Question about evil and God's Will (Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence)

[CmGuy89]

I’m just starting reading a book titled Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence now (available here), and I find it hard to accept some facets of it. While I agree that everything happens with God’s knowledge and permission, I thought that the reason evil happens is out of God’s respect for man’s free will. I also thought that God does not will evil, but that He will use the evil man chooses to do and cause good to come out of it.

However, the book seems to posit that the evil acts of man are God’s intentions, and men are just the instrument in it.

Take for example, the following example given by Fr. Jean:

An example may make the matter clearer. A criminal is condemned to death by fair trial. But the executioner happens to be a personal enemy of his, and instead of carrying out the judge’s sentence as a duty, he does so in a spirit of hate and revenge. Obviously the judge has no share in the executioner’s sin. The will and intention of the judge is not that this sin should he committed, but that justice should take its course and the criminal be punished.

I find this example insufficient because the condemnation in this case could be said to be fair and just. However, sin usually isn’t. It would be like saying that when a rapist rapes someone, God actually wills that the victim suffer the trauma of rape, but He did not intend that the rapist do it in malice, hatred or lust.

It doesn’t help that he justifies it with some key verses from Scripture as well as sayings by the saints such as (emphasis added):

Who is he that hath commanded a thing to be done, when the Lord commandeth it not? Do not both evil and good proceed out of the mouth of the Highest? (Jeremiah)

All that happens to us in this world against our will (whether due to men or to other causes) happens to us only by the will of God, by the disposal of Providence, by His orders and under His guidance…(St. Augustine)

Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thy own house, and I will take thy wives before thy eyes and give them to thy neighbor and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. (Nathan, prophet of David)

I am the Lord and there is none else. I form light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things. (Isaiah)

This is all rather distressing to me. Again, I can understand God allowing evil, and I can understand that no evil can happen without God allowing it. However the book seems to posit that God actually intends that evil actions be carried out and it is only their evil intentions that cause men to sin, not the actions.

It would seem to me that the rapist, from the previous example, could justify his actions in any number of deluded righteous ways, such as punishing the woman for dressing provocatively or any number of things. Or terrorists could argue that God desired the deaths of many by their terrorism. As long as God and goodness are the justifying reasons, it would seem that these men do not sin by their actions, based on my reading of the book.

Please do correct me if I’m wrong. I think what Fr Jean and all the saints and prophets were trying to say is that God allows sin to happen, but He does not wish it happened at all. He allows it out of a respect for free will, and He makes good come out of the sinful acts. Of course, I’m not one to put words in saints’ and prophets’ mouths so please enlighten me.

 

[heodat888]

Bao cao su Jex Usui Pure Long 1000
Bao cao su Jex Usui Pure Long** *là lo?i Bao cao su ch?a ch?t kéo dÃi th?i gian quan h? tình d?c.
Du?c thi?t k? có m?t c? th?t ch?t và ch?t bôi tron d?c bi?t d? tang khoái c?m cho ph? n?, tang s?c m?nh ? nh?ng cho các d?ng mÃ*y râu.

Bao cao su Jex Usui Pure Long lÃ* lo?i bao cao su du?c dánh giá lÃ* t?t nh?t v? kéo dÃ*i th?i gian quan h? hi?n nay.
Các d?c di?m n?i b?t nh?t du?c th?y ? Bao cao su Jex Usui Pure Long :

• ***Bao cao su ***Siêu m?ng.
• Bao cao su*****Ch?a gai m?n nh? , lÃm tang hung ph?n vÃ* kÃch thÃch cho n?.
• ***Bao cao su Chua ch?t bôi tron cho bên trong và bên ngoÃi lÃm tang khoái c?m cho c? 2.
• D?c bi?t ch?t bôi tron Bao cao su*****giúp kéo dÃi th?i gian quan h? kéo dÃ*i quá trình lên d?nh.
• ***Bao cao su Th?t ch?t ? c? lÃm cho quá trình quan h? du?c an toÃn hon. d?c bi?t nh?ng ngu?i có kÃch thu?c c?u bé hoi nh?.
  Nu?c s?n xu?t : Hãng bao cao su Jex Nh?t B?n
  
  M?i chi ti?t v? shop bao cao su 365xin liên h? :
  Website : http://baocaosu365.com
  *Tel : 0903.988.285 / 0985.859.196 * --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Tag : bao cao su jex , bao cao su nh?t b?n , bao cao su jex nh?t b?n , bao cao su jex 0.02 , bao cao su siêu m?ng

 

[Sirach2]

I’m just starting reading a book titled Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence now (available here), and I find it hard to accept some facets of it.

