Fr R on intellectual pride

[St. Columba]

Fr Ripperger on intellectual pride...

[Xavier]

Thanks for the video. Listening. Fr. Ripperger's sermons are great. Intellectual pride is a very important trap to avoid. It is said that pride is the root of all vices; and in like manner that humility correspondingly must necessarily be the foundation of all virtues.

[kmo_9000]

Fr Ripperger on intellectual pride...

I'm sure this was a good one for you to listen too, it will help you not to be too proud of your serving abilities.

[Quaremerepulisti]

It's a timely topic, but I'm going to have to disagree with Fr. on a few points.

First, notwithstanding the title, the topic wasn't really intellectual pride but intellectual dishonesty, which is related but not quite the same thing.

Intellectual pride isn't, strictly speaking, the pretense to knowledge that one does not have.  One can indeed have all the knowledge he claims to have and yet still be intellectually proud, for the pride lies in the self-exaltation due to such knowledge, as though it comes from oneself and not from God and therefore makes one intrinsically better than others.  The prime example is Satan.  He was not mistaken at all on what he knew and what he did not.  He knew and understand perfectly the consequences of his rebellion and yet chose to go through with it anyway.  Whereas one can think he knows something, be mistaken, and yet not be guilty of intellectual pride; he is just mistaken.  Of course intellectual pride would come in if he refuses to admit his mistake even though shown to him, precisely because it would force him to come down a notch in his self-estimation or in the eyes of others.  Now, of course none are immune from this and so it's not true there is none of this in the Catholic world.  Nevertheless, I'm not convinced it's the main issue.

For, refusing to admit mistakes and continuing to argue for one's point even though he can't refute his opponent's arguments but only makes a pretense of so doing is, properly speaking, intellectual dishonesty.  There are other possible motives for failing to admit mistakes besides one's self-estimation or desiring to look good in the eyes of others - and in fact, most of the time I think, these motives are what are in play - the intellectual dishonesty stems from a very strong desire for what is claimed to be the truth to actually be the truth.  True, this is a species of pride since humility is oriented toward the truth, regardless of what we would like to be the case.  Nevertheless, it isn't properly speaking self-glorification due to one's knowledge or intellectual abilities.  It's just wishful thinking.

But to avoid mistaken claims of knowledge, or to recognize them once made, it is necessary to teach critical thinking skills: what is fact and what is opinion, when is an opinion strongly supported by evidence and argumentation vs. only weakly supported, and when is an opinion not really the result of rational judgment at all but only of emotion and prejudice, and specifically in-group prejudice.  From where I sit Catholics (trads or not) are not any better at this than society at large, where "truth" is largely determined by whether it fits in with the desired narrative or not.  And the less one is concerned that his judgments might be motivated by mere emotion and prejudice, such that he attempts to take precautions to ensure this is not the case, the more likely (in fact, approaching near certainty) it is that this is the case.

Second, modern societal changes are here to stay, whether Fr. likes it or not.

I'm hardly a cheerleader for everything that goes on in higher education.  Nevertheless, opening up the possibility of higher education (including post-graduate) to more and more people is a good thing overall.  Sure, there are many people in higher education who don't belong there, but we aren't going back to levels in the early 20th century.  There are many people who do have the skills and ability to go to college, and it is right that the opportunity is open to them.

And the "pay, pray, and obey" days for the laity are over, especially in the Information Age.  Laity are going to discuss among themselves issues of philosophy and theology, whether priests like it or not, and attempts to censor such communications will much more harm than good.  Without a Catholic presence on the Internet (as imperfect as such a thing will be) almost the entire forum will be given over to Protestants, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, and atheists; and priests have neither the numbers nor the time to be leading and participating in all these discussions themselves.

[St. Columba]

Signs of intellectual pride...as mentioned/implied in the talk...

1. More interested in own's own judgement than objective reality
2. Judging oneself (or one's intellect) to be greater than it is
3. Lack of recognition that they are prone to be mistaken
4. Wants his intelligence to be widely known
5. When others disagree with him, he tends to think they are just dumb
6. See no value in other people's intellectual work
7. Tend not to ask questions publically
8. Blind to one's own faults/errors, intellectual or otherwise
9. Don't like being corrected

Common Daughters of intellectual pride...

1. Lack of charity towards others (might be smart enough to simulate charity, but it is merely ersatz)
2. Derision
3. Envy

[Miriam_M]

It's a timely topic, but I'm going to have to disagree with Fr. on a few points.

First, notwithstanding the title, the topic wasn't really intellectual pride but intellectual dishonesty, which is related but not quite the same thing.

If you will recall the first part of the tape, all pride -- intellectual or spiritual -- is a form of dishonesty because such pride fails to recognize one's own actual or possible defects in whatever area of pride is in question.  Thus, humility, the opposite of pride, is merely honesty -- as opposed to an inflated view of self, which is objectively dishonest.  Humility is of course not self-deprecation but an honest sense of proportionality in relationship to other human beings. 

