“I do admit that suffering is one of the most difficult questions that a believer has to contend with and I myself have struggled with it. I think it’s a bigger question for the atheist to explain why there is Goodness and Truth and Beauty.”

-Cardinal George Pell’s opening statement in debate with Richard Dawkins

“All my sufferings will have been as nothing compared to the surpassing joy of the understanding gained in them of God’s holy Word”

–Romans 8:18

It is hard for me to imagine what it might be like to suffer outside the awareness of God’s presence, for I have never been in such a place. I found an example from ancient Sparta, from a translation by B K Workman of the Spartan poet Tyrtaeus’ clarion call to arms on the eve of the second Messanian war written around 660 BC. In spite of his surprising eloquence, one does not feel that the ancient lyricist succeeds in infusing any desirability to death:

“Young men, stand by each other and fight. Set no example of flight or fear, which bring shame, but make the hearts in your breasts string and courageous, taking no thought of your lives as you fight with men. Do not flee and leave behind the veterans, men older than who whose limbs are no longer supple. Disgraceful it is for an older man, with white head and grey beard, to fall and lie dead in front of a younger man, breathing our his valiant spirit in the dust, clutching his bloody stomach in his hands, with his flesh bared. Shameful it is for the eye and dreadful to see. All this is fair enough for a young man, while he has the possession of the glorious flower of his lovely youth. Men wonder to behold him, and women love him while he lives, and his death as he falls in the front of rank is noble. But let a man press on and suffer hardship with both feet firmly planted on the ground, biting his lips to stifle the pain.”

Theological aspects

Free Will and the Source of Human Suffering

No one would debate that humans are the cause of large proportion of all the suffering that humans themselves endure. As I edit this article, under the shadow of strife in the Ukraine, Sudan and Yemen to name the more prominent war zones. Of course one mustn’t use sinfulness as the cause of the suffering in natural disasters and disease, but even in the case of those, there is at least some correlation, as we will come to later.

I remember the time when I was a little’ un and raining punches on the back of one of my rather sturdy uncles in Kerala. “You’ll only hurt yourself!” he growled playfully back at me. Isn’t it true that men who attack God, his teachings, and his Holy Church, only end up hurting themselves, and in so many ways as to make life unbearable for themselves, even death brings no respite. Let us pray for them: “Pray for those who persecute you…”, just as my uncle had my interests at heart. As a side note, I did once try being like my uncle once many years later when I had my own 4- year old daughter, and she had decided to use me as her sparring partner on that day, but the pain was so great that I could not quite get the words out…

Free Will is nothing more than the ability to choose right and wrong in whatever state you find yourself. All men sin (except for Mother Mary, yes I’m Roman Catholic). All the saints in Heaven, and all the saints that will ever be in Heaven, were all like us born sinners, but by grace, broke free from slavery to sin and were saved. The rest will die in the hatred of God and go to Hell. So suffering of sin is caused by everyone. God wanted His created beings to be able to love freely and for this, they need Free Will, if love is indeed freedom. If love is truly free, then it follows that there will be those who do not choose it. It is in the constant exertion of one’s free will that the perfection of the lofty heights of love are attained. God did not create a sinful creature. He created a creature that was free to choose sin. Neither also God did create beings that loved perfectly, rather he created beings that he could teach how to do so.

This is most pointedly alluded to in the Gospel of Matthew : “…for in gathering the weeds, you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest…” (13:29,30a): God allows evil to exist because we are all evil to varying extents. Were he to “weed the world”, we would all be “uprooted” (cf.Ps.130:3). Or if God were not to permit human freedom, we would have no humanity. Thus also, “the net thrown into the sea caught fish of every kind” (Mt.14:47).

Again, we will speak of the suffering caused by natural disasters and disease later in the article.

So Why Did God Create in the First Place?

God created us even though He knew man would cause suffering. Perhaps even more pertinent, God created us, knowing we would crucify Him. God creates us, inspite of the suffering that we would cause. If God was to create a Universe without suffering, he would have had to create a Universe without me in it, so to speak, and the same for every other human being. He did create it because he loved me, as he loved every single other human being. God created a Universe with suffering because he loved me, the cause of that suffering. God created the Universe that crucified, Him out of love, that is the authentic story of our Universe. Jesus lovingly created each of his torturers, though He knew that they would torture him, so that even they would have the option of repenting and going to Heaven.

(Rom.8 29) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.

(2Thes.2 13) “God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.”

Evil and suffering (again, we’re not necessarily including natural causes here) come due to the exercise of free will, and it is our choices that bring suffering into the world. God choses to created the world, but Man chooses to bring Evil into it. The Devil then would have no power in the world if we did not consent to his work. It is as though God, having made in the Angels a race of beings in a state of grace, yet some of which tended to sin, now in Man has created a race of beings to be born in sin that must strive for holiness. The demons created in life (eternity) chose for themselves death (damnation). Now man, born in the death of sin, must choose for himself life. One rejected life, now the other must reject death. You would think that if there were another way for us other than suffering, God would have found it, because this way was to cost Him His Beloved Only Son. An old Oratio from the Mass goes: “Thou hast made death glorious and triumphant, for through it’s portals we enter into the presence of the Living God.”

The Suffering of Illness and Death, it’s End

Jesus. when asked why a certain man was born blind, answers that it was so that God could be glorified through the miracle of his healing he was about to perform. When the paralyzed man is lowered through the roof, Jesus says to him ‘your sins have been forgiven’, even before he has healed him bodily. This clearly shows us where our priorities must lie. Rejoice not in bodily health, but in spiritual well-being. Didn’t Jesus heal everyone except Himself?

The suffering of severe illness is the process of dying, and the end of our earthly sojourn. As for those who criticize God for allowing the suffering of illness, what, in their reckoning, would be an acceptable way of dying? Do they mean they would find it easier to believe in God if everyone lived to a ripe old age of about 90 to a 100 and then died peacefully in their sleep? How many families have been brought together by a loved one’s illness. How many have served mothers and fathers that they would otherwise not have cared for. How many have been forced to abandon the rat race and worldly pursuits to spend time with a loved one that was dying and thereby redeemed themselves. And how many have themselves begun to reflect upon the bigger questions in life from the sick bed or convalescing that might otherwise have no reason to stop. Is the price of physical pain not worth a loved one’s Salvation? This is why there will be no place for euthanasia in civilized societies. The life of an ill person is worth just as much as that of a healthy one, or if there is not value to the life of an ill person, what value can there be to the life of a healthy person?

However, one must also be careful not to ascribe all of the suffering of illness to natural causes. The impact of man as the actual cause of natural illness and disaster is difficult to measure and likely itself be immense, if not at least substantial. How much illness is caused by man’s effect on polluting the environment, in destroying natural resources, in engendering lifestyles that have a severe mental strain with little time for natural pursuits and healthy living, the list could go on forever.

“Soul Building”- Training in an Eternal Discipline

What God offers to man is the gift of eternal life, and to become His children. This is a gift that man never asked Him for. How could he have asked, he didn’t even know what this meant. “What no eyes have seen, what no ears have heard, what no mind has conceived, this is what the Father has prepared for His children”. And God doesn’t just want us to go to Him, God also wants us, in a way that we can not now comprehend to be like Him! “Be Thou Holy, because I am Holy”. Because this is the only way we can actually experience the joy and splendor of eternal life, by experiencing it as God does, and for that God gives us to be like him. I discuss this here Participation in the Divine Life of Jesus. To be like Him. Holiness. Surely this is worth some pain. Imagine the amount of discipline and training that goes into being a musical virtuoso, a top scientist, or a martial arts expert. You can have all the discipline and self-denial that you want and it won’t make you holy, except that you do it for God. But God is a Father, and like any other father or like the best teacher, he doesn’t want His children to become spoilt brats, rather he wants to inculcate discipline in them. The gift of Divine Sonship means being God’s Holy children, to experience all the fullness of the joy of eternal life. Not to roam the streets of eternity like a zombie for that might be Hell.

God deliberately puts us into a situation where we feel the weight of our own weakness. So we are forced to call upon Him and discover how much stronger He is than we thought, and how much weaker we are than we thought. God doesn’t give us these tests to tell Him something He doesn’t know, He gives them to us to show us something we don’t know. Saint Gabriel of the Sorrowful Virgin, contracted Tuberculosis at a young age. In those days, a diagnosis of Tuberculosis was a death sentence. He merely thanked God for granting him a ‘lingering death’ as this would give him the chance to purify himself in preparation for eternal life. He died after about a year having suffered much, at the age of 25.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Saint Ignatius in his ‘Spiritual Exercises’ says that we must ask God that we may also share in His suffering, but not by suffering that is caused by the sin of another man, which would sadden and hurt Him. Suffering illness would be one such way to suffer without requiring another man to sin (Getting mugged for example, would be not!)

