Fr. Malachi Martin - Bishop & Cardinal?!!

....What needs to be sorted out in this thread is the proposition that to be a member of the CIA is intrinsically evil. Has The Church taught this? The CIA exists, I believe, from the era prior to Vatican II, so we have the opportunity to learn from the opinions of both the pre- and post-VII Church.

As far as I can tell only you have offered "the proposition that to be a member of the CIA is intrinsically evil."

I offered the proposition that lying is intrinsically evil. And I specified that a "CIA field officer" is required to lie as part of his job description. This is common knowledge.

From Google Gemini AI:

Are CIA field officers required to lie as part of their job description?

Yes, CIA field officers (officially known as Operations Officers in the Directorate of Operations) are fundamentally required to lie as a core function of their job, although the official job description uses more professional euphemisms to describe this requirement.

Here is the breakdown of how deception is institutionalized in the role, how it is described in official terms, and the specific boundaries of that deception.

1. The Official "Job Description" Language
You will not find a bullet point on the CIA careers website that says "Must be good at lying." Instead, the agency uses specific tradecraft terminology to describe the necessity of deception:

• "Clandestine Operations": This implies operating in secret, often while hiding one’s true intent or affiliation.
  
  
• "Maintaining Cover": This is the professional term for living a lie. Officers often live under "official cover" (posing as a diplomat or government employee) or "non-official cover" (posing as a businessperson, student, etc.).
  
  
• "Asset Recruitment": This involves spotting, assessing, and manipulating foreign nationals to steal secrets for the US government.
  

2. How Lying is "Required"
In practice, deception is not just a possibility; it is a daily requirement for an Operations Officer.

• The Legend (Cover Story): From the moment they arrive in a foreign country, an officer must lie to neighbors, landlords, local friends, and even foreign government officials about who they are and what they do. This is a 24/7 sustained lie.
  
  
• Recruitment (The Pitch): Officers must often manipulate the perceptions of potential agents (spies). This involves "social engineering"—building trust to extract information or convincing someone to commit treason against their own country.
  
  
• Denial: If confronted or suspected, they are trained to deny their affiliation with the CIA to protect the mission and their safety.
  

3. The Ethical & Legal Distinction
While lying is required, the CIA draws a sharp legal line regarding who an officer lies to.

• Authorized Lying: Officers are trained, authorized, and legally protected (under U.S. Law, specifically Title 50) to lie to foreign nationals, foreign governments, and non-cleared individuals to protect national security.
  
  
• Prohibited Lying: Officers are strictly prohibited from lying to the U.S. Constitution, Congress, or internal investigators (like the Office of Inspector General). Lying to these entities is a felony (perjury or false statements).
  
  
• Polygraphs: Ironically, while their job is to lie to the world, CIA officers are subject to routine polygraph (lie detector) tests to ensure they are not lying to the Agency itself.
  

4. Training
The CIA’s training facility ("The Farm") explicitly teaches deception. Trainees learn how to:

• Construct and remember complex cover legends.
  
  
• Detect deception in others.
  
  
• Use "elicitation" techniques to get information from people without them realizing they are giving it up.
  

Summary
If you apply for the job, you are effectively signing up to be a professional liar for the duration of your service. However, the agency frames this as "protecting the truth by living a lie."

 

I understand this position. But at the same time we aren't supposed to kill according to the ten commandments, but historically we have because of Church War Doctrine. Where it is a greater evil not to kill/defend. So it could be transferred to lying, where it could be a greater evil to always tell the truth. IE, lying so that an agent could get information regarding a terrorist attack in order to prevent it.

That being said, I have zero trust in the CIA given their history. It isn't a question for me of whether or not a person working for the CIA is intrinsically evil. By their fruits ye shall know them, and the CIA has the worst of the worst of fruits. NATO has been exposed by one of their own last year as being behind the covid pandemic. And my understanding is that all the intelligence agencies from the west were involved. Something like 16 million dead and counting. Anyone who worked/works for the CIA is tainted by association.

 

Google Gemini AI again:

In what situations did St. Augustine say it was okay to lie?

St. Augustine is one of the strictest figures in the history of Western philosophy regarding the morality of lying. To answer your question directly: St. Augustine never said it was "okay" to lie.

In his treatises De Mendacio (On Lying) and Contra Mendacium (Against Lying), he argued that all lying is a sin, regardless of the circumstances or intentions.

