Is there needless suffering?

[Prodigal_Son]

I am afraid this leads off to a tangent. First, what kind of circumstantial evidence is there? The drug was either tested, or not. If it was tested, it was already an experiment, which is an indication that the drug had undesirable side effect. After all, one cannot know if the drug has side-effects without some kind of experimentation.

Suppose no testing whatsoever. Seeing a woman take the drug daily and subsequently miscarry (in, say, the 2nd trimester) is circumstantial evidence. If you saw two such women miscarry, you would have reason to believe the drug was the cause, despite the lack of experiments. I do not claim that you *know *anything, only that you have reasons to believe (evidence).

Second, such an experiment is only unethical, if the patient is exposed to it without her informed consent. Many times these trials are conducted on a test group, and as long as the patients are informed of the risk, and they consent to be exposed to the risk, there are no ethical problems.

Very few such studies, if any, have been done with pregnant women. I suspect it is because people believe it would be unethical (perhaps even legislators). Our laws do not respect the theory that having a person’s informed consent permits you to harm that person.

 

[o_mlly]

No.

All human suffering can be transformative. God allows evil in order that He may bring goodness out of it. This transformation is a mystery and one can more easily experience it than explain it. When we bring our suffering to Jesus, we relate to His suffering and He transforms our suffering into divine love. Divine love, charity, is a boundless virtue within us so there is no limit to the amount of suffering that can be transformed. Therefore, no suffering need ever exist without a positive purpose.

Unfortunately, not all humans when suffering turn to God in their hour of need. As free agents, we may choose in our suffering not to turn to, but rather from God. That suffering is wasted.

 

[donsnow]

Our ethical system does not even allow the “usage” of our corpses, without our prior, written permission. Both laws and the ethical system forbids the cutting up of a corpse for harvesting its reusable parts.

Also, the doctors cannot take a kidney from a healthy person and transplant it into someone else, even if the process would save the other person’s life (without the permission of the donor). So don’t tell me that “using” someone as a tool is ethical. To see how incorrect your view is, just ponder for a second the usage of the aborted fetuses and tell me if you consider that process ethical and acceptable.

If you, personally are happy to be the property if God, that is your own business.

We have a good ethical system. I think we’re arguing what we both agree on, when it comes to ethics. I’m a steward of the property of God, which includes my body. The state requires my permission (allowing me the stewardship of my body) before any of my body parts can be used. I see not contradiction between the ethics you mention and my stewardship. The same goes for taking my parts while I’m alive.
I should have specified, that it is with our knowing consent, that we are used as instruments, whether by God, the State or an employer.

And, of course I’m against using the bodies of unborn babies.

It looks to me, that we are not disagreed upon the principles of the ethics and stewardship, just that we don’t agree on my wording to express myself. Sorry about my part in this disagreement.

 

[R_Daneel]

Suppose no testing whatsoever. Seeing a woman take the drug daily and subsequently miscarry (in, say, the 2nd trimester) is circumstantial evidence. If you saw two such women miscarry, you would have reason to believe the drug was the cause, despite the lack of experiments. I do not claim that you *know *anything, only that you have reasons to believe (evidence).

You mean no formal testing… What you describe is still testing, albeit informal. And to see one or two miscarriages is not a sufficient sample. The miscarriages could have been caused by something totally unrelated to the drug. The assumption that they were caused by the drug is a typical case of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” type of argument. In such a case you would not have sufficient grounds to make a decision - either way.

In mathematical statistics it is easy to prove that the absolute size of the sample is relevant, not its relative size (compared to the whole population). For example a sample of 1000 is sufficient, whether the whole population is 10,000 or 100 million. Math is not intuitve.

(It does not really belong to this conversation, but suppose that the drug in question is very likely a “wonder-drug”, which could cure many, serious illnesses. Do you think that such a flimsy evidence should be a good enough ground to stop the research? If the drug could alleviate literally hundreds of thousands instances of suffering, should the research be stopped due two unproven, possible side effects?)