So who will suffer most? Those who sin most? Not so. There were two persons who suffered the most in the Bible. In the Old Testament, Job was a righteous, holy man who suffered tremendously. In the New Testament, it was the sinless one, Jesus Christ, who suffered more than any man. This dispels any doubt whatsoever that suffering is punishment. Suffering brings purification from our our sinful natures. Thank God for the opportunity to suffer in His name, that you may feel His presence closer, and more than ever. When we suffer in Jesus’ name, all worldly temptations fall away and we are closest to God. This is purification, not punishment surely, but grace! Thanks be to our Lord Jesus Christ through whose grace and sacrifice, we have gained a redemptive value for our own suffering when we call on His name, and join it to His suffering on the cross.

Of St Mary Magdalene de Pazzi, it is written: “In 1604, headaches and paralysis confined her to bed. Her nerves were so sensitive that she could not be touched without agonizing pain. Ever humble, she took the fact that her prayers were not granted as a sure sign that God’s will was being done. For three years she suffered, before dying on May 25, 1607 at the age of forty-one”

Even entry into this life is not possible without the pain of labor. Why does no one complain of this pain that rings forth earthly life (no pun intended), yet they complain of the pain that brings forth eternal life. The first is our birth into this world, the second our birth into the next. Similarly, no one complaints about the pains of giving a child his immunizations, that pain of a painful surgery, or treatment. Women will rarely even complain of the pain of breast implants, or the more painful buttock implants, sex-change operations and so on, if it is perceived as being for a greater good.

“When we have the desire to endure immense pain with love for God and untold grief for our sins and those of others against the Infinite Good, this makes reparation for our sins.” (Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena). God does not delight in seeing us suffer. A loose parallel is: Does a father ‘enjoy’ seeing the tears in his child’s eyes when he has admonished him? But he does feel joy when his child corrects an erroneous behavior having taken heed to this admonishment. The path of faithfulness entails suffering. But the greatest suffering is not the thorns along the path. The greatest suffering for the ardent lover is separation form the loved one.

When it seems that the weight of the world is on your shoulders, do ask yourself: Have you suffered enough to atone for the sins of the whole world? Then why exactly are you asking for your sufferings to stop? Rather you have not even suffered enough to atone for your own sins.

Fr. Regi Mani, a Catholic priest, one of whose excellent retreats I was lucky enough to attend made the observation that Jesus has suffered an agony of love for us, and we respond to his friendship by suffering an agony of love for Him in return. When God gives us virtues to increase it is through the practice of those virtues that we receive the increase. So for humility in us to increase, we must be humiliated, so also for love to increase we are given to love. When Jesus was on the Cross the onlooker said “if you are God then come down from the Cross”. Could Jesus come down from the Cross? Certainly! However Jesus’ great strength of love is in this, that he stayed. So St. Faustina and St. Theresa of the Child Jesus considered their tormentors to be their “great benefactors”. Fr. Mani then tells the story of a priest who was struggling with practicing forgiveness. One night he is given a vision- he sees a stream of water flowing to a river, but the flow of the stream is blocked and the waters are stagnating behind the obstacle. He then hears the voice of Jesus saying: “do not consider that you are to forgive but that you are to bring to my forgiveness”. So also. Fr. Mani concludes, it is not our love but the love of Jesus that we bring to people. He quotes St. Theresa of Avila who once observed that if she was to only pray when she was feeling good in her life, she never would have prayed. “Pain is necessary in order to be able to express love”, he concludes.

Inspiring Philosophy host Michael Jones from a debate on YouTube:

“…suffering itself is not necessarily evil. It is often logically assumed (that it is)…As Richard Swinbourne says: pains and other sufferings are bad states of affairs, but it is odd to call them evil. For example when I workout I experience suffering but we would say  this is healthy and instrumentally good. raising my daughter I have to allow suffering so she doesn’t become spoiled (…) but such discipline is actually instrumentally good (…) going through these hard processes are instrumentally good. likewise allowing suffering in this life might actually be useful in soul building and allow us to mature into more enlightened individuals (…) a lot of the arguments from evil and suffering presuppose a consequentialist view of good: that God is obligated to bring about a result that reduces overall suffering and increased pleasure. But (…) God may have other goals or internal obligations that must be achieved in order for him to be the good (himself) (…) we have to make sure we’re not presupposing a consequentialist view of right and wrong…”

The Openness to receive God in Faith

To suffer is to suffer some loss, and is the simplest definition of suffering. The suffering of pain brings the loss of physical security, while suffering in the face of death brings the fear of the loss of everything. In a state of loss we are rendered needy, and in the loss of everything we are totally and utterly dependent. Thus suffering actually opens the door to faith in the reality of God, for our utter neediness and dependence upon him is the only true reality. In this state of our relationship with God we become open to receive his gifts. God gives to us the supernatural virtues of Faith Love and Hope. After all, faith hope and love are faith in, hope for, and love of God. Faith and Hope are both virtues of this dependent state. It is in this awareness and acceptance we receive God, for the acceptance of our dependence on God  is the acceptance of God himself “…and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.” (Rom. 5:5).

Christian faith is in a God who “as good as dead” upon the Cross, bringing it in line with the notion of faith based on vulnerability, the characteristic of the entire prophetic cycle. Abraham believed, as the author of the book of Hebrews writes, “although his body was as good as dead”, and although “Sarah womb is as good as dead”, and further he became willing to give up his son Isaac for dead, in faith. Thus faith is believing in the state of deprivation of every hope of security. We are dependent for everything upon an omnipotent God. Suffering, through bringing us into the clear awareness of this reality, then clears every obstacle that we ourselves might raise in its attainment.

God Suffering with us

In “The Dentist of Auschwitz”, (available on the Nizhkor project website), Benjamin Jacobs,  having witnessed the brutal tortures of the death camps, describes an incident where a starving man is treated mercilessly and executed for robbing some potatoes he was loading onto a truck and asks the question: Did God ever go hungry? This question is answered only by Jesus Christ, when he said from the cross ‘I thirst’. He had probably not been given anything to eat or drink from the time of his arrest in the garden after the Last Supper. This question would possibly have been going through the minds of many pious Jews in the death camps. “Does God know what it is like to suffer?” The answer that comes from the Cross would have been around them in Christian Poland: “Yes!”

“..when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.” (1Jn.3: 2-3)

Rejoicing in our Sufferings, God is calling us to him

It does not matter to God how grievous your sins are, sins those sins are primarily against himself. It is his own prerogative to forgive them and no one else’s. What was Job’s mistake…to protest, to question, was it not? Do you think you make the same mistake? When you are depressed, aren’t you ‘not happy’? Doesn’t that mean you are not happy with God’s plan for you? (I mean his plan to give you Divine Sonship, Eternal life and Happiness, of course!) Shall I not say to you the same thing that Job’s angelic friends said to him? (My favourite one: ’15: 7 ‘Are you the firstborn of the human race? Were you brought forth before the hills?!, and from God, ‘Were you there when I laid the Earth on its foundations?’). And point to the thing that finally comforted Job. It was not any explanation of what was happening to him, because none was offered. It was the mere presence of God. For that is one of the greatest signs of love, is it not? When we make ourselves present to those we love. Feel God’s presence, for that will surely be enough to satisfy you also. Make yourself present to God. And then you will be ready for your inevitable recovery, like Job was. 

What does it Benefit One never to have Suffered

For if God were to snap His fingers and heal you this very moment, what good would it do you?  Take the people who go to faith healers and get healed of cancer, and various ailments. What good is that really to them? Cancer would have killed them in a few years time, old age will get them in a few years more. If they have taken no spiritual fruit from the healing, they will benefit nothing at the end of their days. And no faith healer saves them from Judgement Day.  Indeed to all those who ask “Why does God allow suffering in the world?”, one might well retort: “What does it benefit a man never to have suffered?”

“I will show him how much he must suffer for My name.” (Acts 9:16)

Saint Maria Faustina of the Divine Mercies was once going through a prolonged period of spiritual desolation. She had been given by God an excellent confessor in Fr Sopocko, who was fully aware of the special graces that Sister Maria had received. But even he was unable to relieve her desolation. She says:

“Evidently God wanted me to give Him glory through my suffering”. Finally, the priest consoled her saying that in her present situation she was more pleasing to God than if she were filled with the greatest consolations. “It is a very great grace”, He said to her, “that in your present condition, with all the torments of the soul that you are experiencing, you not only do not offend God, but you even try to practise virtues..”