I’m not so certain this book you are reading is authentic. The website that hosts it is owned by a member here at CAF with whom I have disagreed many times. I’ll try to check further into it, though.

If you want to read the authentic book (which I own, by the way … it is excellent!) try this link. It has been renamed from the original, which is called Abandonment, rather than Trustful Surrender. Amazon has a 5-star rating on it. Basically, it is the way of spiritual childhood. Notice from the Introduction that there is a special section on letters of spiritual direction, and are intended for religious. Just like the Imitation of Chirst, written for monastics, we need to recognize the intended audience is not for the majority of lay Catholics.

The “Treatise” comprises two different aspects of Abandonment to Divine Providence; one as a virtue, common and necessary to all Christians, the other as a state, proper to souls who have made a special practice of abandonment to the holy will of God.

The “Letters of Direction,” now for the first time translated into English, were addressed to Nuns of the Visitation at Nancy. Fr. de Caussade had been stationed in this town for some time, and when later he was called away, his letters to the Nuns carried on the powerful influence he had exercised over them. They were treasured and preserved with religious care, and thus have come down to our own days. Fr. de Ramière, S. J., collected these letters, and edited them with painstaking labour.

Whilst the “Letters,” from the fact that they were originally written for the direction of Nuns, are chiefly intended for Religious, yet earnest people living in the world will derive from their perusal a most efficacious means for the attainment of resignation and peace in the midst of the worries and anxieties of life.

 

[CmGuy89]

Actually I found Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence here on these forums. I believe it’s a separate book, and here’s the Amazon listing for it:

amazon.com/Trustful-Surrender-Divine-Providence-Happiness/dp/0895552167

Now I can’t confirm that the online version I read is 100% the same as the retail copy, but based on Amazon’s Look Inside function, they seem identical.

Basically I was looking for a good starter book that would guide me along the path to my greatest weakness: trusting God. I read rave reviews about Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence, and thus far it has been good reading except for my difficulties that I’ve highlighted in the original post.

So for Abandonment to Divine Providence, the sections “Spiritual Counsels of Fr. de Caussade” and “Letters on the Practice of Abandonment to Divine Providence” are meant for monastics? What about the first section?

Thanks for your help!

 

[fhansen]

I’m just starting reading a book titled Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence now (available here), and I find it hard to accept some facets of it. While I agree that everything happens with God’s knowledge and permission, I thought that the reason evil happens is out of God’s respect for man’s free will. I also thought that God does not will evil, but that He will use the evil man chooses to do and cause good to come out of it.

However, the book seems to posit that the evil acts of man are God’s intentions, and men are just the instrument in it.

Take for example, the following example given by Fr. Jean:

I find this example insufficient because the condemnation in this case could be said to be fair and just. However, sin usually isn’t. It would be like saying that when a rapist rapes someone, God actually wills that the victim suffer the trauma of rape, but He did not intend that the rapist do it in malice, hatred or lust.

It doesn’t help that he justifies it with some key verses from Scripture as well as sayings by the saints such as (emphasis added):

This is all rather distressing to me. Again, I can understand God allowing evil, and I can understand that no evil can happen without God allowing it. However the book seems to posit that God actually intends that evil actions be carried out and it is only their evil intentions that cause men to sin, not the actions.

It would seem to me that the rapist, from the previous example, could justify his actions in any number of deluded righteous ways, such as punishing the woman for dressing provocatively or any number of things. Or terrorists could argue that God desired the deaths of many by their terrorism. As long as God and goodness are the justifying reasons, it would seem that these men do not sin by their actions, based on my reading of the book.

Please do correct me if I’m wrong. I think what Fr Jean and all the saints and prophets were trying to say is that God allows sin to happen, but He does not wish it happened at all. He allows it out of a respect for free will, and He makes good come out of the sinful acts. Of course, I’m not one to put words in saints’ and prophets’ mouths so please enlighten me.

The book comes from a Calvinist perspective, not in line with Catholic thought/teaching on God’s will and man’s freedom to oppose it.

 

[Sirach2]

The book comes from a Calvinist perspective, not in line with Catholic thought/teaching on God’s will and man’s freedom to oppose it.

Are you speaking about both versions of the classic (Abandonment & Trustful Surrender) , or just the one that the OP posted a link to, which I believe is problematic?

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p4.htm#IV

 

[Polycarp1]

I think it is a question of perspective. Without God willing and holding it in existance there would be nothing. God permits evil as without it as an option there could be no freewill. That doesn’t mean that God wants it to happen but without it there could not be love. I mean love can only be offerred and given freely, or else it would be servitude, and not real love. Ergo God cannot force us to love Him That would be against the nature of God ( as much as we understand about Him) so consequently we have to have the choice not to, or in other words,to go against His will.

God not only loves but is Love. Much of this is mystery and beyond our ability to comprehend. When we try to capture the essence of this in a book with our limited abilities and understanding much is left to be desired that no doubt falls well short of the truth (Which God is also - Truth)

Does God want us to do evil, no. Does he permit it, yes. Could we do evil or good without God, no. So in a manner of speaking there would be no evil without God, but no good either.

I don’t think we can examine single statements in the book in isolation and come to correct conclusions but have to consider it in its totality to get the true and complete sense of what the author is trying to say.

I’m going to stop now because my brain is starting to hurt!

 

[Sirach2]

I don’t think we can examine single statements in the book in isolation and come to correct conclusions but have to **consider it in its totality to get the true and complete sense **of what the author is trying to say.

[sign]Well said Polycarp[/sign]

 

[Sirach2]

Bookcat, I am really not understanding how that lengthly section of the CCC is related to the book under discussion. And if “I” am confused, I imagine others failed to grasp what you wanted to say, also. Would you please elaborate a bit more?

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, I am really not understanding how that lengthly section of the CCC is related to the book under discussion. And if “I” am confused, I imagine others failed to grasp what you wanted to say, also. Would you please elaborate a bit more?

In particular these sections on evil can be helpful:

Providence and the scandal of evil.

309 If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.

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.

 

[Sirach2]

Thanks for isolating the relevant passages of the CCC. It makes more sense now.

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks for isolating the relevant passages of the CCC. It makes more sense now.

But the whole section is about Providence…I know it is long …but a close reading of the whole (not just the above) can be helpful in understanding the Catholic Teaching on Providence…secondary causation etc etc

 

[CmGuy89]

I think it is a question of perspective. Without God willing and holding it in existance there would be nothing. God permits evil as without it as an option there could be no freewill. That doesn’t mean that God wants it to happen but without it there could not be love. I mean love can only be offerred and given freely, or else it would be servitude, and not real love. Ergo God cannot force us to love Him That would be against the nature of God ( as much as we understand about Him) so consequently we have to have the choice not to, or in other words,to go against His will.

God not only loves but is Love. Much of this is mystery and beyond our ability to comprehend. When we try to capture the essence of this in a book with our limited abilities and understanding much is left to be desired that no doubt falls well short of the truth (Which God is also - Truth)

Does God want us to do evil, no. Does he permit it, yes. Could we do evil or good without God, no. So in a manner of speaking there would be no evil without God, but no good either.

I don’t think we can examine single statements in the book in isolation and come to correct conclusions but have to consider it in its totality to get the true and complete sense of what the author is trying to say.

I’m going to stop now because my brain is starting to hurt!

I understand that, and I’m willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt, especially when his co-author who wrote the second half is a saint. I’m just saying that what little I’ve read struck me as really shocking and I thought I needed to reaffirm what I know about the official word on Church teaching, which luckily was provided by Bookcat:

In particular these sections on evil can be helpful:

Providence and the scandal of evil.

309 If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.

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.

 

[fhansen]

The book comes from a Calvinist perspective, not in line with Catholic thought/teaching on God’s will and man’s freedom to oppose it.

Just based on the comments and quotes of the OP-a little off the hip, I admit.

 

[CmGuy89]

Now it would seem even St Alphonsus de Liguori argues this position. I realize it might not be wise to post snippets without context, so I’m going to post the whole few paragraphs he used to deal with it (emphases added):

Furthermore, we must unite ourselves to God’s will not only in things that come to us directly from his hands, such as sickness, desolation, poverty, death of relatives, but likewise in those we suffer from man—for example, contempt, injustice, loss of reputation, loss of temporal goods and all kinds of persecution. On these occasions we must remember that whilst God does not will the sin, he does will our humiliation, our poverty, or our mortification, as the case may be. It is certain and of faith, that whatever happens, happens by the will of God: “I am the Lord forming the light and creating the darkness, making peace and creating evil21.” From God come all things, good as well as evil. We call adversities evil; actually they are good and meritorious, when we receive them as coming from God’s hands: “Shall there be evil in a city which the Lord hath not done22?” “Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches are from God23.”
It is true, when one offends us unjustly, God does not will his sin, nor does he concur in the sinner’s bad will; but God does, in a general way, concur in the material action by which such a one strikes us, robs us or does us an injury, so that God certainly wills the offense we suffer and it comes to us from his hands. Thus the Lord told David he would be the author of those things he would suffer at the hands of Absalom: “I will raise up evils against thee out of thy own house, and I will take thy wives before thy face and give them to thy neighbor24.” Hence too God told the Jews that in punishment for their sins, he would send the Assyrians to plunder them and spread destruction among them: “The Assyrian is the rod and staff of my anger . . . I will send him to take away the spoils25.” “Assyrian wickedness served as God’s scourge for the Hebrews26‘‘ is St. Augustine’s comment on this text. And our Lord himself told St. Peter that his sacred passion came not so much from man as from his Father: “The chalice which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it27?”
When the messenger came to announce to Job that the Sabeans had plundered his goods and slain his children, he said: “The Lord gave and the Lord taketh away28.” **He did not say: “The Lord hath given me my children and my possessions, and the Sabeans have taken them away.” He realized that adversity had come upon him by the will of God. **Therefore he added: “As it hath pleased the Lord, so is it done. Blessed be the name of the Lord29.” **We must not therefore consider the afflictions that come upon us as happening by chance or solely from the malice of men; we should be convinced that what happens, happens by the will of God. **Apropos of this it is related that two martyrs, Epictetus and Atho, being put to the torture by having their bodies raked with iron hooks and burnt with flaming torches, kept repeating: “Work thy will upon us, O Lord.” Arrived at the place of execution, they exclaimed: “Eternal God, be thou blessed in that thy will has been entirely accomplished in us30.”

Source: ccel.org/ccel/alphonsus/uniformity.iv.html

Please do enlighten me on this, I’m just very confused at this point. I’m not sure how to reconcile it with the Catechism, which says this:

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:

 

[Sirach2]

[bibledrb]Matthew 5:45[/bibledrb]

We know that good and evil comes to all men by God’s permissive will. If good men embrace the cross that afflicts them, God will bless them abundantly. [not necessarily in this life, though] Did you notice that after Job’s terrible suffering, God restored double to him after his trials? The mystery of why God permits evil is one that has mystified mankind for centuries.

The very saint you quoted, Alphonsus Liguori, suffered terribly being unable to rise his head off his chest. From New Advent:
Eight times during his long life, without counting his last sickness, the Saint received the sacraments of the dying, but the worst of all his illnesses was a terrible attack of rheumatic fever during his episcopate, an attack which lasted from May, 1768, to June, 1769, and left him paralyzed to the end of his days. It was this which gave St. Alphonsus the bent head which we notice in the portraits of him.** So bent was it in the beginning, that the pressure of his chin produced a dangerous wound in the chest.** Although the doctors succeeded in straightening the neck a little, the Saint for the rest of his life had to drink at meals through a tube. He could never have said Mass again had not an Augustinian prior shown him how to support himself on a chair so that with the assistance of an acolyte he could raise the chalice to his lips.

Your quote from the Catechism is a good sumnation: “He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:”

Another of your quotes: “**God does, in a general way, concur in the material action by which such a one strikes us, robs us or does us an injury, so that God certainly wills the offense we suffer and it comes to us from his hands.” **
If we could only see the wonderful blessings that come to us through acceptance of the cross. “Unless the seed dies, it cannot bring forth fruit.”

Sometimes, He will allow us to learn (in hindsight) what was the good He brought forth from the evil. It is purely a matter of faith to trust Him and embrace what He permits to befall us, rather than kick against the goad. I pray that He will help you understand, for it is not something that any of us can readily impart to you.