Very few such studies, if any, have been done with pregnant women. I suspect it is because people believe it would be unethical (perhaps even legislators). Our laws do not respect the theory that having a person’s informed consent permits you to harm that person.

That might be true. Moreover, most test groups are almost exclusively male, recruited from prisons. And the result was the Thalidomide (Contergan) case, where thousands of horrible results were caused due the lack of testing. The drug, which is a “wonder-drug” for everyone else (except pregnant women) was banned, thus relegating the patients to unnecessary sufferings.

To my best knowledge all trials are conducted on test groups who sign release forms. These drugs are always risky. But again, you talk about ethical considerations, which are not part of this discussion. Please concentrate on the general problem: how to decide if the acceptance / rejection of a hypothesis is reasonable, or not.

 

[donsnow]

No.

All human suffering can be transformative. God allows evil in order that He may bring goodness out of it. This transformation is a mystery and one can more easily experience it than explain it. When we bring our suffering to Jesus, we relate to His suffering and He transforms our suffering into divine love. Divine love, charity, is a boundless virtue within us so there is no limit to the amount of suffering that can be transformed. Therefore, no suffering need ever exist without a positive purpose.

Unfortunately, not all humans when suffering turn to God in their hour of need. As free agents, we may choose in our suffering not to turn to, but rather from God. That suffering is wasted.

 

[R_Daneel]

No.

I wish you would have been a bit more verbose, so I could understand what that simple “no” refers to.

All human suffering can be transformative. God allows evil in order that He may bring goodness out of it. This transformation is a mystery and one can more easily experience it than explain it. When we bring our suffering to Jesus, we relate to His suffering and He transforms our suffering into divine love. Divine love, charity, is a boundless virtue within us so there is no limit to the amount of suffering that can be transformed. Therefore, no suffering need ever exist without a positive purpose.

Unfortunately, not all humans when suffering turn to God in their hour of need. As free agents, we may choose in our suffering not to turn to, but rather from God. That suffering is wasted.

Just tell me, how could a toddler “offer” his stomach cramps to Jesus… If that suffering is wasted - as you say - then that suffering is unnecessary. And unnecessary suffering contradicts God’s “goodness”.

 

[R_Daneel]

We have a good ethical system. I think we’re arguing what we both agree on, when it comes to ethics. I’m a steward of the property of God, which includes my body. The state requires my permission (allowing me the stewardship of my body) before any of my body parts can be used. I see not contradiction between the ethics you mention and my stewardship. The same goes for taking my parts while I’m alive.
I should have specified, that it is with our knowing consent, that we are used as instruments, whether by God, the State or an employer.

And, of course I’m against using the bodies of unborn babies.

It looks to me, that we are not disagreed upon the principles of the ethics and stewardship, just that we don’t agree on my wording to express myself. Sorry about my part in this disagreement.

That is all fine. As long as you decide that you offer your body to God, or the state, that is your decision - and no one should quarrel with it. However, most people do not act in this manner. What about their bodies and their suffering?

 

[o_mlly]

I wish you would have been a bit more verbose, so I could understand what that simple “no” refers to.

Just tell me, how could a toddler “offer” his stomach cramps to Jesus… If that suffering is wasted - as you say - then that suffering is unnecessary. And unnecessary suffering contradicts God’s “goodness”.

The title of the thread is a simple “Yes” or “No” interogative.

God’s grace and a compliant will combine to achieve suffering’s transformation. Only when one willfully rejects God is suffering wasted as an opportunity to obtain His grace.

Before the age of reason or before one comes to believe in God, the intellect cannot fully inform the will so the toddler’s and the atheist’s suffering may be said to be only formative – building the natural virtues of endurance, and fortitude. (“What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger” – Friedrich Nietzsche). So, a lesser good may be obtainable as long as the suffering is accepted at least on a natural level. If the suffering is rejected entirely, it’s wasted.

