The Problem of Suffering

  • Thread starter Thread starter HandroZ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HandroZ

Guest
So I saw several topics on moral evil and suffering that causes, but what about natural suffering? Tornadoes, Volcanoes, etc.

So I’d always thought this: suffering on earth does not necessarily have a purpose, but one can gain something from its presence. If you get cancer, it might lead you to reevaluate your life and sort your priorities, if someone dies from cancer, those around might come to terms with the brevity of their own lives and live them better. Others might not get something from suffering, some may though. But suffering is not the act of God ‘to teach us a lesson’, but could be either 1) the effect of another’s evil acts, or sins or 2) natural phenomenon or just ‘chance’ which we cannot explain, happen for no reason, but which if we look to them, may sometimes teach us something.

However, looking at new advent, a great Catholic website, I read this on the entry on Evil – that all Catholic philosphies of suffering and evil must take the following absolute Church views:
Code: 
* the omnipotence, omniscience, and absolute goodness of the Creator;
* the freedom of the will; and
* **that suffering is the penal consequence of wilful disobedience to the law of God.**
What?? Can someone explain please? IS all suffering really God’s direct and active action? That seems a little like the logic back in the time of the Book of Job. Aren’t we past thinking that God gives us good things when we love Him, and punishes us on earth when we’re bad?
 
HandroZ said:
So I saw several topics on moral evil and suffering that causes, but what about natural suffering? Tornadoes, Volcanoes, etc.

So I’d always thought this: suffering on earth does not necessarily have a purpose, but one can gain something from its presence. If you get cancer, it might lead you to reevaluate your life and sort your priorities, if someone dies from cancer, those around might come to terms with the brevity of their own lives and live them better. Others might not get something from suffering, some may though. But suffering is not the act of God ‘to teach us a lesson’, but could be either 1) the effect of another’s evil acts, or sins or 2) natural phenomenon or just ‘chance’ which we cannot explain, happen for no reason, but which if we look to them, may sometimes teach us something.

However, looking at new advent, a great Catholic website, I read this on the entry on Evil – that all Catholic philosphies of suffering and evil must take the following absolute Church views:
  • the omnipotence, omniscience, and absolute goodness of the Creator;
  • the freedom of the will; and
  • that suffering is the penal consequence of wilful disobedience to the law of God.
What?? Can someone explain please? IS all suffering really God’s direct and active action? That seems a little like the logic back in the time of the Book of Job. Aren’t we past thinking that God gives us good things when we love Him, and punishes us on earth when we’re bad?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you have misinterpreted the bolded statement when you rephrased it as:
IS all suffering really God’s direct and active action?
Click to expand...
How did you get “direct” and “active” from the bolded statement?
 
Well, if all suffering is a consequence of disobedience to God, either when we sin a) we bring it upon ourselves or b) as a consequence, God directly brings it upon us. Either way, does a newborn child dying in a tsunami suffer because of disobeying God? That sounds and AWFUL lot like the advice Job’s friends gave Job, which I understood NOT to be the Church’s position on suffering, yet the statement seems to be implying that all suffering is punishment for our sins nonetheless.
 
Isn’t there suffering for another’s benefit? Like what Christ did for us?
 
Well, playing devil’s advocate, couldn’t one say that was suffering caused by the sins of humanity? So that fits in with the quote. But I did think there was suffering not just related to that, yet I don’t see how this NewAdvent quote fits in with it. Anyone know for sure if this is misstated or something?
 
Hi Folks:

I went to the website “New Advent” and found the reference; it was part of a lengthy definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia relating to evil. After reading through most of it, I found that the referenct was made as a logical conclusion to Catholic doctrine as it relates to suffering;

As it reads in the website:

"*In the light of Catholic doctrine, any theory that may be held concerning evil must include certain points bearing on the question that have been authoritatively defined. These points are

the omnipotence, omniscience, and absolute goodness of the Creator;
the freedom of the will; and
that suffering is the penal consequence of wilful disobedience to the law of God."*

Suffering as I see it is the consequence of the violation of God’s moral law. In other words it is not an event that occurs in a vaccum or naturally as in tornadoes, etc. I understand the argument that this may imply that it is caused by God, but I would simply respond to that by stating that anything that happens can be ascribed to God since He is in total charge. There are still mysteries to our faith. Mother Teresa said, I believe:

"Our suffering is God’s gentle caresses, beckoning us to come back to him, to admit that we are not in control of our lives, but he is in control and can be trusted with our lives completely"

I don’t have all the answers, but I do understand that suffering, while a consequence of personal sin or original sin, is unavoidable by man, it is to be accepted and even welcomed as it unites us to Christ. Kind of the good emerging from the bad as it may be.

