After consulting some files I see where the problem lies. Back in 2004 Fr. Tom Widner SJ, Secretary for Communication of the US Jesuit Conference replied to an enquirer concerning Malachi Martin's status. He wrote: "I spoke with Fr. Vincent O'Keefe, former vicar general of the Society of Jesus...Malachi Martin was indeed dispensed from his vows of poverty and obedience but not the vow of chastity. At the time Martin requested such dispensation, the Vatican was not dispensing priests who so requested such dispensation from the vow of chastity or celebacy."

Now Martin's friend, William H. Kennedy (radio host and writer about the paranormal), pounced on this and twisted its meaning with the misleading "High Ranking Jesuit Confirms Malachi Martin's Status as Life Long Priest!" And "This dispels decades of rumours that Father Martin was defrocked for having had an affair with the wife of a famous jounalist!" No it does not; quite the opposite. In canon law, the loss of clerical state (commonly referred to as laicization) involves cessation of all rights of the clerical state. It also terminates all obligations of the clerical state EXCEPT for the obligation of celebacy. Dispensation from the obligation of celebacy can only be granted by the pope. In other words, the dispensation of all vows with the exception of chastity is the usual protocol for liacization. Certainly, because of the sacramental character of ordination, a priest maintains the power of orders, however when liacized, he is forbidden to exercise it. He is also forbidden to be called "Father".

@Carol H Dear Carol, in wikipedia there's information that he was not laicized, his close fiends also confirm that. You can also find information that his alleged affair with a married women was not a true story. But it DOES NOT MATTER in that case! We do not conduct a beatification process of Malachi Martin. As I had said, you miss the point. Malachi Martin message is true. Or would you disagree that his message is true?

Look, if you value Wikepedia over Vatican documents, Canon Law and the letters of priests in good standing, so be it; I'm at a loss with you. As for close friends - well of course they are going to say that - they are parrotting what they were told by Mr. Martin. As for the content of his "Vatican" books, parts of "the message" are true - the obvious unfolding bits regarding apostasy and infiltration, but these parts are mixed with a good deal of untruths and artistic liscense which distorts the overall message and deflects from the real culprits. That's what Modernists do; they mix error with just enough truth so that you will swallow it. They also re-create themselves when faced with a different audience. In 1973 Malachi Martin wrote 'Jesus Now' in which he declares that there will be no second coming of Christ and that the evolutionary Teihard de Chardin was the bees knees. Three year later, as the conservative push back started to rise, he wrote Hostage to the Devil in which he refutes de Chardin. The initial conclusion is that Malachi suddenly converted. Yet no apology or acknowledgement for his past subversive involvement in the attack on the Church was ever published. His books, for the most part, involved an attack on the Papacy, he constantly lied about being an Exortist, and in the mid-nineties he stated in an interview with Bernard Janzen that Our Blessed Lord "bled like a pig" and was sexually abused. Well my friend, is that the message - direct from the mouth of Malachi Martin (three years before his death) that you want me to agree with? For this same foul-mouthed man wrote those books you hold so dear.