People love to watch violent movies and play violent video games but the truth of war and genocide is more terrifying by far, and the true horror is that it is real. Men are actually capable of more evil than can be imagined of demons (though this is not actually true). We all feel the need to ‘season’ ourselves to suffering, faced with the inescapable apprehension that we will one day face it ourselves in uncertain measure. It’s like preparing for a boxing match. The tougher your sparring partner, the harder you get hit. But the better you get. Or like preparing for war. Yes, you can practice diving on the grass and crawling in your backyard, but you get better if you actually train with the army.

We spend our whole lives trying to avoid suffering. We accumulate wealth, try to live in low-crime areas, take out medical  insurance, spend tonnes of money doing research. We live in fear of the thief who may break into our house, hurt us, our loved ones, the mugger who may attack us on the streets, that plane that might crash and so on. When we hear of war and suffering in Afghanistan, we say ah!, what a backward, barbaric people. I am lucky to be in England, so far away from the madness. When we hear of the tsunami in Japan, we say, ah! So sad, so many people lost everything, what lucky I wasn’t born near a fault line! And such nice people, so dignified etc etc. When I heard of the London bomb blasts, I lived in London, and was on a plane back to Heathrow. What luck I wasn’t already in London, I may have taken the bus! And the same day that I left Bombay, the airport was closed because of the terrible floods in which hundreds lost their lives. What luck! Then I heard of the rioting on looting in Tottenham and Enfield. What uncouth people! I am glad I don’t live in London anymore. The other day, my neighbor challenged a group of youths who were drinking and then urinated on his fence. They beat him, kicked him in the head and gave him two black eyes. He has a 5 year old son. He was lucky not to suffer brain injury. What luck! I knew I would never have bought that house which adjoins the alleyway! Might just take out a maintenance contract for my burglar alarm, though, just in case… Look at what Jesus’ apostles and saints did, in contrast. They rejoiced in their sufferings:

“The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name” (Acts 5:41).

and again:

Romans 5:3-5 ^“And not only that, but wealso boast (rejoice in NIV) in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.”

We should rejoice if we are given the grace to suffer along with the Princes of Heaven, and the King. God does not inflict suffering upon you because He thinks it will break you. He will allow you to suffer because He counts you capable of accepting His Grace that upholds you. I think that the only merit that a man of Faith has is his assent, a mere ‘Yes’.

Romans 8:28 “We know that all things work together for good( Other ancient authorities read God makes all things work together for good, or in all things God works for good) for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.”

Romans 12:21 “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

It was man’s sin that caused suffering, but out of this very suffering also, for some will be fashioned Redemption. Is this not a marvellous exchange? We exchange death for eternal life. We exchange the stripping of our earthly possessions for the inheritance of an everlasting Kingdom. We exchange the torment of violence for the comfort of a Father’s arms and a mother’s bosom. We make no payment, we offer to God nothing that we possess for we possess nothing, and nothing that He needs, for He lacks for nothing. It is our very sin, and those of others inflicted upon us from which is fashioned our redemption. Injustice makes payment for Eternal life. That which cannot be bought is gained by that which can never be sold. I have here with me that to offer you which cannot ever be bought. You have nothing that you can give me for it, however in exchange I will take from you that which no one else will, and that which no one desires. I will take your suffering.

So that we might not love the gift while forgetting the giver, you united both in the form of your only begotten Son.- Dialogue

St Paul offers us a sense of proportion in our attitude to suffering when in 2 Cor  4:17 he calls our sufferings slight/momentary, and in 2 Cor 11:23 goes on to list the “slight/momentary” nature of those sufferings.

The Example of Mary

Let us consider the example of Mother Mary, dear Virgin Mother of God, (non-Catholic Christians might not fully agree with my comments in this section) watched her son die because of us, for did not the angel foretell “he will save the people from their sins”. Overcome by love for us her children, she participated in this necessary work for our salvation, willingly offering her Son up for us. She consented to this participation at the Annunciation itself, when she saw the excessive love of the Father and the Son for mankind, that he would take flesh as a helpless babe to save us, and so seeing she too was overcome by this same love for us.

When I first began contemplating the Passion, it is natural to imagine oneself going through the pain that Jesus did, and feeling sorrow for one’ sins. Indeed this is how a Protestant must contemplate the Passion, and it is a powerful contemplation indeed. However when one contemplates the Passion during the course of the Rosary, one contemplates the sorrow of a mother for her child undergoing the Passion.  I find it impossible not to look out of the widow and imagine my own child at the mercy of Roman soldiers, and myself watching, prevented from helping. Mother Mary’s Son was more sweet and innocent than your little child, no matter how adorable that child may be. The point of contemplation is to lace yourself mentally in the person’s shoes in order to correctly experience and draw fruit from the event.

And the ultimate fruit of this contemplation is not an increased respect for Mary, who like any mother seeks nothing for herself, but what I will call a ‘Sufficient Sorrow’. When one contemplates the sorrow of Mary, one might feel a ‘sufficient sorrow’ for one’s own sins which have caused this suffering of this innocent Child. One might feel the ‘deep contrition’ that one is exhorted to feel in the Psalms. The point of the Sorrowful Mysteries is after all, that one should feel a great sorrow for one’s own sins.  Thus the more we love Jesus, like a mother would her innocent baby, and the more we are aware of his great suffering, the more sorrow we are likely to feel for our sins which inflicted this suffering on Innocence himself. This is the power of the Rosary which words fail to describe.

The Cross: the Enormity of our Sin

This passage from the Dialogue of St Catherine of Siena sums it up. Remember, the Father speaks in the first person to St Catherine:

“Cut off pride’s horns and so dissipate the hatred you have in your hearts for those who do you harm. Compare the harm you do to me and to your neighbours with what is done to you and you will find that in comparison to what you do to me and them, your hurt is nothing. It is easy to see that by harbouring hatred you insult me because you violate my commandment, and you hurt your neighbours by depriving them of loving charity. I commanded you to love me above all things and to love you neighbour as yourself. This was not qualified in anyway that might say: if they hurt you do not love them.”

A contemplation of the Passion of Jesus helps us approach an appreciation of the extent of our offence against him. Compared to which a hurt caused not only to us, but to any human being is as nothing. The gravity of an offence is related to the innocence of the victim. For example, it is always more terrible to beat a child than it is an adult. This is not because, as is often erroneously stated that a child is defenseless. (Having a defense does not in itself merit a beating). It is because a child is sweeter.  And then when you remember that Jesus is infinitely sweet, then one starts to appreciate the extent of the crime. Even the smallest transgression when committed against infinite goodness, merits infinite punishment. It is only by grace that we are all spared this. I thank the Lord for my child that I may contemplate innocence, there is so much that we may learn from children. We thank the Lord for giving us his Child that we may contemplate his goodness. The suffering that we encounter is neither an injustice perpetrated by God, and neither is it an injustice on his part that he does not intervene to stop it. Rather the injustice of our own sins, the sins that crucified him, the sins that deprive our neighbours, far outweigh anything that anyone might do to us.

Consider the great love of Christ, he has done everything possible that we might not be lost to Hell for eternity, but rather choose the path of eternal Life. C.S. Lewis puts is beautifully here@

“In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: ‘What are you asking God to do?’ To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary…” (Pop, 129)

Lewis further observes that in enduring first hand the effects of our fallen selves in a fallen world, we are given a sense of what existence apart from God is like:

“Third one also needs to account for the fall of humanity. the current state of affairs was the result of humans electing to rule themselves instead of living under God. God desires for humans to live with him in an Eden setting and we elected not to and continue to elect that everyday we don’t love our neighbour as ourselves (…) So the current world is not what God wanted, but he’s allowing us to experience it in this dreamlike setting so that we can see the consequences for actions and fully see what rejecting of his lordship is like…” (Lewis, PoP)

What of the ‘Unaware’?

If it is true that suffering increases us in virtue, then what about children who die before the ‘age of awakening’, i.e. before they can make decisions about right and wrong, and the cognitively challenged, how so they acquired virtue and deserve the same outcome as all the rest of us? This question has vexed Church theologians for centuries. The best view to take is that God takes them to Him nonetheless. “Can I not do what I want with my own money?”, as the landowner says in the parable of the workers. How many times, have I seen disabled children give a purpose the the parents’ lives. So many nurses who see these day in and day out say like yourself ‘surely there can’t be a God!’, but I haven’t seen one of these parents curse God. Rather those that do so are the ones that have “normal” children! Consider what are the temptations and depravities these children, in bringing together a family in loving labor, so protect them from. In the financial stresses and time constraints that the presence of such an individual imposed upon the family, consider how they might actually save from occasions of frivolity and license. Consider the love that they engender in those that might have lived loveless lives.