I recall a long time ago I heard some tapes on the conversion of Kimberly Hahn. There was a beautiful story of how she came to understand suffering. But I’ve already been more long winded than I intened for my first post.

God Bless,

Victor
 
HandroZ said:
Well, if all suffering is a consequence of disobedience to God, either when we sin a) we bring it upon ourselves or b) as a consequence, God directly brings it upon us. Either way, does a newborn child dying in a tsunami suffer because of disobeying God? That sounds and AWFUL lot like the advice Job’s friends gave Job, which I understood NOT to be the Church’s position on suffering, yet the statement seems to be implying that all suffering is punishment for our sins nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I think you are over interpreting the original statement.
Adam and Eve’s sin resulted in humanity being banished from the Garden of Eden (There are no tsunami’s there - just the usual gentle evening breeze.) That is why the newborn child was exposed to a tsunami. Therefore, in this sense, sin created the possibility for this suffering to occur.
 
Philthy: I’d have to say two things about that particular response though. That’s assuming the second of the two creation stories is historical fact, which even the Church does not hold we must believe, and also, it implies that original sin is a kind of fault of our ancestors we’ve inherited. Like us being held accountable for our father’s actions, which is not actually what original sin is, if I understand the Catholic doctrine correctly.

vgatell: Thanks for the reply and the time spend reading into that, I appreciate it. I need to ask a few things about your reply however
  1. Are you saying that suffering due to moral disobedience is a different kind of suffering that natural phenomenon? If so, is that safe to say, and assume the New Advent author was thinking the same thing?
  2. How would you then respond to the other question about a tsunami? If an innocent child, for instance, dies moments after birth (or baptism, take your pick) in a tsunami, how does this statement relate? Does it?
  3. If you are familiar with the Book of Job on suffering (if not, don’t worry, I appreciate what you’ve done for me so far) you’ll recall Job’s friends argued to Job that God always punishes the evildoers and rewards the good men. Job (having suffered greatly) retorts that this cannot be so, because he knows he’s been good, and the pain he’s undergoing has no justification or cause. Later on, God condemns the friends for having been blind and having misrepresented Him and praises Job for his loyalty to Him and his rebuttal of these false statements of Him. How does this match at all with this statement? Thanks again.
Oh, and one last question to everyone. Is it fair to interpret this quote as saying that “suffering is the result of moral disobedience, thus all moral disobedience leads to suffering, BUT not all suffering is caused by moral disobedience”? Or am I bending the statement a little much? Thanks everyone.
 
HandroZ;:
Philthy: I’d have to say two things about that particular response though. That’s assuming the second of the two creation stories is historical fact, which even the Church does not hold we must believe, and also, it implies that original sin is a kind of fault of our ancestors we’ve inherited. Like us being held accountable for our father’s actions, which is not actually what original sin is, if I understand the Catholic doctrine correctly.
Click to expand...
The creation accounts are, at the very least, representations of reality. The world that we live in is not the world originally intended for us. The statement that the creation stories are not necessarily “historical fact” does not mean that we can simply dispense of the entire account. Again, at the very least their is a reality represented in those stories.
Oh, and one last question to everyone. Is it fair to interpret this quote as saying that “suffering is the result of moral disobedience, thus all moral disobedience leads to suffering, BUT not all suffering is caused by moral disobedience”? Or am I bending the statement a little much? Thanks everyone.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you this - is there anything that you do that your parents bear absolutely no responsibility for?
In the most practical sense, if you are an adult, you are responsible for your actions. Parents influence the development of their children, however, and in this sense your parents may bear some level of respnosibility for raising you in a manner that creates a propensity for you to act the way you act.
In the strictest sense you would not exist if your parents had not brought you to existence through the exercise of their free will; and in this sense they ultimately bear some level of responsibility for everything you do.
It is in this last sense that we can look to the story of creation and see that our “parents” - Adam and Eve - made a choice which affected us all and affected the world we live in.
 
to add, suffering is not always pain. Suffering is living without God too so that is why sometimes bad people are NOT punished. because to not punish them is punishment too.

