Can God do/cause evil?

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

Can God do/cause evil (I mean, directly, actively)? I mean, can He directly cause bad/negative things to come into people’s lives for either punishment and/or correction of sin?

There seem to be many passages in Scripture where He is said (apparently) directly to do/cause evil as a response to sin.

Personally, I see no problem with God doing/causing evil in order to bring about good in someone’s life. Or, is the question really one of means justifying ends?

Even ifGod allows evil, is He not still using evil means to accomplish good? So, isn’t His allowing evil for the ultimate purpose of good just about, if not the same as, directly causing/doing evil in order for good to result? So, then, it seems that the end, in either case, does justify means.

Is it sold and/or established Catholic theology that God can, in no way, ever be the cause/doer of evil? Has this been established authoritatively and/or infallibly?

Would much appreciate your help in this matter.

Gratias.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Let us take a specific example — the example of the creation of different languages.

Was the creation of languages caused by the devil, ultimately and not God?

After all, in Sacred Scripture, it clearly says that God says, “Let us go down and confound their languages…” etc. Are you then saying that the devil was the “real” one who caused their division of languages?

Ifthis is the case, is it at all right to thank God for the beauty of languages and for their diversity? After all, if they are caused ultimately by the devil, it would seem not right to thank God for this, even though there is (one could argue) beauty in the languages themselves and in their diversity.

I mean, I understand that we should have originally only spoken one language and that this is the way it should have been, so, that was, obviously, the better way. Indeed, the diversity of languages does create difficulties, ultimately, in commuication between cultures. However, things being what they are, is it wrong even to praise God for the beauty and diversity of languages, such as they are? (if, that is, you would ague that the devil, and not God, created the languages) Would we not, in some sense, be praising the devil’s “creative power” if we took pleasure in the creativity of the different languages? would this not not be right?

(I am assuming, here, that the Genesis account is a literal understanding of what happened at Babel.)

I would surely appreciate help in these matters, as I say, especially as a lover of languages myself.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

God is not evil.

Evil things are done by the Evil One.

 

[pianistclare]

Let us take a specific example — the example of the creation of different languages.

Was the creation of languages caused by the devil, ultimately and not God?
???What??? Why would you think this? NO

After all, in Sacred Scripture, it clearly says that God says, “Let us go down and confound their languages…” etc. Are you then saying that the devil was the “real” one who caused their division of languages?

NO

Ifthis is the case,
**It is not. **is it at all right to thank God for the beauty of languages and for their diversity? After all, if they are caused ultimately by the devil, it would seem not right to thank God for this, even though there is (one could argue) beauty in the languages themselves and in their diversity.

I mean, I understand that we should have originally only spoken one language and that this is the way it should have been, so, that was, obviously, the better way. Indeed, the diversity of languages does create difficulties, ultimately, in commuication between cultures. However, things being what they are, is it wrong even to praise God for the beauty and diversity of languages, such as they are? (if, that is, you would ague that the devil, and not God, created the languages) Would we not, in some sense, be praising the devil’s “creative power” if we took pleasure in the creativity of the different languages? would this not not be right?

All incorrect, so NO, not praising the devil.

(I am assuming, here, that the Genesis account is a literal understanding of what happened at Babel.)

I would surely appreciate help in these matters, as I say, especially as a lover of languages myself.

**take an online course in Catholic Theology. There are many.
You are way off the track with your recent questions. if you are TRULY interested in Catholicism, you owe it to yourself to do guided study, not wild speculation. **

 

[MysticMissMisty]

God is not evil.

Evil things are done by the Evil One.

Of course God cannot do moral evil, but can He do temporal evil? (I define temporal evil as the lack of some “material” or “worldy” good.)

So, in the case of languages, I would argue that the division of languages resulted in a lack of good insofar as it caused humanity to be divided so that it could not communicate any longer as one body. However, it resulted in ultimate good insofar as it has apparently prevented humanity from becoming so little dependent on God that we become arrogant and no longer desire to love Him. So, then, I ask again, in this context, while God obviously cannot do moral evil, can He be directly responsible for temporal evil if that evil will result in ultimate good? Let us continue to answer this, if we could, by cponsidering the language example.

 

[e_c]

There are three kinds of evil… Metaphysical (or more broadly spiritual), physical, and moral. Inasmuch as there is some good that God deprives of some object that is in any way due to that thing, it is a kind of evil. Suppose Christ casts a shadow on a plant… or curses one… But any such evil is due to the world more than the good that is being deprived is due to the thing having evil done to it. (I use the word “due” to mean owed to, not caused by.)

