On Intellectual Integrity

Father Robert Barron

ON INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY

See 1:27:

Bartolome de las Casas is one of the most prophetic figures in the history of the Catholic Church. A man who like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah called attention to great injustice and courageously spoke up on behalf of voiceless victims. His advocacy of the cause of the indigenous peoples of the newly discovered Americas made him also a forerunner of the political movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which emphasized the dignity of the individual, fundamental human rights, and government by the consent of the governed.

See 3:18:

He is a powerful reminder to us today that an essential component of the gospel life is a love for the poor and a commitment to fight injustice wherever we find it. In his passion to set things right, las Casas was a worthy successor of the Israelite prophets, of Saint John Chrysostom, of Saint Ambrose of Milan. And he was a precursor of William Wilberforce, William Lloyd Garrison, Martin Luther King, and Oscar Romero.

See 24:25:

Think of him as a very young man coming over here, landing on this very island, he’s 18 years old, full of the future, full of, you know, intelligence and enthusiasm, to become, you know, probably a great plantation owner, a rich man, etc. To go from that point to where he finally becomes the great articulate and courageous defender of the Indians, it took a while, it took several stages.

See 25:38:

Though we have hinted at the arguments that las Casas used to defend his point of view, we can best present them in a developed way in the context of analyzing his confrontation with Sepulveda, which took place when las Casas was at the height of his powers. The central issue that las Casas and Sepulveda debated was whether Spain’s conquest of the New World was in fact just at all.

See 35:25:

By common consensus, Sepulveda’s strongest counter-argument had to do with the Indian practice of human sacrifice. In the face of such a clear violation of natural law, hadn’t the Spaniards the right to put down the practice by force? Indeed, Thomas Aquinas and others had argued that one of the justifications for warfare is the righting of moral wrongs. Could there be anything more morally repugnant than the sacrificing of human beings? And therefore, could there be any violence more justified than that of the Spaniards against the Indians? In defending the native peoples against these charges, las Casas certainly went to extremes, and it’s doubtful whether anyone even in his own day and certainly today would find his arguments very convincing. He said that although the practice was objectively abhorrent, it represented within the framework of the Indian religious system the highest possible service that could be rendered to the divine, and hence it spoke of the high culture and civilization of the Indians. Now again, I don’t think this argument is very good, but it does demonstrate something which is on display throughout the debate with Sepulveda—namely, las Casas’ extraordinary and for its time unprecedented attempt to see things from the perspective of the other. This capacity of empathy makes him a precursor of the abolitionists, of the civil rights activists, and of all those down the centuries who in the name of the gospel have advocated on behalf of the voiceless. …no official winner emerged from the debate, though both of the players claimed victory.

https://videos.wordonfire.org/lascasasfilmscreening

—Word on Fire Catholic Ministries and Picture Show Films, “CATHOLICISM The Pivotal Players: Bartolomé de las Casas - The Activist,” video, 49:21 minutes, October 10, 2020 (est. date of publication), WORDonFIRE

The video was of excellent quality throughout and highly engaging besides.

What caught my attention were Barron’s words in 36:14: “In defending the native peoples against these charges, las Casas certainly went to extremes, and it’s doubtful whether anyone even in his own day and certainly today would find his arguments very convincing. He said that although the practice was objectively abhorrent, it represented within the framework of the Indian religious system the highest possible service that could be rendered to the divine, and hence it spoke of the high culture and civilization of the Indians. Now again, I don’t think this argument is very good.”

Bishop Barron had spoken at length of las Casas in high praise, so that it was surprising—in fact, gratifying—to hear him speak of the utter debility of las Casas’ argument, because human sacrifice can hardly be justified, whether morally or in any other respect.

Because it is commonplace to hear Roman Catholics respond in characteristically knee-jerk defence of any legitimate criticism of their religion—for example, their attempts to justify the use of torture by the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of heretics, or the social and political oppression of women and the Jews—it is surprising to come across any Roman Catholic that readily admits the corporate failings of the institution and makes no disproportionate apologies for it.

Barron’s reproachful remarks about las Casas’ insupportable arguments demonstrated, I thought to myself, intellectual integrity.

What is intellectual integrity?

begin Intellectual integrity is an aspect or part of integrity proper. It requires being willing to stand up for your best judgment of the truth, by being willing to act in accordance with that judgment when the need arises.

...Second, a person with intellectual integrity is someone who is willing to pursue the truth. This means they are willing, as much as possible, to figure things out for themselves, to form their own opinion, to not just go along with the crowd or whatever happens to be fashionable or expedient.

...Third, a person of intellectual integrity stands for what she thinks is true precisely because she thinks it is true.

...Fourth, intellectual integrity also requires being open to the truth just because it is the truth.  To be open to the truth is to be willing to admit that you are wrong.

...Persons with intellectual integrity, it is worth emphasizing, don’t care about truth selectively, whenever it suits them. Indeed, that’s part of the point: to have intellectual integrity is to be willing to stand for one’s own best judgment on any matter of importance—not just when it is convenient to do so. And since, as far as we know, almost any matter could be important at some point or other, to have integrity means caring about the truth in general. To have it, one must be open to having true beliefs in general, and pursuing the truth in general, on those questions that come before you, whatever those may be. end

https://www.umasd.org/cms/lib/PA01000379/Centricity/Domain/518/Documents/Intellectual%20Integrity.pdf

—Michael P. Lynch, True to Life: Why Truth Matters (2004)

“Intellectual integrity involves both seeking and valuing the truth; being systematically critical of truth claims via analyzing assumptions and looking for evidence; being true to one’s intellectual understanding of the world; and being willing to change that understanding in light of new information. The institution of science epitomizes the values of intellectual integrity.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201602/we-need-value-intellectual-integrity

—Gregg Henriques Ph.D., “We Need to Value Intellectual Integrity,” Psychology Today, February 21, 2016 

 

THE OPPOSITE OF RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM

Religious fundamentalism is unwarranted dogmatism about religious claims, often characterized by literalist interpretation. Religious fundamentalism rejects meaningful, important, sometimes necessary nuances in the understanding and interpretation of religious claims.

The converse of religious fundamentalism is the acceptance of meaningful, important, and sometimes necessary nuances in the understanding and interpretation of religious claims.

Therefore, a pointed opposite to religious fundamentalism is intellectual integrity. Intellectual integrity seeks and pursues truth according to cogent principles of reasoning and evidence. Intellectual integrity admits the validity of religious dogma but not in every case. Intellectual integrity recognizes—and even insists on—meaningful, important, sometimes necessary nuances in the understanding and interpretation of religious claims.

Intellectual integrity entails the power of reason applied to questions of religious faith.

 

THE GALILEO AFFAIR 

An excellent illustration of how the Church operates in resistance to intellectual integrity is the condemnation of Galileo. Galileo’s predominant motivation, the evidence indicates, was motivated by intellectual integrity. The Church, on the other hand, was motivated by its own institutional imperatives particular to the time. Bellarmine (a saint), for example, was especially concerned about how heliocentrism undermined and weakened the Church at a time when Europe was converting in hordes to Protestantism. One third of the European population at the time turned Protestant. Heliocentrism represented a major threat to the dominant influence of the Church in Europe, which drew power from the adherence of the population to Roman Catholicism.