False humility, or false modesty, is not a virtue but another lie, so to speak, in that it is a denial of gifts, acquired skill, etc.  Thus, one should not pretend not to have knowledge or understanding; such would be dishonest and even an insult to God.  However, the most informed and knowledgeable human being is still not omniscient; the most rarefied knowledge pales in comparison to God's perfect knowledge because all human knowledge is imperfect.

I think Fr. Ripperger gives a perfect example in his mention of Sede Vacantism.  ("Knowing" that the pope is a heretic, etc., based supposedly on "evidence.") That part is in the first half of the tape, as I recall.  Nothing is more intellectually and spiritually prideful than asserting that one knows definitively the state of another person's intellect and soul.  That is the kind of omniscient knowledge particular to God alone.

I may have lots of evidence that someone isn't particularly smart, but that may be possible to see only in particular academic areas and not other academic areas, or in particular understandings of concepts and how those concepts are explained.  A person may be at the top of his academic field and still have scant knowledge of some other academic fields, topics, or principles.  And being at the top of his own field does not give him license to be prideful about that.  He got there not only because of hard work, and some of the hardest workers in the world are intellectually deficient, by the way.  He got there partly due to God's generosity.  It may be less arduous for him to arrive at great knowledge than someone with a lower IQ or mental disabilities to arrive at whatever knowledge the latter has.  And thus those with great IQ's have no cause to be prideful about that; their IQ's are, without exception, gifts.

[awkwardcustomer]

I think Fr. Ripperger gives a perfect example in his mention of Sede Vacantism.  ("Knowing" that the pope is a heretic, etc., based supposedly on "evidence.") That part is in the first half of the tape, as I recall.  Nothing is more intellectually and spiritually prideful than asserting that one knows definitively the state of another person's intellect and soul.  That is the kind of omniscient knowledge particular to God alone.

If Fr Ripperger can't tell when someone is a formal public heretic, then that's something he needs to work on.   

[Sempronius]

I think Fr. Ripperger gives a perfect example in his mention of Sede Vacantism.  ("Knowing" that the pope is a heretic, etc., based supposedly on "evidence.") That part is in the first half of the tape, as I recall.  Nothing is more intellectually and spiritually prideful than asserting that one knows definitively the state of another person's intellect and soul.  That is the kind of omniscient knowledge particular to God alone.

If Fr Ripperger can't tell when someone is a formal public heretic, then that's something he needs to work on.   

Just like the rest of us

[awkwardcustomer]

I think Fr. Ripperger gives a perfect example in his mention of Sede Vacantism.  ("Knowing" that the pope is a heretic, etc., based supposedly on "evidence.") That part is in the first half of the tape, as I recall.  Nothing is more intellectually and spiritually prideful than asserting that one knows definitively the state of another person's intellect and soul.  That is the kind of omniscient knowledge particular to God alone.

If Fr Ripperger can't tell when someone is a formal public heretic, then that's something he needs to work on.   

Just like the rest of us

That's right.

I've been called a heretic, a blasphemer and a Protestant by posters on this site for doubting Fatima.

Francis says "there is no Catholic God" and utters a new distortion of Church teaching just about every week.  And yet we're not supposed to have an opinion on whether or not the man is Catholic.

[james03]

Nevertheless, opening up the possibility of higher education (including post-graduate) to more and more people is a good thing overall.

In the sense that higher education is available now across the economic strata, this is correct.  A high IQ kid living in poverty now has a much better chance of making it to college and this is a huge benefit to society.  (I took note of your use of the word "possibility".)

In the sense of college being available to everyone, or to put it more precisely, the encouragement of people to attend college regardless of their ability, this is a bad thing.  I agree with Fr.  At least half the people you see walking around a campus don't belong there and would be better served in a Tech school or even on-the-job training.  And outside of STEM, most Master's and even PhD programs are a joke.  Read a few sentences of Michelle Obama's dissertation if you need convincing.

[james03]

All-in-all a helpful talk.  I wish Fr. would steer clear of the politics.  Be that as it may, if he follows his principles he should start preaching that it is ok for married people to get divorced and remarried, otherwise he is demonstrating intellectual pride.

Our necessity to engage in these discussions is being forced upon us.  It is now up to the laity to decide if divorce/remarriage is acceptable.  That is a bad thing, but it is also reality.

On "getting the leaders you deserve", I disagree.  If society turns rotten, it is due to poor leadership.  The leader didn't do his job.  Now yes there is a balance where personal responsibility has to be factored in.  The clear lack of leadership is evident to anyone who bothers to observe.  Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter. 

And of course there is the horrible moral corruption in the Vatican.  How did these fags end up there?  Leaders not acting to fix the problem.