God can and does directly cause physical and metaphysical evil. He can’t directly cause moral evil… it is a contradiction of terms. God indirectly causes moral evil, through us… But while He is ultimately the cause of the sinful action, He is not the cause of the action’s deficiency. That’s on us.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

There are three kinds of evil… Metaphysical (or more broadly spiritual), physical, and moral. Inasmuch as there is some good that God deprives of some object that is in any way due to that thing, it is a kind of evil. Suppose Christ casts a shadow on a plant… or curses one… But any such evil is due to the world more than the good that is being deprived is due to the thing having evil done to it. (I use the word “due” to mean owed to, not caused by.)

God can and does directly cause physical and metaphysical evil. He can’t directly cause moral evil… it is a contradiction of terms. God indirectly causes moral evil, through us… But while He is ultimately the cause of the sinful action, He is not the cause of the action’s deficiency. That’s on us.

Very close to what I’ve been trying to say all along, I think, though I don’t know if I would go so far as to so directly attribute metaphysical and moral evil to God. We caused the moral evil, I would have to say, but that aspect of it is perhaps more appropriate for another thread.

In any case, I really just don’t think many people get these fine distinctions and this may, in fact, be a huge part of the problem in this and other like threads here.

 

[pianistclare]

Very close to what I’ve been trying to say all along, I think, though I don’t know if I would go so far as to so directly attribute metaphysical and moral evil to God. We caused the moral evil, I would have to say, but that aspect of it is perhaps more appropriate for another thread.

In any case, I really just don’t think many people get these fine distinctions and this may, in fact, be a huge part of the problem in this and other like threads here.

Oh please.

 

[e_c]

I think that poor fig tree would disagree!

Or those Egyptians who had those plagues…

Etc.

Division of language is an occasion of confusion, which is an evil. But compare and contrast Babel with Pentecost…

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I think that poor fig tree would disagree!

Or those Egyptians who had those plagues…

Etc.

Division of language is an occasion of confusion, which is an evil. But compare and contrast Babel with Pentecost…

Not sure what the first few lines are replying to exactly, my apologies.

But, as to your second point, then, do you think that being thankful for the beauty/diversity of languages, then, is not right, if the division of languages is evil (as I interpret, caused not by God but ultimately by the devil, or am I reading that into your statement?)?

Indeed, even if the division of languages was caused by God, is it still permissible to give thanks for diversity/beauty, even if this diversity/beauty was not the original plan and if one language would be preferable? I mean, I do not say that I ultimately like it better that we have a diversity of languages, but what I am saying is that, since it exists and there is, I think many would agree, some beauty in these languages both individually and collectively, it may still be appropriate to give thanks for that beauty/diversity, especially if ti was ultimately done by God’s Creative Hand.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

**take an online course in Catholic Theology. There are many.
You are way off the track with your recent questions. if you are TRULY interested in Catholicism, you owe it to yourself to do guided study, not wild speculation. **

 

[e_c]

Distinctions are important.

Inasmuch as a thing is bad, it should not be enjoyed or praisee. Inasmuch as it is good, it should be.

Make the distinctions with the diversity of languages and move on.

With regards to the examples I gave, I suppose I read “physical” where it wasn’t. Spiritual evil would be any kind of immaterial change under the same category I described. Say, the second and third conversions according to John of the Cross. Or, when there is a bad physical change, there is often a bad metaphysical change.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Distinctions are important.

Inasmuch as a thing is bad, it should not be enjoyed or praisee. Inasmuch as it is good, it should be.

Make the distinctions with the diversity of languages and move on.

With regards to the examples I gave, I suppose I read “physical” where it wasn’t. Spiritual evil would be any kind of immaterial change under the same category I described. Say, the second and third conversions according to John of the Cross. Or, when there is a bad physical change, there is often a bad metaphysical change.

Thank you…so much…for all this! I am so glad I have someone here who understands where I am coming from and with whom I can at least get the conversation rolling in a consistent direction.

(And, believe me, I don’t mean this as offense to other people. It is, though, I have to admit, rather exasperating when folks just…don’t…seem…to…get…it!)

At any rate, so, then, you would say that it is, in fact, moral to be thankful for the beauty and diversity within languages for itself, but it is also moral to lament the absence of a universal language insofar as it prohibits communication between people for whom that would not initially have been a problem. Do I understand you correctly? Then, also, what would you say of the “thrill” that one gets from learning a new language because of its beauty, complexity, diversity compared to others, etc.? How moral is this “thrill”?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

To those who support my position that God can, in fact, do evil, at least as I have consistently defined it here, is this just your opinion or is this the Church’s stand on the matter as well? Or, does the Church even take an offcial view of any kind on the matter? Or, is there some semi-official stance in either side of the issue? Or, finally, is this currently all a matter of personal opinion (in the sense that the Church has taken no stance on it at least as of yet)?

