Are some personalities better morally?

[fakename]

That is, are some personalities inherently better at practicing what is called “morality” than others?

And if so, does this personality become the ideal which people should imitate? Yet if that is so, then how could people imitate it very well since we all have unique personalities?

 

[WoundedIcon]

I’ve wondered this myself. My personality is introverted, analytical, melancholic and kind of inclined toward dark stuff. Basically I’m an ex-Goth. Basically the polar opposite of what most Christians consider being Christian. I feel like I’ve been killing myself to conform.

 

[3DOCTORS]

That’s close to what I was inquiring in this thread from a slightly different angle:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=645315

It’s a question that’s intrigued me for a long time because it would help in evangelization if we knew how to meet people where they are.

 

[Jennet]

I’ve wondered this myself. My personality is introverted, analytical, melancholic and kind of inclined toward dark stuff. Basically I’m an ex-Goth. Basically the polar opposite of what most Christians consider being Christian. I feel like I’ve been killing myself to conform.

Groans. Ditto on every point. Sometimes I feel my entire personality is against me. I don’t doubt that God accepts me, but trying to get on with all His followers can require a great deal of lip-biting.

 

[Mintaka]

Every personality has different inherent strengths and weaknesses, morally. (And very often, your moral strength is also your moral weakness.) Every personality type also has sins they’re unlikely to ever commit, just because they’d never even vaguely occur to them as something to do.

For example, someone who is bold and a risk-taker will probably find it easier to get in trouble with things like gambling or casual sex. But he’ll also find it easier to leap into holiness at the spur of the moment.

Someone who tends toward depression also tends to be very realistic (perhaps overly realistic) about the existence of bad stuff, personal weaknesses, and so forth. It’s harder to see the good side, but it’s also harder to be fooled into forgetting what’s wrong.

So everybody is in the same boat, when it comes to personality being both helpful and leading one astray.

Just like the rest of your body, your mind is part of “Brother Donkey,” and you shouldn’t beat it up for doing what comes naturally. Train it to do better, and to use its strengths for your advantage!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

That is, are some personalities inherently better at practicing what is called “morality” than others?

And if so, does this personality become the ideal which people should imitate? Yet if that is so, then how could people imitate it very well since we all have unique personalities?

No.
People yes, personalities no.

 

[fakename]

That’s close to what I was inquiring in this thread from a slightly different angle:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=645315

It’s a question that’s intrigued me for a long time because it would help in evangelization if we knew how to meet people where they are.

Yeah, I was wondering for much the same reasons. Saints and such seem to all have the same personalities and I think most people tend to believe that these special people are the way they are because of some in-born ability while everyone else is not that way because of some in-born inability.

As a funny instantiation, because of my ability to eat totally plain food, my mom sometimes calls me “born-to-be-a-monk”.

If that is true, I wondered if some people were born bad and others good (well, not really good or bad but just w/potentialities for “badness” or “goodness” or “saintliness” or “non-saintliness” or what?

And it also demands another question: is morality simply a type of “good-breeding” or something? Is it a type of health regimen? For people say that morality regulates the passions and sets them in a mean. But passions are always physically founded. Also, a part of morality is in using prudence and prudence requires that one uses ones senses to solve problems. It follows then that the better the sense-capabilities of a person, that is, the healthier the senses are, the better the prudence will be. But this all seems rather strange since saints were known for being rather unhealthy rather than healthy.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

That is, are some personalities inherently better at practicing what is called “morality” than others?

And if so, does this personality become the ideal which people should imitate? Yet if that is so, then how could people imitate it very well since we all have unique personalities?

Define “personality”.

I’ve wondered this myself. My personality is introverted, analytical, melancholic and kind of inclined toward dark stuff. Basically I’m an ex-Goth. Basically the polar opposite of what most Christians consider being Christian. I feel like I’ve been killing myself to conform.

Actually Catholicism is very much centred on reason so analytical is highly compatible. I think St. Lawrence was fairly morbid when he said “turn me over … I’m done on this side”, likewise with Cardinal George when he uttered “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square”. How is introversion unCatholic? Stop trying to conform, you are fine the way you are.

 

[twoangels]

That is, are some personalities inherently better at practicing what is called “morality” than others?

And if so, does this personality become the ideal which people should imitate? Yet if that is so, then how could people imitate it very well since we all have unique personalities?

No. Individuals experience stronger temptations in some areas than others, but ultimately it tends to balance itself out. There are personalities that care a lot how other people see them and about being recognized as good. I’m one of them. Basically you’re stuck with the worst sin of all : spiritual pride. Its very easy to become judgmental and see other people’s sins and to look at yourself and say “Gosh I’m so much better than them.” Pride is actually a worse sin than sexual sin because it deceives the person into believing they don’t need God’s grace and mercy to overcome it. People who struggle with sexual sin recognize that indeed they need God’s grace to overcome it. Of course, it is pride that motivates a person to decide they don’t need grace because by denying the sinfulness as well. But when you are the type who is prone to make a martyr of yourself, its very easy to reduce religion into mere self denial and rule following, rather than a complete surrender to Christ where He conquers the sin rather than you trying to do it on your own.

 

[BrJuniper]

That is, are some personalities inherently better at practicing what is called “morality” than others?

And if so, does this personality become the ideal which people should imitate? Yet if that is so, then how could people imitate it very well since we all have unique personalities?

I love it, an interdisciplinary question.
First, I think that there are those ( I will call them Legalists) who would foster the idea that one needs a particular personality type to be moral. I find these legalists to be unable to think absent an absolute to tell them what they must do.
A second consideration would be society. In the US it seems there is a great preference for an “ordered personality”, the type that is best suited for accounting. This type of person loves rules and order and finds perfect joy in ordering all things in their life. Hence I often hear the benefits of organizational skills.

A moral life is one that strives to act rightly in every instance. This acting does not always fit nicely into an organized system. I think it is clear though that historically the Church has preferred the retentive personality as the norm it puts forth. I think that perhaps the order or God might be the Chaos of people.

I question the need for information if one knows not how to use it.