However, he did acknowledge that not all lies are equally sinful. He created a hierarchy of lies to distinguish between those that are damnable and those that are lighter sins (though still sins).

The Hierarchy of Lies (From Worst to "Least Bad")

Augustine categorized lies into eight types. While he condemned them all, he recognized that the intention matters for the gravity of the sin.

1. Lies in religious teaching: The worst type. To lie about God or the faith is a grave sin that endangers the soul.
   
   
2. Lies that hurt someone and help no one: Malicious lies.
   
   
3. Lies that hurt someone but help someone else: For example, framing an innocent person to save a friend.
   
   
4. Lies told for the sheer joy of lying: Lying for the sake of deception itself (pathological lying).
   
   
5. Lies told to please others: Flattery or smooth talk in social situations.
   
   
6. Lies that hurt no one and save someone's money: Lying to protect property.
   
   
7. Lies that hurt no one and save someone's life: This is the classic "murderer at the door" scenario.
   
   
8. Lies that hurt no one and save someone from sexual defilement: Lying to protect someone’s purity.
   

Why Even "Good" Lies Were Not Permissible

You might expect that types 7 and 8 (saving a life or purity) would be permissible. Augustine admitted these were "pardnable" or "venial" sins for which a person would likely be forgiven, but he insisted they were still sins.

His reasoning was theological:

• God is Truth: To speak against the truth is to speak against God.
  
  
• The Purpose of Speech: God gave humans speech to reveal their thoughts. Using speech to deceive is a perversion of a God-given faculty.
  
  
• The Soul vs. The Body: Augustine argued that by lying to save someone’s body (which is temporal), you are harming your own soul (which is eternal). He famously wrote that it is better for the body to die than for the soul to die by sinning against the Truth.
  

What Did He Suggest Instead?

If you are hiding an innocent person and soldiers come to kill them, Augustine did not say you should simply hand them over. Instead, he advocated for:

• Silence: Refusing to answer.
  
  
• Evasion: Speaking in a way that does not technically lie but hides the truth.
  
  
• Martyrdom: Being willing to suffer the consequences of silence rather than commit a sin (lying) to escape them.
  

Summary

Augustine is the "hard-liner" of Christian ethics on this topic. Unlike later thinkers (who sometimes argued for "mental reservation" or the "right to truth"), Augustine held that a lie is intrinsically evil, meaning it is wrong by its very nature and can never be made right, even to save a life.

 

Midwives lied to pharaoh in order to protect the baby males from being slaughtered. From this we wound up with Moses. Lying to protect the good exists and God rewards it.

 

My 'intrinsic evil' comment is an inevitable logical conclusion of what you said; you didn't use those words but said so implicitly.

Is a former member of such an organisation 'living a lie'?

During WWII, Pope Pius XII deployed Monsignor Flaherty to save thousands of Roman Jews. I am under the impression, but am willing to be corrected, that some of his methods involved deceiving the Nazis. He was certainly accusable of 'living a lie', portraying himself as a respectable law-abiding priest while simultaneously breaking the law in assisting the said Jews in evading capture.

We must always remember that 'the law was made for man, not man for the law' and we are often faced with situations that are not absolutely definitive. Maybe that is why God gave us no more than 10 Commandments.

This is not to say that members of the CIA do not do evil things. Some do, but I have never heard anyone with high Church authority pronounce publicly that all members of such organisations are unavoidably 'living a lie' and deductively pursuing a way of life that could only be described as intrinsically evil, because by your definition it would not be possible to be a member of such an organisation without doing evil.

It is also my understanding that when faced with the option of more than one respected theological opinion, the Church does not oblige one to follow the strictest. To make this obligatory would be considered as 'rigorism', which I believe the Church condemns. Of course, on the other hand, the Church equally discourages taking the most liberal theological view on a moral subject, which it condemns as 'laxity'.

If Saint Augustine got everything right, we would have had no further need for moral theologians, but maybe he hadn't quite shaken off, in his system of thinking, remnants of his earlier Manicheism?

 

First, I have said at least twice that I was referring to CIA Field Officers, who do very specific work that requires lying regularly. I did not say "all members of the CIA."

Second, the Magisterium certainly has solemnly pronounced on taking the "rigorist" position on lying rather than one condemned as "laxist."

From Gemini AI:

Hasn't the magisterium ever pronounced definitively on lying but it some people find the expression convoluted ?

