LA

UR

AW

AD

DE

LL

EK

5T

RO

M

ticularphysical

painfrom

which

onesuffers,

thesufferer

isin

part

ableto

appreciatesom

ethingabout

theperson

ofC

hristthat

perhapsnot

allo

th

ersfully

can:the

sacrificeof

hispassio

n29

Prc

lk-yjv/

p

Through

Christ

andin

Christ,

lightis

shedon

theriddle

of sorrowand

death.A

partfromH

isG

ospel,it

overwhelm

sus.1

Thescandal

ofthe

Cross

remains

thekey

tothe

interpretationofthe

greatm

ysteryof suffering,

which

isso

much

apart

ofthehistory

ofm

ankind.2A

llw

hosuffer

inthis

world,

thesick

andincurable

anddying,

thosein

prisonand

tortured,the

oppressedand

thosew

hoare

hopelesslypoor,

must

knowthat,

intheir

situation,they

arenot

condemned

tototal

powerlessness;if

theyunite

theirhopelessness

with

that

of thecrucified

Sonof

God,

theyw

illdo

more

tobuild

thereal

kingdomof

God

thanm

anyan

architectof earthly

happiness.3

Thebelieving

philosophershould

nothesitate

toinclude

theredem

ptive

visionofhis

faithin

hisspeculation.4

29

.I

amgrateful

toM

ichaelM

urrayand

Kelly

James

Clark

forcom

ments

onan

earlierversion

ofthis

essay.

z.V

aticanII

Council,

Gaudium

etSpes,

par.22

.2.

JohnP

aulII,

Crossing

theT

hresholdof H

ope(N

ewY

ork:K

nopf,1

994

),p.

63.3. H

ansU

rsvon

Baithasar,

“Hosanna

—for

Which

Liberation

Theology?”

inY

ouC

rown

theY

earw

ithY

ourG

oodness:Serm

onsthrough

theL

iturgicalY

ear(S

anF

rancisco:Ignatius

Press,

19

82

),p.

74.4.

Louis

Dupre,

“Philosophy

aridthe

Mystery

ofE

vil,”in

Religious

Mystery

andR

ationalR

eflection(G

randR

apids:E

erdmans,

19

98),

p.6o.

The

Gospel

ofR

edemptive

Suffering:R

eflectionson

JohnPaul

Ii’sSalvifici

Doloris

Eduardo

J.E

cheverria

v_-1_

;:x:;w

-‘i•

110

Ill

DU

AR

DO

J.E

CH

EV

ER

RIA

TheG

ospelof R

edemptive

Suffering

Reason

hasits

own

domain, and

faithhers.

But

reasoncan

enterthe

domain

of faithby

bringingthere

itsneed

toask

questions,its

desire

todiscover

theinternal

orderof

thetrue,

andits

aspirationto

wis

dom—

that’sw

hathappens

with

theology.A

ndfaith

canenter

the

domain

ofreason,

bringingalong

thehelp

ofa

lightand

atruth

which

aresuperiors

andw

hichelevate

reasonin

itsow

norder

—that

isw

hathappens

with

Christian

philosophy.5

Advice

toC

hristian

Philo

sophers

Pope

JohnP

aulII’s

reflectionson

them

eaningof

human

sufferingin

his

apostolicletter

SalvificiD

oloris6

donot

startfrom

areligiously

neutralpo

sition.T

hisphilosopher-P

opeundoubtedly

thinksit

perfectlyap

pro

pri

ate,in

philosophicalenquiry,

toappeal

tow

hathe

knows

byw

ayof

faith.

Itisn’t

thatJohn

Paul

leavesquestions

aboutG

od,evil,

andsuffering

en

tirelyin

thehands

offaith.

He

sketchessom

etraditional

arguments

sug

gestingthat

theidea

ofa

God

infinitein

knowledge,

goodness,and

power

iscom

patiblew

iththe

actualexistence

ofevil.