Philosophical Aspects

Freedom in Randomness

Why are we sinful? We can deduce that God creates what is really not God. This is because he really has the ability to create. Were it the case that what God created was perfect, it would itself be God, which would be absurd and would mean that God in fact, could not create, for true creation is that which is other than God. This gives a simple logical deduction of why there is sin in creation- it is not God by definition, and therefore not perfect.

God is free himself and in creating man, the pinnacle of creation, he creates that which is itself authentically free. But freedom is true only when the choice is not “loaded” (like loaded dice at a casino), and this entails true randomness (like a casino that does not load the odds). God does not create his creature, man, in perfection, and that imperfection entails sinning, but he creates man in perfect freedom, and that freedom entails randomness. In order for the God-hypothesis to be true, there needs be a manner in which God created without removing free choice. The arbitrariness of suffering makes the Universe truly random and one might view this (if one so chooses) as a manifestation of its underlying subatomic randomness. Were it the case that there were no free choice then there could not be any room for God, rather whatever came at the beginning would be a determinoid or an automaton.

Randomness is a natural accompaniment a of a free creation, and randomness entails pain, since pleasure cannot be universal if it is random too. This randomness is inherent in and indeed constitutive of all aspects of creation, right from its probabilistic nature at the subatomic and quantum realms down to the macroscopic range.

Evolution and the entailed pain-protection response is the only model for the development of life that we know of. The “God would have created a different model, did he exist” is unscientific as a result. There’s pain everywhere in the world. A little bee died on my windowsill, probably from exhaustion because it couldn’t find its way back out through the gap it got in by. That’s an argument against God?

An ultra-famous Indian Movie has a scene of teenage love that is burned into the minds of every single Indian.: a girl walking away, about to board a train, the boy stood on the platform is thinking “if she loves me, she will turn back and look”, this gives rise to the most intense 15 seconds of Bollywood cinematic history as he anxiously awaits the sign… “Turn! Turn!” There is a reason he chooses to do this, rather than simply run up and just ask her himself. Because when she does turn, it is she who realizes that she loves him… he already knew he would give his life for her. That same story was told years ago in the parable of the Prodigal Son where the father stands upon the mountain, looking out for his son… you can hear the old man implore “Come back! Turn!”

This then is the only condition under which “disinterested” love is possible, that is the act of love which is not tainted to some measure by self-interest. If nature did not preserve the impression of being arbitrary, then we could conclusively prove that God existed purely from observation and scientific experiment. Randomness means that neither science nor religion yields conclusive results as to origins. Had it been otherwise, there would not be any Free Will choice, it would be like choosing God because we had seen him. Or the Prodigal Son that chooses to stay with his father because he could magically foresee his future destitution.

Does denying Heaven not also entail abandoning any hope for justice? and how does one deal with the enormity suffering once we have have abandoned hope? God understands the human persons’ feeling of injustice in suffering. He wants you to be comforted- that same world was unjust to him too. Humans’ iniquities cry out for shame to the highest Heavens but Jesus breaks that cycle of pain perpetuating more pain, by showing that love really prevails over it, even as he loved those that crucified him. Jesus showed we can love unconditionally and because love is divine, it does not suffer from those human restrictions which that necessitate the cycle of hatred. Rather we can observe that cycle of play out on the political world stage, without being part of it or subject to it. God showed that we can love unconditionally in spite of injustice. The only remedy for a world of indiscriminate pain is unconditional love. Because of Christ, hate does not rob the world of love, so you also do not rob yourself of hope. Pain is a problem not because of its presence but because of its arbitrariness which makes it an injustice. Unconditional love is the polar opposite of indiscriminate hate and it is the offer and gift of God.

It is probably a fact that the problem of suffering never really occurred to me until I had an atheist point it out. Dostoevsky states the problem I feel most clearly Brothers Karamazov, when Ivan asks: “If you were God, would you have created the world if even one single child should suffer because of it?” Now Dostoevsky leaves the answer unstated and lets the book do the talking, but I posit that the answer to this question is another question: “If you were God, would you allow the sum of all the suffering in the word, if only for the redemption of one single soul?”

A person can be said to be redeemed when he is able to freely choose to love. If love is freedom, then then the choice of one’s lover must be free. Now the atheist himself argues that there is nothing in creation, in its randomness, arbitrariness, capriciousness and its cold impersonality, that could ever cause one to conclude God existed, we do not come to a firm conclusion about the existence of God merely by observing nature and that’s the point we are making: Nature leaves the atheist free to choose disbelief. Scientific investigation of nature yields random mutation, natural selection and survival of the fittest, rather than My Little Pony, Bambi the Deer, Eeyore and Winnie the Pooh all living happily ever after with Tig the Tiger. Had this truly been the case, we would certainly have concluded that the world had been created by Disney.

It is this very randomness of nature that preserves the freedom in man’s choice. It is because nature irreducibly preserves the impression of being arbitrary that man’s decision is not, it can only be based on the experience of unconditional love, and the desire for it. Man’s choice for God is no longer “mercenary”, selling his wares to the highest bidder, rather randomness enables him to make an authentic decision in love. By “mercenary” I mean a favor given for a favor returned. God on the contrary in his Wisdom has made it possible for love to be truly “disinterested”. But God’s love for a single individual is indeed even greater than his own revulsion for sum of all pain and suffering. Neither in unthinking beasts did He think it fit to prevent it, nor in rational man, for this would have precluded his planned sanctification of man.

Now I have heard atheists assert that a child is first an atheist, so also I have heard Muslims assert that a child is first a Muslim. Both of these are faith claims, they are untestable scientifically. All we can say with any confidence is that a child at the age of reason is quite possibly very confused by the world, were they to really stop and consider it. They eventually become aware of two great mysteries: the immense grandeur of nature, and the mystery of life, their own. A theist is one that assigns the mystery to God, and in the absence of any received revelation becomes a pagan, while in its presence they might consider one of the world religions. An atheist is one that, analyzing the pattern of suffering mathematically so speak, deduces randomness. From the seeming fact that the distribution of suffering in the world is non-discriminatory, he randomness. He might then join it up as a seemingly coherent part of a bigger picture of the overall randomness of the entire physical system, and thereby dispel for himself the notion of mystery.

C S Lewis states that it is only because of Christianity that pain actually becomes a problem:

“Christianity in a sense, it creates, rather than solves, the problem of pain, for pain would be no problem unless, side by side with our daily experience of this painful world, we had received what we think a good assurance that ultimate reality is righteous and loving…”

Why is pain inbuilt into a moral system? Once again I particularly enjoyed C. S. Lewis description:

“..the freedom of a creature must mean freedom to choose: and choice implies the existence of things to choose between. A creature with no environment would have no choices to make: so that freedom (…) demands the presence to the self of something other than the self. If your thoughts and passions were directly present to me, like my own, without any mark of externality or otherness, how should I distinguish them from mine? (…) What we need for human society is exactly what we have—a neutral something (or “a neutral field”), neither you nor I, (…)

And this is very far from being an evil: on the contrary, it furnishes occasion for all those acts of courtesy, respect, and unselfishness by which love and good humor and modesty express themselves. But it certainly leaves the way open to a great evil, that of competition and hostility…(souls can) exploit the fixed nature of matter to hurt one another. Is it logical for God to prevent evil, and does wisdom lie in this? Lewis’ words are so profound, that it’s hard to add anything to them:

“No doubt Pain as God’s megaphone is a terrible instrument; it may lead to final and unrepented rebellion. But it gives the only opportunity the bad man can have for amendment. It removes the veil; it plants the flag of truth within the fortress of a rebel soul. If the first and lowest operation of pain shatters the illusion that all is well, the second shatters the illusion that what we have, whether good or bad in itself, is our own and enough for us…”

To summarize, you may already have heard and rejected the argument of evil being present because of man’s free will choices involved in perpetrating it, because it does not explain the suffering of illness and of animals which appears arbitrary and unnecessary. I posit instead that it is the very arbitrary randomness of pain, and that as part of randomness of the entire physical system that serves to preserve our free will. So it is not just that evil is present because of our free will choices but rather that freedom itself is protected by the randomness in nature which entails evil and suffering. For if there is a God, it is not only that we love each other through a free choice, but that we are called to also love Him freely.

Emotion of Pain

The problem of pain is troubling because it is emotive, in fact it is traumatic. This is because a normally functioning human has “sympathy” or empathy (Gk: syn=with em= “in”,+pathos=feeling), whereby we re-enact in ourselves the perceived suffering of another. When I see someone in pain, I put myself in their place, and re-enact their suffering in me. Even though that it be only a pictoral depiction or even just a movie plot I have heard of, It feels like a hole has been drilled into my head for days, and I carry that memory with me for years. Sympathy or empathy of themselves are of no benefit whatsoever, in fact they can destroy a person who has witnessed sufferings, as in post-traumatic stress as seen in soldiers. Did Mother Theresa feel more empathy than any of us, or did she merely act upon it more. But what sympathy can certainly do, is cloud the mind and instead of producing in it the required altruism, produce the unrelated and unhelpful result of atheism.

