Human Suffering, 2 ‘The Problem of Suffering Suffering is a realty that has always beset all human beings. Existentially, we know that itis “any experience (physical, psychological, and” social) that impinges on an individual's or a ‘community's well-being, disrupts inner harmony, threatens one’s very existence, renders the sufferer powerless, alienated, meaningless, and feeling forsaken by God.”” Through the centuries, suffering has akvays evoked questions, especially in terms of the reasons and causes of its existence. By itself, suffering is painful and anguish-filled; and no one who hhas experienced any of its forms ever comes to fully grasp its meaning. Along with the “why?” and “why me,” other existential questions concerning human existence, evil, and the meaning, of life haunt the sufferer. For indeed, how does one explain pain, innocent suffering, natural disasters, embitteing suffering, and even the passion and death of jesus on the cross? Much deeper thought is provoked when the afflicted isa believer in God. tn the face of evil and suifering, there are two attributes of God that create the dilemma: omnipotence and love.’ From these arise different ways of asking the same question, the more famous formulations of which include the following: Epicurus (ath cemusy): “if God is perfectly good. He must be able to abolish al evil land sulteringl if He is unlimitedly powerkul, He must be able to abolish evil land suffering! but evil land sullering) exits; therelore citer God i not perlecily good or He i unlimiodly powertul = David Hume (18th contuy): “ts God wilng to prevent evil land suffering, but notable? Then God is impotent. 1s God able to prevent evt land sufferings, but not willing? Then God is malevolent, {sGod bath wiling and able to prevent evil land suferingl? Then why is there evil {and sutleringh in the workd?** John Hick (1965) “Can the presence of evil and suffering] in the world be reconciled with the ‘existence of a God who is unlimited both in goodness and power?” Johannes Van der Ven and Eric Vossen (1995): “If Gods good and kving and onmipotent, then why doesn’t God stop fevil and) sufering fram being?” These questions point to the persistence of suffering in the world and in human life, and to the challenge it poses to our faith. The reverberating cry seems to be: Why does our loving and powerful Dorothee Sel, in Sufrng ans. Evert Kan hladlphiss Forres Presi, 1975), p13, 8 in ageement with ‘Simone Wei “The Lowe of Go and Action. in Wang fr Gd, tan. Emma Craft (New Yorke GP. Puasa Sony, 18511, p127, that foran experience to bul be sen I hs hae al ee dmersore presen “This defrition draws ftom those of Mary Ann Fata, “Suflring” in The New Dictonagy of Theology, «4 Josoph Komonchak, Mary Cains, Dermot Lane {Dubin il & Mell, 7987), p. 900; Salk, Sulenng p71, 13, €2) Richerd Spas, “Sufi.” in The New Dicom of Cathie Spain, ed Michael Downey (note Tho Lured res, 1953), . 950 “johannes van der Ven and Ee Vossen, Suffering: Why for Go's Se, (Nethedands Ht Kok Publishing House, 1995;,p.14 * Be ta Ded, 13, 19, quod by vious authers. This pei formulation and randaton i by John Hick fl an the ad obo Lorn: The Mactan Press nd, 3965; rohabe edton with anew prea, 1963), p. 5 Fo ae, Disks Contig Near Began aly pblsed 775), que by aes ath "ohn Hick, Eland the Cod of Lowe, p. "Von and Vestn, p14Human Suffering. p. 3 God allow us to suffer? Evidently suffering is a situation that theology has to address. In this respect, there are, | believe, at least two basic questions that confront the theologian: 1) How can we formulate rational solutions to the problem of suffering? and 2) How can we cope with the problem of suffering?” In this paper, we shall attempt to respond to these questions. We shall explore the two ways!? by which suffering has been generally understood and dealt with: 1) the “theodicy” approach, \which corresponds to the search for rational explanations; and 2) the “faith” approach, which seems to be the most prevalent mode of coping with the realty of suffering, specifically among believers, and ‘especially in the Philippines. In the process, we hope to make a conclusion with regard to the nature of suffering: Is it a problem or a mystery? In essence, therefore, this paper is an exposition on the thesis that: 7he problem of human suffering has to be understood and confronted intellectually to its utmost, both theoretically and practicaly:!" but in the final analysis, itis only in and with an active faith that we fully encounter, find meaning. and cope with the mystery of suffering. The Theodicy Approach to Suffering ‘Theodicy,” which comes from the Latin words Gcos Sun, meaning “God” and “justice” respectively, literally translates to “the defense of the justice and righteousness of God" in the midst of the evil and suffering in the world. Coined bj the German philosopher Gotiftied Wilhelm Leibniz" in the eighteenth century, it attempts to reconcile belief in an all-powerful and all-oving God with evil ‘and suffering, This disconcerting enigma that has challenged theologians throughout the centuries rests on the following assumptions! = 1) A single God exists who created the universe from nothing. 