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'm just curious as to why a deacon has stated on a public forum that a priest kissed him on his lips while he was in the seminary. That deacon "seemed proud".
You're so right about this.
The enemies of Fr. Martin likewise show themselves for who they are. Shallow, mean-spirited, and often intellectually vacant when it comes to defending the precepts and doctrines of our Faith.
And trailing him by near 50 IQ points.
Wish you would post the mp3. V's wife.
Ditto! Would love to listen to that one.
It is an echoing advice for we have had these railing here at FR for some time now. That some of them have chosen to assault the name of Father Martin is no surprise, some of these same voices are denigrating Father Frank Pavone regarding the Terri Schiavo execution in Florida.
As anyone who has spent time in Church can attest, the Evil One has his servants (albeit not understood that they are serving his lowness) in Church and in any forum where truth and Christian charity and service are discussed. As to M. Scott Peck, well, as a student of Psychology I can testify that much of Peck's insights into evil (as in The People Of The Lie) are precisely correct and have bolstered my own understanding in order to apply the realities in my own writing. As to the denigration of Father Martin's knowledge of exorcism, it is no wonder that some will deny his integrity, for whom do they serve in this unseemly assault on the Priest?
I was just watching an old episode of SCTV and Joe Flaherty was doing his (excellent) version of William F Buckley in a parody of 'Firing Line' and he closes the segment with 'and next week on Firing Line, our guest will be Malachi Martin.'
It made me laugh hard! ;-)
It is no theory that the order went south with DeChardin.
David Gold, a talk show host in Dallas in the early 90s and a member of this forum, brought Martin on his show several times, then dropped him like a hot potato, very suddenly. (I wonder if this IHR connection wasn't the motivation for it?)
This just goes to my contention that Martin was, though brilliant, seriously mentally ill.
36 posted on 09/03/2003 8:00:12 PM EDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from a shelter. You'll save a life, and enrich your own!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
-----------------------------------
To: sinkspur
Nothing sinister or conspiratorial here. I had been interviewing Malachai Martin for years. I found him to be a fascinating man. I learned a great deal from him. There was no specific reason for not having him on the show other than there were no new books to plug. The story of Fr. Kunz I have no recolection of whatsoever.
50 posted on 09/04/2003 11:55:35 PM EDT by davidtalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
BTTT
"Fr. Martin is a controversial figure"
What drives me crazy about the whole "controversial" thing is that the left can make a person, proposed law, or idea "controversial" simply by saying, "We're agin' it."
Seems to me that there should be some legitimate controversy, something that can pass the reasonable man test, before the "controversial" buzzword is trotted out.
But time and again the left and their propaganda wing chant on and on about the "controversial" this and that, where there is no legitimate controversy.
And have you ever heard anything like, "The controversial senator and pimp for pederasts Barney Frank," or "The controversial, alcoholic, womanizing senator Teddy Kennedy, scion of the inbred, shanty-Irish-trash Massachussets Kennedy clan...?"
How come the Hildebeeste isn't "controversial?" Or Widdle Johnny Kerry with his three bogus purple hearts?
After reading this thread, I am resolved finally to read some of Martin's stuff. He just has all the right enemies.
ROTFL!!
After reading this thread, I am resolved finally to read some of Martin's stuff. He just has all the right enemies.
I can also recommend tapes #2, #3, #4, #5, and #9 that I purchased from this link:
Thanks for the ping!
Bites 'em in the hind end every time!!!
Non denominational. Trinitarian Christian with few real dogmas.
I also find it interesting that those who attack him, including on this thread, with lies/slander, never respond to the facts -- as you have presented here. Their silence IMO is shameful.
Someone noted above that the left can make something 'controversial' just by saying it is controversial. The reason for that has to do with the media whoredom and the 'perception' that those who state something is controversial 'must be speaking for the majority thus something out of majority held beliefs is controversial'. The huge problem with that is the media and their masters on the left get to 'establish the belief system for the assumed but not actual majority.' It is a slight of hand, where the media whores create the illusion that what they present is the majority held belief, without presenting the true majority held beliefs, thus changing what the majority actually support over time.
I second the motion. If you cannot post, can you send me an email privaately?
Thanks!
Too funny. I was trying to use the term controversial in a non-controversial way. Oh, well.:)
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.