As to God’s goodness, perhaps, we should separate the qualifiers “unnecessary” and “needless.” “Unncessary” means merely contingent, that is suffering is an effect. Catholics believe sin is a cause of this effect. “Needless” means without pupose and in this case one might add positive purpose.

God is good because He uses a contingency, the evil effect of human sin, to bring about a positive purpose, a needed end. “His Goodness endures forever” (Psalm 136).

 

[o_mlly]

… And unnecessary suffering contradicts God’s “goodness”.

I believe the above statement is incorrect. A correct expression of the relationship is: Unnecessary suffering is contrary to God’s goodness.

One can differentiate the notions of being “contrary” and “contradictory.” To be contrary is to be the opposite without exclusion. To be contradictory is to be opposite with exclusion. For example, visible and invisible are contrary attributes. Both exist at the same time and place and, therefore are not contradictory. I am visible – arms, legs, etc, and I am invisible – thoughts, memories, imaginations, etc.

God (who is necessary) and evil (which is contingent) co-exist as contraries, not contradictions.

 

[R_Daneel]

The title of the thread is a simple “Yes” or “No” interogative.

It is clear now. Thanks.

God’s grace and a compliant will combine to achieve suffering’s transformation. Only when one willfully rejects God is suffering wasted as an opportunity to obtain His grace.

How can one willfully reject God, when one does not believe in God? Only a believer can reject God, an atheist can merely reject the concept of God - and these two are worlds apart.

Before the age of reason or before one comes to believe in God, the intellect cannot fully inform the will so the toddler’s and the atheist’s suffering may be said to be only formative – building the natural virtues of endurance, and fortitude. (“What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger” – Friedrich Nietzsche). So, a lesser good may be obtainable as long as the suffering is accepted at least on a natural level. If the suffering is rejected entirely, it’s wasted.

Of course, you are aware that children die to to excessive suffering, so the quote from Nietzsche is not generally applicable .

As to God’s goodness, perhaps, we should separate the qualifiers “unnecessary” and “needless.” “Unncessary” means merely contingent, that is suffering is an effect. Catholics believe sin is a cause of this effect. “Needless” means without pupose and in this case one might add positive purpose.

God is good because He uses a contingency, the evil effect of human sin, to bring about a positive purpose, a needed end. “His Goodness endures forever” (Psalm 136).

That is pure semantics.

Nevertheless, do you really think that many Catholics “enjoy” their sufffering and are happy for the opportunity to “offer” it to God? I think that most people will run to the dentist when they have a toothache and do not cherish this very uncomfortable situation. Though I heard that there are some who have themselves crucified to emulate Jesus’ suffering. My non-professional opinion is that those people are lunatics.

 

[o_mlly]

It is clear now. Thanks.

You’re welcome.

How can one willfully reject God, when one does not believe in God? Only a believer can reject God, an atheist can merely reject the concept of God - and these two are worlds apart.

Semantics? If one is aware of the concept of God, that is, his intellect has been informed but he rejects God, he wills his rejection. If one accepts the notion of God but denies His personhood, he is not an atheist, but, perhaps a Deist. The atheist, by definition always rejects the basic concept of God.

Of course, you are aware that children die to to excessive suffering, so the quote from Nietzsche is not generally applicable .

Your question was, I believe, “a toddler with stomach cramps.” I took my response only as far as your question. Nietzsche’s quote does apply.

I do not believe children or anyone die of excessive suffering. At some level of pain, they loose consciousness and the underlying cause of their malady may cause their death. The “children” qualifier is a red-herring to arouse emotion so I will drop the “children” qualifier.

Death is certain for all; the only variable is when. Catholics do not look at death as an enemy since Christ’s redemption, death has been conquered for all of us. But I trust we both agree that the since temporal suffering ends at death, this thread need not go there.