The

philosopher

Pope

acceptsphilosophical

reason’sm

odestyet

legitimate

demand,

in

Louis

Dupre’s

words,

“toperceive

howan

openconflict

between

agood

God

andan

evilw

orldis

notinevitable.”7

And

yetJohn

Paul

agrees,I

thin

k,

with

Dupre,

who

writes:

“The

verystandards

byw

hichw

em

ea

5.Jacques

Maritain,

TheP

easantof

theG

aronne(N

ewY

ork:H

olt,R

inehartand

Winston,

1968),P.

14

2.

6.John

Paul

II,Salvzfici

Doloris,

apostolicletter,

February

11,

1984.su

bseq

uen

t

referencesto

thisapostolic

letterw

illbe

citedparenthetically

inthe

text;hereafter

the

following

abbreviationsapply:

Salv(fici Doloris

=SD

,par.

=p

aragrap

hnum

ber.C

alvin

istphilo

sopher

Alvin

Plantinga

praisesthis

pap

aldocum

enthighly:

“SalvzficiD

oloris

[is]surely

oneof

thefinest

documents

(outsidethe

Bible)

everw

rittenon

thistopic,

andsurely

requiredreading

foranyone

interestedin

theso-called

problemof

evil,or

theproblem

sthat

sufferingcan

posefor

theC

hristianspiritual

lifeor,

more

generally,

theplace

ofsuffering

inthe

lifeof

theC

hristian.”N

icholasW

olterstorff,R

ichardJ.

Bernstein, and

Alvin

Plantinga,

reviewof

Fideset

Ratio,

Books

andC

ulture, July

/August

1999:

32.

Inthe

third

volume

ofhis

trilogyon

thenotion

ofw

arrant

entitledW

arranted

Christian

Belief (N

ewY

ork:O

xfordU

niversityP

ress,2

00

0),

Plantinga

repeatshis

judg

ment

thatS

alvficiD

olorisis

“apro

found

med

itation

onsuffering

anda

powerful

effort

todiscern

itsm

eaningfrom

aC

hristianperspective”;

indeed,h

ecalls

ita

“seminal

work”

inthe

“largerproject

ofC

hristianscholarship,

ofdiscerning

thew

aysin

which

Christian

beliefillum

inatesm

anyof

theim

po

rtant

areasof

hu

man

concern”(n.

38and

46,at

P.488

andp.

493,respectively).

.D

upre,“P

hilosophyand

theM

ysteryof

Evil,”

p.54.

surew

hatdoes

andw

hatdoes

notcount

as‘good’

dependupon

theac

ceptanceor

rejectionof

anintrinsically

religioushierarchization

ofval

ues.A

nyattem

ptto

erecta

systemof

valuesupon

areligiously

neu

tralbasis,

comm

onto

believersand

unbelievers,fails

preciselyin

thearea

where

theodicym

attersm

ost,namely

indeciding

what

must

countas

de

finitiveevil.”

“Varying

ontologicalcom

mitm

ents,”adds

Dupre,

“wid

enor

narrowthe

rangeof

optionsfor

defeatingevil

with

good’.”

8S

uchvalue-theory

pluralismjustifies

Christians

tolet

revealedtruth

enterth

edom

ainof

reason,says

Maritain,

“bringingalong

thehelp

ofa

lightan

da

truth

which

aresuperior,

andw

hichelevate

reasonin

itsow

norder

—

thatis

what

happensw

ithC

hristianphilosophy.”

Indeed,JohnP

aulaffirm

sthat

“revealedtruth

offersthe

fullnessof

lightand

will

thereforeillum

inethe

pathof

philosophicalin

quiry

.”9

Ac

cordingly,engaging

thedata

ofrevelation

hasenriched

philosophicalin

quiry(FR

,par.

