End does not justify means

[BarbTherese]

If the end does not justify the means, how is it that God can permit terrible suffering in order to bring about a greater good?  (Doctrine of Divine Providence).

This is something I cannot understand while I can hold that it is valid and a great Mystery.  But first, I have to ask the question.  It is something I would like to understand, if understanding is possible.

[cruciatacara]

Anderson Cooper's interview with Stephen Colbert touched on the issue of suffering a little and it was interesting. Stephen basically explained that he sees suffering as a way for people to become more human, to be able to share and empathize with others who suffer. It isn't a complete answer for all the suffering in the world of babies and children etc, but it is a little comforting for individual suffering.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, cruciatacara said:

Anderson Cooper's interview with Stephen Colbert touched on the issue of suffering a little and it was interesting. Stephen basically explained that he sees suffering as a way for people to become more human, to be able to share and empathize with others who suffer. It isn't a complete answer for all the suffering in the world of babies and children etc, but it is a little comforting for individual suffering.

I think it is very true that suffering can result in a person becoming more human and able to share and empathize with others who suffer.  I very much do get that, but suffering remains an evil permitted by God to bring about the greater good i.e. the end has justified the means and contrary to "the end cannot justify the means".

My question is also about innocence that suffers dreadfully.  In our doctrine of Divine Providence, God permits evil knowing He can bring about a greater good, meaning the means have been justified by the end - and a contradiction it seems.

I think mine probably is a philosophical question. It is also related to the doctrine of Divine Providence which seems to present a contradiction to "the end cannot justify the means".  To understand the doctrine of Divine Providence, go to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm and scroll down to: V. GOD CARRIES OUT HIS PLAN: DIVINE PROVIDENCE

It might be something that cannot be understood by the finite mind with trust and confidence, Faith, in the Infinite Mind of God.  For me, Faith is seeking understanding unless it clicks, I just am not going to ever understand........and perhaps this is so, but no click just yet  

___________

Catholic Catechism: 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

[cruciatacara]

I do agree that with human beings the end cannot justify the means used to get there, but there is also a spiritual level by which evil possibly can bring about good, and that is something that might just be unknowable by us mortals, not being able to see the 'big picture' as it were. Atheists often use the sufferings of innocents as a reason why God cannot possibly exist or else if He does, he is evil too. I know that this life is a preparation for another but I don't have proof of that, so I can't explain suffering of innocents anymore than anyone else can but I do believe in the existence of a compassionate and all-loving 'force' or 'being' that somehow uses the experiences of this life to prepare us to be able to be with that presence after death. The Buddhists also have a perception of the afterlife that explains suffering but that is 'karma' and I never really could understand why karma could be helpful if we have no knowledge of our actions in a previous life that led to that karma! 

For me, I just put suffering in the 'trust God' basket and accept that we humans cannot do evil things to reach a good end, but God can do anything so don't worry too much about it. Maybe suffering innocents somehow helps us to feel compassion or a desire to help others or something else for good. I just don't know, but if God is all compassion and love, as I believe He is, then I just do the best I can within my own limitations, and leave the rest to Him.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

If the end does not justify the means, how is it that God can permit terrible suffering in order to bring about a greater good?  (Doctrine of Divine Providence).

This is something I cannot understand while I can hold that it is valid and a great Mystery.  But first, I have to ask the question.  It is something I would like to understand, if understanding is possible.

 

[fides' Jack]

Suffering is not evil.  In fact, it's through suffering that we can grow closer to God.  We are all called to suffer.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Suffering is not evil.  In fact, it's through suffering that we can grow closer to God.  We are all called to suffer.

Suffering came into the world through sin and sin of itself cannot have a good consequence.  However, in Grace united to Jesus and through Jesus alone, uniting our suffering to His, our suffering can be redemptive.

 

Quote

 

Problem Of Suffering Reconsidered, The

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4297 (Catholic Culture.org)

_______________________________

"But what of the evil of suffering" 

"Suffering is not a biological necessity. We were not created in a state of suffering. We suffer because we sinned, and we die because we sinned. God did not design us for death but for life, and he did not design us for suffering but for joy: the joy of sanctity, the bliss of self-forgetful love."

"Because Christ entered into our sufferings, suffering is now a way of entering more deeply into Christ. We are never closer to Christ than when we share his cross."

"Suffering has become redemptive not only for the one who suffers but also for the ones for whom he suffers. Vicarious atonement is a mystery but not an exception: We can share in it. If we are "in Christ" (that primary mystery of solidarity, of incorporation), we, like him, can offer up our sufferings to the Father-and he uses them. They become seeds or rainwater, and something beautiful springs up that we seldom see in this life."

 

 

20 hours ago, cruciatacara said:

I do agree that with human beings the end cannot justify the means used to get there, but there is also a spiritual level by which evil possibly can bring about good, and that is something that might just be unknowable by us mortals, not being able to see the 'big picture' as it were. Atheists often use the sufferings of innocents as a reason why God cannot possibly exist or else if He does, he is evil too. I know that this life is a preparation for another but I don't have proof of that, so I can't explain suffering of innocents anymore than anyone else can but I do believe in the existence of a compassionate and all-loving 'force' or 'being' that somehow uses the experiences of this life to prepare us to be able to be with that presence after death. The Buddhists also have a perception of the afterlife that explains suffering but that is 'karma' and I never really could understand why karma could be helpful if we have no knowledge of our actions in a previous life that led to that karma! 

For me, I just put suffering in the 'trust God' basket and accept that we humans cannot do evil things to reach a good end, but God can do anything so don't worry too much about it. Maybe suffering innocents somehow helps us to feel compassion or a desire to help others or something else for good. I just don't know, but if God is all compassion and love, as I believe He is, then I just do the best I can within my own limitations, and leave the rest to Him.

Thank you for your post.  I tend to agree with most all of what you have posted into this thread.

 Mine is not a spiritual question so much as a philosophical and possibly theological question.  Mine is Faith seeking understanding, if indeed understanding is possible and sometimes it isn't - but I have to reach that point, not be told to go there  

A little boy is sitting in a picture theatre.  In front of him is a very tall man.  The film commences and the tall man turns to the little boy:

"Can you see the screen, sonny?"

"No sir, I cannot see"

"Oh that's ok, you will be fine if you laugh when I laugh".

__________

Understanding our Faith wherever we can is impossible if we abandon the quest to understand and therefore evangelise.

I acknowledge that there are some subjects where understanding might be impossible for me and then I can rest Peacefully and Joyfully in the Mystery that is The Lord.

[cruciatacara]

I think it is very important to question one's beliefs and to try to figure out for oneself just what it's all about. The problem though is that the subject matter is so immense that I am not sure we can do much more than question and think about it and come to out own conclusions. I am not saying it is unknowable, just that it is most likely not able to be proved. If there was an answer to the question of suffering, I think some of the great philosophers and theologians might have discovered it already. If you have ever watched some of the debates between atheists like Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchins vs the Archbishop of Abuja, John Onaiyekan you will see that no one can prove anything for sure. I love the stimulating discussions because they make me think and consider my own beliefs but no one on either side has ever convinced me of anything because it is all just opinion, not fact. I guess that's what faith is to me, choosing to believe certain things despite the lack of concrete proof.

[Guest]

Thank you again for your post.  It is not the problem of suffering that befuddles me.  Sin has come into the world and continued in the world and comes with consequences (cause and effect) i.e. suffering.  Neither is it the nature of God in the whole question of suffering a problem for me.  God as a Compassionate and Loving God in Infinite Mercy with whom I have a personal relationship is not in question either, nor my relationship with His Church.

What I am trying to discern is a contradiction SEEMINGLY in Church teaching.  I am not stating that The Church is wrong in what She has stated, rather that there SEEMS to be a contradiction.

I think possibly mine is a philosophical type of question while being unsure of that too.  I think perhaps St Thomas would have addressed it somewhere or other in the Summa with which I am not at all familiar, not even remotely close to familiar.

My question is summarised in the first paragraph  quoted below.  

 

On 8/22/2019 at 7:56 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

If the end does not justify the means, how is it that God can permit terrible suffering in order to bring about a greater good?  (Doctrine of Divine Providence).

This is something I cannot understand while I can hold that it is valid and a great Mystery.  But first, I have to ask the question.  It is something I would like to understand, if understanding is possible.

 

____________________

My question is a difficulty, not a doubt.

____________________

I think I MIGHT be starting to see a bit of daylight in my question.........just can't quite get it as yet/find the words to investigate 'the daylight'.  I either will, or I wont.

[cruciatacara]

I don't know if this will help or confuse the issue more, but it is an explanation of sorts taken from Aquina's works.