2) This God continues to be interested in creation. 3) God is good. 4) God is omnipotent. 5). God does not wish suffering to take place. If these indeed hold, why then does God allow the existence of suffering in the world? These questions are pattemed aftr those of Bary Whitney, What are They Saying about God and Exit (New Yorks Pauls Pres, 1989, 9.13; only the ers deliberately reversed. | agree with Selle that every attempt b umanize suffering must begin with the] phenomenon of experienced pewerlesness and mist activate forces tht enable a person to ‘overcome the feeling that he ss without power" (p, 11), Foenulatng rational soaons tothe problem of slerng mut then come before, oF's a prof, coping with i * This dstinction between theodic and the fl solatoné explained concisely in Whitney, pp. 67 * iin Konnoth Sun Theology and tha Problem off (Oxon: Blckwall uber, 1900), x, 60-61 thatthe dstinction between the theoretical and practical theodices are made. This wil bo developed inthe course of the pope. Fora ‘ick eference on thistopi, the reader may tum to Appendix 1, pp. 14.15, * Contec Wilhelm Leibniz, Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of Cex, Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Ei 1710. Gteg by various authors peter Vandy, the Puzle of Ei London: Fou 1992 pp. 7-18,Human Suffering p.4 ‘An exploration of the answers usually given within the theistic world vision reveals that although there are several theodicies, a listing of which may be found in Appendix , there are common themes"* that can be gathered from the arguments that they posit Suftering exists because of the actions of tree, rational, and fallible creatures. It is the result of human choices. This view has been adopted in different variations in the history of Christian thought. It traces, its origins to Augustine"* 354-430), is later developed by Thomas Aquinas, and in contemporary times is advanced by Alvin Plantinga in his Free Will Defense, Its main arguments rest on the basic assumptions that creation is all good and that the human being was created free. Evil, which is the privation of good, consists in the going wrong of God's creation in some of its parts. This is then attributed directly or indirectly to the wrong choices of free rational beings; thus leaving entire responsibilty to the human being, Why does God not intervene? Because if individuals are to be truly free, then God has no choice but to allow suffering to occur. ‘Among the criticisms against this view, the most plausible is Kenneth Surin’s claim that though logical, this argument is theologically incomplete since it does not say anything about the God of the “The Chistian faith affirms God to be the One who brings salvation, and this God does more than simply tolerate human evil as the unavoidable consequence of having granted human mystery of salvation: agents free will. The God of salvation is the divine mystery who overcomes human wickedness in and through the historical presence of the Son.*”” Suffering is God's punishment or divine retribution for ‘human sin (personal or cornnmunal).”* (One of the most dominant and sill the most prevalent in many places in the Philippines (manifested. in the belief in gaba) is the Augustinian theodicy that explains suffering as caused by Due to spaco constraints, ony bie explanation ofthe thomas wl bn vn in this paper Knowing th fini of ny sya, the readers encourage o const dey te sources ce "For 4 more detled discusion of ths view on suffering, the reader may consuk Hick, pp 37-89 for the ‘Augustinian theodicy; Surin, , pp. 70-79 and Vardy, pp. 37-53, 59, 82 for Plantinga’s Free Will Defense; and T.W. Tiley, “Problem off," in The New Dictionary of Thesiogy ed. Joseph Komonchak, Mary Calin, Oermat Lane (Oubin: Gil & Mactan, 1987), p. 360 for an oveview. For a contemporary presentation of this view, the reader may watch the roconty rebesedl move, *The Advocate.” "Refer top. of Appendic | for a detailed ist of the philesophical and theological themes of the -Augutinian-Thomistie theodey “Sarin p76 “Refer to: Auchor Bile Dictionary, 1982 ed, sv. ‘Sufering” by Daniol Srnundsen, New Catholic Eneyeopodi, 1a sllring y te e y Bkay, Ksin Ononie You He Shen wh Gat Kan 3 255 {A PastoalThelogical Reflection on the Image of Cod and Suifering” in Loin Thaclo ex. JanLambrcht and Raymond Colin (oul: Petes Fes, 1990, 9p. 217-238, John ‘eDawmat The idea tas Sufleing (United Kingdom: St. Paul Pubiicalons, 1990), pp. 34-40, 26-87, and Frances Young, “Suffering,” in ‘Te Westminster Dictionary of Cvisian Theology, ed. Alan Richerson and John Barden (Philadelphia: Tha Westminster Press, 1983), pp 335-856 fer the theodcy of eb nthe Bible; and Spars , 951 fora general overviewHuman Suffering, p. 5 human sin and by God's just punishment for this personal or communal sia. This view has its roots in the Bible, beginning with the Hebrew view of the “Fall” (Gen 3:16-19), and the sins of the ancestors which led to the perpetuation of sin from generation to generation (Ex 34: 6-7; 20: 5-7; Deut 5:9-10; Num 14:18). Such a view, which is made explicit in the counsels of the friends of Job, is further teinjorced by the Wisdom teaching that wickedness leads to disaster, while righteousness ushers in prosperity; "? the strongly monistic” teaching of Deuteronomy 32:39ff and Isaiah 45:5-7; which had Its r00ts in older “demonic” conceptions of Yahweh's dangerous power (2Sam 6:64); and the pre-exilic prophetic warnings that national disaster would be the outcome of God’s judgment upon the nation’s faithlessness (sa 3:16.26; 22:1-14; Jor 2:19; 4:18). The summary of this viewpoint could be found in the Deuterononomic choices and promises of life vs. death, and obeying Yahweh's commandments vs. turning one’s heart away from Yahweh (Deut 30: 15-20). Such a negative view of suffering puts to question the God of love and life. AAs Krisiaan Depoortere puts it, this understanding is “unfair to God since it reduces Cod to a merely moralistic God who tries to set the world right by means of punishment and reward." Moreover, it presents no adequate response to “innocent suffering” as in the case of Job or of the anguish of dying children caught in the crossfire between warring countries. Suitering, Ite's greatest teacher, is remedial. God tests or chastens the human being as a purification towards the good: ‘The other predominant view on suffering is that it has an educative value. It is aimed to test human stamina or to refine humanity. The biblical imagery is that of the purification of gold «ir 2:1-5; Wis 3:9-6; Ezek 22:20-22; 1s 48:9-10) or the molding of clay in the potter's hands (Jer 11:4). Though the process is painful, the results far outweigh the difficulties. Such thinking has foundations in the Old Testament, wherein Yahweh is looked upon as the fone who daily recreates and renews (Ps 104: 30); who accomplishes new and divine things {isa 54:17-14; 60:1-22; 65:17); who takes delight in a broken and contrite heart and puts a new heart into and pours out a new spirit upon men and women (Ps 51:12-13,19; Ezek 11:19-20; 36:26:27; Jor 31: 31-34; 32:39; Joel 3: 1-2); and who tests human hearts Jb 1-2; 42 Wis 3:4.6) This perception is camied on in the New Testament (1Cor 3:13; 1Cor 11:23-33; Heb 12:6-81; Pet 1:7; Rev 2: 21-23; * Young, p 585. * phonies the piiosophical view thatthe universe forms an ukimata harmonious unity. vl is enly apparent, and ‘would be recognized as good if we could but se it in its full cosmic context. Manis is the direct opposite of duals, which sis that good snd vl are imrconcilably opposed to one another and that thelr duality can be overcome only by one testoying the other. According to Hic (p. 15}, these x0 tho two poe in the spect of theories, 2 Depoortere, pa. 219-220, Refer to: Depoortere, pp. 221-222, Jos Luten, “Perspectives on Human Suffering in the OM Testament,” trans Poter Crossman, in Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monogaph2, pp. 1-30, and McDermott, pp. 115-121 fora disiasion on this viwpoint and Ful, p. 997 and Spars, 9.951 fern overview,Human Suffering, p.6 Rey 3:18-19) with the twist in the understanding of “test” as being focused on love Un 15:2-8; Mit 10:34:38; 19:29; Lk 12:91-53; Mk 13:12; Lk 9:59-92). “This notion finds further emphasis in the Post-Reformation Theology, which pointed to the need to endure paticntly the personal sufferings as crosses sent by God to test and purify us spiritually. To some extent, this be is valid. Indeed, many people do leam from suffering, Acting as a Powerful stimulus to growth, pain and suffering have a way of strengthening the human character, or of bringing out the best in some persons. Moreover, suffering that is accepted and unreservedly affirmed does have a transforming power, and makes one more sensitive to the pain of the work. ‘As Jos Luyten points out, some “suffering may be transformed into a source of growth, renewal, and deepening of faith that it can lead to greater solidarity with one’s fellow human beings and. harmony with nature, to greater freedom, peace and openness to the transcendent."°* However, aside from projecting an image of God as a harsh schoolmaster “educating” humans, it cannot be generalized that all suffering is formative. All too often, suffering and affliction destroy persons, break them, and ‘embitter them. In the face of mounting impoverishment, the brutalties of wars, the rape of women and children, or the harshness of natural disasters, one can only agree with Depoortere that “there is an excess of suffering which cannot be justfied by any educational result" Suffering is part of the evolutionary process of an incomplete world and an impertect humanity?® Unlike Augustine, Irenaeus (130-202), who represents the other major stream of theodicy, asserts that the human being was created as an imperfect, immature creature who has to undergo ‘moral development and growth, and finally be brought to the perfection intended by the Maker. tis to this end that our world of mingled good and inevitable evil serves as a divinely appointed environment for human development. Teilhard de Chardin is another proponent of this evolutionary view, wherein humanity is seen as progressing together to the “Omega point,” when ali be one in Christ.” In this process, some evil is inevitable: the natural spin-off or the growing pains (Rom 8:22-23). Several distinct theodicies share this view of a universe stil in a process of evolution towards perfection, but each has its different emphases. The Natural Law Theodicy (cf. Richard Swinburne) attempts to explain the existence of suffering and torment inflicted on human beings by natural 2 Seelle, pp. 89, 105 unten, p- 26 2 Depoortere, pp. 221-222. for an extensivo discussion on the topics covered by this theme, refer to Hick, pp. 201-261 for the lrensean theodicy, and pp. 240f for his Soul-Making Thaodicy; Surin, pp. 79-86 forthe Natutel Law Thecdicy, pp. 86-92 for Process heady, and pp. 92-96 fora crtique on Hie’sSoul:Making Thaodicy; Vandy, pp. 54-70 for an extensive discussion on Natural Evi; and Tiley, . 360 for an overiw. > Filey. 361Human Suffering, p., disasters such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, £1 Nifo or La Nifa, etc; the pain resulting from disorders of the human body, such as dengue fever, cancer, AIDS, etc.; the pain of childbirth or the chronic suffering that comes with arthritis or backache; and physical illnesses due to inherited defects. It posits that “natural evil can be explained by the need for natural laws to operate regularly and to provide the forum in which human beings learn to cope with their environment and to surmount the challenges with which they are faced.'2" John Hick’s SoulMaking Theodicy conjectures that God creates free beings who fulfil their nature in relation to God by exercising this given freedom. The realities of pain and suffering temptation and sin, are necessary for humans to develop ultimately into people worthy to share life with God. The imperfections of the world are therefore integral to its fitness as a place for the @ *soul-making process,"®” which reaches its dimax when all human beings enjoy a perfect relationship with their Maker. Process Theodicy (cf. AN. Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne) introduces a twist in this evolutionary view by drawing the attention to Gad and not to suffering its’, They postulate that "God cannot control finite beings but can only set them goals which he then has to persuade them to actualize.”* Suffering and evil are then the price for the evolutionary progress, or the result of wilful resistance from God's persuasion. Yet in this process, God, who is personally involved in human destiny, “the fellow-sufferer who undetstarids,"" savors and retains all creaturely experiences in ‘memory and transforms them. The strength of these theodicies is in its evolutionary view, wherein human beings are free to ‘cooperate in the stil unfinished creation. Logical and comprehensive as they may be, however, there are serious lacunae in their reasoning: 1) How would they explain why, in positing suffering as integral to “soul-making,” not everyone is tested in the same way? Or, how, for instance, would they explain the role of a tragic air crash or the deaths and sulfering in the many flooded areas of Asia in *soukmaking"? 2) They resort to explain the obscure in this world (suffering and evil) by what is more obscure (an ultimate good in another world). But how can they truly prove that suffering is the absolutely necessary means for attaining this ultimate end, this “Omega point’? The God-image of Process Theodicy is certainly @ laudable point. The conception of a God who is so engrossed with the history of humankind and who groans and grows with creation, an image that has roots in the Old Testament, gives way to the belief that “God suffers with his people and also 2 Vanly, p. 82 2 Hig pp. 253-261 sun p 69 °" AN, Whitehead, Process nd Really, (Cambridgs:Cambvidg Unto Pres, 162), p. 532. Cedi Surin, p. 9.Human Suffering, p.8 with those who do not themselves know why and for what reason purpose they suffer." This is certainly consoling to a person who suifers. However, the Judaco-Chvistian Tradition will question a merely persuasive and co-suffering God who is unable to transform and to heal the world, or to ensure that the Kingdom will become a realty. Process Theodicy therefore still needs to develop “an eschatology, a resurrection-perspective, in which the almighty God on the cross of the powerless Nazarene is affirmed in faith to have inaugurated a radically new world by this very deed on the oross."** The survey of the four major themes betrays the inadequacy of theodicy to fully resolve the “problem of suffering.” Although they offer some understanding of the human situation, they are not ‘enough to alleviate the pain and anguish of suffering, Surin identifies at least three reasons” for this difficulty. First, theodicy rests on the assumption that God is the supreme Architect and Sustainer of the universe. The world of today has however shifted from this point of view since the Enlightenment’s denial of immanent teleology. And yet, theodicy finds itself in a double bind because instead of eradicating the problem, the Enlightenment, in robbing theodicy of its prima facie intelligibility, has even made evil and suffering much more difficult to account for and explain. Second, the theodicist tends to deal with an abstract conception of evil, focusing primarily on the articulation of the free will defense, the specification and defense of God's attributes, and the advocacy of the notion that evil and suffering are worth their higher-order results. Third, theodicy makes the ambitious effort to apply reason to evil and suffering, which in their innermost depths are fundamentally mysterious. Theodicy’s attempts to provide a teleology of evil and suffering are met by a reality that confounds the human mind and transcends rationality ‘The Faith Approach to Suffering, The other way by which human beings, especially believers in God, coniront the reality of satfering isto resort to faith. A widely-known formulation ofthis approach is that of Karl Rahner, who after pointing out the limitations of the classical answers to the problem of suffering insisted that we must learn to accept the “incomprehensibility of suffering” as part of the “incomprehensibilty of God,” who allows evil for a reason known only to God.”? Research reveals that there ate at least two main themes, corresponding to the Old Testament and New Testament worklviews, respectively, within this faith approach, = inten, pa 2 seri, pp. 51-92 Surin pp. 39-54 "art tahner, ‘Why Does Cod Allow Us to Sula?” in Theological Imstignons, XK. (New York: Crosseut, 1963, p. 208 7Human Suffering, p.9 Sulferng is bestowed by God. The human being thas only to accept itin fa This is the classic response to suflering that finds fullest expression in the experience of Job Job 36-41), Despite his friends’ counsels, Job contends that he is innocent. He even dares to question Cod, who offers no reasons. Instead, God calls Job’s attention to the wonders of creation and to human inability to understand the complexities of the universe, and is assured that God will take care fof the matters which humans can neither comprehend nor control. Thus, in the end, though Job's intellectual questions are not resolved, he seems content to live with the mystery and willing to leave the unknown in the hands of God. Suffering is redemptive.” Inspired by the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 40-55, this view profiers the Old Testament understanding of suffering as a means of individual and national conversion ds 25:8; 35:4-10; Jer 31:15:20), and as vicarious atonement forthe sins of the nations (\s42:1-4; 49:1-7; 5034-11; 52:13 - 53:12), In the New Testament, this understanding reaches its apex in the suffering and death of Jesus,"* which is regarded as a vicarious atonement for the sin of the entire human race (1Pet 2:24; Rom 3:25) and a means of reconciling the whole universe to God (Col 1:20-21). Thus, union with Jesus? passion is the indispensable way of sharing in his glorious victory over sin and death Rom 6:5; 7: 17). Viewed apart from this, suffering is meaningless. The vicarious suffering of Christians likewise redemptive (Acts 9:15if; 20:234f; 21:10-14; ‘2Tim 2:34; Uk 12:8, Jn 15:18-27; Mk 13:9-13; Mr 10:17-22) and it characterizes the essence of the Christian life (Mt 5: 10-12, Jn 15: 19-24; Mt 16:24; Mk 8:34-35; Lk 9:23; 2Cor 4:9-11; Phil 1:29; Aas 5:41; 2Tim 4: 8,12; 259,12; Rom 8:18; 1Pt4z 21 - 5: suffering benefits not only the self, but the whole Mystical Body 2Cor1:4-7; 2Tim 2:10; Rom 6:1-11; Gal 6:17; Phil3: 8-10; Col 1:24). }; Jas 1:2; 1Pr4:13). Moreover, this redemptive Pastoral experience in Samar, and possibly in many pars of the Philippines, reveals that a semblance” of the faith approach is widely-adhered to by the people, especially among the poor. It is that unquestioning way of attributing all suffering to God and accepting it as one's lot, that “all-too-asly {leads} to a mesmerizing fatalism which rationalizes away any human responsibilty >" fer to Gustavo Guterer, On job: God-Tall and the Sulforing of the Innagen, trans. Mf. O'Connel {New York (01s Books, 1967) for an extensive study on Job; and Anchor Rib. Oicionavy, <¥.“Suflerng” by Simundsen for an overview Refer to McDermott, pp. 121-124 for a more detailed discussion of this theme; and to Fatula p. 991 and New catholic Eneyetopada, sv. “Suffering inthe Bible" by Bukaxsty far an overview. The relationship botween Jess and suring or ofa tology of suferng and chrtology, may be discussed in the dovelopment of the other theses. (See Appondi 1) For this specific paper, I suflas to mention the redemptive view of suffering, ag that the flless of ts meaning rests onthe sering-doath-resietion of Jesus Chr use “semblance” because an authentic faith approach, asthe succeeding pages would discuss, inches a criticel Inuit into the human situation,Human Suffering, p. 10, for evil” Such an uncritical approach, that is reinforced by a likewise unquestioned faith in the bible, “or an exaggerated concentration upon the suffering and death of Christ as redemptive,” produces destructive resignation, a numbing despair and helplessness, or the abdication of moral and social responsibilities. It is for the abovementioned characteristics of what she calls “Christian masochism”® that Dorothee Séelle challenges the faith solution. More precisely, she questions the low value it places on human strength, its veneration of a God who is neither good nor logical but only extremely powerful, its viewing of suffering exclusively from the perspective of endurance, and its consequent lack of sensitivity forthe suffering of others.* She claims that such an approach not only produces apathetic Christians, but also an apathetic God who is incapable of suffering with the victims of history." She then advances an image of God who is affected by the many violent forms of misery and pain, shares palpably all human sufiering, and makes it God's own: “the God who is a co-sufierer™” ... one ‘who indwells (incarnates) the self in the suffering realities of creation,” and this finds its supreme expression in nothing less than the suffering and dying of Jesus on the Cross. Concomitantly, she outlines an active human response to suffering that stats off with the view that all suffering is social and can therefore be worked on. Believing that “no suffering can be clothed and transfigured any longer with the appearance of fate,” she describes a three-step proactive process to cope with, or even overcome suffering.” 1. taking the suffering seriously, expending energy to survive, and getting out of the isolation and powerlessness by finding a language that leads out of the uncomprehended suffering that makes one mute 2._ binging to consciousness the horror experienced, giving voice to the anguish, expressing ‘or communicating in a language of lament, of crying of pain, a language that at least says what the situation is “Paul Schiling, Geel and Human Anguish, (Natio, Abingdon Press, 1977), p. 7073. Cod in Whitney, p. 1. 2 Whey pa. * Joseph Soling, “Mona Quesionng and Human Suféring: n Search of a Credle Response tothe Meaning of Sufviog” jo Lotain-Thelogcl and Paarl Monogragh 3, pp. 168-169. Sole, Sufeting p22 td Sole defines pathy’ athe “nabilty ose (p36) “This image of Cod keno purported by Jaen Makan: Celio pasveononker whe ites hil rm hymn pain ar deicion. Surin, p. 125) Due ta Imtalons of space, th paper wl no longer dv into the Maimann’s theology of suferng, His points are biter abe ty These #3 “Séele’s and Moltnann’s “cosofering God” gues beyond the process theodicst’s. “olowafrer wh understand." I the some ight as Dapoorer, who exp, “God's slday is more than ta ‘safer with," nok merely alfecive, but leave; intervenes sive; ads to ei pin and sullesicg. Ws copes, tha ace together with ws agp fering (epootere, 228-229) #8 Scinon Soap 116 ibid, p 105 ibid, pp. 70-78urna Suffering, p. UL 3. discussing, organizing towards liberation, and calling to action; and these could take on multiple approaches: ©) Confronted by those evils those sources of suffering that can be alleviated or even eradicated, justice demands that we reform, liberate, and right the wrong... (2) In some instances, ... [where] pure suffering ‘can become personally or socially productive... we aro called to ‘carry the cross,” to allow the suffering to transform us... @3) Finally, and ‘only in those situations where the evil faced is insurmountable and the suffering cxporienced sooms ultimately meaningless, ought one adopt the faith sotion, defined as “active endurance,” not passive acceptance.” ‘This active manner of coping with suffering then implies the need for human solidarity amidst suffering, since “nobody can be freed from the seli-incriminating experience of suffering without a believing community; ... [Suchi is the constitutively ecclesiological dimension of faith.""