Catholic teaching on societal roles

[kevb]

I think the bottom line is that we follow the commandments, namely “Love the Lord thy God with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself”. We should follow our inclinations as they help us in living the Gospel, and renounce them as long as they hinder us. Someone might have a talent, but develop an inordinate affection for it and be unable to rid themselves of the vanity and passion which develops from it. If that’s the case, and it becomes a source of conflict, they need to rid themselves of it. Catholic spirituality teaches that we are to renounce our worldly passions which keep us bound to things of the flesh.

 

[vern_humphrey]

kevb:

I think the bottom line is that we follow the commandments, namely “Love the Lord thy God with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself”. We should follow our inclinations as they help us in living the Gospel, and renounce them as long as they hinder us. Someone might have a talent, but develop an inordinate affection for it and be unable to rid themselves of the vanity and passion which develops from it. If that’s the case, and it becomes a source of conflict, they need to rid themselves of it. Catholic spirituality teaches that we are to renounce our worldly passions which keep us bound to things of the flesh.

Why do we assume that people are so stupid or perverse that when they try to **use **the talents God gave them, they will somehow automatically go astray?

 

[stanley123]

In reading through this thread, I would give my opinion that it would be wrong to throw away your talents or to completely waste them. I think that it is better to try to put your talents to good use, beneficial both to you and to others, if that were possible. However, to say that we have a serious moral obligation to “maximise” our talents would, in my opinion, be somewhat problematical. First of all, it is not clear how this maximization of talents would play out in the real world. For a two dimensional differentiable mathematical curve given by y = f(x), one can find the maximum by taking the first derivative and setting it equal to zero. After this one would apply the second derivative test to see whether or not the curve is concave down, so that it would in fact yield a maximum point when the first derivative of f(x) was zero. And of course, if the curve were defined on a closed and bounded interval [a,b], one would also test the endpoints, in addition to the points given by setting the derivative of f(x) equal to zero.

However, it is not clear how this process or any process would be able to decide if one had in fact maximized one’s given set of talents. I think the most that could be required of anyone, is that he not throw away his talents, and that it would be better for him to put his talents to a responsible use which would be beneficial to himself and his family. It is not a simple thing, because take the person who is enjoying a beer while he is watching a current football game. Now, I don’t think that that person would go to hell for this, even if it resulted in a certain amount of time lost and if he could have put that time and his talents to better use by helping out and using his talents at teaching a volunteer class in the local prison. Although he did not put his teaching talents to maximum benefit for the criminals who were imprisoned in society, I don’t think that he did anythong wrong by relaxing a bit from his daily chores and having a beer and watching a football game or a movie.

To sum up, I don’t think that there is an obligation to maximize your talents.

 

[jman507]

vern humphrey:

Why do we assume that people are so stupid or perverse that when they try to **use **the talents God gave them, they will somehow automatically go astray?

That is one reason why we have a church and spiritual directors. For that matter that can be one reason why we have a board of directors and a CEO. Sometimes a person will latch onto one idea and forget the rest. That, ommit other good ideas, is as much going astray as picking up a wrong idea.

That gets me to another thing about saying maximizing. When you have multiple good things you can do, it really isn’t economical to maximize any of them. It seems paradoxical, but after you get to a certain point you have dimishing returns. That or it’d be impossible because you’d have to waste your time trying to figure out how to get the last drop of a benifit out.

For example, as a city you want to use a bus to the max. benifit of the people. That means you could either run it all the time. Or you could run it just when the most people get on and not waste money on gas and maintiance. Or to really max out you could switch off as needed, but then you might upset people when the bus is not running because you switched the scedual. You could spend a bunch of money on a study, but thats spending a lot of money. So whatever the max benifit is your running at about 96% and thats pretty good but not max.

I think its just much easier to say that what is sinful is sloth. Let take this to a different sin. I do not think you can say you must be 100% honest, sometimes the information that the other party should get, like too personal, or it might not really be relavant. You do need to say all that you think is reasonable that the other should know. The sin there would be to lie by either telling something wrong or omitting something that should be said.

 

[kevb]

vern humphrey:

Why do we assume that people are so stupid or perverse that when they try to **use **the talents God gave them, they will somehow automatically go astray?

