Natural Evil

[cfauster]

I think the Catechism has it about right:

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. 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. CCC #310

 

[ericc]

Hi all,

This is a thread to discuss only natural evil. Why does it exist, why does God allow it, why doesn’t he intervene to stop it, etc. What does Scripture say and what does logic say?

Scriptures say we broke it and it stays broken till the New Earth.

I am going to argue it this way: natural events obey natural laws. There is no intrinsic evil in itself. A hurricane or an earthquake that happens in a uninhabited location is not evil. The presence of human beings in such a location and suffering for it is incidental to these natural forces. If someone wants to live in such an area, that is his free choice.

If people wants to mess with the world by upsetting its natural flows e.g. industrialization, carbon emission, ozone depletion, over farming, abusive uses of natural resources, cutting down of trees unsustainably, discharging chemical wastes into oceans and so on, there is a price to pay resulting in extreme weather conditions which may or may not cause lives. Huge gigantic storms on Jupiter, but it is not evil since no one lives there.

Should God intervene? He created this world to obey natural laws. If he were to suspend his laws every time someone were to get hurt, even if that person seek excitement and thrills and live in such dangerous conditions, it would render the operation of this world inconsistent and unnatural. The result is insanity if nature doesn’t obey natural laws. Short answer , he shouldn’t for the greater good.

 

[inocente]

Achilles6129;13451770:

So here’s the question: why would God allow natural evil to happen to someone who can’t disobey his commands?

To give them a greater happiness latter. He doesn’t cause the pain though. Does He sustain it in creation? Probably the devil does actually

Every minute of every day, a child under the age of five dies somewhere from diarrhea due to bad sanitation - unicef.org/media/media_68359.html

You appear to be arguing that God allows them to die undignified painful deaths so as to bring them greater happiness later. If you’re right, and God allows natural evil to happen to innocents to give them a greater happiness later, then are we not working against God’s plan if we try to prevent those deaths?

 

[tonyrey]

Every minute of every day, a child under the age of five dies somewhere from diarrhea due to bad sanitation - unicef.org/media/media_68359.html

You appear to be arguing that God allows them to die undignified painful deaths so as to bring them greater happiness later. If you’re right, and God allows natural evil to happen to innocents to give them a greater happiness later, then are we not working against God’s plan if we try to prevent those deaths?

God permits natural evil because it is an inevitable consequence of physical laws which cannot cater for every contingency. Jesus gave us the Beatitudes to console the victims of both moral and natural evil because they share His suffering on the Cross and are closer to Him in heaven than those who haven’t had to endure so much pain, sorrow and injustice.

 

[inocente]

God permits natural evil because it is an inevitable consequence of physical laws which cannot cater for every contingency. Jesus gave us the Beatitudes to console the victims of both moral and natural evil because they share His suffering on the Cross and are closer to Him in heaven than those who haven’t had to endure so much pain, sorrow and injustice.

I agree with your first sentence but not the second. It doesn’t work since morally, if enduring pain brought us closer to Christ, we should do everything in our power to increase suffering in the world, which is obviously wrong.

We cannot share His suffering. His sacrifice is a gift freely given, and no one needs to suffer to be worthy of that gift, as none of us can ever be worthy anyway.

I think it’s better to just admit that we don’t know why God allows suffering, since if God could prevent it then He surely would, just as any of us will.

 

[Richca]

Here’s another passage to consider, from Matt 9:

**As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. **

I think there’s an almost natural human tendency to assume that a person deserves their bad fate, while others deserve their health or material blessings, etc, even though neither are necessarily so.

Yes, I agree with your comment. Concerning the passage about the man blind from birth and Jesus’ remarks, Jesus does not mention anything about original sin, that is, the sin of Adam and Eve, our first parents, who by their sin lost the supernatural gift of original holiness and justice conferred on human nature by God and consequently transmit a human nature to us, their descendants , a human nature deprived of the gift of original holiness and justice and bodily integrity and immortality. Defects of the body such as being born blind, disease, death itself are the effects, consequences, and penalties and punishments of original sin. Such defects of the body as being born blind is obviously not due to a personal sin of the person born blind nor necessarily his/her immediate parents as the Apostles questioned Jesus, but the source of such defects is the original sin of our first parents in which human nature being deprived of the gifts of original holiness and justice is now as it were left to itself with the result that the body is not wholly subject to the soul. In a sense, the disciples and the Israelites in general were were not absolutely wrong in attributing disease and defects of the body as a consequence of sin which results from the penalties of original sin (unless one does something themselves to bring about such defects, for example, if a pregnant woman takes heroine this may result in a defect in her baby) which at this time they did not have a clear notion of but kind of an inkling; but it is not necessarily the immediate result of a personal sin of the person affected nor a sin of the parents of the person affected.