But we can imagine a couple of scenarios by means of which this lack of objectivity can in fact be overcome. For example, imagine a person in the depths of suicidal depression. Were such a person told: “don’t you know that at this very moment there’s deer being eaten alive by packs of hyenas in the Zambesi” he is unlikely to be relieved of his pain. The state of depression is one in which the human person feels the full weight of human suffering and of the despair of human existence itself in an unmitigated manner and crumbles under it. This is hardly an imaginary state, in fact it is more likely that our own state be imaginary when we consider that the both fact that of our limited existence and the fact we live in relative comfort while a significant proportion of the world does not, is a happy state. So I was happy to be able to say something about mental suffering here so that it does not get left out of the argument.

Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy YouTube channel again: “The topic is a very emotional and touchy subject and it is very easy for any of us to get very passionate about instances of evil because it emotionally affects us all. But in order to derive meaning from the issue we have to look at this logically and not rely on only our emotions. But I think that alone reveals an inherent problem with the argument because the objection is often  based on emotional standards of when evil was too bad for God to allow, and not based o nlogical parameters. A lot of the objections from evil reduce down to “Oh that feels bad I don’t see how a loving God would allow that, therefore God probably doesn’t exist” (…) How are we rating this beyond appeals to emotion.

Suffering of Animals

The suffering of animals? No one can tell exactly what the perception of pain is for an irrational creature. It could well be that their pain perception is purely pain impulses with none of the fear, despair that accompanies pain in humans. In human beings, every instant of pain brings the fear of the next instant of pain and the memory of past instants, and only compounded by the pain inflicted on any loved ones. So also no one can deny the possibility that God alleviates that suffering in a way known only to him. If the suffering of the world is truly so great,  do we yearn that it will be one day be set right in Heaven?

Let us examine pain more closely: I would say that humans are more cruel to animals than animals are to themselves, and yet where humans really exceed themselves in cruelty is in their treatment of other humans. Humans turn evil into an artform, for the appreciation of which one need look no further than the nearest movie theatre and popular literature. Human cruelty however can take less obvious forms of sins of omission, for do we not have a world where a significant proportion live in hunger and under the threat of war while the other portion in self-imposed denial of their plight?

Now the vast majority of the non-human lifeforms certainly do not possess sentience, and pain and pleasure are simply noxious and pleasurable signals respectively. There is no “I” or “self” that receives these signals, the primitive brain even if there is one is simply not complex enough to construct such an image. We do not need feel sympathy for the ant, beetle or praying mantis anymore than we do for electric circuitry when it sparks and shorts. The reason that we do, is because we personify things especially those that have a face. Our brains are wired to identify faces as one of the very first impressions of the external world when we are babies. Perhaps this is why we do not feel the pain of a damaged coral reef, a sea anemone or even a worm or a slug, these not being humanoid.

Higher animals might well have some degree of sentience, however to what degree this is, and even what it is qualitatively is purely guess-work, we simply cannot get into the animal experience. What we can say is that a human being is acutely aware both of the future which he can therefore fear, as well as his or her memories of the past which can fuel that fear, as well as add sorrow, regret, resentment jealousy and anger, and all of these again in relation to any loved ones threatened or harmed. My point is this, if suffering is linked to sentience, which it must be, then it is linked to the degree of sentience, which is vastly more developed in humans. For all these reasons, though animal suffering is duly acknowledged and to be prevented, the argument from pain should never be based on it.

Again imagine that your house was on fire and you had the choice of saving either your baby or your dog which one would you choose? Again imagine you were stuck on a desert island with people and animals which one would you eat in order to stave off starvation? I’m sorry about those gruesome examples but the point is that it is possible to see suffering and specifically human suffering objectively by putting it into specific contexts which cancel out emotional overlay.

Any Viable Alternatives to Free Will?

A critique is not really valid unless there can be shown to exist a workable alternative. This is the hidden fallacy in the atheist critique of religion, and I want you to notice that we never get one from an atheist. The question we put to them is: “If you were God, what you would do differently?” I’ve already, offered an alternative, which is for the world to be sanitized, and I used the example of the magical cartoon world in which as though miraculously no one ever gets hurt precisely because it is a written script. Exactly the same thing happens in a Bollywood or Hollywood action film where camera tricks and graphics magically come to the rescue of the good guys. What’s wrong with that? well, it’s a virtual existence which is programmed. Its real world equivalent which is rather more sinister is the Communist state which is utopian on paper and total disaster in every real instance, which is essentially caused through the attempted negation of an individual’s free will. I know someone who spent a month in the Chinese villages apparently on the lips of all is present like a creed, the mantra: “follow and obey”. China is in the process of installing its “social credit system”, you can look up what that is for yourself.  You’re basically writing everyone’s thought bytes like a script. We won’t even begin talking about North Korea or the disaster history of Communism here, but the book by Daniel Pipes is an excellent summary and anything by Solzhenitsyn is gold. All we really accomplish through the sanitization of nature is a factory production model, whereby every car that comes out is quality controlled. All of this is industrial terminology, and for a reason: it and philosophies like it belongs in industry, not humanity. But where does happiness come from in such a model, cars aren’t happy!

The whole thesis of suffering being eradicated from creation rests on the question of what exactly it is that God is creating. Were it truly God’s plan were to create atheists then the sanitised process works perfectly, but that doesn’t make sense. But Omnipotence is the ability to have a plan that works, not necessarily a plan that’s pain-free, and benevolence the ability to do that which is good for us, not necessarily that which is pain-free for us. Later I quote a beautiful passage from Lewis wherein He speaks of the difference in what it is to be good and to be kind, and perhaps what the atheist is expecting is for God to be “omnikind”, rather than omnibenevolent. We simply use pain as a marker because it hurts, although there is no imperative on benevolence that it must eradicate pain, this is a hypothetical claim and we have shown why the hypothesis does not work. Further, all pain is temporary anyway and it ends at death. God allows us to have pain, even though it hurts him to see us in pain, because its good for us, that is benevolence. God definitively ends pain at the end of our lives, and that is omnipotence.

Can it he still held that God is omniscient? Well of course, God knew that that He would create would kill him but he created it anyway, which also tells us of His mercy and love. Here again we can ask the question of “Why did God create”, and do so at three levels: the first level question is “Why did God create at all?” is answered by out of love” as we have shown above. The second is “Why did God create those who would do evil?”, we will show below that we are all morally deficient, and so the conditions of the first question are recreated: God would not have to create at all by this rule too. And finally perhaps the extreme end of that question: “Why did God create those that He knew would go to Hell?” This is an extension of the previous level and so is answered in the same manner, but we will investigate the “necessity of Hell” in much more detail later.

This amply answers the Epicurean objection. There are as has been shown quite a few assumptions that have to be made before it can be asserted that pain negates omnibenevolence. But there is no a priori reason why pain temporally is undesirable when viewed from an eternal perspective.

Moral Arguments

A Moral Standard in the Argument

An educated atheist does not make the argument from morality based on the alleged evil nature of deities. He does not make a moral argument at all, rather he argues for the absence of a moral standard from the randomness of pain. When we do not presume a theistic worldview, pain and suffering are not necessarily moral or immoral, rather it can be argued that the fact that they cause in us feelings of empathy are attributable to evolutionary adaptations of emotions conducive to societal living. The presence of pain and suffering in this view is not immoral or unjust, neither is it just, rather it is amoral and random. Things endure pain because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time through chains of circumstances that are bound to come about every once in a while or more. The flaw in this argument is that this view does not preclude theism. This is because even were it that case that a God would permit random suffering, that does not preclude the possibility that he were both, as we have seen elsewhere in the article, bring some good from it, but even if that were not accepted, then the fact that he might somehow make up for it at a later stage, in his own plane of existence to which that creature would at some point reach its fulfilment. However it is an error for an atheist to exclude the possibility of justice from his perception of randomness in the distribution of pain. This, and the free will argument that also hinges upon randomness are the strongest arguments against the objection from evil.

An atheist assumes themselves as the moral standard from which the Christian world-view is criticised. This again is just a dry fact because you have to compare with something in order to criticise. The Christian on the other hand, accepts the inadequacy of any moral standard that man is capable of and the real possibility that a better standard might exist that does not in fact lie within his capability at all. In the closed world view of an atheist, man is necessarily the highest moral agent, by dint of being the only moral agent, but not so in the theistic world-view, not even close. So the atheist must presume that man is a finished moral product, there is no inherent difference between the morality of God and man, and that the best that a man can be is not less than what God is, and finally that were there a God, he too would be like an atheist, sharing his own local view of morality and happiness.