Did I say that? I said the two aren’t always reconcilable. To use them if they help us toward salvation, and to renounce them if they hinder us. If a pro athlete, say an NBA star feels that the atmosphere of decadence and being idolized by millions makes it too difficult remain in the spirit of humility and to keep his mind focused on Christ, and decides to give it up to go work with children, he’s not sinning. Therefore it’s not always a sin to not maximize your talents. If your interpretation of the Parable of the Talents was correct, then that NBA star would have been damned! You’re going to be judged on how much you loved God and loved others, not how much you accomplish in your talent. These concepts are all from the catechism. Take Edith Stein, who was a brilliant secular scholar and proffessor who gave it up to become a nun and a martyr…and not because she was “too stupid or perverse” to keep using her academic talents.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

stanley123:

To sum up, I don’t think that there is an obligation to maximize your talents.

Thank you for the calculus. Can you explain how this final statement actually sums up what you have said before?

 

[ahimsaman72]

kevb:

Did I say that? I said the two aren’t always reconcilable. To use them if they help us toward salvation, and to renounce them if they hinder us. If a pro athlete, say an NBA star feels that the atmosphere of decadence and being idolized by millions makes it too difficult remain in the spirit of humility and to keep his mind focused on Christ, and decides to give it up to go work with children, he’s not sinning. Therefore it’s not always a sin to not maximize your talents. If your interpretation of the Parable of the Talents was correct, then that NBA star would have been damned! You’re going to be judged on how much you loved God and loved others, not how much you accomplish in your talent. These concepts are all from the catechism. Take Edith Stein, who was a brilliant secular scholar and proffessor who gave it up to become a nun and a martyr…and not because she was “too stupid or perverse” to keep using her academic talents.

The NBA analogy is a perfect example of what I’ve been trying to get across. Good example!

 

[vern_humphrey]

stanley123:

In reading through this thread, I would give my opinion that it would be wrong to throw away your talents or to completely waste them. I think that it is better to try to put your talents to good use, beneficial both to you and to others, if that were possible. However, to say that we have a serious moral obligation to “maximise” our talents would, in my opinion, be somewhat problematical. First of all, it is not clear how this maximization of talents would play out in the real world. For a two dimensional differentiable mathematical curve given by y = f(x), one can find the maximum by taking the first derivative and setting it equal to zero. After this one would apply the second derivative test to see whether or not the curve is concave down, so that it would in fact yield a maximum point when the first derivative of f(x) was zero. And of course, if the curve were defined on a closed and bounded interval [a,b], one would also test the endpoints, in addition to the points given by setting the derivative of f(x) equal to zero.

However, it is not clear how this process or any process would be able to decide if one had in fact maximized one’s given set of talents. I think the most that could be required of anyone, is that he not throw away his talents, and that it would be better for him to put his talents to a responsible use which would be beneficial to himself and his family. It is not a simple thing, because take the person who is enjoying a beer while he is watching a current football game. Now, I don’t think that that person would go to hell for this, even if it resulted in a certain amount of time lost and if he could have put that time and his talents to better use by helping out and using his talents at teaching a volunteer class in the local prison. Although he did not put his teaching talents to maximum benefit for the criminals who were imprisoned in society, I don’t think that he did anythong wrong by relaxing a bit from his daily chores and having a beer and watching a football game or a movie.

To sum up, I don’t think that there is an obligation to maximize your talents.

You may be the first person to construct a mathmatical model of Post-Modernist Deconstructionism.

 

[stanley123]

“Can you explain how this final statement actually sums up what you have said before?”
“You may be the first person to construct a mathmatical model of Post-Modernist Deconstructionism.”
I am not into Post-Modernist Deconstructionism, contrary to what has been alleged here. Briefly, my opinion is that it is a good idea to put our talents to good use, a use which could conceivably end up being beneficial to ourselves, to our family members, to our neighbors and to society as a whole. However, I do not think that we have an obligation to “maximise” our talents.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“Can you explain how this final statement actually sums up what you have said before?”
“You may be the first person to construct a mathmatical model of Post-Modernist Deconstructionism.”
I am not into Post-Modernist Deconstructionism, contrary to what has been alleged here. Briefly, my opinion is that it is a good idea to put our talents to good use, a use which could conceivably end up being beneficial to ourselves, to our family members, to our neighbors and to society as a whole. However, I do not think that we have an obligation to “maximise” our talents.

Post-modernism is the proposition that many ideas exist and there is no standard by which we can judge then. Lyton Bulwer is as good a writer as Shakespeare.

I think that it is better to try to put your talents to good use, beneficial both to you and to others, if that were possible. However, to say that we have a serious moral obligation to “maximise” our talents would, in my opinion, be somewhat problematical. First of all, it is not clear how this maximization of talents would play out in the real world.

