traditional priest in the Milwaukee, a cannon lawyer and an exorcist. He was very close to Fr. Martin- Shortly after the murder Fr. Martin appeared on the Art Bell program. It was one of my favorite interviews- I have the mp3 of it.
Apparently Fr. Kunz was compiling evidence about satanic ritual abuse and the pedophilia in the Catholic clergy. The threats against him and Fr. Martin increased as information began to leak about former Archbishop Weakland.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.