74).P

hilosophicalreason

“isoffered

guidancean

dis

warned

againstpaths

which

would

leadit

tostray

fromrevealed

Truth

andto

strayin

theend

fromthe

truthpure

andsim

ple.”B

utthe

influenceof

faithis

notexercised

purelyas

anegative

norm,

asthough

Christian

philosophersstrive

intheir

theorizingm

erelynot

tocontradict

thefaith

(FR,

par.63).

“Instead,”the

Pope

adds,“reason

isstirred

toexplore

path

sw

hichof

itselfit

would

noteven

havesuspected

itcould

take.T

hisre

lationship

with

thew

ordof

God

leavesphilosophy

enriched,because

rea

sondiscovers

newan

dunsuspected

horizons”(FR

,par.73).

Indeed,faith

shouldhave

apositive

influenceon

philosophicalreflection.

Most

important,

theP

openot

onlyaccepts

theconcept

ofC

hristianphilosophy

aslegitim

ate,butalso

boldlyurges

usto

developw

hathe

ex

plicitlycalls

“Christian

philosophy,”w

hichis

not“an

officialphilo

sophy

ofthe

Church,

sincethe

faithas

suchis

nota

philosophy”;rather

itis

“aC

hristianw

ayof

philosophizing,a

philosophicalspeculation

conceived[and

practiced]in

dynamic

unionw

ithfaith”

(FR,

par.76).

Philo

sophizing

infaith,

froman

intrinsicallyC

hristianpoint

ofview,

isnot

theol

ogy.P

hilosophydoes

respondto

faith’sow

nneed

forreflection,

which

isfaith

insearch

ofunderstan

din

g—

fidesquaerens

intellectum;

butthat

istheology.In

aC

hristianw

ayof

philosophizing,faith

entersthe

domain

of

8.D

upre,“P

hilosophyand

theM

ysteryof

Evil,”

p.59.

The

quotew

ithinq

uo

tesis

fromM

arilynM

cCord

Adam

s,“P

roblems

ofE

vil:M

oreA

dviceto

Christian

Philo

sophers,”

Faithand

Philosophy5

(April

1988):1

29.

9. JohnP

aulII,Fides

et Ratio,encyclical

letter,S

eptember

14,

19

98,par.

79.S

ubse

quentreferences

tothis

encyclicalw

illbecited

parentheticallyin

thetext;

hereafterth

efollow

ingabbreviations

apply:Fides

etR

atio=

FR;

par.=

parag

raph

number.

112

113

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IAThe

Gospel

ofRedem

ptiveSuffering

reason“w

ithoutever

demeaning

theventure

pro

per

toreason”

(FR,

par.

78). And

thisis,

thephilosopher-P

opeadds,

“anundoubted

boonfor

phi

losophy,w

hichhas

thusglim

psednew

vistasof

furtherm

eaningsw

hichreason

issum

moned

topenetrate”

(FR,

par.io

i).In

sum,

headvises

Christian

philosophers“to

illumine

therange

ofhum

anactivity

bythe

exerciseof

areason

which

grows

more

penetratingand

assuredbecause

ofthe

support

itreceives

fromfaith”

(FR,

par.io6).

One

aspectof

Christian

philosophyis

thesubjective

dimension

inw

hich“faith

purifiesreason”

(FR,

par.76).

“Faith

liberatesreason

from

[the]presu

mptio

n[of

self-sufficiency],”adds

JohnP

aul,“the

typicaltem

ptationof

thephilosopher.”

This

isintellectual

pride,w

hichis

anex

pressionof

“gnoseologicalconcupiscence,”

ora

“carnalm

ind,”as

St.P

aulputs

it(C

ol.2:1

8),

thesinful

inclinationthat

setsus

againstG

od(cf.

FR,

par.18-23).

As

aconsequence,

accordingto

theP

ope,

The

philosopherw

holearns

humility

[infaith]

will

alsofind

courageto

tacklequestions

which

aredifficult

toresolve

ifthe

dataof

revela

tionare

ignored—

forexam

ple,the

problemofevil

andsuffering, the

personalnature

ofG

odand

thequestion

ofthe

meaning

oflife

or,m

oredirectly,

theradical

metaphysical

question,‘W

hyis

thereso

me

thingrather

thannothing.’

(FR,

par.76)

This

paperis

aboutall

threeof

theproblem

sJohn

Paul

alludesto

inthis

last citation—

theproblem

ofeviland

sufferingraises

thefu

nd

amen

talquestion

ofhum

anlife’s

meaning,

particularlythe

questionof

them

eaningof

suffering,and,

inbrief,

ofa

sufferingperson’s

relationshipw

iththe

blessedT

rinity,F

ather,Son,

andH

olyS

pirit.

The

Lim

itsof

Theodicy

and

theIdea

ofS

alvation

“Hum

ansuffering

evokescorn passion;

italso

evokesrespect,

andin

itsow

nw

ayit

intimidates.

For

insuffering

iscontained

thegreatness

ofa

specificm

ystery”(SD

,par.

4).T

hem

ysteryis

adumbrated

inthe

exp

eri

encesof

personallysuffering

orof

sharingin

thesufferings

ofthose

oneloves.

Suffering,

inother

words,

“inits

subjectivedim

ension,as

ap

er

sonalfact

containedw

ithinm

an’sconcrete

andunrepeatable

interior,”

saysthe

Pope,

“seems

almost

inexpressibleand

nottransferable.”

Suffer

ingis

bothsubjective

andpassive,

inthe

sensethat

itinvolves

asu

bm

ission

suchthat

Ibecom

ethe

subjectof

suffering.B

utsuffering

isalso

marked

bya

“specific‘activity’,”

thatis,

marked

bythe

“multiple

andsubjectively

differentiated‘activity’

ofpain,

sadness,disappointm

ent,discouragem

entor

evendespair,

accordingto

theintensity

ofthe

suffer

ingsubject”

(SD,

par.7).

This

sufferingdegrades

andalienates

my

very

beingbecause

itappears

tom

eto

make

nosense,

tohave

nopurp

ose,

nojustification,

andto

beofno

use(SD

,par.27

)10

Yet

“nothingelse

requiresas

much

asdoes

suffering,”he

adds,“in

its‘objective

reality’,to

bedealt

with,

meditated

upon,and

conceivedas

anexplicit

problem;

andth

attherefore

basicquestions

beasked

aboutit

andthe

answers

sought”(SD

,par.

5).Inp

articulai

inhum

ansuffering

thereis

always

theexperience

ofsom

eparticular

evil,w

hetherin

oneselfor

inothers,

asrepugnant

and

thisexperience

raisestw

oquestions:

(1)

Issuffering

intrinsicallyevil?

and(2

)W

hatis

evil?C

onsiderthe

many

forms

thatsuffering

may

take:chestpains

froma

heartattack,

grief,loss

orem

ptinessw

hena

lovedone

dies,sorrow

,sick

ness,righteous

angerin

theface

ofunjust

oppression,deep

repentanceand

guiltforone’s

sins,andso

forth.C

anany

ofthesekinds

ofsu

fferin

gbe

shown

tobe

goodin

some

way?

Pain

hasa

biologicalfunctionin

servingas

analarm

signalw

hensom

ethingis

goingw

rongw

ithour

body,w

arn

ingus

thatwe

hadbetter

takeappropriate

action.A

sone

authorputs

it,“It

isknow

nthat

approximately

oneout

ofevery

40

0,0

00

bab

iesborn

isfated

tolive

ashortlife,due

toa

geneticdisease

calledfam

ilialdysautonom

ia,adisease

offeeling

nopain.

Such

achild

will

cuthim

self,burn

himself,

falldow

nand

breakbones,

without

feelingany

pain.P

ainprevents

usfrom

doingany

furtherdam

age.A

sH

aroldB.