I just want to be clear whether those who agree with my stance are doing so from their own opinion or based on some Church teaching.

 

[Wesrock]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is absolute in that God does not commit moral evils. From my quick look through it, it’s a bit more ambiguous on physical evils. It advises that God permits physical evils, but does not take an absolute stance (that I’be found) that he never causes it. Please correct me if there is a stronger statement elsewhere.

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better.174 But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.175

311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil.176 He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.177

312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: “It was not you”, said Joseph to his brothers, "who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive."178 From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the rejection and murder of God’s only Son, caused by the sins of all men - God, by his grace that “abounded all the more”,179 brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all that, evil never becomes a good.

313 "We know that in everything God works for good for those who love him."180 The constant witness of the saints confirms this truth:

St. Catherine of Siena said to “those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them”: "Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind."181

St. Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: "Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best."182

Dame Julian of Norwich: "Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly keep me in the faith. . . and that at the same time I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in what our Lord shewed in this time - that ‘all manner [of] thing shall be well.’"183

314 We firmly believe that God is master of the world and of its history. But the ways of his providence are often unknown to us. Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God “face to face”,184 will we fully know the ways by which - even through the dramas of evil and sin - God has guided his creation to that definitive sabbath rest185 for which he created heaven and earth.

IN BRIEF

315 In the creation of the world and of man, God gave the first and universal witness to his almighty love and his wisdom, the first proclamation of the “plan of his loving goodness”, which finds its goal in the new creation in Christ.

316 Though the work of creation is attributed to the Father in particular, it is equally a truth of faith that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are the one, indivisible principle of creation.

317 God alone created the universe, freely, directly and without any help.

318 No creature has the infinite power necessary to “create” in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it (to call into existence “out of nothing”) (cf DS 3624).

319 God created the world to show forth and communicate his glory. That his creatures should share in his truth, goodness and beauty - this is the glory for which God created them.

320 God created the universe and keeps it in existence by his Word, the Son “upholding the universe by his word of power” (Heb 1:3), and by his Creator Spirit, the giver of life.

321 Divine providence consists of the dispositions by which God guides all his creatures with wisdom and love to their ultimate end.

322 Christ invites us to filial trust in the providence of our heavenly Father (cf. Mt 6:26-34), and St. Peter the apostle repeats: “Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you” (I Pt 5:7; cf. Ps 55:23).

323 Divine providence works also through the actions of creatures. To human beings God grants the ability to cooperate freely with his plans.

324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is absolute in that God does not commit moral evils. From my quick look through it, it’s a bit more ambiguous on physical evils. It advises that God permits physical evils, but does not take an absolute stance (that I’be found) that he never causes it. Please correct me if there is a stronger statement elsewhere.

By the way, your signature tag is one of my favorite verses, especially in the Greek!!

So, is it not really God but the devil who actively sends people to hell as punishment? Is not hell, in some sense, an evil, if, again, we define evil as the privation of good?

What of God’s other seemingly very active punishments and/or corrections? Would you say that they are caused by the devil and not really by God?

Indeed, would the devil be so foolish to cause certain evils if he surely knows that they would ultimately result in the good of the one to whom they were caused? Or, maybe the devil doesn’t really know us that well? (the last said a bit tongue-in-cheek)

There is that passage in Job that says that God gives the devil the task of smiting Job, but can we really take this as a blanket declaration that, when God uses evil for good, He never directly causes it?

Again, what of our present passage wherein God Himself says, “Let Us go down and confuse thier language…”? This seems pretty clearly to indicate that God is acting, unless you don’t interrpret Us here as God Triune but as God and His angels, both evil and good. However, as I understand it, the traditional interpretation of the passage is that God Himself is the Us there. Any thoughts on who Us really is here? God arguments either way?

And, what about the Job passages? Thoughts?

 

[e_c]

Christ cursed a fig tree. He removed goodness from it. If evil is the lack of good… This is not that radical of a position, though it sounds like it. But the lack of goodness caused “here or there” will ultimately redound to the good of creation.

Distinctions…

 

[fisherman_carl]

Correct me if I am wrong here but I think the Church would first look at Scripture passages that declare “In God there is no darkness”. In God there is no evil and his nature is all good. Therefore, his actions are always motivated for the good. In reading the catechism quoted in the posts above I see it as trying to explain why there is evil in the world if God is all good. And, the basic answer that I see, besides saying it is a mystery, is to say that God can permit an evil if he has morally sufficient reasons. That is he has some greater good in mind, that outweighs the evil, and that could not be accomplished any other way. God does not desire evil, but in some cases he may permit it so that a greater good could be accomplished.

