Dear Thomas:

I am sorry, but I have not spread misinformation about Mr. Martin. He was a ultra-traditionalist who characterized our holy Pope John Paul of bringing down the Church. Mr. Martin caused scandal in creating fear and distrust of the Vatican. He did this with "National Enquirer" tactics in what he called "Faction" (meaning, Fact in fiction), though I think it is a neat coincidence that this term ends up being "faction", which is precisely what Mr. Martin created -- factions and divisiveness in the Church.

He said in an interview when asked the question about why he just didn't write a non-fiction book exposing the things he wished to expose. His laughable response was that he wanted to protect the public because they couldn't take it if he presented the information as a journalistic piece. Give me a break. There is a reason to make his accusations within the context of fiction. As a professional writer and former publisher I know this trick well. In docu-fiction one does not have to prove the allegations!

(I have some 50 hours of tape recordings of interviews with Mr. Martin to prove this and every other item that I have mentioned about him).

This man scandalized and harmed the faith of many people, maybe even millions. This is not to say that everything he said was wrong. Certainly there were and are problems and corruptions.But even if every dotted "i" of what Mr. Martin wrote were true it does not ultimately threaten the Church because God has promised that the hell shall never prevail against the Church.

In addition, the fact of corruptions and such does not dismiss our obligations to be obedience to the Church. Mr. Martin's tabloid irresponsibility and conspiracy nut tactics influenced many to be disobedient.

Jesus Himself told his disciples that the "Pope and Magisterium" of the Old Testament, the Pharisees, were corrupt but when they sat in the "chair of Moses" they are to be obeyed. (Matt 23:2)

When the Pope sits in the Chair of Peter he is to be obeyed. When the Pope and/or the Magisterium in union with him teaches something, even if not an infallible teaching, we are to obey. We are NOT to form our own brand of orthodoxy. In fact, I have a copy of a letter from the Vatican that speaks to that issue concerning the SSPX. It says that if a group (or person) has formed its own brand of orthodoxy, then that group in no longer in communion with the Church, but in schism.

To make a direct or subtle implication that whatever problems or corruptions exist in the Church allows us to hedge or fail in our obligations of obedience is to create what is called "passive scandal." Jesus warns us in Matt 18:6 about giving scandal to his little ones.

One of these days, when I have time, I will detail the evidence from the Mr. Martin's own mouth as recorded on those tapes in an expose of the real nature of what Mr. Martin was teaching.

As for his laicization, the Vatican says, "In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination." [Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, 25 June 1997, Prot. N. 04300/65].

If you think I am making this up, please contact the Congregation and ask them referring to the above citation.

As a laicized priest Mr. Martin was no longer clergy. He was returned to the lay state, even though ontologically a priest is always a priest, but a priest is not always clergy.

Thus Mr. Martin could no longer be called "Father", he could not convect the Sacraments except in an emergency danger of death situation of someone, and could not perform solemn exorcisms. To do any of these things would have been illicit and would have constituted rebellion on his part.

Also laicized priests are not to be in the public eye without specific permission. I do not know if Mr. Martin had that or not.

These things about what a laicized priest can or cannot do are not my opinion, but are outlined in Canon Law. 

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius