Question re Aquinas' Origin of Evil

[grandfather]

These posts have really got me thinking about this topic - suffering/evil/free will, etc. Do any of you have any recommendations for reading that might enhance my understanding of the issues? Obviously, I am reading some “basic” Aquinas but may of course benefit from some other writings. Thanks for the advice.

The problem of evil, the question why evil exists has never been solved by theologians. We are confronted with suffering (evil) and try to explain it. We see the chain events of cause and effect. Free will is part of our explanation. We know God is perfect (holy), but His creation is not. We blame us, or free choices made by us imperfect or fallen creatures, not Him, but He made us. The story of man’s redemption, salvation history, tells us of the fixing of the problem and we see there, God who comes to take upon Himself the guilt and consequences of brokenness, the guilt of all.

Since theologians with much greater minds than mine have not figured evil out, it probably will not get it figured out completely. Questions always remain, as we see here. Maybe it is too great for our finite minds. Jesus says to His apostles, there is much I would like to tell you, but you can not bear it yet.

What concerns me more than why there is evil and suffering, what the cause, purpose, or meaning is, is what to do with it, with our own and the suffering we see in others.

We see the answer in Jesus’ passion, suffering and death. He offers it and Himself to God the Father as acceptable sacrifice. Then we hear Him tell us to take up our crosses and follow Him. Why? What is the purpose of that, of me taking up and instrument of torture, suffering and death? Is it to prove we can pass some test, that we are tough enough to make the grade? That would be meaningless. The purpose of the sacrifice of Jesus is the redemption of the world. He is the eternal high priest who offers Himself as sacrifice and His sacrifice is acceptable. How did the Jews know their sacrifice was acceptable to God? Fire came down from heaven and consumed it and this fire was kept alive to burn the temple sacrifices. This is why it was important to keep the temple lamps lit and the miracle that kept them burning when the oil ran out. They would have needed another fire from heaven to know their sacrifices were acceptable if the fire wet out. At Pentacost fire came down from heaven and tongues of fire appeared over the heads of those present. What did that signify? They are acceptable sacrifice. The prophets said that God would raise up for Himself a priestly people, nation of priests, royal priesthood. What makes a priest a priest is the offering of sacrifice. The priestly people of God, those who are baptized into the offices of Christ, priest, prophet and king, offer themselves as He did, their suffering and sacrifice to Him, to be made acceptable by joining it to His, offered to the Father for the same purpose as His. The Father accepts. Maybe we can understand the origins of evil and suffering, by seeing its proper end.

 

[ErikaA]

Since theologians with much greater minds than mine have not figured evil out, it probably will not get it figured out completely. .

I’m with you there. I majored in chemical engineering not philosophy, so I am truly a novice at all this.

What concerns me more than why there is evil and suffering, what the cause, purpose, or meaning is, is what to do with it, with our own and the suffering we see in others.

What makes a priest a priest is the offering of sacrifice. The priestly people of God, those who are baptized into the offices of Christ, priest, prophet and king, offer themselves as He did, their suffering and sacrifice to Him, to be made acceptable by joining it to His, offered to the Father for the same purpose as His. The Father accepts. Maybe we can understand the origins of evil and suffering, by seeing its proper end.

This is a very good point about what makes a priest a priest. I’ve never thought of it that way. And likewise, I think this is what Bonhoeffer means when he talks about the cost of discipleship. So then, what makes a Christian a Christian? It’s not just saying I believe is it?

 

[Joyousguard]

From choice comes a greater freedom. Eternal freedom is free from choice wouldn’t you agree?

I think eternal freedom is still being able to choose to love God or not love Him but still choosing to love Him each and every moment. Our free will does not disappear but rather our nature and originaly faculties to distinguish the good and seek that good more fully return to the way they were before the fall and are probably augmented with further grace. Freedom of choice does not disappear nor does much of the realm of choices we can make even in the after life. Eterenal freedom is still being allowed to choose other than God but instead accepting Him with every fiber of your being. A choice is made that much more important when we have the freedom to do as we wish.

 

[grandfather]

I think eternal freedom is still being able to choose to love God or not love Him but still choosing to love Him each and every moment. .

Freedom is a commonly used word and everyone thinks they know what it is, but maybe no one really knows what it is, because no one has fully experienced it. The opposite of freedom is slavery. Jesus speaks of both concepts and we can see physical slavery so we understand it, but Jesus speaks of spiritual slavery, the slavery of sin and the obedience sinners are forced to give to their slave master. We see this in various addictions. What happens when we are freed from this slavery? What then? We freely choose to serve another master, but one who loves us. We always are in some service.

 

[ErikaA]

Freedom is a commonly used word and everyone thinks they know what it is, but maybe no one really knows what it is, because no one has fully experienced it. The opposite of freedom is slavery. Jesus speaks of both concepts and we can see physical slavery so we understand it, but Jesus speaks of spiritual slavery, the slavery of sin and the obedience sinners are forced to give to their slave master. We see this in various addictions. What happens when we are freed from this slavery? What then? We freely choose to serve another master, but one who loves us. We always are in some service.

In the Bondage of the Will, Luther wrote that we are like horses being ridden either by satan or God and it is not our decision as to who holds the reigns. I immediately disliked this claim, although I understand the reasoning behind it. On one hand, if God’s in control, then I don’t have much say so in things. On the other, this absolves me of any personal responsibility for my faith. “Oh well, I guess God wants me to be greedy and lust after everyone I meet. After all, I can only change when He wants me to.” Where’s the happy medium? Am I really free if I live in a fearful and anxious state, hungry to hoard whatever I can for fear of missing out on something? Am I free if God is in complete control of my life? Perhaps but how do you know if He really is?? I truly don’t understand.

 

[Joyousguard]

In the Bondage of the Will, Luther wrote that we are like horses being ridden either by satan or God and it is not our decision as to who holds the reigns. I immediately disliked this claim, although I understand the reasoning behind it. On one hand, if God’s in control, then I don’t have much say so in things. On the other, this absolves me of any personal responsibility for my faith. “Oh well, I guess God wants me to be greedy and lust after everyone I meet. After all, I can only change when He wants me to.” Where’s the happy medium? Am I really free if I live in a fearful and anxious state, hungry to hoard whatever I can for fear of missing out on something? Am I free if God is in complete control of my life? Perhaps but how do you know if He really is?? I truly don’t understand.

The sweetness of the fruit from the tree that is your very nature will tell you if you are on the correct path. You continual thirst for truth in all respects and that desire for the ultimate truth must remain true and pure. While we may hold certain fallacies because of our imperfect state this does not have to inhibit our desire to truly seek God.

Mankind is free when they put God in control. This choice is not only one that is made initialy but one that is also made continually. We do not just choose God and it’s over with but we continually and perpetually can choose God. This is true freedom. Not to choose God once but to choose God every second of every day with the fiber of your very being in the face of such worldly desires. In God’s care we are not only protected and guided but ensured of happiness while still being given a world of choices.

When I pray, I ask to recieve God’s truth and not my own. I ask to be shown reality as it is especially when I do not want to see it. I ask for His wisdom and guidance to replace my own.

I think Luthur was wrong. Neither God Nor Satan ride us. However, we can hand God the reigns and submit to him leading us by those reins without Him riding us. The reins are much longer than we would see on a horse and every know and again there is gentle tug in the right direction showing us that we must keep moving and which way we should go.

 

[grandfather]

In the Bondage of the Will, Luther wrote that we are like horses being ridden either by satan or God and it is not our decision as to who holds the reigns. I immediately disliked this claim, although I understand the reasoning behind it. On one hand, if God’s in control, then I don’t have much say so in things. On the other, this absolves me of any personal responsibility for my faith. “Oh well, I guess God wants me to be greedy and lust after everyone I meet. After all, I can only change when He wants me to.” Where’s the happy medium? Am I really free if I live in a fearful and anxious state, hungry to hoard whatever I can for fear of missing out on something? Am I free if God is in complete control of my life? Perhaps but how do you know if He really is?? I truly don’t understand.

Erika,
You are causing me to burn brain cells and old men have no surplus.

Read the rest of Luther’s statement. He says it does not matter who your rider is. If the rider is Christ you will do good things. If the rider is Satan, evil, but it does not matter as long as you believe Jesus is the Son of God who came to save you. He cooked this up to try to prove Sola Fide. It is heresy to deny free will, which this does. I may not have full understanding of free will, but whatever it is we have it. We are responsible for our acts, good and evil and will be judged according to them. You are free, if you choose of your free will to love and serve God and give Him control, obey His commands. What does that mean? It means that you willingly live according to the precepts that are divinely revealed, which we know by faith will lead us to our proper destiny. On another thread you said you liked the idea of the maverick or maverick church. There is a common false belief that Christians in following God’s will are all alike. They all think alike, walk alike, dress alike, act alike, etc. The opposite is true. The saints are all unique individuals. God makes them and breaks the mold. They share in things like virtues and love of the poor and other marks of holiness, but this is expressed uniquely by each one. So there is a paradox. We ask God to control our lives and when He does we are free. The spiritual life is a journey full of change. You will know when you get to where God is in control (for lack of a better term), because you will recognize certain changes. The lust, greed, pride and fear will be gone and you will experience charity alive and overflowing in your soul. God infuses it in us. You will love everyone and will the good of everyone and feel it in you and coming out of you, not simply intellectually, but in an overpowering way. I know of no other means to walk this spiritual journey of grace, which is not easy than the sacraments of the Catholic Church and personal devotion. As we can not know what freedom is without experiencing it, we can not know the power of transformation in the Sacrament of Penance, for example, without experiencing it. There are two activities proper to spiritual beings. They are knowing and loving. Knowing is of the intellect. Knowing about God and knowing God are not the same. Knowing and loving go together, but we can not get stuck in the intellect or in the heart. By nature, generally not always, men are better at knowing and women are better at loving. But we all have to do both. The idea of being a maverick horrifies me. I want to belong to the Commmunion of Saints completely. Surely, most certainly, this is God’s will for you, to become a saint.

 

[ErikaA]

. Knowing about God and knowing God are not the same. Knowing and loving go together, but we can not get stuck in the intellect or in the heart.

Truly beautiful words and you are correct no doubt. It’s funny you say this because I have often thought in recent months, that I love the idea of God but know nothing of God Himself. I don’t think it was like this when I first became a “Christian”. I was much more innocent and swept away with the love of God then. There were many mountaintop moments. But I have only used the term Christian for myself for about four years now so I still admittedly have much to learn. Things happened after the Damascus road and the last couple years I felt a listlessness, a dissatisfaction with faith, the Bible, etc. After reading Merton recently, I came to believe that perhaps my discontent was rooted in Protestantism and that Catholicism might have some of the answers I seek.

I do love the Catholic writers, particularly the mystics. Such beauty and sensitivity they convey. Anyway, I’m not trying to bore everyone with my life story, but I think it may give you a sense of where I came from and thus the motivation behind my questions. I’m actually not trying to argue a particular point (mostly) on this forum but learn a little more. The issues I deal with are nothing new I know, but then we all have to have our Job moment, don’t we? Isn’t that the point of that beautiful poem?

 

[grandfather]

Things happened after the Damascus road and the last couple years I felt a listlessness, a dissatisfaction with faith, the Bible, etc.

Erika, I am praying for you calmly inside and in my writing here I am screaming at you. Listen. Listen to the saints who you like their writings. YOU NEED THE SACRAMENTS. You need to eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus. You need to confess. Believe me, when you sacramentally confess you will be made the new creature scripture describes and you will know it. You will feel clean. It is euphoric. It really works as long as you approach it properly. <<<<<<<<<

Anyway, I’m not trying to bore everyone with my life story,

Your life is not boring. Your journey is the journey to life. Nothing could be more exciting.<<<<<<<<

I’m actually not trying to argue a particular point (mostly) on this forum but learn a little more.

Great, be a sponge. Soak up all the learning, but it is not enough. It is good, but then it has to get from your head to your heart and then you will be made pure. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. He did not say, blessed are the learned. What we must know is how to love. He did not say He stands at the door of our heads and knocks. As the Evangelicals say, we invite Him into our hearts. Saying it is one thing, doing it is more than saying. When He enters He purifies. It is what we hunger for. <<<<<<<<<<

 

[Benadam]

“condemned to be…”

I meant to say, “condemned to be free”.

Then again, maybe leaving it as “condemned to be…” says it more precariously.

Yeah Ex, I liked that transition from freedom to being.

 

[Contarini]

Erika,
You are causing me to burn brain cells and old men have no surplus.

Read the rest of Luther’s statement. He says it does not matter who your rider is. If the rider is Christ you will do good things. If the rider is Satan, evil, but it does not matter as long as you believe Jesus is the Son of God who came to save you.

No, that is not what Luther is saying at all. If your rider is Satan then you will not believe in Jesus. Period.

Edwin

 

[grandfather]

No, that is not what Luther is saying at all. If your rider is Satan then you will not believe in Jesus. Period.

Edwin

I guess we need to find a source for his quote, which I can not do right now. It is very clear.

 

[ErikaA]

From Luther’s Bondage of the Will:
"But again, on the other hand, when God works in us, the will, being changed and sweetly breathed on by the Spirit of God, desires and acts, not from compulsion, but responsively, from pure willingness, inclination, and accord; so that it cannot be turned another way by any thing contrary, nor be compelled or overcome even by the gates of hell; but it still goes on to desire, crave after, and love that which is good; even as before, it desired, craved after, and loved that which was evil. This, again, experience proves. How invincible and unshaken are holy men, when, by violence and other oppressions, they are only compelled and irritated the more to crave after good! Even as fire, is rather fanned into flames than extinguished, by the wind. So that neither is there here any willingness, or “Free-will,” to turn itself into another direction, or to desire any thing else, while the influence of the Spirit and grace of God remain in the man.

In a word, if we be under the god of this world, without the operation and Spirit of God, we are led captives by him at his will, as Paul saith. (2 Tim. ii. 26.) So that, we cannot will any thing but that which he wills. For he is that “strong man armed,” who so keepeth his palace, that those whom he holds captive are kept in peace, that they might not cause any motion or feeling against him; otherwise, the kingdom of Satan, being divided against itself, could not stand; whereas, Christ affirms it does stand. And all this we do willingly and desiringly, according to the nature of will: for if it were forced, it would be no longer will. For compulsion is (so to speak) unwillingness. But if the “stronger than he” come and overcome him, and take us as His spoils, then, through the Spirit, we are His servants and captives (which is the royal liberty) that we may desire and do, willingly, what He wills.

Thus the human will is, as it were, a beast between the two. If God sit thereon, it wills and goes where God will: as the Psalm saith, “I am become as it were a beast before thee, and I am continually with thee.” (Ps. lxxiii. 22-23.) If Satan sit thereon, it wills and goes as Satan will. Nor is it in the power of its own will to choose, to which rider it will run, nor which it will seek; but the riders themselves contend, which shall have and hold it. "

Anyone want to help decipher Luther’s meaning here?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please remember to keep all discussion in line with the original topic. If it doesn’t relate, please take it to another thread in the appropriate forum. Thank you, everyone.

 

[itinerant1]

I am new to St. Thomas and have just begun reading a book that surmises his writings and thoughts (by Francis Selman if that matters). My question is about his “source of evil”. According to the book I’m reading, St. Thomas attributes the existence of evil to two things: one is free will which I get. The second “cause” (for lack of a better term) is due to the fact that nothing created is perfect because it only shares in God’s perfection and thus can never be as perfect as God.

My question is regarding this second source of evil. If creation is less than perfect by virtue of it being from God and not God itself, then didn’t the creative act itself produce evil? Better put, doesn’t that mean that God produced an imperfect creation and doesn’t that go against the Genesis point that creation is good? I’m just trying to understand his philosophy better. Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Good questions! Let me attempt an answer:
There are two kinds of evil, moral and physical. You said you understand the first kind, which has its source in free will. In regard to the second type of evil, physical evil, to understand that we need to understand some things about evil in itself. These obeservations apply to both types of evil. Evil is not a thing in itself (see Whether evil is a nature, Summa Theologica). Evil is a privation of some good that a thing should possess. Good is merely being considered under the aspect of desireablity: *“How desireable are all are all his works, *Ecclesiasticus 42:22”. Moral evil is a privation of the right order of the free will. In other words, a choice that is a moral evil results is a misuse or disordered use of the will. The will lacks that good of proper order.

A physical evil can be understood by considering a broken arm or illness. The broken arm lacks the right structure of an arm. It is an absence of some good the arm should possess, i.e. structure, form, etc. An illness is the absence of the proper health a body should possess. In both examples we see that the evil is not a positive reality. It is an abscence of some good a thing should possess.

Genesis says that everything God created is good. This is undeniably so because he created beings, and being is good. Evil does not have a being. It is a privation. This stands in opposition to those pagan religions that believed evil to be a positive reality, such as an evil primal co-principle with the good. Genesis affirms that everything that exists is good insofar as it exists.

