If Christian morality is deontological why is it that God allows suffering for the purpose of growing and testing our faith. To me that seems Utilitar

[WilliamVarga]

From what I was taught I understand Catholicism’s system of ethics to be deontological, that is the action in and of itself is wrong and it doesn’t matter what the outcome is. Basically Catholicism rejects the idea of Utilitarianism and the idea that the end justifies the means.
I also understand that Gods purpose for our suffering is to grow our faith, make us holier and grow us closer to him.

To me these two teachings don’t seem consistent with each other. In allowing people to suffer to draw them closer to him it seems like God is adopting a Utilitarian outlook on morality.

Of course I understand that God is the originator of all morality and therefore if he proclaims something to be moral then it is, but it just seems to me like double standards and internally inconsistent seeings as we say God can do no wrong.

I’d be interested to hear how this issue could be resolved

 

[BornInMarch]

I also understand that Gods purpose for our suffering is to grow our faith, make us holier and grow us closer to him.

You’re taking this for granted. God didn’t will for the Fall of Man or for Sin, and as those are the roots of human suffering it’s safe to say He did not will for us to suffer as well.

 

[RoseScented]

Suffering in the world is a result of Original Sin and continues due to our fallen nature.

[Original Sin] is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". CCC 405

Just as Christ transformed death with his cross, he also transformed our suffering. Suffering now no longer is solely a consequence of our fallen nature, but has been transformed into something with redemptive nature.

Every man has his own share in the Redemption. Each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished. He is called to share in that suffering through which all human suffering has also been redeemed. In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ. Salvifici Doloris

There’s two camps on the topic of God and suffering that I’ve seen (if there’s more, do share, I’m up for learning). Camp 1 says that God can cause suffering because it isn’t a moral evil because it can bring about good (don’t touch a hot stove, certain things will kills you, etc) so it’s morally neutral. Thus, it’s not really an “ends justify the means” situation, but instead just a “these are the means” for how God would bring good into the sufferer’s life. Camp 2 says that God permits suffering so that good can come of it (Redemptive Suffering). In that case, since God isn’t the author of that suffering, it’s also not an “ends justify the means” because there is no “means” in this situation because God isn’t acting. It’s God transforming a consequence of human nature into something that can be good.

I’m a camper in Camp 2. So I hope I haven’t articulated Camp 1 too poorly.

 

[Vico]

…
I also understand that Gods purpose for our suffering is to grow our faith, make us holier and grow us closer to him.
…

Being given free will is to allow a human to participate in the divine nature, which requires validation of charity through free will choice. The charity in the heart is most significant rather than merely following rules. Our sufferings may be offered.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. …

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

1521 Union with the passion of Christ. By the grace of this sacrament the sick person receives the strength and the gift of uniting himself more closely to Christ’s Passion: in a certain way he is consecrated to bear fruit by configuration to the Savior’s redemptive Passion. Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

The “suffering makes us grow” argument is only one of many attempted explanations for why we suffer.

And like all our explanations, it has some truth in it, but it only goes so far and doesn’t cover all the instances of suffering.

 

[MPat]

From what I was taught I understand Catholicism’s system of ethics to be deontological,

At the very least it is more commonly associated with virtue ethics.

 

[kapp19]

it seems like God is adopting a Utilitarian outlook on morality.

This is the core of the problem. God does not “have morals” or “participate in morality” or “do what is moral/immoral” or anything of the sort. What He does simply is good, full stop. Creatures exist in relation to an order towards God, implanted in nature (and also in “supernatural potentiality” in our case).

 

[TMC]

This is the core of the problem. God does not “have morals” or “participate in morality” or “do what is moral/immoral” or anything of the sort. What He does simply is good, full stop. Creatures exist in relation to an order towards God, implanted in nature (and also in “supernatural potentiality” in our case).

This is related to the Euthyphro dilemma - but comes down on the other side. In other words, whereas Socrates (and Euthrypho and many others) have concluded that God orders what He does because God know that it is good; what you propose suggets that whatever God orders is good merely because He so orders. That view would answer the OP’s question, but most find it unsatisfying. Is there then no such thing as good and evil, but only what God likes and what God dislikes?

I think a different take leads to a similar answer without that problem. One way to view it is that Catholicism is deontological only at the individual level, but utilitarian at the societal level (or species level if you prefer). The idea is that God has imposed deontological rules on individuals knowing that if all individuals follow those rules we will have a better outcome as a society. That puts God above that system, as He is not human and not part of society. From His viewpoint, He can choose utilitarian action, because His actions are all utilitarian - including His action of imposing deontological rules.

I am not necessarily adopting that view, just proposing it as a possible fit for the question raised.

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t know if deontological is exactly correct.

To be oversimplistic, from a Natural Law perspective a being needs to act like the type of being it is to be moral. Its goodness is directly to related to whether its ends as that type of being are fulfilled/actualized. So human beings need to act like human beings; to fulfill their potential, to actualize their human being-ness (in a sense). God needs to act like God. The nature of God and the nature of a human being are incredibly different. What makes the action wrong is whether it goes against the nature of the actor. God’s action in your example does not go against the nature of God as Subsistent Being and Actus Purus. There is nothing lacking fulfillment in him, no privations.

 

[kapp19]

That’s not quite right. I did not propose Divine arbitration.

 

[Dan_Defender]

You’re taking this for granted. God didn’t will for the Fall of Man or for Sin, and as those are the roots of human suffering it’s safe to say He did not will for us to suffer as well.

I agree. God allows suffering for many reasons, not just to test us. There is also the mystery of evil.