Quote

St Thomas gives the example of a man seeing another who is about to fall, if he fails to put out his hand to steady the man he could be said to be a cause of the man’s falling – is the same true of God? God’s foreknowledge means that he is aware of the many instances in which we are going to fall; should he always steady us? St Thomas contends that his foreknowledge also means that his awareness include knowledge as to those instances in which his aid will prevent, or not prevent, the falling. As God’s action would not have changed the outcome, it cannot be said to have been caused by him. This is, of course, and quite legitimately, based on human free-will; God can prevent a stone from falling without doing violence to the nature of a stone, however, he cannot prevent a man from falling morally without doing violence to the man’s freedom to fall. It is part of the almost inscrutable nature of free-will that although God causes free-will in his creation of us, he is not thereby the cause of the choices which result from it. Sins, in particular, do not arise from the irascible and concupiscible elements within us as created by God; but from our failure to comply with their created natures. St Thomas gives the example of a knee; its movement is caused by the motive power of the animal influencing it, its limitations (for example if the knee is injured) do not come from that motive power but rather from the knee’s failure to receive the power. Thus God causes our actions, but our (self-)injured position prevents us from receiving his power at all times.

http://oscott.net/problem-evil-st-thomas-aquinas/ 

Quote

 

There is also something of a lacuna in the lack of a consideration of natural suffering; it is fairly clear that free will can be the cause of moral evil, but the step from my sinning through making bad choices to innocent children dying from diseases or earthquakes is still not entirely covered. The answer given in the Summa does have the potential to cover this as well – allowing for a greater good to emerge, but that’s at the level of divine permission, I think, and does not explain the cause.

What I think is clear is that St Thomas has contributed significantly to an understanding of how we may find evil’s constant present not to challenge our belief in God. However, a question with such great power (as the Angelic Doctor implicitly acknowledges) is not subject to tidy, simple, and final answers. Thus, the question is not finally answered by St Thomas and is in need of constant meditation and consideration if the Church is to offer a credible apologetic to an increasingly sceptical world.

 

 

[Guest]

Thank you, cruciatacara, for taking the time to post what you have.

Your first response above is something along the lines of my thinking.  Cause and effect in sin is the one action.  Sin and the consequences are the one action.  My problem is that God does have the power to remove the consequence but permits it anyway, knowing He can bring about a greater good.  My problem is that it seems to contradict "the end cannot justify the means". 

However, it seems to me that in permitting the consequence of sin to bring about a greater good, God has not justified the sin and its consequences to bring about a greater good.  God has simply permitted to bring about a greater good. What is justified is God's Ability and Right to permit in order to bring about a greater good and that is intrinsically a great good of itself.  And so, in this instance, the end has not justified the means, because the means was Just in the first place i.e. God's Ability and Right over His creation.  I think that an overly bulky and quite clumsy explanation of where I am at at this point.

In the second half of your response, actually this is pretty much what I have arrived at too in relation to my comments above and "the end cannot justify the means" and the seeming contradiction: "Thus, the question ................. is in need of constant meditation and consideration if the Church is to offer a credible apologetic to an increasingly sceptical world."  Thank you for what you have posted as I can rest Peacefully in the previous sentence as quoted.

[Jane_Doe2]

On 8/21/2019 at 4:26 PM, BarbaraTherese said:

If the end does not justify the means, how is it that God can permit terrible suffering in order to bring about a greater good?  (Doctrine of Divine Providence).

This is something I cannot understand while I can hold that it is valid and a great Mystery.  But first, I have to ask the question.  It is something I would like to understand, if understanding is possible.

The saying "do the ends justify the means" is referring to human choices, not God's.

God, by definition, is Perfectly Just.  His fruits are Perfectly Good.  Yes, sometimes it hurts along the way-- after all, was it not the Divine Father whom sent His only Son to suffer pain beyond mortal comprehension and die?  He knows pain more than we ever could.  Be He also knows that this is just for a moment and brings about His Perfect healing and miracles.  

Edited August 23, 2019 by Jane_Doe2

[Guest]

Thank you for your input, Jane.

 

19 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

it seems to me that in permitting the consequence of sin to bring about a greater good, God has not justified the sin and its consequences to bring about a greater good.  God has simply permitted to bring about a greater good. What is justified is God's Ability and Right to permit in order to bring about a greater good and that is intrinsically a great good of itself.  And so, in this instance, the end has not justified the means, because the means was Just in the first place i.e. God's Ability and Right over His creation.  I think that an overly bulky and quite clumsy explanation of where I am at at this point.

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

I do not think that the laws by which we are called to live are something imposed from above to keep us in line.  Rather the laws by which we are called to live tell us something about God and His Nature and are revealed by God in order to draw us into Unity/Oneness with Him.  This is why our laws are ideally embraced with love rather than a strictly moral need to obey the law, although that can be a beginning.  A point from which I can grow.

In other words, the end does not justify the means tells me something about God and the path to Unity and Oneness with Him in Love.

[cruciatacara]

Perhaps the end might actually justify the means in some occasions. For example, it is evil to kill someone, but if it were in defense of self or others then perhaps the end is good, even if the means are not. It is a tricky question.

As for God, well, He is ineffable.