Now, created beings undergo substantial changes, generation and corruption. A tree grows to maturity from a seedling and eventually dies. Of course, a dying tree involves a physical evil. But the evil is not a positive reality, as stated. Of course, God could have created a tree that is not subject to generation and corruption. In this absolute sense He could have created a better tree. However, His plan for creation, to fulfill the purpose for which He intended, involves the creation of beings subject to generation and corruption. But there is good in this, as even a tree strives for immortality in a sense, by producing seeds that grow into the next generation of trees.

When we get a glimpse of the big picture, we see that God created the best of all possible worlds: “She [Wisdom] deploys her strength from one end of the earth to the other, ordering all things for good. Wis. 8:1”. Thus the perfection of the universe requires gradations in goodness and the evil of physical corruption.(see Whether evil is found in things, S.T.) In addition, Ecclesiasticus, (or the Book of Sirach) says, “All the works of the of the Lord are good…You must not say,‘This is worse that that’, for everything will prove its value in its time, 39:34-35, or 39:40-41.”

Also, understanding something of the mystery of evil in the world requires understanding how the sin of Adam and Eve affected creation. St. Paul also alludes to sin affecting the entire cosmos. Sin has certainly complicated things.

Martin Luther taught non-sensical ideas about evil. He taught that man is completely evil, totally corrupt. However, as we have seen, this is not possible because evil is a privation. Evil can only exist in some good. It is not possible for something that exists to be completely evil. Luther failed to understand that evil is not a nature, it is a privation.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[itinerant1]

I am new to St. Thomas and have just begun reading a book that surmises his writings and thoughts (by Francis Selman if that matters).

**P.S. **I am not familiar with the book you mention, but I have a recommendation for an additional book. There is an excellent introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas by Frederick Copleston, S.J. called, Aquinas: An Introduction to the Life and Work of the Great Medieval Thinker

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[ErikaA]

Itinerant1, thank you so much for your post. It was brilliant, insightful and gave me much to consider. I also greatly appreciate the recommendation for further reading on St. Thomas.

Would it also be fair to say that since evil is a privation, a defect in the good if you will, that evil exists only in the minds of self aware creatures who possess free will? I may be going out on a logical limb here so saw away.

 

[itinerant1]

Itinerant1, thank you so much for your post. It was brilliant, insightful and gave me much to consider. I also greatly appreciate the recommendation for further reading on St. Thomas.

Would it also be fair to say that since evil is a privation, a defect in the good if you will, that evil exists only in the minds of self aware creatures who possess free will? I may be going out on a logical limb here so saw away.

This would be true in regard to moral evil. Creatures that do not possess free will, i.e. animals, are incapable of moral evil. A lion may kill and eat me for dinner, but he is acting on instinct, and no matter how much I dislike being his dinner, the lion has not violated the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” My only hope for retribution is that the lion gets indigestion.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[fhansen]

The “problem of evil” is difficult to resolve because God had foreknowledge of all that would happen in the world. Evil is probably an inevitable outcome of combining freewill with creation (in the form of us and also angels) or else God would have created a world with that combination where evil was not inevitable. I think the “best of all possible worlds” theory fits pretty well because of this. Anyway, what we’re left with in this world is the reality of evil and suffering- and its’ opposite, the reality of love, which, we believe, makes it all worth it in the end.

God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist. – Saint Augustine

And creation tacitly agrees with God on this. We cling to life-very few of us if any, no matter how bad it may get, would actually prefer nonexistence to existence if given the choice.

 

[ErikaA]

The “problem of evil” is difficult to resolve because God had foreknowledge of all that would happen in the world. Evil is probably an inevitable outcome of combining freewill with creation (in the form of us and also angels) or else God would have created a world with that combination where evil was not inevitable. I think the “best of all possible worlds” theory fits pretty well because of this. Anyway, what we’re left with in this world is the reality of evil and suffering- and its’ opposite, the reality of love, which, we believe, makes it all worth it in the end.

God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist. – Saint Augustine

And creation tacitly agrees with God on this. We cling to life-very few of us if any, no matter how bad it may get, would actually prefer nonexistence to existence if given the choice.

It’s funny you post this because I was mulling over this very idea last night. I think I was considering God’s creative act imperfect due to the fact that creation permits imperfection (gradations of good as itinerant put it). But this is faulty reasoning because the fact that varying degrees of good are permitted does not make creation the “less desirable of all possible worlds”. It could be argued that any creation bound by time would have to permit gradations of good and thus, that the world we have is “the best of all possible worlds” by virtue of the fact that imperfection is allowed. Does that make sense?