? The faith ‘community thus plays an important role in regard to human suffering: “to alert the human community to the dimension of suffering which it has allowed itself to ignore or at least tolerate unnecessarily, to participate in the process of discerning and interpreting what human suffering means, and to support human persons and humankind in their search for clarifying the meaning of suffering."** In qualifying the meaning of a more authentic “faith approach," Séelle raises our awareness that ‘the ‘problem of evil’ seems to be an amalgam or cluster of various theoretical and practical aspects.""* While theodicy, ‘e., the theoretical approach, attempts to respond to the following questions, 1. Can evil and suffering in themselves be rendered intelligible? 2, Is the existence of God logically compatible with the existence of evil and suffering? 3. Does the existence of evil and suffering constitute evidence that counts against the belief in the existence of God? theologians, like Séelle, concern themselves with the following practical questions: 1. What does Gad do to overcome the evil and suffering that exist in creation? 2. What do we do to overcome evil and suffering? Iethen becomes more apparent that “the crux of the theodicy-problem does not consist in any putative resolution of the apparent difficulties that comprise its theoretical aspect, but in seeking a way (or ways) to answer the ‘practical’ questions." * A summary of the approsches propesed by Sle, in Sparks, “Sulering,” New Dictionary of Catholic Spotualty, pp. 952.953, * Depoomtera,p. 231 2 Saling p. 181 * Surin, op. 59 bid, pp. 99-60 iid, p 67.Human Suffering, p12 Conclusion: Suffering as Mystery Coming now to the end of our inquiry, we grasp the inadequacy of theodicy’s classical explanations of the reality of evil and suffering More importantly, we recognize that the more authentic faith approach involves not passive acceptance, but active endurance; not uncritical resignation to suffering as one’s lot, but honest questioning, expression of anguish and breaking away from powerlessness and isolation; not silent subservience to the course of events, but serious discernment” of the situation, and either taking active steps to overcome the suffering, or to freely “cary the cross,” not fearful submission to an apathetic God, but hope-filled collaboration with a cco-suffering God who has fully taken on our suffering in the Cross of Christ, and who is the sole source of meaning, freedom, and new life; not inward-looking preoccupation with one’s suffering, but solidarity with the believing community, most especially with those who suffer, More profoundly, we come to realize that the question of evil and suffering in the world is not a problem that has a Gear and final human solution, Rather, it is a mystery. It is “the open wound of life" that will only be answered through the experience of the new world in which ‘God will wipe away every tear ftom our eyes. Rev 21:4) In the final analysis, human suffering, in all ts complexity, finds its ultimate meaning in the fact, that the God who created the world is also the God who has redeemed through His passion and death on the Cross and His resurrection, and who continues to be present in the Spirit, in Jesus Chai amidst all the pains and travails of suffering in life CAROLINE JOY R. LUZ, RSC) Feast of Our Lady of Sowrows September 15, 1998 ‘Cawayan, Northern Samar 577. Johannes Van B wa identifies diferent Kind of aufering in thoirpolartes: a} sting that dees from the reality within which we lve, and nich affects us because of our corpreslty or the structure of ur tesa. suffering which human bing inflict on one anther; 6} inevitable suffering vs. sflerng thal can be overcome; «) silting that can acquire ‘meaning vs. meaningless fering; structural suffering whichis bom of the exitence of carn siucire, and which affects ‘whole groups of poopie ws. personal sufieing which aes sat nda) sfferngwhach ic the innocent that fr which we oursees must accept the blame; 1) suflering we uneilingly undergo vs. that which we wilingy accep becalso wo ‘wish to sve for gear justice in the word. (The Meaningeanew of Suflering and temps at oprelaion” tan Terrence Merriga, in Louwain Theological are! Pastoral Monogzaph 125 rgen Mokmann, nity and the Kiger The Doctane of