Kushner

says,pain

seems

tobe

theprice

we

payfor

beingaliv

e.”“S

ufferingalso

tempers

thein

div

idual’s

charactei”says

Em

manuel

Levinas.

As

Nicholas

Wolterstorff

ob

serves,“In

thevalley

ofsuffering

despairand

bitternessare

brewed.

But

therealso

characteris

made.

The

valleyof

sufferingis

thevale

ofsoul-

mak

ing

.”2

The

painand

sufferingthat

accompany

punishment,

disci

plineand

educationalso

havea

socialfunction,becausethis

contributesto

thesocialorder

ofsociety.L

astly,“no

pain,nogain,”

isthe

comm

onadage,

io.O

nthis

aspectof

suffering,see

Y.A

.K

ang,“L

evinason

Suffering

andS

oli

darit”

Tijdschnft

voorfilosofie59, no.

3(ig

’):482-5

04;

Stan

vanH

ooft,“T

heM

eaningof

Suffering,”

Hastings

Center

Report

28,no.

5(1998):

13-1

9;

andE

mm

anuelL

evinas,“U

selessS

uffering,”in

The

Provocationof

Levinas:

Rethinking

Other,

edR

obertB

ernasconian

dD

avidW

ood(N

ewY

ork:R

outledge,199

8),

pp.156-6?.

ii.K

ang,“L

evinason

Suffering

andS

olidarity,”p.

487.12.

Nicholas

Wolterstorff,

Lam

entfor

aSon

(Grand

Rapids:

Eerdm

ans,1987),

p.97.

11

4115

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IAT

heG

ospelof

Redem

ptiveS

uffering

andthis

seems

rightsince

thereis

noachievem

entin

science,art,

andar

chitècturew

ithoutpaying

theprice

ofpain

andsuffering.

These

andother

instancesof

sufferinginvolve

accurateknow

ledge

ofhum

annature,

ourphysical

andm

oralm

akeup,w

hichm

eansthat

some

sufferingis,

then,an

appropriatereaction

tosom

ereal

stateof

af

fairs.Insofar

asthis

isthe

case,then,

despitethe

factthat

hum

anbeings

sufferw

heneverthey

encounterany

kindof

evil (SD,par.

7), theevil m

ay

beabsorbed

byan

outweighing

goodand

thusthe

sufferingis

notinitself

evil;it

isa

positivereality;

goodin

itself.A

sG

ermain

Grisez

hassaid:

“Suffering

generallyalso

servesthe

importan

tfunction

ofm

otivating

people,as

painm

otivatesanim

alsto

escapeevil

and

/or

struggleto

over

come

it..

..

The

evilof

aheart

attackis

thedestruction

ofpart

ofthe

heart’stissue,

notthe

pain

inthe

chestw

hicha

consciousvictim

ofheart

attackexperiences.

(The

paincauses

heartattack

victims

torest

andseek

help;if they

feltnopain,

deathw

ould

bem

orelikely.)

Just assom

epeople

areblind

ordeaf,

some

lackthe

senseof

pain,and

thatlack

isa

serious

handicap..

..S

imilarly,

theevil

ofbeing

asinner

isnot

guiltfeelings

but

thesin

ofw

hichone

isguilty;

whether

ornot

onesuffers

feelingsof

guilt.

(Guilt

feelingscause

sinnersto

repent;if

theyfeel

noguilt,

damnation

is

more

likely

.)”13

One

may

thussay

thatthe

evilis

logicallynecessary

for

producingan

outweighing

good,w

hichhas

absorbedthe

evil.’4

Som

e

sufferingcan

bem

eaningfulas

am

eansw

ithan

endin

view,

andthus

in

itselfit

isnot

evil.W

hat,then,

isevil?