You are thinking of Pope Innocent XI and his decree from 1679.1

The reason you remember it as "convoluted" is that the Pope didn't just write a simple sentence like "Lying is bad." Instead, he issued a list of Condemned Propositions—statements that were popular among "lax" theologians at the time—and declared them forbidden.2

To understand the Pope's ruling, you have to read the convoluted paragraph he quoted, and then realize he is yelling "FALSE!" at it.

The Famous "Convoluted" Proposition (Proposition 26)
In 1679, Pope Innocent XI formally condemned the following specific mental gymnastics:

"If anyone, alone or before others, whether asked or of his own accord, or for the purpose of amusement, or for any other purpose, swears that he has not done something which he really has done, understanding within himself something else which he has not done, or some other way of doing it, or any other truth that is added, he does not really lie nor is he perjured."

— Condemned by Pope Innocent XI, March 2, 1679

What this means in plain English
The Pope was forbidding the use of "Strict Mental Reservation."3

• The Error he Condemned: The idea that you could say "I didn't do it" (out loud) while adding "...yesterday" (in your head) and claim you told the truth.
  
  
• The Pope's Ruling: By condemning this, he ruled that this is indeed a lie and perjury. If the listener has no way of knowing what is in your head, you are lying.
  

Was this a "Definitive" Pronouncement?
Yes, in the sense of moral theology.4 While it wasn't a dogmatic definition of the faith (like the Trinity), it was a decree by the Holy Office approved by the Pope to settle a major controversy.

It definitively closed the door on the loophole that allowed people to "lie" by using secret mental codes.5 Since 1679, the Magisterium has consistently taught that if you speak, you must speak the truth as it would be understood by a reasonable listener (or say nothing at all).

Why it's confusing: Many people read the paragraph above and think, "Oh, the Pope said this!" No—the Pope quoted this paragraph to tell you what not to do.

 

Are you saying that the Church promotes rigorism?

You addressed none of my other points but throw a load of "AI" rubbish at me. I don't recognise "AI" as any kind of authority.

 

Regarding lying, yes, the Church takes a "rigorist" position.

AI rubbish? You can check the source yourself by looking at any copy of the Denzinger:

In 1679, Pope Innocent XI formally condemned the following:

"If anyone, alone or before others, whether asked or of his own accord, or for the purpose of amusement, or for any other purpose, swears that he has not done something which he really has done, understanding within himself something else which he has not done, or some other way of doing it, or any other truth that is added, he does not really lie nor is he perjured."

— Condemned by Pope Innocent XI, March 2, 1679

 

Not everyone has the right to have the truth communicated to them.

CCC
“The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it” (CCC, 2488).

 

Yes, a person can choose not to answer someone when they ask them a question. They can also give an answer that falls into the realm of "broad mental reservation."

But if you do choose to answer someone, you cannot say something that you know in your mind to be a false statement. That is what was condemned.

This is not my opinion. This is basic Catholic teaching as taught by St. Augustine and other doctors of the Church. And it was promulgated magisterially by Innocent XI.

Here is a more detailed explanation of the same:

The Pope condemned the following statement. (Note: The Pope is saying this statement is false and forbidden):

"If anyone, alone or before others, whether asked or of his own accord, or for the purpose of amusement, or for any other purpose, swears that he has not done something which he really has done, understanding within himself something else which he has not done, or some other way of doing it, or any other truth that is added: he does not really lie nor is he perjured."

Translation: What does it mean?

The Pope was forbidding Strict Mental Reservation.

• The Scenario: You ate the last cookie.
  
  
• The Question: "Did you eat the cookie?"
  
  
• The Forbidden Mental Gymnastic: You say out loud, "I did not eat it." But in your head, you silently add the words, "...on the moon."
  
  
• The Result: The condemned proposition claimed this wasn't a lie because the full sentence (spoken + silent) was true ("I did not eat it on the moon").
  
  Pope Innocent XI ruled this is sinful. He determined that if the listener has no possible way of knowing what is in your head, you are simply lying.

The Permissible Alternative: Broad Mental Reservation
By condemning the "Strict" version, the Church implicitly solidified the definition of the "Broad" version, which is allowed.

• Strict (Forbidden): The clue is entirely in your head. (e.g., silently thinking "...on the moon").
  