(My emphasis.)

Deconstructionism is the proposition that existing standards must be therefore “deconstructed” because they serve to judge the unjudgeable. “It was a dark and stormy night” is as good as “Is this the dagger which I see before me?” and we need to do away with the standards and opinions that allows to say different.

But the problem is there are many ways by which we can – and do – measure a person’s efforts and output. And an honest person can measure his own.

 

[stanley123]

vern humphrey:

But the problem is there are many ways by which we can – and do – measure a person’s efforts and output. And an honest person can measure his own.

This would be a different question as to how to best judge one person’s efforts, whether they be one’s own or anothers. Certainly it is a good idea to make a good effort at what you are interested in doing. But I am not sure whether or not you are still claiming that a person has an obligation to maximise his efforts and output, or to maximise his talents.
I can see that there are cases when a person may be called to put forth a good effort. I would say that he has an obligation not to throw away his talents and that it is wise to put one’s talents to good use, but I don’t see that there would be any moral obligation to “maximise” one’s talents or to “maximise” one’s efforts and output.

 

[vern_humphrey]

stanley123:

This would be a different question as to how to best judge one person’s efforts, whether they be one’s own or anothers. Certainly it is a good idea to make a good effort at what you are interested in doing. But I am not sure whether or not you are still claiming that a person has an obligation to maximise his efforts and output, or to maximise his talents.

If your son or daughter were competing in a softball tournament, and asked you how hard they should play, would you say, “Give it about 25% of your best?”

Or would you say, “Do your best?”

stanley123:

I can see that there are cases when a person may be called to put forth a good effort. I would say that he has an obligation not to throw away his talents and that it is wise to put one’s talents to good use, but I don’t see that there would be any moral obligation to “maximise” one’s talents or to “maximise” one’s efforts and output.

Isn’t life more important than a softball game?

 

[stanley123]

vern humphrey:

If your son or daughter were competing in a softball tournament, and asked you how hard they should play, would you say, “Give it about 25% of your best?”

Or would you say, “Do your best?”

Well, what I would say is one thing, but I thought that we were talking about a moral obligation to maximise your talents? If they do a good job on the team, then I don;t think that they would go to hell even if they did not maximise their abilities in that particular game. Suppose for example that they were distracted for a second and missed the ball. It could be argued that they did not do their best at that particular point in time. It would have been better for the team if they did put forth a better effort and if they did focus a bit more on the ball, but if they missed it once, I don;t think that they will go to hell for that.
I said already that it is advisable to put your talents to good use for yourself, for your family , for your team and for society in general. But like I said already, I don;t see any obligation to maximise your efforts.
I wish you would kindly read over and comment on my example of an individual who chooses to lay back and relax and drink a beer and watch a football game on a Saturday afternoon, instead of using his talents to the maximum and going to the local prison to give a voluntary class for the inmates. Provided that this individual has used his skills and talents for a good purpose during the week, I see no moral obligation for him to maximise his efforts by forgoing a bit of relaxation for himself on a Saturday afternoon.

 

[vern_humphrey]

stanley123:

Well, what I would say is one thing, but I thought that we were talking about a moral obligation to maximise your talents? If they do a good job on the team, then I don;t think that they would go to hell even if they did not maximise their abilities in that particular game.

But you agree that even in a game, they should try? That they owe that to themselves, their coach and team mates?

How much more do they owe to their Creator, who gave them their talents!

stanley123:

Suppose for example that they were distracted for a second and missed the ball. It could be argued that they did not do their best at that particular point in time. It would have been better for the team if they did put forth a better effort and if they did focus a bit more on the ball, but if they missed it once, I don;t think that they will go to hell for that.

Which is neither here nor there. The question is not do they perform perfectly, but do they try their best.

stanley123:

I said already that it is advisable to put your talents to good use for yourself, for your family , for your team and for society in general. But like I said already, I don;t see any obligation to maximise your efforts.

No obligation to use what God has given you? And if you use, no obligation to use it well?

stanley123:

I wish you would kindly read over and comment on my example of an individual who chooses to lay back and relax and drink a beer and watch a football game on a Saturday afternoon, instead of using his talents to the maximum and going to the local prison to give a voluntary class for the inmates. Provided that this individual has used his skills and talents for a good purpose during the week, I see no moral obligation for him to maximise his efforts by forgoing a bit of relaxation for himself on a Saturday afternoon.

Which is silly – no one said that you can’t relax – only that you maximize what you have been given.