 

[hazcompat]

ccel.org/ccel/decaussade/abandonment.html

peace

 

[CmGuy89]

ccel.org/ccel/decaussade/abandonment.html

peace

Thanks, I’m reading through that slowly. It does talk about some of these uncomfortable issues, but in a less explicit manner.

[bibledrb]Matthew 5:45[/bibledrb]

We know that good and evil comes to all men by God’s permissive will. If good men embrace the cross that afflicts them, God will bless them abundantly. [not necessarily in this life, though] Did you notice that after Job’s terrible suffering, God restored double to him after his trials? The mystery of why God permits evil is one that has mystified mankind for centuries.

The very saint you quoted, Alphonsus Liguori, suffered terribly being unable to rise his head off his chest. From New Advent:
Eight times during his long life, without counting his last sickness, the Saint received the sacraments of the dying, but the worst of all his illnesses was a terrible attack of rheumatic fever during his episcopate, an attack which lasted from May, 1768, to June, 1769, and left him paralyzed to the end of his days. It was this which gave St. Alphonsus the bent head which we notice in the portraits of him.** So bent was it in the beginning, that the pressure of his chin produced a dangerous wound in the chest.** Although the doctors succeeded in straightening the neck a little, the Saint for the rest of his life had to drink at meals through a tube. He could never have said Mass again had not an Augustinian prior shown him how to support himself on a chair so that with the assistance of an acolyte he could raise the chalice to his lips.

Your quote from the Catechism is a good sumnation: “He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:”

Another of your quotes: “God does, in a general way, concur in the material action by which such a one strikes us, robs us or does us an injury, so that God certainly wills the offense we suffer and it comes to us from his hands.”
If we could only see the wonderful blessings that come to us through acceptance of the cross. “Unless the seed dies, it cannot bring forth fruit.”

Sometimes, He will allow us to learn (in hindsight) what was the good He brought forth from the evil. It is purely a matter of faith to trust Him and embrace what He permits to befall us, rather than kick against the goad. I pray that He will help you understand, for it is not something that any of us can readily impart to you.

Thanks for your reply. I really appreciated how you brought some sense of this.

I do understand that God permits suffering and evil. What I found confusing in the examples I’ve cited, is that it goes beyond God permitting suffering and evil and seems to be that God actively wishes evil as His instrument. I can understand God making use of the evil already “planned” by man to bring about good, but I can’t really understand God willing that man sin to bring about good. Like in this citation:

God does, in a general way, concur in the material action by which such a one strikes us, robs us or does us an injury, so that God certainly wills the offense we suffer and it comes to us from his hands.

Perhaps it’s a misunderstanding of the language used. When people say that God “wills” evil, do they really mean God “permits” evil? Is it the same thing?

 

[Sirach2]

Thanks for your reply. I really appreciated how you brought some sense of this.

I do understand that God permits suffering and evil. What I found confusing in the examples I’ve cited, is that it goes beyond God permitting suffering and evil and seems to be that God actively wishes evil as His instrument. I can understand God making use of the evil already “planned” by man to bring about good, but I can’t really understand God willing that man sin to bring about good. Like in this citation:

Perhaps it’s a misunderstanding of the language used. When people say that God “wills” evil, do they really mean God “permits” evil? Is it the same thing?

I think you hit the nail on the head with regard to language. God is Sovereign, Omniscient, Omnipotent - the entire universe is willed into ongoing existence, despite man’s ill use of preserving it. I think we can call it his “passive” or “indirect” willing of both good and evil, not wishing to interfere in man’s free will. That’s saying we can petition/pray to Him to intervene and change the course of an evil action. Many saints have also done this, including St. Paul who asked that a thorn of suffering be removed from him. God denied the prayer, saying that His grace was sufficient for him.

Therefore, it is good to ask, but to be resigned when the answer is NO, trusting that he loves us so much that even his NO is for our good, and is hidden with regard to the result.

Keep in mind that it is good always to pray for deliverance, for instance from illness. Scripture is very clear about going to the physician for healing remedies. We don’t just lie in our sick bed and believe God wills me to be sick, without trying to get well. Follow? If we know a storm is coming, we batten down the hatches, and make real efforts not allow evil to befall us if we can prevent it.