  
• Broad (Allowed): The clue is in the external circumstances or ambiguity of language, even if the listener misses it. (e.g., saying "I am not at home" to a visitor, which is a standard social convention meaning "I am not available to see you," not "my physical body is absent.")

 

you can also say something that is not really relevant to the question asked.

If my wife asks do I like her new dress (and I dont like it) I can say, I prefer that dress you bought last week.

I dont have to tell her I dont like her new dress.

 

Correct. You could say that. But if she pushes back and tells you to answer her actual question, you cannot say that you like the dress if you did not like it.

Of course, the dress thing would be of small matter and would not be a mortal sin. But it would at least be a venial sin, if you told a direct lie.

 

So you agree that not everyone has the right to have the truth communicated to them?

 

Why didn't you just quote Denzinger in that case? Are you sure that those who programme 'AI' algorithims are fully intent on accurately quoting such documents? Is it not better to go to the primary source?

That's a very specific instance that you quote. One can lie without swearing. To swear is to do so by something sacred, whether to swear by God or by the bible, as I understand it. Maybe I'm naive, or badly cathechised, but I never heard that all lies involved perjury. I was taught that if one committed perjury, one had to go to confession to the bishop. I was never referred to the bishop by any priest to whom I confessed that I told lies. Either lies do not necessarily involve perjury or those priests must have been negligent. What do you think?

Anyway, was Monsignor Flaherty a sinner, or Pope Pius who seemed to have no objection to his behaviour?

And are you saying that the Church promotes rigorism?

You definitely have full knowledge of the law, but is it not possible that those CIA members you condemn might not have such a nuanced grasp of these matters and are therefore dispensed from mortal sin because of lack of possessing full knowledge?

 

That saying 'the perfect can sometimes be the enemy of the good' comes to mind. That level of candour would lead to extinction of the human race!

 

I agree that lying is sinful.

But there is a virtue called prudence. The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional.

One does not have to answer the question in the way that the person wants you to.

So if asked a direct question in certain circumstances one can use deflection or other stalling tactics not to directly answer the question. That is not lying that is being prudent.

Not everyone has the right to have the truth communicated to them.

The good old Gestapo one is case in point. A hypothetical Nazi asks if there are any Jewish neighbours in my house I could reply that I did not let anyone into my house (because it was my wife who smuggled them in). This is not a false statement.

The act of not sharing the truth is not inherintly sinful. Therefore, my conscience is clear because I did not lie.

 

In such circumstances not everyone can remain cool or retain such presence of mind. If they blurt out a 'white lie' in order to avoid a far greater evil, it's unjust to lay very much blame upon them. I suppose sainthood isn't too common.

 

If one was to take a strict rigorous approach then even games involving deception (eg poker), TV shows like Traitors (where participants have to lie to survive) & Would I Lie to you (a show in which panelists have to guess if you are telling the truth or a lie) might be considered to be immoral.

The Church definition of a lie is important in this regard -

"speaking or acting a falsehood with the deliberate intention to deceive someone who has a right to the truth, thereby leading them into error" (Catechism 2482-2483).

Someone who has the right to the truth is not everyone as in the example I gave earlier on the Gestapo.

 

I was familiar with the quote. I asked the AI to fetch it for me. I confirmed that it was the quote from Innocent XI that I was well aware of already. I provided the AI explanation because I thought the condemnation language might be confusing to some people. And the primary source was in the AI quote: Innocent XI in his condemnation on the "laxist" theologians. It is quite famous, and anyone can google it.

Perjury typically falls under the Second Commandment because you are calling upon God as your witness. But "thou shalt not bear false witness" is specifically related to the Eighth Commandment, which is primarily about non judicial acts of lying and exaggeration that harms the reputation of another person, like detraction, calumny, etc. But lying is the underlying sin in both cases.

You should definitely be confessing all lies that harm someone or praise someone without merit. Best to not say anything at all than to falsely tear a person down or to falsely build a person up when it is not the truth. Both types of lies can cause harm.

Again, Pope Innocent XI says that the Church promotes "rigorism" in the specific situation of lying. All the moral theology books will tell you that direct lying (called strict mental reservation) is sinful. Read St. Augustine for the big picture. My opinion is as irrelevant as yours in the matter.

And the culpability for mortal sin depends on the three factors that all mortal sins depend on. Yes, people who objectively lie but do not realize it, are not committing mortal sin. But that is not the situation with covert intelligence officers. They know they are lying. They are trained to do it.