That is pure semantics.

I agree. The first step in a meaningful debate is to define terms. I hope you follow my example.

Nevertheless, do you really think that many Catholics “enjoy” their sufffering and are happy for the opportunity to “offer” it to God? …

I do and I have. As I wrote at the start: it is an easier to experience through suffering Christ’s love than to explain it, especially to those who will not believe. There is a profound difference in the two modes of experiencing suffering.

Offering one’s suffering up does not diminish the physical pain occasioned by its source. However, the spiritual pain, call it anxiety or sadness, is the absence of serenity. Suffering and serenity, never exclusive one to the other, coexist peaceably as dispositions of mind and soul only when the cross is accepted. Others can plainly see the cross but not the grace of one who suffers serenely.

Though I heard that there are some who have themselves crucified to emulate Jesus’ suffering. My non-professional opinion is that those people are lunatics.

I do not judge others or their motives. Saving me is full-time job.

 

[kk23wong]

QUOTE: “When asked about God’s love and the existence of suffering, the unanimous answer by Christians is this: “God’s love is not contradicted by the existence of suffering. Love and necessary suffering are not mutually exclusive. Love and needless suffering would be mutually exclusive.”. Well, so far, so good. What they say is not just logical, but also perfectly reasonable.”

Existence makes you suffer. The love of the G-ds will not ask you to suffer. Salvation with purposes. Salvation for a better world and one own merits. Logical because of an undefined term. The love of the G-ds is unconditional. The only condition was given by yourselves/ourselves, but not themselves. “LOVE” contradicted to no ones. “LOVE” contradicted to hates. You try to love your enemies. You will never hate them anymore. The teaching of the Church does not violated our common senses.

“When asked about the apperently needless suffering we all experience (first or second hand) the answer is much less satisfying. The Christians assert that contrary to all appearances, all those horrible sufferings must have some beneficial effects, which more than compensate for the suffering. Of course they can never bring up any specific answer, they just repeat that it is a matter of faith."

*A duck is a duck. It can be anything else in one own imagination. Apparently, it is a duck. Beneath its surface, it is a meat. A specific answer is cannot suit everyone. *

“Translated: “if it looks like unnecessary suffering, if it cannot be explained why that suffering is necessary, then it is most probably unnecessary suffering”. But Christians have a retort this one, too. They maintain that we are not privy to the information which would explain why those sufferings are actually beneficial, and this lack of information prevents us from forming a proper value judgment. Now this one is sheer cop-out. But, let’s accept it provisionally, and examine its ramifications.”

*Suffering unnecessarily. Suffering from mental burdens. Spirits cannot be “flee from**a physical existence. A proper value judgment belongs to no ones, not even religions. As I used to say, “Morality is a common agreement of the people of the time being.” Of course, religions claim that they are the standard. Nobody can defend your faiths if it is moving away from your heart. An old Chinese proverb saying, “A cow never bows unless it wishes to.” *

“1) About the suffering brought forth by natural causes.”

Suffering of others. Sympathy from the churches. Charity and love from the G-ds.
(All G-ds is one, but religion are plural.)

“2) About the suffering caused by human acts . . . But if all the suffering caused by these humans is necessary for some unspecified greater goods, then these people just further God’s plan for the victims.”

Suffering by darkness in heart. Suffering of humanity is not only the human being themselves, but the God also.

“3) Lastly, some posters ask if anyone can prove that there is unnecessary evil in the world.”

No evils is necessary. As I used to say, “An evil will demolish the world.”

“According to the acts of the Catholic Church, there is unnecessary suffering in the world. Therefore - according to the acts of the Catholic Church - God allows unnecessary suffering. Therefore - according to the acts of the Catholic Church - God is not “loving”.

Think about it.”

*Thanks. *R. Daneel Olivaw

Acts outside. Wisdom inside. Rational thinking is required.
Faith cannot make ourselves full. Faiths may belong to others.
Churches are doing their best.