“Christianity

proclaims

theessential

goodofe

xis

tenceand

thegood

ofthat w

hichexists, acknow

ledgesthe

goodnessof

the

Creator

andproclaim

sthe

goodof

creatures,”according

toJohn

Paul

II.

Soevil

isnot

apositive

realityin

itsow

nontological

right.T

heP

opeem

bracesthe

Augustinian

accountof

evilas

adeprivation

ordistortion

ofa

goodthat

shouldhave

beenbut

isnot;

inshort,

evilis

anabsence

ofthe

good.“W

ecould

saythat

man

suffersbecause

ofa

goodin

which

hedoes

notshare,”

headds,

“fromw

hichin

acertain

sensehe

iscut

off,or

of

13

.G

ermain

Grisez,

TheW

ayof

theL

ordJesus,

vol.2,

Living

aC

hristianLife

(Quincy,

ill.:F

ranciscanP

ress,1

99

3),

p.32.

Seealso

JohnS

award,

Christ Is

theA

nswer:

TheC

hrist-Centered

Teachingof John

PaulII

(New

York:

Alba

House,

i995),especially

pp.85-89.

Iow

em

uch

both

toG

risez’san

dS

award’s

shortreflections

onh

um

ansu

f

fering.A

lsohelp

ful

inthis

regardis

Avery

Dulles,

S.J., TheSplendor

of Faith:The

Theo

logicalV

isionofPope

JohnP

aulII

(New

York:

Crossroad

Publish

ing

Co.,

1999),

pp.89-

93.14.

On

thenotion

ofabsorbed

evils,see

J.L.

Mackie,

TheM

iracleof Theism

(Ox

ford:C

larendonP

ress,1982),

p.154.

which

hehas

deprivedhim

self.H

eparticularly

suffersw

henhe

‘ought’—

inthe

normal

orderof

things—

tohave

ashare

inthis

good,and

doesnot

haveit”

(SD,

par.7).

Whence,

then,comes

evil?H

ere,too,John

Paul

assumes

theA

ugus

tinianfree

will

defense:the

moral

evilconceived

andexecuted

byhum

anbeings

isa

resultof

them

isuseof

theirfreedom

;they

introducedevil

intoG

od’sgood

creation.A

ccordingto

theP

ope,

Sinw

asnot

onlypossible

inthe

world

inw

hichm

anw

ascreated

asa

rationaland

freebeing,

butit

hasbeen

shown

asan

actualfact

‘fromthe

verybeginning’.

Sinis

radicalopposition

toG

od.It

isdecidedly

andabsolutely

notw

illedby

God.

Ho

weve,

he

has

perm

itted

itby

creatingfree

beings,bycreating

thehum

anrace.

He

hasperm

ittedsin

thatis

theconsequence

ofthe

abuseof

createdfreedom

.T

hisfact

isknow

nfrom

revelationand

experiencedin

itsco

nseq

uen

ces.F

rom

itw

ecan

deducethat

fromthe

viewpoint

ofG

od’stranscendent

Wis

dom,in

theperspective

ofthe

finalityof

theentire

creation[ofhum

anbein

gs],

itw

asm

ore

imp

orta

nt

that

there

sho

uld

be

freedom

inth

ecreated

world,

evenw

iththe

riskof

itsab

use,

rath

er

than

todep

rive

thew

orldoffreedom

bythe

radicalexclusion

ofthe

possibilityofsin.

Sothe

riskof

evilis

logicallyim

pliedby

thegoo

dof

sign

ificantly

freeand

rationalcreatu

res.’5

But

itisn

’tth

eg

eneric

go

od

of

human

free-

15.JohnP

aulII, A

Catechesis

onthe

Creed,

vol.I,

God,

Father,and

Creator

(Boston:

Pauline

Books

&M

edia,199

6),

p.260.

He

placesgreat

valueon

significantfreedom

:“F

ullof

paternalsolicitude,

God’s

authorityim

pliesfull

respectfor

freedomin

regardto

rationaland

freebeings.