An atheist might object to this and contend “hang on, what’s the big deal about morality anyway? I know right, I know wrong, what else is there?” Now even an atheist does not seriously believe that atheism is a perfect moral system based on what we see around us in the world, atheism is not even a system. I will merely offer this consideration: there is no worldly morality that is truly disinterested. All worldly morality is loaded with self-interest, even the love of the mother for a baby, because in the human condition we cannot escape self-interest, and we cannot separate altruism from it. But self-interest is inherent to our condition of dependent living and contingent existence. Every breath we take is out of self-interest.

But if there is truly a God then he has no self-interest, because being eternal he is self-sufficient. And having complete lack of self-interest, God is morally perfect. The existence of God, the Goodness of God, the Happiness of God are all the same thing, God is Happy because God is Good, He would have no Bliss otherwise, He is Good because he is completely self-sufficient. So this whole proposal of “if there is a God, there would be no evil in the world” is based upon the assumption that God is good, and perfectly good. If the topic were “Does the Existence of Evil Disprove the existence of an Evil God”, then that would be a separate debate. It would also be a very short debate. So we are necessarily  presuming the Goodness of God in this debate which topic correctly stated would be “does the existence of evil disprove the existence of a good God?” or “Does the problem of evil prove that God is evil?” God cannot be evil for this reason that evil is illogical or at least a foolishness. But God being the greatest, then would be the greatest fool, and he would therefore do the most foolish or illogical thing, which is to self-destruct. So we needn’t worry about him. So we come to the point of trying to describe what exactly it is that God is trying to create. Now if indeed God is good why ever would he desire to create anything but the morally perfect, rather something like us, a moral defect instead?

It would be erroneous to presume that God had no desire that his creature enjoy the same bliss as him. And so it is safe to assume that he might want to rise us up to him not only in location (as it the common misconception in many world religions), but in “sanctity”. Even an atheist would not contend that he has infinite happiness, if anything, it is far more easy to prove that the state of atheism is constituted at least in part by a latent depression or sadness, given that the clinical symptoms of depression like a sense of purposelessness are exactly the same as the philosophical axions of atheism. But if there is a God then God does not have this same problem and God is not faced with extinction, so the latent state of God is perfect bliss. So if indeed God is God it would seem erroneous to presume that God had not desire that his creature enjoy the that same bliss that were his. But the bliss of God could only be enjoyed in the state of God since the bliss of God is the same as the state of God which is the perfection of goodness (we could for our purposes of understanding state that the bliss of God is “consequent” to the Goodness of God, as long as we keep in mind that in God there is strictly no antecedent and consequent) And so our creation is a moral journey, which involves pain. Here therefore we can face-off these two concepts of “sanitization” and “sanctification” to see them for what they are.

However if indeed there is a moral agent that far exceeds the morality of man then we can contend that there is simply no reason why our journey from lack of virtue to virtue should not involve pain, if only the pain of the loss of whatever it was we were antagonising others for. Increase in virtue involves the pain of loss at least of the loss of self-interest.

The whole argument therefore is based upon love. The atheist feels that it is due to a lack of love that suffering is not prevented, whereas the theist believes that it is because of love that suffering is permitted. The only difference is as to whether the view is local or eternal.

C.S. Lewis says: “it passes reason to explain why any creatures, not to say creatures such as we, should have a value so prodigious in their Creator’s eyes. It is certainly a burden of glory not only beyond our deserts but also… beyond our desiring..”

Herbie McCabe a Dominican of the English Province he says “when confronted by suffering we are liable to two apparently contrasting reactions : we may reject God as infantile and as unable to comprehend or have compassion on those who suffer and are made to suffer in this world or on the other hand we may find as Job did that it was our own view that was infantile and we may in fact come to a deeper understanding of the mystery of God”. The introduction the Chesterton wrote to the book of Job where he says you know when God shows up in book 38 of the book of Job after all of these different kinds of dialectical engagements with these four men have tried to reason with job, God doesn’t come with answers he comes with questions that are even more agnostic than the ones that we ourselves have posed.  St. Pope John Paul says at the end of Salvafici Dolores, “…For Christ does not answer directly and he does not answer in the abstract this human questioning about the meaning of suffering. Man hears Christ’s saving answer as he himself gradually becomes a sharer in the sufferings of Christ”. Fr. Gregory Pine says(this whole paragraph from “Henry McCabe…”is probably from him, I’m not sure where I got it): “when we evaluate whether or not God is defective or guilty of neglects we need to be cognizant that God creates the very conditions under which it is possible for there to be a defect.”  (on Pints with Aquinas YouTube channel). No matter how terrible the suffering in the world might seem, if there is a God, we would not have any standard to compare him against.

Self-Improvement through Science Alone?

In reply to the contention that science through reason has brought about moral improvements to the human race I respond: In the whole o human history there has been demonstrably one single paradigm shift in the moral life with repercussions on all of life’s aspects. This was brought about by one Man, in three years, using absolutely nothing to begin, and finishing with even less on the Cross. For the first time a human being could have the conviction of one God to worship unconditionally, yet not in exclusion of the unconditional love of one’s spouse nor of one’s neighbour equally. Love which man could hitherto only sense to be eternal he could not confirm to be eternal just as he received the confirmation that he was eternally loved. Thanks to the philosophy that this Man brought, humanity down to even the common layman could now convincingly argue for that which not even Plato or Aristotle could convincingly on their own: a higher dignity than the lesser beasts and of there being a purpose to life.

So how exactly can Science claim the moral ground here, we still struggle to attain to Jesus’ moral standards through he preached them 2000 years ago. Few would say that they were even as good as St. Theresa of Calcutta, and even she would not equate herself with Jesus. Who in today’s word can say “blessed are the meek”…do we not celebrate loudmouths? and who can say “if you so much as look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery in your heart”…do we not in fact celebrate lust? Who can say: “ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?” (Matt. 5:44-46) All we see celebrated in today’s world is revenge, there is not a single movie on forgiveness. If forgiveness is ever taught, it is as a therapy, to make you feel better inside and to heal your wounds and so on …and what exactly was Science’s plan for world peace again?

C. S. Lewis speaks of a world “inside which minimum decency passes for heroic virtue and utter corruption for pardonable imperfection (62)…If, being cowardly, conceited and slothful, you have never yet done a fellow creature great mischief, that is only because your neighbour’s welfare has not yet happened to conflict with your safety, self-approval, or ease…”

Unfairness in the Schema?

In response to the important question of why some persons are likely to be pushed into a life of criminality, and also whether some persons are “born that way”. There are some limited case studies which show that psychopaths have some differences in their brain structure and function, possibly smaller hippocampi, but I would urge caution in this matter because we could easily have a chicken and egg situation. We do know about a commonly used drug among women that causes brain shrinkage (Oral contraceptive pills to be precise). So if a child is emotionally deprived since an early age, or even if someone consistently makes bad choices it might be the case that certain parts their brain might end up being less developed. Some of the world’s worst monsters have had abusive childhoods. But whatever might be the case, we believe that God apportions justice taking all this into consideration, because from a divine perspective, we all have a limited perspective to do good anyway. We also know that in the depths of despair, on death-row, hardened psychopaths have reformed due to faith. David Wood, on YouTube, a convert to Christianity is a certified psychopath and he quite readily admits this on his channel, and that he had “several prison sentences” prior to his conversion.

So yes, there is a push to reformative prison sentences, but it is a shot in the dark really, there are high rates of reoffending and you never know if the guy is truly reformed, or he just does not want to come back to prison. It is only possible in affluent countries, which loe crime rates and massive resources. There are some Netflix documentaries that give a good perspective of this, same is true of the so-called “deradicalization” programmes in Islamic terrorism, its always worth a shot one might say, but failure can be deadly.

Anil asked about the question of primitive hominids, and the fact that some of their populations may have intermingled with homo sapiens and so forth. Again this is difficult, we are attempting to speak sense into a shadowy era of which we only possess a few scraps of knowledge, but I would say that a hominid species would have gained an eternal soul at the same time that it could know and worship God. Scientists think Neanderthals had burial rituals, based on the fact that pollen was found with some of the skeletons, suggesting the presence of flowers. Does this mean that they could worship? I cannot say nor can anyone.

Were we given enough reason to believe? I would have to say yes, I came to believe didn’t I? Obviously I can only speak for myself here. But only takes a second to say “Yes”, so I would say there are thousands of opportunities each day. Take the example of someone who sets out to commit a premeditated murder, there are several points in the time between the planning and execution that the plan can be curtailed as indeed it must at least occasionally be.