But if you exclude politics, which is a minor part of his talk, it has a lot of good information.  Humility is extremely important in life.  There is an added benefit that comes from being humble -- you spot phonies a lot easier.  If someone is trying to kiss your butt, you spot it real quick.

[Quaremerepulisti]

In the sense that higher education is available now across the economic strata, this is correct.  A high IQ kid living in poverty now has a much better chance of making it to college and this is a huge benefit to society.  (I took note of your use of the word "possibility".)

In the sense of college being available to everyone, or to put it more precisely, the encouragement of people to attend college regardless of their ability, this is a bad thing.  I agree with Fr.  At least half the people you see walking around a campus don't belong there and would be better served in a Tech school or even on-the-job training.  And outside of STEM, most Master's and even PhD programs are a joke.  Read a few sentences of Michelle Obama's dissertation if you need convincing.

As I said, I'm no cheerleader for the abuses in higher education.  But even if the population of higher ed were cut in half it would still be vastly greater than at the beginning of the 20th Century.  And I disagree with your characterization of post-graduate education.  Women's Studies is a joke.  Medicine is not a joke.  Law is not a joke.  Business is not a joke.  Nursing is not a joke.  And in STEM, despite everything, we still have the finest in the world, with many, many students coming from overseas.

[bigbadtrad]

Overall good talk, but I don't like Fr. R's constant trad bashing. Trads are trying to survive, trads can't trust their bishops, their pope, they don't know if he is a pope, they don't know who they can trust.

If they act a little funny it's because they have no stability. Trads "intellectual pride" is present from original sin that plagues everyone and the trads who are trying to figure out the church and know a bit too much is precisely because we weren't taught at all, and what we were taught wasn't Catholicism.

He's making it sound like we have all of these great leaders and we just don't listen, yet he admits our leadership is a mess.

James said it best though, if we're so off and he's got it right why doesn't he endorse divorce now to be consistent. He acts as if Pope St. Pius X is on the throne, not a man who tells others to call him "Jorge" and openly admitted his one statement is "perhaps heretical".

Lastly, we get the leaders we deserve is silly. It's an inversion of the theocracy of grace. God didn't give grace to the laity to give it to the priests, but grace to the leaders to give to the people. We aren't influential and if we were the Church wouldn't look like it does.

The lesser does not form the greater and grace is not a bottom up democracy. In the great book The Soul of the Apostolate he starts with the premise if the priest is holy the people are a step below him and all problems are a problem with the priesthood, where as if he's lukewarm or bad the people are vicious and immoral. St. Aelred said the same, that all the evils of the world are the evils of the priest.

Logically it would mean a vicious cycle ending in mutual destruction. If the people deserve a vicious leader than that leader would further erode the morals and goodness of the people making subsequent leaders more vicious with no means of escape until both are annihilated.

[Lynne]

Overall good talk, but I don't like Fr. R's constant trad bashing. Trads are trying to survive, trads can't trust their bishops, their pope, they don't know if he is a pope, they don't know who they can trust.

If they act a little funny it's because they have no stability. Trads "intellectual pride" is present from original sin that plagues everyone and the trads who are trying to figure out the church and know a bit too much is precisely because we weren't taught at all, and what we were taught wasn't Catholicism.

He's making it sound like we have all of these great leaders and we just don't listen, yet he admits our leadership is a mess.

James said it best though, if we're so off and he's got it right why doesn't he endorse divorce now to be consistent. He acts as if Pope St. Pius X is on the throne, not a man who tells others to call him "Jorge" and openly admitted his one statement is "perhaps heretical".

Lastly, we get the leaders we deserve is silly. It's an inversion of the theocracy of grace. God didn't give grace to the laity to give it to the priests, but grace to the leaders to give to the people. We aren't influential and if we were the Church wouldn't look like it does.

The lesser does not form the greater and grace is not a bottom up democracy. In the great book The Soul of the Apostolate he starts with the premise if the priest is holy the people are a step below him and all problems are a problem with the priesthood, where as if he's lukewarm or bad the people are vicious and immoral. St. Aelred said the same, that all the evils of the world are the evils of the priest.

Logically it would mean a vicious cycle ending in mutual destruction. If the people deserve a vicious leader than that leader would further erode the morals and goodness of the people making subsequent leaders more vicious with no means of escape until both are annihilated.

Thank you. I am not a big fan of him (Fr R).

[St. Columba]

Lastly, we get the leaders we deserve is silly. It's an inversion of the theocracy of grace. God didn't give grace to the laity to give it to the priests, but grace to the leaders to give to the people. We aren't influential and if we were the Church wouldn't look like it does.

Thanks for the post bigbad!

I dunno...Fr R seems to be echoing the sentiments of St. John Eudes:

"The most evident mark of God's anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them."