I think you make a good point when you comment “I think there’s an almost natural human tendency to assume that a person deserves their bad fate” and it is this I think that Jesus wants to correct in his disciples. The disciples almost like on impulse condemn the poor man blind from birth as being a sinner. Jesus, on the other hand, feels compassion and mercy for him and heals him. The disciples attitude towards the poor blind man is sort of like that of the Pharisees who said of him ““You were born totally in sin, and are you trying to teach us?” Then they threw him out.” (John 9:34). Or, like that attitude of the Pharisee in the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector:
He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.
“Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.
I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’
But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’
I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”(Luke 18: 9-14).

The apostles attitude changed especially when the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost. So we read in Acts 3 that when Peter and John passed by a man crippled from birth instead of condemning or looking down on him, they cured him so that he was able to walk.

As nothing in the world happens without Divine Providence, God directs such misfortunes as birth defects to the salvation of mankind, either of those who suffer, or of others who are admonished by their means, and also to the glory of God.

 

[ynotzap]

I agree with your first sentence but not the second. It doesn’t work since morally, if enduring pain brought us closer to Christ, we should do everything in our power to increase suffering in the world, which is obviously wrong.

We cannot share His suffering. His sacrifice is a gift freely given, and no one needs to suffer to be worthy of that gift, as none of us can ever be worthy anyway.

I think it’s better to just admit that we don’t know why God allows suffering, since if God could prevent it then He surely would, just as any of us will.

Like all t hings that are most simple and well known, it is difficult to adequately define suffering. It may however, be described by opposing it to joy and pleasure. St.Thomas proposes a profound concept of pleasure, deriving it from the perfect activity of being as from it’s proper cause. Suffering therefore, depends on a disorder of activity (impediment, deficiency, or excess of action). Like pleasure, suffering is sensible or spiritual: the former, called also physical, affects animal life and has only reference to present happenings, like sensation on which it depends; the latter is called moral, is proper to man, and saddens the spirit without limitation of time and space. In man, sense suffering is greater than in animals because of the presence of intellectual knowledge. Suffering dominates human life so as to constitute one of the difficult enigmas. the problem of suffering is bound up with the problem of evil. the solutions attempted for these two problems are, therefore, analogous.

The chief extra-Christian solutions are: Masdaism (theologico-religious solution) the religion of the Persians, (sixth century BC), reformed by Zarathustra, who admits a Principle of good and a Principle of evil. The sufferings of life lies in the conflict between these two principles and is reflected in man in the conflict between body and soul. This dualism, which Manichaeism adopted and spread, is metaphysically absurd and morally deleterious , as is witnessed also by history ( see Albigenses)

Buddhism (ascetico-moral solution) (sixth century BC) starts with a pessimistic concept of life, detecting evil and suffering in every part of it. Since the root of it lies in desire, he proposes the extinction of every desire and every passion and renunciation of activity and life, so as to find refuge in a sort of egoistic contemplation. This a negative solution, anti-psychological (the passions can not be destroyed, but disciplined) and anti-social ( the desertion of life) (continued next post)

 

[Richca]

Every minute of every day, a child under the age of five dies somewhere from diarrhea due to bad sanitation - unicef.org/media/media_68359.html

According to your theology, that appears to mean that God lovingly punishes those children with painful undignified deaths to lovingly correct them. And since they die as part of His loving providence, we must not interfere, we must not fund better sanitation and healthcare, we must not do anything that might undo God’s loving justice.

You may want to reconsider that theology.

You are way misinterpreting what I said or tried to say. The children under the age of five, who every minute of every day, somewhere die from diarrhea due to bad sanitation I think is a neglect on the part of the whole human race itself as well as a bad decision I think on the part of the parents of these children bringing them into the world without being able it appears to provide adequate support for their upbringing. Probably, if the whole human race on the face of the earth mustered all its forces together, we could help and keep these children from dying, if not all of them, the great majority of them. It is obviously a sin against charity towards our neighbor which is the second greatest commandment of God after love of God to neglect to help someone in need if we can help him/her. Love of our neighbor is a sign of our love for God as St John says:
“If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God* whom he has not seen.
This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.” (1 John 4: 20-21).