Omnibenevolence

“the possibility of pain is inherent in the very existence of a world where souls can meet (…) I described this in the C S Lewis Quote. Elsewhere he describes how even in a game, take chess for example, laws and consequences are necessary without which there is no game. He therefore concludes: “…fixed laws, consequences unfolding by causal necessity, the whole natural order, are at once limits within which their common life is confined and also the sole condition under which any such life is possible. Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself” (CS Lewis Problem of Pain, 25)

Let me ask this direct question: What quantity of pain is commensurate with omnibenevolence, is it necessary for the Universe to be completely anaesthetic? Even a scientist knows that pain is necessary as a noxious stimulus. Anhedonia is a rare and terrible medical condition. But if you admit the commensurability of a mild or moderate amount of pain, then now you have to decide how much pain is allowed for God to allow, and as you can see that the position gets increasingly ridiculous.

“Love is something more stern and splendid than mere Kindness (…) There is kindness in Love: but Love and kindness are not coterminous, and when kindness is separated from the other elements of Love, it involves a certain fundamental indifference to its object, and even something like contempt of it. (…) Kindness, merely as such, cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering (…) It is for people whom we care nothing about that we demand happiness on any terms: with our friends, our lovers, our children, we are exacting and would rather see them suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes…”

“The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing”.- Blaise Pascal

(The freedom of God consists in the fact that no cause other than Himself produces His acts and no external obstacle impedes them—that His own goodness is the root from which they all grow and His own omnipotence the air in which they all flower.)

“You cannot love a thing without wanting to fight for it. You cannot fight without something to fight for. To love a thing without wishing to fight for it is not love at all; it is lust. It may be an airy, philosophical, and disinterested lust; it may be, so to speak, a virgin lust; but it is lust, because it is wholly self-indulgent and invites no attack. On the other hand, fighting for a thing without loving it is not even fighting; it can only be called a kind of horse-play that is occasionally fatal.”- G.K. Chesterton, Charles Dickens, a Critical Study.

“Free Will in Heaven”?

An interesting question is there free will in Heaven. This is related to the possibility of there being unfulfilled desires in Heaven, which there isn’t, unfulfilled desires are experienced on Earth. That is the whole point of God being infinite, He is the sufficient fulfilment of every desire. There’s no point saying that God is infinite, and then saying that he cannot even fulfil for the soul even the routine things that a human can fulfil with earthly pursuits. God fulfils every desire and in a manner that you are both fully satiated and yet hunger for more eternally. So there is no problem for the will in Heaven. God, himself in what we call the Beatific vision. God is so beautiful that the vision of Him is the fulfilment of the will. But to appreciate that one has to get out of the mind-set of human sensual ie desires related to the five pathetic senses which is very difficult to appreciate for us in our present state and some even find it impossible, hence the objections and misunderstandings will arise. When the will finds the object of its desiring, it rests. The whole point of having a will, is to get what it truly wants. This is what people like Buddha and Mahavira yearned for. When it gets it, then the original problem does not exist does it? God satisfies the will completely. But positing an impersonal force like the karmic force is like replacing a nothingness with another nothingness.

There are many great divorces to endure. The divorce of a rift in a relationship, with family or friends much loved. The divorce of one’s spouse. The divorce of ones children who are no more to live at home, through rift or flying the coop. The divorce from the Church of one’s spouse who chooses no longer to stand at one’s side rather stay home. The divorce of great distance from loved ones that only money saved for years can travel. The divorce of a beautiful place, a holiday destination no more to be lived in or perhaps never visited. The divorce of death. All are reconciled in Heaven, for those who seek the Lord.

Are those who do not understand the meaning of suffering the same as those who do not appreciate the value of discipline, for are they not one and the same thing?

“(Oh men!)…Your principal maladies are pride, which cuts you off from God, and sensuality, which binds you to the earth. And they (your philosophers) have done nothing but foster at least one of these maladies. If they have given you God for your object, it has been to pander to your pride. They have made you think you were like him and resemble him by your nature. And those who have grasped the vanity of such a pretension have cast you down in the other abyss by making you believe that your nature is like that of the beast of the field and have led you to seek your good in lust, which is the lot of animals….” (Blaise Pascal, The Mind on Fire, ed. James M. Houston (Multnomah Pub, 1989), page 115).

If Christianity has successfully convinced us that we’re too sinful for Heaven, then the cosmetics industry has also convinced us that we are also too abhorrent for the Earth. Thus it is clear that the road to salvation consists in repenting and giving up perfume.

There are two types of people: Those who want to conquer the World, and those who want to conquer Heaven. The first quest is futile, and is the pursuit of power and money. The second is worthwhile, and requires neither.

There’s two types of persons. Those who would give up everything for God, and these are saints; and there are those who would give everything up to themselves, these are scoundrels.

Wisdom of Solomon 1:13-16, 2:23-24

 because God did not make death,
and he does not delight in the death of the living.
For he created all things that they might exist,
and the generative forces of the world are wholesome,
and there is no destructive poison in them;
and the dominion of Hades is not on earth.
For righteousness is immortal.

But ungodly men by their words and deeds summoned death;
considering him a friend, they pined away,
and they made a covenant with him,
because they are fit to belong to his party.

for God created man for incorruption,
and made him in the image of his own eternity,
but through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his party experience it.”

Prayer aspects of Suffering

How does one Pray when one is Suffering?

I can imagine that through the thick veils that mental exhaustion and depression must cast on your mind, you may think it is hard to make a meaningful prayer to God. Bishop Thuan of Vietnam, put in solitary confinement for 5 years by the nation’s military regime in appalling conditions. He was often so exhausted by the rigors of his incarceration, that all he could do in terms of prayer was lie on the floor and say ‘Jesus, I am here’, and he would hear Jesus’ voice calling back ‘Thuan, I am here’. One does not need to formulate elaborate prayers when one is ill. With the morning offering, one sanctifies all the hours and minutes of the day ahead, so that a person’s every action is a prayer. So don’t worry if you are too tired to pray. Make every second of your life a prayer. It’s not difficult. It is beautiful. God does not want to make prayer difficult. So don’t worry about prayer having to be perfect all the time. A priest once spoke about how when he was a child, he would gather a bunch dandelions (or some sort of similar weed) from the field for his dear mother, and how this would make his mother beam with gladness, although she had hay fever! God does not expect perfect prayer, then. Only perfect love (which is possible only through His grace). So do not measure your accomplishments using the measures of this world. When you have suffered for a whole day, do not for a minute think that you have wasted the day or accomplished nothing at the end of it. Sleep easy, knowing that you have accomplished more than your neighbour who has been to work 9 to 5 to earn money for himself.

I cannot, obviously tell you how to manage your day-to-day affairs, I cannot know, maybe only guess what responsibilities you have and stresses you may be feeling as the father of a young family. But a broad outline of the kind of outlook I would recommend would be this: Do not fret that because of your illness you cannot be the ‘perfect’ man that you have strived to be all your life. But strive to love perfectly. That’s all that God expects.

It comes down to this, I think, because although it was a years ago, this was the reason I first wrote about suffering. Because I didn’t think I would cope. The way to cope in the midst of suffering, is to offer your sufferings to Jesus, to lift them up to the Father. Offer from your own sins, offer for the sins of the world. Offer them as kisses on his bleeding and tortured feet as they gently  quiver in agony.

It’s become a bit of a million dollar question, hasn’t it? Jesus said “Ask and you shall receive” and to most people it seems like he had made the most reckless promise of any man in history! But if you find this all confusing, this is all you need to pray for. In terms of your sufferings, merely offer them up as a fragrant offering along with the merits of Jesus’ sufferings on the Cross. You can offer these directly to your High Priest, Jesus. In terms of gifts, or graces ask for the gift to love more, and ask for the gift to persevere in this love until your death. You can as these directly from his Mother, who is full of Grace.

“Complain as little as possible of the wrongs you suffer; for, commonly speaking, he that complains sins, because self-love magnifies the injuries we suffer, and makes us believe them greater than they really are.”

(Plaignes vous le moins que vous pourres des tortz qui vous seront faitz ; car c’est chose certaine que pour l’ordinaire, qui se plaint peche, d’autant que l’amour propre nous fait tous-jours ressentir les injures plus grandes qu’elles ne sont) —St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622), Introduction to a Devout Life, III, 3.

“When assaulted by any vice we must embrace, to the extent able, the practice of the contrary virtue.” —St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622), Introduction to a Devout Life, III, 1.

How Does One Die

The martyrdom of Justin preserves the court record of the trial.