😃

Suffering can be the greatest gift. To not suffer at all, is to have no opportunity to move closer to God. (ie: Job’s suffering made him more holy than he was before. Also remember the devil played a role in Job’s ordeal. It was a supernatural job (not Job) you might say.)

Regarding tsunami’s and natural events. Yes, that can be punishment from God for excesses of immorality. Doesn’t the old testament say that many generations can be punished?

This makes sense to me. The baby who dies in a Tsunami dies along with everyone. If you live a life of total immorality, don’t expect your children to be graced by God. Right? All adult humans have a responsibility to God and to our offspring.

It doesn’t need to be a tsunami either. Children of atheists suffer. How can a child of an atheist be blessed by God? How can a child of an immoral person be blessed by God? Every action a person performs either blesses them and their children or curses them and their children.
 
Hi:

I’ll try to answer, be forwarned that I am no authority on the subject matter.

vgatell: Thanks for the reply and the time spend reading into that, I appreciate it. I need to ask a few things about your reply however
  1. Are you saying that suffering due to moral disobedience is a different kind of suffering that natural phenomenon? If so, is that safe to say, and assume the New Advent author was thinking the same thing?
I don’t believe that suffering is an immediate result of a sinful act. Human suffering is often caused by stupidity, like stepping in front of a car, for instance. Suffering exists, for both good and bad people and is part of the human drama.

Now as to your direct question; I don’t claim to understand the entire issue of suffering in catholic teachings. I have questions myself; why did Jesus have to suffer, was He not God? If He suffered, why then do we, who claim to be reborn? As I understand catholic doctrine, suffering occurs as a result of original sin, all suffering. Suffering unites us to Christ and it should be accepted as a sign that we are not in total control and still require God. I see your point from Job and feel that Job was holding steady to his devotion to God and was not going to be convinced to question God or attempt to understand His reasons for the suffering he experienced.
  1. How would you then respond to the other question about a tsunami? If an innocent child, for instance, dies moments after birth (or baptism, take your pick) in a tsunami, how does this statement relate? Does it?
Obviously the child will suffer or die due to no fault of his or her own, no one would dispute this. Innocent people die all the time, evil doers seem to live long lives. Are we to question God in an attempt to find reasoning for why bad things happen to good people? I would simply say that there is still a reason why we call it “Faith”. We trust that God knows best.
  1. If you are familiar with the Book of Job on suffering (if not, don’t worry, I appreciate what you’ve done for me so far) you’ll recall Job’s friends argued to Job that God always punishes the evildoers and rewards the good men. Job (having suffered greatly) retorts that this cannot be so, because he knows he’s been good, and the pain he’s undergoing has no justification or cause. Later on, God condemns the friends for having been blind and having misrepresented Him and praises Job for his loyalty to Him and his rebuttal of these false statements of Him. How does this match at all with this statement? Thanks again.
Oh, and one last question to everyone. Is it fair to interpret this quote as saying that “suffering is the result of moral disobedience, thus all moral disobedience leads to suffering, BUT not all suffering is caused by moral disobedience”? Or am I bending the statement a little much? Thanks everyone.

I think you may be attempting to pin down a very complicated issue. Searching Sacred Scripture does not always seem to satisfy this issue of suffering. Apparent discrepancies between Old and New Testaments i.e. However, the Tradition of the Church holds human suffering as a blessing from God, and something we are given to help us unite to the suffering of Christ. We don’t immediately suffer 5 ounces of suffering for a 5 ounce sin, if that is what you are implying. We could drive ourselves crazy attempting to undestand suffering, and easily miss the blessing of taking our personal suffering, offering it up to God, like Christ did and what more beautiful of a thing for us to do than to imitated Christ in all ways, even in his suffering.

Good luck my friend, and God bless,

Victor
 
Hi Lisa:

If I may comment on part of your post.

to add, suffering is not always pain. Suffering is living without God too so that is why sometimes bad people are NOT punished. because to not punish them is punishment too.

Suffering can be the greatest gift. To not suffer at all, is to have no opportunity to move closer to God. (ie: Job’s suffering made him more holy than he was before. Also remember the devil played a role in Job’s ordeal. It was a supernatural job (not Job) you might say.)