So, we shouldn’t think that we shouldn’t help these children in any way we can or we would sin against charity, love of God and our neighbor. Such an idea is completely foreign to a disciple of Jesus Christ and his teaching as is clear from all the good works Jesus himself did for people recorded for us in the gospels. I have no idea how you got from what you say here in this post from what I said in an earlier post. God is not punishing these children in any way for they have committed no personal sins to punish nor is He punishing them for original sin. It is us humans who are the culprits here. Humans are the ones who have brought them into the world, yet we cannot provide for them it appears in a satisfactorily manner. Poor human providence and the free actions of human beings is the cause of this sad state of affairs of the children you mention here.
Divine providence, though permitting this sad state of affairs, is not like this incompetent human providence.

 

[ynotzap]

continuation from last post:
Greek philosophy: Several systems attempted a solution to the problem of suffering; the Socratic-Aristotelian solution of ethical rationalism (knowledge-good, happiness); the hedonistic solution of the Epicureans, the Stoic doctrine of virtue, consisting in indifference and imperturbability (ataraxia). All of these solutions are unilateral and, therefore, defective.
Modern philosophy return to the old motifs of the exaggerated optimism (Leibnitz idealism) or of the excessive pessimism (Schopenhauer, Hartmann)

Christianity, coherently with its teaching on evil, sees suffering a natural condition of the human being, aggravated by original sin. One should not attempt to escape suffering, but should face it, it is licit to fight it and eliminate it as much as possible, but it is better to endure it and make of a powerful lever of the spirit. In Christ’s school the faithful learn not only to endure but to love suffering as a means of purification. The problem of individual and social suffering, as well as the problem of evil, cannot be solved except in the consideration of eternal life, as end and goal of our present existence. (taken from the Dictionary of Catholic Theology)

There is very much to say about suffering, especially living the Christian life, as we believe that like St. Paul, we take on the sufferings of Christ in a mystical and real way, a transformation taking place in us by the work of t;he Holy Spirit. A brief quotation from the late St. Padre Pio, (a stigmatist and saint) “You ask if the Lord made me experience His crowning with thorns and His scourging, and how many times. My reply must be affirmative. All I can say is that this soul has suffered these things for several years, almost every week.” Also St. Paul speak of the Mystical Body of Christ, where like the human body that suffers infection, sin is like that infection in the Mystical Body of Christ were all share in its sufferings.

 

[inocente]

You are way misinterpreting what I said or tried to say. The children under the age of five, who every minute of every day, somewhere die from diarrhea due to bad sanitation I think is a neglect on the part of the whole human race itself as well as a bad decision I think on the part of the parents of these children bringing them into the world without being able it appears to provide adequate support for their upbringing. Probably, if the whole human race on the face of the earth mustered all its forces together, we could help and keep these children from dying, if not all of them, the great majority of them. It is obviously a sin against charity towards our neighbor which is the second greatest commandment of God after love of God to neglect to help someone in need if we can help him/her. Love of our neighbor is a sign of our love for God as St John says:
“If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God* whom he has not seen.
This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.” (1 John 4: 20-21).

So, we shouldn’t think that we shouldn’t help these children in any way we can or we would sin against charity, love of God and our neighbor. Such an idea is completely foreign to a disciple of Jesus Christ and his teaching as is clear from all the good works Jesus himself did for people recorded for us in the gospels. I have no idea how you got from what you say here in this post from what I said in an earlier post. God is not punishing these children in any way for they have committed no personal sins to punish nor is He punishing them for original sin. It is us humans who are the culprits here. Humans are the ones who have brought them into the world, yet we cannot provide for them it appears in a satisfactorily manner. Poor human providence and the free actions of human beings is the cause of this sad state of affairs of the children you mention here.
Divine providence, though permitting this sad state of affairs, is not like this incompetent human providence.