“The Prefect Rusticus says: Approach and sacrifice, all of you, to the gods. Justin says: No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety. The Prefect Rusticus says: If you do not obey, you will be tortured without mercy. Justin replies: That is our desire, to be tortured for Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and so to be saved, for that will give us salvation and firm confidence at the more terrible universal tribunal of Our Lord and Saviour. And all the martyrs said: Do as you wish; for we are Christians, and we do not sacrifice to idols. The Prefect Rusticus read the sentence: Those who do not wish to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the emperor will be scourged and beheaded according to the laws. The holy martyrs glorifying God betook themselves to the customary place, where they were beheaded and consummated their martyrdom confessing their Saviour.”

Although coping with death was my initial motivation, to cope has a sense of playing catch-up, and being reactionary. My aim though, is no more to merely play catch-up, knowing what I now do, but an outright victory, so I can say with St Paul “Death where is thy victory, where is thy sting?” Remember, when we pray in suffering, our victory is already begun. But pray also for the grace of perseverance in prayer for you haven’t won until the moment of your death.

One’s greatest fear, is, however that one will ‘break under torture’. A Templar knight relating the time when he had been tortured related “I would have willingly killed God to make it stop.” I hesitated to even put this on paper, as it is so terrible a thing even to voice. As St Paul says, we must approach with fear and trembling. But it is not fear of the pain that need be our concern. But St Thomas of Villanova discounts this saying, “There is one fear that afflicts me, O beloved Queen, and that is that I may one day, through my own negligence, lose confidence in you”. Don’t forget to recommend yourself to Our Lady at the hour of final Agony. As we recount the words of the angel Gabriel, ‘the Lord is with her’.  When she comes to ‘pray for us…at the hour of our death’, then her Son is with her too, He is always by her side.

Suffering is a mystery and we cannot hope to explain it fully. But when we suffer, we can trust God fully. Because on the cross, He suffered more than any man did. Surely He understood why it was necessary. That should be explanation good enough for any man, that God decided that it was right that HE should suffer.

If you remember nothing else of my presentation, but this one thing, then I will have achieved my objective. Every explanation for suffering begins with the Cross. This may be difficult to perceive in good times when we are ridden with millions of other worries and worldly concerns. But if we remember this one thing, then when we do suffer, it’s purpose will not escape us. Because when we suffer, we think more clearly, and worldly concerns melt away. For myself then I hope that when I suffer, I will cling to the foot of the Cross. For I am confident that it is here I will be comforted and saved. Everything is answered here, all of man’s confounded questionings and his frantic inquisitiveness, all lines of investigation end here. All the searchings of the soul and it’s restless wanderings here find their fulfilment. So do all words and rituals find their object in this complete abandonment at the foot of the Cross.

To further simplify it, for those who are not familiar with the Cross, so that I can make this explanation more universal, the Cross is a symbol of the sacrifice of love. The meaning of suffering is love. Love is the answer to every theological problem there is.

Why does God allow suffering? Because he loves us.

Christianity is not complicated as some people make it out to be. Don’t be afraid to look for love in every mystery. For every mystery is a mystery of love.  Trust in Infinite Mercy:

“It is for a man to bear the yoke from his youth, Let him sit alone and in silence when it is laid upon him. Let him put his mouth to the dust; there may yet be hope. Let him offer his cheek to be struck, let him be filled with disgrace. For the Lord’s rejection does not last forever; Though He punishes, He takes pity, in the abundance of His mercies.” (Lam 3:27-32)

As I sat down for my flu jab at work a couple of weeks ago, I had an epiphany of sorts. My thoughts shifted to a certain Templar knight who, describing the excruciating pain he had endured on the rack later recollected blasphemously “I would have readily killed God if it would make the pain stop”. As I volunteered my shoulder to the nurse’s needle, for but a fleeting moment I experienced what it might be like to volunteer one’s limbs, one’s body to torturers, confessing the Name of a person one never even met. As the needle neared something inside me involuntarily screamed “God is dead!” I was horrified and instantly felt an intense humility at my own inadequateness to stand up for God on my own strength. Praise be to God who has given to us the examples of the Holy Martyrs to help us experience his power.

I would like to share this beautiful letter of St Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch written in prison while he awaited death by wild animals. “My love of this life has been crucified”. He’s very concerned that the whole thing might be called off!:

“I am God’s wheat and shall be ground by the teeth of wild animals. I am writing to all the churches to let it be known that I will gladly die for God if only you do not stand in my way. I plead with you: show me no untimely kindness. Let me be food for the wild beasts, for they are my way to God. I am God’s wheat and shall be ground by their teeth so that I may become Christ’s pure bread. Pray to Christ for me that the animals will be the means of making me a sacrificial victim for God. No earthly pleasures, no kingdoms of this world can benefit me in any way. I prefer death in Christ Jesus to power over the farthest limits of the earth. He who died in place of us is the one object of my quest. He who rose for our sakes is my one desire.

The time for my birth is close at hand. Forgive me, my brothers. Do not stand in the way of my birth to real life; do not wish me stillborn. My desire is to belong to God. Do not, then, hand me back to the world. Do not try to tempt me with material things. Let me attain pure light. Only on my arrival there can I be fully a human being. Give me the privilege of imitating the passion of my God. If you have him in your heart, you will understand what I wish. You will sympathize with me because you will know what urges me on.The prince of this world is determined to lay hold of me and to undermine my will which is intent on God. Let none of you here help him; instead show yourselves on my side, which is also God’s side. Do not talk about Jesus Christ as long as you love this world. Do not harbor envious thoughts. And supposing I should see you, if then I should beg you to intervene on my behalf, do not believe what I say. Believe instead what I am now writing to you. For though I am alive as I write to you still – my real desire is to die. My love of this life has been crucified, and there is no yearning in me for any earthly thing. Rather within me is the living water which says deep inside me: Come to the Father.I no longer take pleasure in perishable food or in the delights of this world. I want only Gods bread, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, formed of the seed of David, and for drink I crave his blood, which is love that cannot perish.

I am no longer willing to live a merely human life, and you can bring about my wish if you will. Please, then, do me this favour, so that you in turn may meet with equal kindness. Put briefly, this is my request: believe what I am saying to you. Jesus Christ himself will make it clear to you that I am saying the truth. Only truth can come from that mouth by which the Father has truly spoken. Pray for me that I may obtain my desire. I have not written to you as a mere man would, but as one who knows the mind of God. If I am condemned to suffer, I will take it that you wish me well. If my case is postponed, I can only think that you wish me harm.“

My greatest fear for if and when I am called to suffer for the NAME, is whether or not I will be brave enough not to deny Him, as Peter denied knowing Jesus though he did know Him. I’m talking not of the loss of belief, but the loss of courage. The mere presence of suffering cannot shake one’s belief in God. And being present, He will surely supply the strength to stand firm. For we are wretched beings, but we put all our Faith first in Him.

Concluding thoughts

Perhaps the strongest form of the argument is the problem of gratuitous suffering, the kind of suffering that just seems excessive. Like the suffering of innocents. That gets an added emotional element. But its still the same argument, I would say.

Then you have all the answers for suffering, like soul-building theodicies and all that. But I think the key to understanding the meaning of suffering is that even in the greatest pain Jesus’ love breaks through. The meaning of suffering is not primarily soul building, but it is the experience of the love of God in the knowledge of the Sacrifice of his Son. Which is them soul building and from which follows every other effect. Children can suffer terribly when they die of diseases like autoimmune disorders, cancer, heart defects, other organ dysfunction metabolic and neurological problems, skin defects, it’s a long list. But their parents support them through it all, they love them dearly through it all, and you can argue that they are even close to their suffering children than parents of healthy children are to theirs. When they die, parents call the priest or imam and get on with it, they don’t necessarily become atheists, I would say only a small proportion might do. Atheists or agnostics if anything might start praying when their child is sick.

Then you have the argument for the requirement that the laws of physics must be regular. You can’t have a magic universe where when people instead of dying get beamed up to Heaven. Then where is the room for Free Will and where is the room for Faith. You can’t have de novo speciation, like special creation of species. Same problem. So you need the animal kingdom, death and disease, hunter and prey, life and death, and finally, man arrives. In fact when you look at it like that, even evolution is more likely on the God hypothesis. More likely than special creation. And then you need pain, because pain is a protective response primarily, from noxious stimuli. But again, how do you regulate that without making it look like magic? If God gave us all a special “danger detector” with a dial that went off, and we didn’t need any pain that would be amazing, right? But again, it would look like magic, with all these animals going around with meters attached to them beeping. So you get pain response, which is a defective system like any other system. When biological systems get it right, they’re great, but when they get it wrong, they’re not great. And pain just happens to be the least great. Because its a pain. Then you could ask, well why did God decide to kill Noah’s people and the Amalekites, why not send someone to convert them? Again, the answer is going to be something like God tries up to a point. At some point the chances are over, right?