The nature of the God must be charity and love.
Desires may have driven her away. She does not mean to hurt you.

Thank God. Not admires. BUT advices.
(Jokers in my eyes.)

Saving the environment is a charitable attempt if you would love to join.
The God may not be LOVE in your eyes.
Your BELOVED ones are still living on the EARTH.

Teru Wong

 

[donsnow]

That is all fine. As long as you decide that you offer your body to God, or the state, that is your decision - and no one should quarrel with it. However, most people do not act in this manner. What about their bodies and their suffering?

That’s a good question.

I think that what to do with individual suffering is each person’s choice. A good priest taught me to offer my pain as atonement for my sins. I have and will again. Sometimes, when I think I’m in a state of grace and have pain, then I offer my pain as an atonement for the sins of whom I love.
OTOH, there’s times I have gone to a chiropractor in debilitating pain, and found relief. As long as I know an ethical and legal relief for pain, I can offer the pain as atonement and then go for the relief, I think.

Other people are free to seek any relief at any time.

We Catholics are taught the good side of suffering. There’s going to be suffering in this life, imho, and we may as well dedicate it to the good, imho.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, kk23Wong -

Nice to meet you. Congratulations for your English.

There’s two places I disagree with you.

First, did you indicate morals are a consensus of the people? That’s what I understand your statement to mean. Then, I disagree because I think what we call morals are God’s gift to civilization. And, that He sets the standards for morals.

Second, is your and RDaneel’s conclusion that God does not love, because there’s unnecessary suffering. I have already that it’s a person’s, and people in general, own choices (outside the will of God), which brings about unnecessary suffering.

Also, just because suffering is contrary to God’s love, doesn’t stop Him from loving us, when we suffer. That has been my experience.

Consequently, I believe that God is love.

 

[kk23wong]

Nice to meet you. Congratulations for your English.

There’s two places I disagree with you.

First, did you indicate morals are a consensus of the people? That’s what I understand your statement to mean. Then, I disagree because I think what we call morals are God’s gift to civilization. And, that He sets the standards for morals.

Second, is your and RDaneel’s conclusion that God does not love, because there’s unnecessary suffering. I have already that it’s a person’s, and people in general, own choices (outside the will of God), which brings about unnecessary suffering.

Also, just because suffering is contrary to God’s love, doesn’t stop Him from loving us, when we suffer. That has been my experience.

Consequently, I believe that God is love.

Glad to hear that. Congratulations for being an English subject.
I am proud of being a Chinese citizen in Hong Kong.

First, morality is a gift from birth. A common agreement varies in history.
It changes from time to time. “Standard for morals” exists in our minds.
As a result, it makes us different from *other *animals.

Second, nobody is outside the will of the God (from our birth until death).
Even in my scientific hypothesis (lives in different levels), indivisibility in-between the God and all of us is solid.

By the way, “spell check” tool in MS-word can do.
Grammar is nothing compare to the meanings inside.
Please put the focus on my main idea and concepts.

Languages divided by boundaries.
Unity of the humankind. Coexistence with the God.
Co-prosperity paragenesis - In Chinese, “Gòng-róng Gòng-shēng”

Light is the initial. Birth is her power. Lives are proofs.

Teru Wong

 

[donsnow]

Glad to hear that. Congratulations for being an English subject.
I am proud of being a Chinese citizen in Hong Kong.

First, morality is a gift from birth. A common agreement varies in history.
It changes from time to time. “Standard for morals” exists in our minds.
As a result, it makes us different from *other *animals.

Second, nobody is outside the will of the God (from our birth until death).
Even in my scientific hypothesis (lives in different levels), indivisibility in-between the God and all of us is solid.

By the way, “spell check” tool in MS-word can do.
Grammar is nothing compare to the meanings inside.
Please put the focus on my main idea and concepts.