Tamint is a two-year old girl, one of those who die every minute of every day from diarrhea due to bad sanitation. Let’s go back to your original post (#6), and substitute her name wherever you wrote “human beings” or “us” -

"Natural evil in regards to Tamint and evils that befall her is the result and consequence of sin. They are punishments inflicted by God’s justice because of sin; either due to original sin, her own personal sins, or the sins of the world together. …]

“God punishes and disciplines Tamint because He loves her as it is written “Whoever spares the rod hates the child, but whoever loves will apply discipline” (Proverbs 13:24). Loving parents will punish and discipline their children if they do wrong. God is our Father who lovingly punishes and disciplines Tamint, his child while she is on earth, if she does wrong to correct her.”

So no, I don’t agree that I misinterpreted. Above, you say of children such as Tamint that you think their deaths are -

“a neglect on the part of the whole human race itself as well as a bad decision I think on the part of the parents of these children bringing them into the world without being able it appears to provide adequate support for their upbringing”.

But Tamint’s third world parents are probably illiterate, which no knowledge of what killed their daughter, and too poor and uneducated to do anything anyway.

A few hundred years’ ago no one on the planet knew what caused these diseases or how to stop them. Yet you say humans are “the culprits”, that “the free actions of human beings is the cause of this sad state of affairs”. So Tamint and all the other children who have died throughout history, died century after century after century, died not because there are virulent diseases in the world, not because of anything they themselves did, or anything their parents did, but to pay some supposed debt for “incompetent human providence”? They all paid with their innocent infant lives while you get off free? They died young, you didn’t, and that’s what you call divine providence?

I was hoping I’d misunderstood your theology. All I can say is First Law Of Holes - when in one, stop digging. Start again bro.

 

[inocente]

Christianity, coherently with its teaching on evil, sees suffering a natural condition of the human being, aggravated by original sin. One should not attempt to escape suffering, but should face it, it is licit to fight it and eliminate it as much as possible, but it is better to endure it and make of a powerful lever of the spirit.

Nope,still wrong. Every minute of every day, a child under the age of five dies somewhere from diarrhea due to bad sanitation. If it’s better to endure suffering then it would be better for them that we let them suffer and die. Theology needs to include them, not ignore them or try to explain them away.

*In Christ’s school the faithful learn not only to endure but to love suffering as a means of purification. The problem of individual and social suffering, as well as the problem of evil, cannot be solved except in the consideration of eternal life, as end and goal of our present existence. (taken from the Dictionary of Catholic Theology)

There is very much to say about suffering, especially living the Christian life, as we believe that like St. Paul, we take on the sufferings of Christ in a mystical and real way, a transformation taking place in us by the work of the Holy Spirit. A brief quotation from the late St. Padre Pio, (a stigmatist and saint) “You ask if the Lord made me experience His crowning with thorns and His scourging, and how many times. My reply must be affirmative. All I can say is that this soul has suffered these things for several years, almost every week.” Also St. Paul speak of the Mystical Body of Christ, where like the human body that suffers infection, sin is like that infection in the Mystical Body of Christ were all share in its sufferings.*

Well, let’s continue with the example of the fictional Tamint, a name meaning Delight, the two-year Sub-Saharan girl who dies from a waterborne disease as you are reading this sentence, as does some real child in the world every minute of every day.

You say “In Christ’s school the faithful learn not only to endure but to love suffering as a means of purification”. Does Tamint learn to love suffering? Does dying of diarrhea purify her? Does a transformation take place in her by the work of the Holy Spirit?

Nope, nope and nope. Christ didn’t suffer to improve himself, and the problem with the kind of asceticism which exults in suffering for its own sake is that it can’t be anything other than about the self. Instead of the sufferings of Christ, consider instead taking on the sufferings of Tamint. Her little body covered in flies as she slowly dehydrates and gasps her last. There’s nothing heroic in her suffering, no self-improvement, no benefit, no purpose under Heaven. Theology needs to include her, not ignore her or try to explain her away.

 

[Kevin_Gore_LC]

God permits natural evil because it is an inevitable consequence of physical laws which cannot cater for every contingency. Jesus gave us the Beatitudes to console the victims of both moral and natural evil because they share His suffering on the Cross and are closer to Him in heaven than those who haven’t had to endure so much pain, sorrow and injustice.

Thank you all for the rich theological and scriptural reflections. Here is a philosophical thought.

It seems that the problem is the following: while it is true that natural evil is only evil in so far as it affects humans or things humans care about (after all, we measure natural disasters by death toll and property damage), how could an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving God allow apparently random suffering and death, especially of the most innocent among us?

One logical solution is to declare that there is no God, or at least one who does not care, does not see our plight, or is powerless to do anything about it. The unfortunate consequence of this position is to affirm that life is fundamentally unfair, that justice is an illusion, and therefore man’s most coherent behavior would be to either grab for as much power, pleasure, and possessions as he can before his life is spent, even at the expense of other men, or to give up on life and allow despair to push him into suicide (as many philosophers have done).

The second logical solution is to affirm that lifesaver we experience it IS unfair, and therefore if justice, order, and reason are indeed real, there MUST NECESSARILY BE a God who judges each in the next life according to his life on earth. A two year old dying of dysentery is unfair. A two year old dying of dysentery and rewarded with eternal joy is quite just.

I therefore state that the problem of natural evil is not a proof that God does not exist, but exactly the contrary, a necessary proof of the existence of a just, loving, omniscient, and all-powerful Judge.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Hi all,

This is a thread to discuss only natural evil. Why does it exist, why does God allow it, why doesn’t he intervene to stop it, etc. What does Scripture say and what does logic say?

I don’t think natural evil can exist anymore than unnatural good can exit. When God was done creating He pronounced everything in the universe as good. So, evil then would be a failure to do good as a choice of will exercised by a creature that has knowledge of what is good.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

…how could an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving God allow apparently random suffering and death, especially of the most innocent among us?

And yet this same God also promises that He:

Rev 21:4 …shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more. Nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away.

This life then is not all there is to living…

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you all for the rich theological and scriptural reflections. Here is a philosophical thought.

It seems that the problem is the following: while it is true that natural evil is only evil in so far as it affects humans or things humans care about (after all, we measure natural disasters by death toll and property damage), how could an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving God allow apparently random suffering and death, especially of the most innocent among us?

One logical solution is to declare that there is no God, or at least one who does not care, does not see our plight, or is powerless to do anything about it. The unfortunate consequence of this position is to affirm that life is fundamentally unfair, that justice is an illusion, and therefore man’s most coherent behavior would be to either grab for as much power, pleasure, and possessions as he can before his life is spent, even at the expense of other men, or to give up on life and allow despair to push him into suicide (as many philosophers have done).

The second logical solution is to affirm that lifesaver we experience it IS unfair, and therefore if justice, order, and reason are indeed real, there MUST NECESSARILY BE a God who judges each in the next life according to his life on earth. A two year old dying of dysentery is unfair. A two year old dying of dysentery and rewarded with eternal joy is quite just.

I therefore state that the problem of natural evil is not a proof that God does not exist, but exactly the contrary, a necessary proof of the existence of a just, loving, omniscient, and all-powerful Judge.

I agree with you. The only alternative is to deny that anything is evil - which is absurd. One English philosopher, C.M.Joad, became a Christian because he was convinced moral evil cannot have a natural explanation. It was after WW2 when the full horror of the Holocaust was revealed…

 

[Kevin_Gore_LC]

Thank you all for the rich theological and scriptural reflections. Here is a philosophical thought.

It seems that the problem is the following: while it is true that natural evil is only evil in so far as it affects humans or things humans care about (after all, we measure natural disasters by death toll and property damage), how could an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving God allow apparently random suffering and death, especially of the most innocent among us?

One logical solution is to declare that there is no God, or at least one who does not care, does not see our plight, or is powerless to do anything about it. The unfortunate consequence of this position is to affirm that life is fundamentally unfair, that justice is an illusion, and therefore man’s most coherent behavior would be to either grab for as much power, pleasure, and possessions as he can before his life is spent, even at the expense of other men, or to give up on life and allow despair to push him into suicide (as many philosophers have done).

The second logical solution is to affirm that life as we experience it IS unfair, and therefore if justice, order, and reason are indeed real, there MUST NECESSARILY BE a God who judges each in the next life according to his life on earth. A two year old dying of dysentery is unfair. A two year old dying of dysentery and rewarded with eternal joy is quite just.

I therefore state that the problem of natural evil is not a proof that God does not exist, but exactly the contrary, a necessary proof of the existence of a just, loving, omniscient, and all-powerful Judge.

[minor correction in the fourth paragraph]

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Thank you all for the rich theological and scriptural reflections. Here is a philosophical thought.

It seems that the problem is the following: while it is true that natural evil is only evil in so far as it affects humans or things humans care about (after all, we measure natural disasters by death toll and property damage), how could an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving God allow apparently random suffering and death, especially of the most innocent among us?

One logical solution is to declare that there is no God, or at least one who does not care, does not see our plight, or is powerless to do anything about it. The unfortunate consequence of this position is to affirm that life is fundamentally unfair, that justice is an illusion, and therefore man’s most coherent behavior would be to either grab for as much power, pleasure, and possessions as he can before his life is spent, even at the expense of other men, or to give up on life and allow despair to push him into suicide (as many philosophers have done).

The second logical solution is to affirm that lifesaver we experience it IS unfair, and therefore if justice, order, and reason are indeed real, there MUST NECESSARILY BE a God who judges each in the next life according to his life on earth. A two year old dying of dysentery is unfair. A two year old dying of dysentery and rewarded with eternal joy is quite just.

I therefore state that the problem of natural evil is not a proof that God does not exist, but exactly the contrary, a necessary proof of the existence of a just, loving, omniscient, and all-powerful Judge.

I agree. None of us will get out of this world alive, and we will all suffer during our lives, to one degree or another. Why some live so long, or are so rich, or have seemingly charmed lives only makes sense in terms of the afterlife. Death is the great leveler, and we will all be judged and given mercy by a just and merciful God according to how we lived our lives.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Nope,still wrong. Every minute of every day, a child under the age of five dies somewhere from diarrhea due to bad sanitation. If it’s better to endure suffering then it would be better for them that we let them suffer and die. Theology needs to include them, not ignore them or try to explain them away.

Well, let’s continue with the example of the fictional Tamint, a name meaning Delight, the two-year Sub-Saharan girl who dies from a waterborne disease as you are reading this sentence, as does some real child in the world every minute of every day.

You say “In Christ’s school the faithful learn not only to endure but to love suffering as a means of purification”. Does Tamint learn to love suffering? Does dying of diarrhea purify her? Does a transformation take place in her by the work of the Holy Spirit?

Nope, nope and nope.

Yep, yep, and yep.

Tamint has been transformed in heaven by the mercy of a loving God.

She is certainly not in hell where those might be who arranged her suffering.

 

[ynotzap]

Nope,still wrong. Every minute of every day, a child under the age of five dies somewhere from diarrhea due to bad sanitation. If it’s better to endure suffering then it would be better for them that we let them suffer and die. Theology needs to include them, not ignore them or try to explain them away.
[/QOTE]
It is licit to do what we can to find a cure, but if it is not possible, then it is better to accept it as the will God and to endure the suffering. Suffering for sufferings sake is not natural. Suffering for a supernatural motive is meritorious. Saints are living proofs of this truth. Even terrorists blow them selves up because of their misguided beliefs, although they do not think their acts are misguided. Theology does include infants and children in their beliefs. Every child that comes into the world come with the stain of original sin, like we all do. We all have to reborn again into a life of grace. Because disease is a fact of life the child is a victim So we baptize them, If they die before they are baptized , in justice, they did not wrong, so it is thought they enter a state of happiness, called Limbo. God’s judgement prevail into the life of every child, and He sees where the life of this child will lead, so He chooses the best for the child, this is one possibility. All things happen because He causes them to happen in His Omniscience, and Omnipotence, in perfect justice, wisdom and love of every child.
Innocente:

Well, let’s continue with the example of the fictional Tamint, a name meaning Delight, the two-year Sub-Saharan girl who dies from a waterborne disease as you are reading this sentence, as does some real child in the world every minute of every day.

You say “In Christ’s school the faithful learn not only to endure but to love suffering as a means of purification”. Does Tamint learn to love suffering? Does dying of diarrhea purify her? Does a transformation take place in her by the work of the Holy Spirit?

No, Tamint does not necessarily learn to love suffering, but to endure. But I know it is possible for some young children suffer patiently, even young visionaries have done this. And yes diarrhea can be an instrument of purification, as Jesus said “Nothing imperfect shall enter Heaven” We tend to overlook God’s loving, divine providence concerning all humans, young and old. If indeed this suffering was designed to perfect the child from the effects of original sin, and it’s effects, there is a transformation of grace taking place, especially if the child was baptized. If God has called the child, it is because He loves it eternally, and disease was the instrument of that calling. there is something else to consider, suppose God saw this as the best time to take the soul of the child seeing where it’s future life might lead? Transformation is the work of the Holy Spirit.
Innocente:

Nope, nope and nope. Christ didn’t suffer to improve himself, and the problem with the kind of asceticism which exults in suffering for its own sake is that it can’t be anything other than about the self. Instead of the sufferings of Christ, consider instead taking on the sufferings of Tamint. Her little body covered in flies as she slowly dehydrates and gasps her last. There’s nothing heroic in her suffering, no self-improvement, no benefit, no purpose under Heaven. Theology needs to include her, not ignore her or try to explain her away.

In the true life of a Christian, asceticism , suffering is never for it’s own sake, but to lead to spiritual perfection. Perhaps Tamit, in the Mystical Body of Christ is taking on the suffering of other because of sin, although she may not be aware of it, who truly understands the Complete operation of the Mystical Body of Christ, God’s wisdom, love, Omnipotence, and Omniscience, His Divine Providence, and how it plays into all lives, including an innocent child. We trust Him in His eternal love for all of us.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is licit to do what we can to find a cure, but if it is not possible, then it is better to accept it as the will God and to endure the suffering. Suffering for sufferings sake is not natural. Suffering for a supernatural motive is meritorious. Saints are living proofs of this truth. Even terrorists blow them selves up because of their misguided beliefs, although they do not think their acts are misguided. Theology does include infants and children in their beliefs. Every child that comes into the world come with the stain of original sin, like we all do. We all have to reborn again into a life of grace. Because disease is a fact of life the child is a victim So we baptize them, If they die before they are baptized , in justice, they did not wrong, so it is thought they enter a state of happiness, called Limbo. God’s judgement prevail into the life of every child, and He sees where the life of this child will lead, so He chooses the best for the child, this is one possibility. All things happen because He causes them to happen in His Omniscience, and Omnipotence, in perfect justice, wisdom and love of every child.

No, Tamint does not necessarily learn to love suffering, but to endure. But I know it is possible for some young children suffer patiently, even young visionaries have done this. And yes diarrhea can be an instrument of purification, as Jesus said “Nothing imperfect shall enter Heaven” We tend to overlook God’s loving, divine providence concerning all humans, young and old. If indeed this suffering was designed to perfect the child from the effects of original sin, and it’s effects, there is a transformation of grace taking place, especially if the child was baptized. If God has called the child, it is because He loves it eternally, and disease was the instrument of that calling. there is something else to consider, suppose God saw this as the best time to take the soul of the child seeing where it’s future life might lead? Transformation is the work of the Holy Spirit.

In the true life of a Christian, asceticism , suffering is never for it’s own sake, but to lead to spiritual perfection. Perhaps Tamit, in the Mystical Body of Christ is taking on the suffering of other because of sin, although she may not be aware of it, who truly understands the Complete operation of the Mystical Body of Christ, God’s wisdom, love, Omnipotence, and Omniscience, His Divine Providence, and how it plays into all lives, including an innocent child. We trust Him in His eternal love for all of us.

Is there any real EVIDENCE that EACH and EVERY child who dies in serious pain will go to heaven? Even the unbaptized ones? The church does not have such an evidence. Because what you say is just wishful thinking. Many of these children are newborns and toddlers, who have no concept of “offering up” their suffering. They simply suffer and die.

I suggest you type in “suffering children” into Google, and then click on the “Images” option. Look at them and explain how does that horrible suffering point to God’s eternal “love” for these children. If it would be God’s will that they all should enjoy the heavenly bliss, he could have just “taken” them without the suffering. As soon as their conception occurred, they could have followed the millions of miscarriages, even without the implantation into the uterus.

The point is that this suffering cannot be “justified” by the assumed “eternal bliss”, UNLESS that current suffering is logically necessary for bringing those children into heaven. In other words, without that suffering not even God could take those children to the eternal bliss of heaven. Because God can do whatever he pleases, except creating logical contradictions.

No one should be so heartless to say that this world “does not matter”, that the current suffering is “no big deal” when compared to the assumed eternal bliss. The catholic church definitely does NOT say anything like that.