*Regarding tsunami’s and natural events. Yes, that can be punishment from God for excesses of immorality. Doesn’t the old testament say that many generations can be punished?

This makes sense to me. The baby who dies in a Tsunami dies along with everyone. If you live a life of total immorality, don’t expect your children to be graced by God. Right? All adult humans have a responsibility to God and to our offspring.

It doesn’t need to be a tsunami either. Children of atheists suffer. How can a child of an atheist be blessed by God? How can a child of an immoral person be blessed by God? Every action a person performs either blesses them and their children or curses them and their children.*

We have to be careful here not to take Old Testament texts and apply them to post Ressurrection times. Christ’s death and ressurrection made it possible for all people, even those who whose parents or ancestors were evil to be redeemed or saved if you would. All too often I hear evangelists blaming one country or another for their problems or famines on godless behavior. I would not be so presumptive as to think that is so. Christ descended into hell and rescued many who may have been there due to the sins of their fathers or generations.

Suffering should not be explained as a result of our current doings, but perhaps more as a condition of original sin. One, however, that we can use to our benefit if we offer it to God. This way, we are not tempted to judge others based on our beliefs or morals and blame their misgivings on their actions. A sin just as bad.

Did you read or hear “The Conversion of Kimberly Hahn”? Beautiful story in there about her understanding of human suffering.

God Bless,

Victor
 
I have been studying the question of suffering for some time. Presently, I am in the midst of a doctoral dissertation, on suffering. The time, however presses me so much, that I can’t respond as well as I would want. I write in Polish, and research in twelve languages, primarily Italian.I write with Church’s encouragement, but have had to deal with the economic aspects myself, heretofore. I write from the perspective of John Paul II, which is so advanced and brilliant, that my dissertation, God willing, will help the whole world in the understanding of this question. I cite: “Nel mistero della Passione l’amore di Christo per noi raggiunge il suo vertice. E proprio da quel vertice si diffonde una luce che illumina e da senso a tutte le sofferenze umane. …]La sofferenza non e mai inviata da Dio allo scopo di schiacciare, ne diminuire la persona umana ne d’intralciare lo svilupo. Essa ha sempre lo scopo di elevare la qualita della vita, stimolando ad una piu grande generosita…] Nelle sofferenze che ci toccano personalmente, Christo c’invita a cogliere la possibilita di un amore piu grande.” I wish I could write more, but I cannot afford today more time. I only do it out of consideration for you. I translate for those who do not know Italian: “In the mystery of the Passover, love of Christ for us reaches its summit. And right from that summit, spreads a light which illuminates and gives sense to all human sufferings …] Suffering is never sent by God for the purpose of suffocating or diminishing the human person, or hindering development. Suffering has always the purpose of elevating the quality of life, impelling toward a greater generosity. …] In the sufferings that befall us personally, Christ invites us to grasp the possibility of a greater love.” I have no time to explain, why this is so.
 
I do not think it is possible to overstate the challenge that human suffering poses to a belief in God - it is obvious and profound. The concept of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God do not square with the experience of suffering, and no amount of intellectualizing suffices in the midst of great suffering.

Thomas Merton gave a treatise on suffering that has always seemed important to me. Merton’s view was that suffering is meaningless. It has no reason or value in and of itself but is the natural expression of the human condition.

Because of the suffering and death of our Lord, however, God has given value to our suffering joined with the crucifixion. At Baptism, therefore, God calls forth all the sufferings that person will experience in his life and sanctifies them. They become his name, his identity in paradise. They define him.
 
And I wholly agree with those statements about the role of suffering in our lives, I’ve never doubted that. However, my question I guess it more as to the origin of suffering forgetting about our current day-to-day lives. I mean, I read around on New Advent, and they tie in their statement to original sin and an inheritance of suffering. But see, that’s what I’m having trouble putting together:

Assuming the creation stories are myths rich with religious and moral truth, but not historical truth, then this leads me to wonder: at which point did the ‘fall’ occur, and where did our inheritance of suffering and sin begin? For if we obtained it from the first humanoid species, then they, before suffering and sin entered them, must have lived forever and been incredibly graced. But we don’t see that in what we can tell of the past. We see instead physical evils always present. Even before we humans came to inhabit the earth, floods, storms, droughts and diseases were present. When we first came around, we experienced them firsthand, but nowhere in there do we see evidence of having first sinned and then lost immortality, for it seems immortality itself was never a part of a human species here on earth. If someone can tie together original sin and our modern concept of evolution, I’d be much obliged, because I think that would even answer my question of suffering at the same time. I’ve heard for instance that original sin is just the fact that we are deprived of sanctifying grace, something easy to agree with, but then the question remains, how did we lose that sanctifying grace if we can’t seem to find that we even had it.
 