Languages divided by boundaries.
Unity of the humankind. Coexistence with the God.
Co-prosperity paragenesis - In Chinese, “Gòng-róng Gòng-shēng”

Light is the initial. Birth is her power. Lives are proofs.

Teru Wong

Good morning, kk23wong -

I didn’t mean to mislead you, I’m a Texan of American citizenship; by the grace of God.

I think we can discuss our differences, without a clash of our respective belief-systems. For example, you can say morality is a gift from birth and I can say that it’s a gift from God, and these two statements do not contradict each other.

Yes, morals are in our minds. We can also hold an emotional consideration of morals.

I’m aware that a lot of people think we are a different animal; however, me and all my families, extended families, in-laws, friends and other loved ones are made in the image of our God. We have that free choice, to allow our God to make us in His image. I’m not going to surrender that freedom of choice for any international consideration.

Yes, different languages produce boundaries.

Yes, we can all coexist with God.

Do the above include all the points you wish to state?

 

[Spirithound]

Summary: if an assumption is supported by data, if the experiments for that data can be repeated, and the result is similar, we call that rational or reasonable assumption. If there is no supporting data (worse if the data actually contradicts the assumption), or the correlation is very weak, we say that the assumption is accepted on faith.

The faith exhibited by many posters when it comes to question of suffering is not of this kind. There is no data supporting the hypothesis that all sufferings are beneficial for the sufferers. On the contrary, common sense says that most of the sufferings are unnecessary. There is no possible explanation just what kind of a benefit can come out from the indiscriminate mass sufferings coming from a natural disaster. Much less explanation can be given for the sufferings of victims of human malevolence.

I’ve been trying to formulate this for a couple days, so please forgive my absence.

Upon reflection, I have realized that engaging in “purely rational” discourse, apart from faith, is not my primary interest here.

I have no problem with speaking of scientific matters without referring to faith, but religion is an area where faith is necessary. Religious beliefs are inherently faith-filled, and I fail to see how you could have expected otherwise. This is not a case of testing gravity, or seeing whether someone recovers because of prayer; the causes and measurements of a person’s spiritual state are inaccessible to science. You asked about my beliefs in the light of what you think we believe, and now you cannot legitimately preclude me from explaining what we actually believe, using the faith-language that is proper to a purely religious topic.

Additionally, I feel that you have “moved the goalposts” so to speak. Your original post speaks of logic, and attempts to show that Catholics contradict themselves in acting to alleviate suffering. I have shown you from the Catechism what we really believe, and then you say “the argument may be logical but no longer rational”.

When I joined this thread, I was under the impression that you simply wanted an explanation of Catholic belief and action, not a proof of

1. 
   *]God’s existence
   *]His love for us
   *]Heaven and hell
   *]The value of Jesus’s Passion and Death
   *]The spirit
   *]and the Communion of Saints
   
   Until you accept these, we really are speaking different languages, and any conversation about the value of suffering is a non-starter.

 

[kk23wong]

I didn’t mean to mislead you, I’m a Texan of American citizenship; by the grace of God.

I think we can discuss our differences, without a clash of our respective belief-systems. For example, you can say morality is a gift from birth and I can say that it’s a gift from God, and these two statements do not contradict each other.

Yes, morals are in our minds. We can also hold an emotional consideration of morals.

I’m aware that a lot of people think we are a different animal; however, me and all my families, extended families, in-laws, friends and other loved ones are made in the image of our God. We have that free choice, to allow our God to make us in His image. I’m not going to surrender that freedom of choice for any international consideration.

Yes, different languages produce boundaries.
Yes, we can all coexist with God.
Do the above include all the points you wish to state?

OUR God made you in *his *images. The Earth is billion years old. On the contrary, our history lasts for approximately 4,000 years only.