 

[stanley123]

vern humphrey:

Which is silly – no one said that you can’t relax – only that you maximize what you have been given.

Here’s where we disagree.
Is it using your talents to their maximum potential, if you have great talent, but spend time lying on the couch, guzzling beer and watching a football game on TV?
Perhaps you could explain what you mean and what you have in mind by the concept of using your talents to their maximum potential, or to maximise your talents.

 

[vern_humphrey]

stanley123:

Here’s where we disagree.
Is it using your talents to their maximum potential, if you have great talent, but spend time lying on the couch, guzzling beer and watching a football game on TV?

Nonsense – if you spend ALL your time “guzzling beer and watching a football game on TV” you are indeed wasting your talents. But if you work hard, you deserve a break every now and then. Jesus himself pointed out that Man is not made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath is made for Man.

stanley123:

Perhaps you could explain what you mean and what you have in mind by the concept of using your talents to their maximum potential, or to maximise your talents.

How much do you contribute to society? Could you contribute more? Can you honestly look at yourself and say, “I’m bearing my full share of the load?”

 

[cynic]

Your problem vern is that you have avery narrow deifnition of success. Success for you seems to be based on money and earning potential and managerial status alone. All about the ‘ladder’, who owns what, who’s in charge. You directly equate theses things with more hard work and more imorportant work. Who is more intelligent, and electrical/computer systems engineer who helps design silicon chips or the person who employs him, or the executive who plays the stock market further up the chain for the company?. I’m guessing the engineer by a mile. But because they are officially lower doen the ladder and earning less they are ‘wasting their potentil’ etc. It’s rubbish.

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

Your problem vern is that you have avery narrow deifnition of success.

It’s against the rules to tell someone else what the think.

cynic:

Success for you seems to be based on money and earning potential and managerial status alone. All about the ‘ladder’, who owns what, who’s in charge.

And you are wrong.

cynic:

You directly equate theses things with more hard work and more imorportant work. Who is more intelligent, and electrical/computer systems engineer who helps design silicon chips or the person who employs him, or the executive who plays the stock market further up the chain for the company?. I’m guessing the engineer by a mile. But because they are officially lower doen the ladder and earning less they are ‘wasting their potentil’ etc. It’s rubbish.

What’s rubbish is telling other people what they think.

I say we are obliged to maximize our God-given talents for the benefit of all.

 

[ahimsaman72]

cynic:

Your problem vern is that you have avery narrow deifnition of success. Success for you seems to be based on money and earning potential and managerial status alone. All about the ‘ladder’, who owns what, who’s in charge. You directly equate theses things with more hard work and more imorportant work. Who is more intelligent, and electrical/computer systems engineer who helps design silicon chips or the person who employs him, or the executive who plays the stock market further up the chain for the company?. I’m guessing the engineer by a mile. But because they are officially lower doen the ladder and earning less they are ‘wasting their potentil’ etc. It’s rubbish.

Well, it is very apparent to me that many people have a differing view on just what “success” is. And I believe that has been the departure for me with a large majority. To me - success cannot be measured by dollars and cents only. Success means succeeding - succeeding at what? Whatever your hand finds to do - whether as a stay-at-home mom, business exec dad or as a farmer.

There’s no objective yardstick that we can use to measure each other’s maximization of God’s talents and gifts. We can only truly measure subjectively whether or not we are following God’s will for our lives and succeeding in our endeavors. I believe vern has alluded to this in the past. Every person must ask themselves what have they done for God and fellow man. And, in the end we have to answer for that.

Maybe there’s some middle ground there somewhere - I hope . Your post was very good and has helped in the discussion.

Peace…

 

[cynic]

vern,

from the real life example given near the beginning of the topic, you seem to be saying that every high school teacher should ultimately be aiming to be principal in order the fulfill their true potential. This is great, let’s start from there.

Let’s say a school with one principal nearing retirement has 40 young teachers on it’s staff. After another 15 years the principal retires. One teacher gets his job. That leaves another 39 teachers yet to fulfill their goal. So at the end these 15 years another 39 schools need to open up in the area (or anywhere in the country) for them to all be principals. Let’s say each of these new schools employs another 40 young teaching graduates. For each of them to do the same, yet another 40 schools need to open up in the area again after 15 years or so. On and on. Accompanied ofcourse by massive increases in the number of children being born, from generation to generation, otherwise they’d be no students for all these new schools to teach.

This is an excellent anology for the unlimited economic growth theory you’ve proposed in other threads. I don’t expect you’ll answer with any specifics on how this works.