God, (San Franco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1981, p. 43,Human Suffering. p.20 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1992 ed., S.v. “Suffering.” by Daniel Simundsen, Bavel, T. Johannes van. “The Meaninglessness of Sufiering and Attempts at Interpretation.” Translated by Terrence Merigan. in Louvain Theological_and Pastoral Monograph Pp. 125-136. Edited by Jan Lambrecht and Raymond Collins. Louvain: Peeters Press, 1990 Boros, Ladislaus. Pain_and_Providen Ud., 1972. we, Translated by Edward Quinn. London: Search Press Dearing, Richard. “Ministry and the Problem of Suffering.” The Joumal of Pastoral Care XXXIK, No. 1 (March, 1985): 58-68. Depoonere, Kristiaan, “"You Have Stiven with Cod’ (Gen 32:28): A Pastoral Theological Reflection on the Image of God and Suffering.” In Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monograph 3, Pp. 211-234, Edited by Jan Lambrecht and Raymond Collins. Louvain: Peeters Press, 1990, Dowd, Sharyn Echols. Prayer, Power, and the Problem of Suffering, SBL Dissertations Series 105. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1988. Fatula, Mary Ann. “Suffering.” In The New Dictionary of Theology, pp. 990-992. Edited by Joseph Komonchak, Mary Collins, Dermot Lane. Dublin: Gill & MacMillan, 1987. Fiddes, Paul. The Creative Suffering of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Cutie, Gustavo. On Job: _Goc-Talkand_the Suffering of the Innocent. Translated by ‘Mt. J. O'Connell, New York: Orbis Books, 1987. Hick, John. Evil and the God of Love. London: The MacMillan Press Ltd., 1965; reissue edition with a new preface, 1985. Hauser, Richard. Finding God in Troubled Times: The Holy Spirit and Suffering. New York: Paulist Press, 1994, = “Where is God in Our Suffering?” Re 113-130. view for Religious (January-February 1985): Luyten, Jos. “Perspectives on Human Suffering in the Old Testament.” Translated by Peter Crossman. tn Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monograph 3, pp. 1-30, Edited by Jan Lambrecht and Raymond Collins. Louvain: Peeters Press, 1990. McDermott, John. ‘The Bible on Human Suffering, United Kingdom: St. Paul Publications, 1990. Michels, Robrecht, jesus and Suffering — The Suffering of Jesus." Translated by Terence Merrgan. {mn Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monograph 3, pp. 31-45. Edited by Jan Lambrecht and Raymond Collins. Louvain: Peeters Press, 1990,Human Suffering, p. 21 Moltmann, Jdirgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1981. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 ed, S.v. “Suffering in the Bible,” by J. Bukovsky. Rahner, Karl. “Why Does Cod Allow Us to Suffer” pp. 194-208. In Theological Investigations, XIX. New York: Crossroad, 1983. Richard, Lucien. What are They Saying about the Theology of Suffering?” New York: Paulist Press, 1992, Richardson, Alan. “The Problem of Evil”. In The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theol pp. 193-196. Edited by Alan Richardson and John Bowden. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983, Solling, Joseph. *Moral Questioning and Human Suffering: In Search of a Credible Response to the ‘Meaning of Suffering," In Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monograph 3, pp. 155-182. Edited by Jan Lambrecht and Raymond Collins. Louvain: Pecters Press, 1990. Soelle, Dorothee. Suffering. Translated by Everett Kalin, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. Sparks, Richard. “Suffering.” In The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, pp. 950-953. Edited by Michael Downey. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1993, Steen, Marc. “The Theme of the ‘Suffering’ God: An Exploration.” In Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monograph 3, pp. 69-93. Faited by Jan Lambrecht and Raymond Collins. Louvain: Peeters Press, 1990. Surin, Kenneth. Theology and the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Blockwell Publishers, 1986. Tilley, T.W.. “Problem of Evil’ In The_New Dictionary of Theology, pp. 361-363. Edited by Joseph Komonchak, Mary Collins, Dermot Lane. Dublin: Gill & MacMillan, 1987. Vardy, Peter. The Puzzle of Evil. London: Fount (an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers), 1992. Ven, Johannes van der and Vossen, Eric. Suffering: Why for God's Sake, Netherlands: JH Kok Publishing House, 1995, Weil, Simone. “The Love of God and Affliction,” pp. 117-136. In Waiting for God. Translated by Emma Craufurd. New York: G.P. Putnam’s and Sons, 1951. Whitney, Barry. What are They Saying about God and Evil? New York: Paulist Press, 1989. Young, Frances. “Suffering.” In The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. pp. 555-556. Edited by Alan Richardson and John Bowden. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983.