Inthe

createdw

orld,this

freedomis

anexpression

ofthe

image

andlikeness

tothe

divineB

eingitself,

todivine

freedomitself,

Respect

forcre

atedfreedom

isso

essentialthat

God

inhis

Providence

evenperm

itsh

um

ansin

(andthat

ofthe

angels).P

re-eminent

among

allbu

talw

ayslim

itedand

imperfect,

theratio

nalcreature

canm

akeevil

useof

freedom,

andcan

useit

againstG

od,the

Creator.

Inthe

caseof

moral

evil,how

evecthat

is,of

sinand

guiltin

theirdifferent

forms

andconsequences

alsoin

thephysical

order,this

evildecisively

andabsolutely

isnot

willed

byG

od.M

oralevil

isradically

contraryto

God’s

will.

Ifin

human

historythis

evilis

presen

tand

attim

esoverw

helming,

ifin

acertain

senseit has

itsow

nhistory,

itis

onlyp

ermitted

bydivine

Providence

becauseG

odw

illsthat

thereshould

befree

domin

thecreated

world.

The

existenceof

createdfreedom

(andtherefore

theex

istence

ofm

an,andthe

existenceof

pu

respirits

suchas

theangels

...), is

indispensablefor

thatfullness

ofcreation

which

correspondsto

God’s

eternalplan.

..

.By

reasonof

thatfullness

ofgood

which

God

wills

tobe

realizedin

creation,the

existenceof

freebeings

isfor

Him

am

oreim

po

rtant

andfundam

entalvalue

thanthe

factthat

thoseb

eings

may

abusetheir

freedomagainst

theC

reator,and

thatfreedom

cantherefore

leadto

moral

evil”(pp.

25

9,

27

1).

ii6117

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IAT

heG

ospelof

Redem

ptiveS

uffering

domthat

isthe

finalityof

theircreation.

IfI

understan

dJohn

Paul

IIco

r

rectly,the

outweighing

goodthat

significantfreedom

producesis

the

friendshipof

God.

He

says,“A

tthe

root,there

isno

mistaken

orw

icked

decisionby

God, b

ut

ratherhis

choice—

andin

acertain

manner

therisk

hehas

undertak

en—

ofcreating

usfree,

inorder

tohave

usas

friends.

Evil

toohas

beenborn

ofliberty.

But

God

doesnot

giveup,

andhe

pre

destinesus

with

histranscendent

wisdom

tobe

hischildren

inC

hrist,di

rectingall w

ithstrength

andsw

eetness,so

thatthe

goodm

aynot be

over

come

byev

il.”1

6T

heclaim

thatsin

resultsfrom

them

isuseof

ourfree

wills

hasoften

i

beenused

asa

way

ofjustifying

theconnection

between

suffering,pun-.

ishment,

and

justice.A

ccordingto

Aidan

Nichols,

“From

suchsin

there

flows

certainother

aspectsof

hum

ansuffering,

suchas

thephysical

pain

,

inflictedby

evilpeople,

orthe

fearand

anxietyw

hichgood

peopleu

n

dergow

henfaced

with

theprospect

ofevil people.

From

moral

evilthere

may

alsofollow

kindsof

sufferingw

hichcould

beseen

asdivine

punish-

ment

forsin

.”17

Inthis

view,

we

finda

comm

onresponse

tosuffering,

:

which

isto

thin

kof

itas

justpunishm

ent.S

ufferingis

apunish

men

tin-4

ifictedby

God

forhum

anity’sm

oralevil. Jo

hn

Paul defends

thissuffering’

asa

positivereality,

orgood

initself;

itseem

sto

bem

eaningfulas

a;

means

with

anend

inview

.A

she

says,

The

God

ofR

evelationis

theL

awgiver

andJudge

toa

degreethat

no

temporal

authoritycan

be. For

theG

odof

Revelation

isfirst

ofall

the

Creator,

fromw

homcom

es,together

with

existence,the

essential’

goodof

creation.T

herefore,the

consciousand

freeviolation

ofthis.

goodby

man

isnot

onlya

transgressionof

thelaw

butat

thesa

m

time

anoffense

againstthe

Creator,

who

isthe

firstL

awgiver.