An, example that comes to mind to illustrate this may be shooting down a plane that has been hijacked by terrorists. Yes, there are innocent people on board, but if the plane is not shot down they are going to fly it into a building with many people in it. Here, the act of shooting down the plane can be morally justified even though it permits the death of the passengers. Since, the deaths of the passengers are not desired or even required. Their deaths are not an example of using evil to accomplish a good end, which would be immoral. But, rather shooting down the plane is to stop the evil action of the terrorists, and the death of the passengers is an unintended result. And, the greater good of protecting the people in the building outweighs this unintended evil.

Another example of this is the Egyptian plagues. The Egyptians were oppressing the Israelites and God heard their cry. These plagues were signs to both the Egyptians and to the Israelites that God was greater than Pharaoh, his army, and the false gods of the Egyptians. Every plague had a corresponding Egyptian god. God was revealing himself to the Egyptians and to Israel and showing them that he is the true God, and there is no other. The Egyptian gods were powerless against the God of Israel. God was showing a strong arm to Pharaoh to ‘let his people go’.

As, I said before I think it must be known first and above all that God is all good and his will is to do good, not evil. So any explanation of evil must first acknowledge this above all else. That God permits evil is evident by just looking around us. But, the critic of God can not prove that God does not have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. God can punish people for their wrong doings. Yet, this is an act of justice, not of evil. For instance, when the rich man was sent to a place of torture while Lazarus went to the bosom of Abraham. In this scenario God is making right a wrong that had occurred on earth where Lazarus was poor and oppressed, while the rich man actively ignored him. The rich man acting in his place of strength and privilege could easily have helped the poor man Lazarus, but he chose not to. Therefore, God heard the cry of the poor Lazarus and was just towards him, and to the rich man he saw the injustice he committed and was just towards him as well.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Correct me if I am wrong here but I think the Church would first look at Scripture passages that declare “In God there is no darkness”. In God there is no evil and his nature is all good. Therefore, his actions are always motivated for the good. In reading the catechism quoted in the posts above I see it as trying to explain why there is evil in the world if God is all good. And, the basic answer that I see, besides saying it is a mystery, is to say that God can permit an evil if he has morally sufficient reasons. That is he has some greater good in mind, that outweighs the evil, and that could not be accomplished any other way. God does not desire evil, but in some cases he may permit it so that a greater good could be accomplished.

An, example that comes to mind to illustrate this may be shooting down a plane that has been hijacked by terrorists. Yes, there are innocent people on board, but if the plane is not shot down they are going to fly it into a building with many people in it. Here, the act of shooting down the plane can be morally justified even though it permits the death of the passengers. Since, the deaths of the passengers are not desired or even required. Their deaths are not an example of using evil to accomplish a good end, which would be immoral. But, rather shooting down the plane is to stop the evil action of the terrorists, and the death of the passengers is an unintended result. And, the greater good of protecting the people in the building outweighs this unintended evil.

Another example of this is the Egyptian plagues. The Egyptians were oppressing the Israelites and God heard their cry. These plagues were signs to both the Egyptians and to the Israelites that God was greater than Pharaoh, his army, and the false gods of the Egyptians. Every plague had a corresponding Egyptian god. God was revealing himself to the Egyptians and to Israel and showing them that he is the true God, and there is no other. The Egyptian gods were powerless against the God of Israel. God was showing a strong arm to Pharaoh to ‘let his people go’.

As, I said before I think it must be known first and above all that God is all good and his will is to do good, not evil. So any explanation of evil must first acknowledge this above all else. That God permits evil is evident by just looking around us. But, the critic of God can not prove that God does not have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. God can punish people for their wrong doings. Yet, this is an act of justice, not of evil. For instance, when the rich man was sent to a place of torture while Lazarus went to the bosom of Abraham. In this scenario God is making right a wrong that had occurred on earth where Lazarus was poor and oppressed, while the rich man actively ignored him. The rich man acting in his place of strength and privilege could easily have helped the poor man Lazarus, but he chose not to. Therefore, God heard the cry of the poor Lazarus and was just towards him, and to the rich man he saw the injustice he committed and was just towards him as well.

Distinctions…

So, do you say that God or the devil (or even just nature) caused the plagues? Please defend your position.

 

[e_c]

Distinctions…

So, do you say that God or the devil (or even just nature) caused the plagues? Please defend your position.

Scripture is very clear about who is responsible for that. It’s also clear that Christ cursed a fig tree.

Interestingly enough, one little detail of the Exodus narrative gave the Fathers a heck of a time, and it touches right on this topic. What does it mean that God promised to “harden Pharoah’s heart”?

Look, this is getting more complex than necessary. We do all kinds of actions every day that deprive a goodness of some object or person (“evil”) that nobody in their right mind would consider “wrong.” The problem is we associate the word “evil” with “immoral.” It is much broader than that.