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.
"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.