HandroZ said:
If someone can tie together original sin and our modern concept of evolution, I’d be much obliged, because I think that would even answer my question of suffering at the same time.
Click to expand...
Original sin and evolution are wholly incompatible, in my view, for the reasons you have posted. It is even more difficult to reconcile the two when the concept of animal suffering is included to the mix.

Personally, I think the Catholic Church will eventually need to modify its doctrine to take into account evolutionary theory. There have been assertions that no conflict exists, but even a casual study reveals the inherent contradictions.

In the end, like most things religious, it takes faith to accept the Church view.
 
HandroZ said:
Code: 
* the omnipotence, omniscience, and absolute goodness of the Creator;
* the freedom of the will; and
* **that suffering is the penal consequence of wilful disobedience to the law of God.**
What?? Can someone explain please? IS all suffering really God’s direct and active action? That seems a little like the logic back in the time of the Book of Job. Aren’t we past thinking that God gives us good things when we love Him, and punishes us on earth when we’re bad?
Click to expand...
sure,

the first problem is the idea that suffering is of no value, indeed suffering is more precious than gold.

the Passion of Christ was the ultimate standard of suffering, willful torture and murder of an innocent G-d. a Sacrifice that Rings through all that is, like the clearest and most beautiful of bells.

the book of Job is a beautiful statement of the reality of G-ds true relationship with man. i urge you to reread it in its entirety. what you receive from G-d is good, whether it satisfies some immediate pleasure or desire, or if it causes suffering. it is all for your benefit, even when you can’t tell it is immediately

from my own experience i can tell you i have not suffered one day in my life, others would point to me and say different, before my faith matured i cried out to G-d, why did you make me like this? why did you take this from me, i was only a child!, why did you let this happen to me? i tried to be good! i always felt sorry for myself. pity me.

as my faith matured i realized that every bit of what i thought was suffering was not in vain. i was being led by the hand to sit at my Masters feet.

in all cases i can point to an event, or a condition, that brought me in closer to G-d. at the time I cried out for pity, but he knew what was best for me. it took me almost 25 years to realize it, but in the end those things that seemed random, and arbitrary, worked in my favor.

so now when i see suffering i greet it like an old friend, one who has cared for me even before i knew Him.

suffering is beautiful, but it takes an appropriate knowledge of our true relationship with G-d to understand it.

i find the best example of that in The Book of Job, particularly in the last five chapters or so.

i urge you to read it with an open and accepting mind, as one who has no pride, a creation, a slave, completely bendable to the Will of G-d.

i hope that you can find the beauty that i did
 
MerryAtheist said:
Original sin and evolution are wholly incompatible, in my view, for the reasons you have posted. It is even more difficult to reconcile the two when the concept of animal suffering is included to the mix.

Personally, I think the Catholic Church will eventually need to modify its doctrine to take into account evolutionary theory. There have been assertions that no conflict exists, but even a casual study reveals the inherent contradictions.

In the end, like most things religious, it takes faith to accept the Church view.
Click to expand...
i am curious about what the inherent contradictions are?

and atheism as the implied idea that we simply popped out of nowhere, seems to require much more faith than the idea of a creator,
 
warpspeedpetey said:
i am curious about what the inherent contradictions are?

and atheism as the implied idea that we simply popped out of nowhere, seems to require much more faith than the idea of a creator,
Click to expand...
We can discuss what atheism is and is not some other time, but for my views on the contradiction between Original Sin and evolution, see here.
 
MerryAtheist said:
We can discuss what atheism is and is not some other time, but for my views on the contradiction between Original Sin and evolution, see here.
Click to expand...
an interesting idea, one i would be happy to debate with you in the appropriate place

but what about the second statement, that atheism requires more faith than being a theist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top