Light is the initial. Birth is her power. Lives are proofs. She is a supreme being without violating the natural rules. (Note that it is neither deism nor a new religion.) Lives are proofs because of the physical existence of the God as a Conscious Earth*. The power of the God comes from birth. Her power is giving us birth. Her love is rearing us until death.*
**

Our civilizations dress us with clothes. Our manner made us a respectable man.
Our indivisibility with the God made us a unity on the Earth.

Globalization is the final stage of evolutions. (Note that this line is my individual opinions. It is not cohesive with my scientific hypothesis, “Lives in different levels”.)

Belief systems have been established. Meanwhile, truth is always ONE.
The God exists in reality.

Complexity in our world. Diversifications of religions.

My main point is, “Physical presences always take the lead.”
Lives are lives in different levels.

Teru Wong

 

[R_Daneel]

I’ve been trying to formulate this for a couple days, so please forgive my absence.

Upon reflection, I have realized that engaging in “purely rational” discourse, apart from faith, is not my primary interest here.

I have no problem with speaking of scientific matters without referring to faith, but religion is an area where faith is necessary. Religious beliefs are inherently faith-filled, and I fail to see how you could have expected otherwise. This is not a case of testing gravity, or seeing whether someone recovers because of prayer; the causes and measurements of a person’s spiritual state are inaccessible to science. You asked about my beliefs in the light of what you think we believe, and now you cannot legitimately preclude me from explaining what we actually believe, using the faith-language that is proper to a purely religious topic.

Additionally, I feel that you have “moved the goalposts” so to speak. Your original post speaks of logic, and attempts to show that Catholics contradict themselves in acting to alleviate suffering. I have shown you from the Catechism what we really believe, and then you say “the argument may be logical but no longer rational”.

When I joined this thread, I was under the impression that you simply wanted an explanation of Catholic belief and action, not a proof of

1. 
   *]God’s existence
   *]His love for us
   *]Heaven and hell
   *]The value of Jesus’s Passion and Death
   *]The spirit
   *]and the Communion of Saints
   
   Until you accept these, we really are speaking different languages, and any conversation about the value of suffering is a non-starter.

1. 
   Thank you. There is no hurry on these boards, we all participate at our convenience. I also appreciate your time and effort to enlighten me about the nature of Catholic beliefs.
   
   I agree that in religious matters, faith plays an important part. That is not a problem, the problem occurs when reason and faith are at odds with each other. There are many instances of this, according my observations. One is the purpose of this thread. If one fully believes that suffering is “good”, then it is illogical to try to prevent or alleviate it. One simply accepts the “good” and does not “fight it”. The fact that normal human beings (and of course this includes Catholics ) do not "cherish pain and suffering tells me that they do not really believe that pain is “good”. This would be a pure contradiction.
   
   As a matter of fact, there are two different methods to deal with the problem of suffering.
   
   One is the assertion that all suffering are “beneficial” or “good” - because they lead to some “greater good”, which is so very desirable that the pain and suffering is but a small “price” to pay. Here the pain and suffering are a logical precursor to the good.This concept falls on its face when one contemplates the suffering of children and animals, especially if the pain and suffering ends in death.
   
   Another one is to assert that pain and suffering is the consequence of man’s fallen status. Here the pain and suffering does not necessarily lead to some greater good, they are the result of the allegedly misused free will. The problem here is that God allowed the free will to lead to fatal consequences. And that is also illogical. A loving parent certainly allows some freedom to his child, but that freedom is always limited and curtailed lest it would lead to fatal consequences. Love is not compatible with excessive permissiveness. So, this defense also leads to a contradiction.

 

[o_mlly]

…The problem here is that God allowed the free will to lead to fatal consequences. And that is also illogical. …

In order to be a saint, one must possess sufficient freedom to also be a sinner. Otherwise, we’re just robots.

And again, Catholics do not believe death to be fatal only transitory. Our soul is immortal and its “health” is beyond any contingency in time save the abuse of our own free will. It’s all logical to me.