Sucha

transgressionhas

thecharacter

ofsin.

..

.Corresponding

tothe

moral

evil of sinis

punishment, w

hichguarantees

them

oralorder

inthe

same

transcendentsense

inw

hichthis

orderis

laiddow

nby

thew

illof

the

Creator

andS

upreme

Law

giver.($D

,par.

ro)

i6. JohnPaul

II, Catechesison

theCreed, vol.

I,pp.3

16

-17

.O

nthe

same

point, the

Holy

Father

writes

earlierin

thesam

ew

ork:“B

yG

od’sP

rovidence,how

ever,if

onthe:

onehand

hehas

permitted

sin,on

theother,

with

theloving

solicitudeof

afather,

he

hasforeseen

frometernity

thew

ayof

reparatio

n,

ofred

emptio

n, of

justificationand

of

salvationth

rough

love.F

reedomis

ord

ained

tolove.

Without

freedomthere

cannotbe

love.In

theconflict

between

goodand

evil, between

sinand

redemption,

lovehas

the.

lastw

ord”(p.

z6o).

i.

Aidan

Nichols, O

,P., TheShape

of Catholic

Theology(C

ollegeville, Minn.: L

itur-

gicalP

ress,1991),

p.68.

SoG

odsom

etimes

causessuffering

asa

justpunishm

entfor

them

Oral

evilof

sin.B

uteven

more,

sufferingin

thissense

hasm

eaningnot

&dy

becausethe

onew

hosuffers

doesso

justlyas

apunishm

entfor

sin,says

theP

ope,“but

firstand

foremost

becauseit

createsthe

possibilityof

rebuildinggoodness

inthe

subject who

suffers.”“T

hisis

anextrem

elyim

pbrtantaspect

ofsuffering,”

headds,

because“suffering

must

servefo

rconversion,

thatis,for

therebuilding

ofgoodnessin

thesubject,

who

canrec

ognizethe

divinem

ercyin

thiscall

torepentance”

(SD,

par.

12).

Inbrief,

sufferingin

thislife

isan

educativepunishm

entthat

shouldbe

regardedas

goodand

justifiedbecause

itspurpose

isto

cultivateor

strengthengoodness

bothin

oneselfand

one’srelationship

with

othersand

especiallyG

od(SD

,par.

12).1

8S

uchsuffering

may

producem

oralvirtues,

and

nce

characterbuilding

isthe

outweighing

goodthat

absorbssom

eevil.

Significantly,John

Paul

IIdoes

notestim

atethe

valueof

allsuffer-

interm

sof

teleology.F

orinstance,

painis

meaningful

andvaluable

suseas

analarm

signalit

alertsus

when

something

isw

rongin

ourody;

but

thegratuitous

painthat

strikesthe

cancerpatient

and

isolatester

inher

sufferingalready

suggeststhe

breakdown

ofthis

teleologyas

:com

plete

explanationas

tothe

meaning

orpurpose

ofthe

painof

suf

Thring.In

general,as

JohnP

aulsays,

“Itis

truethat

universalexperience

teaches.

..the

beneficialeffects

thatpain

hasfor

som

anyas

thesource

ofm

aturity,w

isdom,

goodness,understanding,

solidarity,so

thatone

canspeak

ofthe

fruitfulnessof

pain.B

utthis

observationleaves

theba

sicproblem

unreso

lved

.”19

Furtherm

ore,though

itis

undoubted

lytrue

thatthesuffering

alliedw

ithpunish

men

tis

meaningful

asa

means

with

“t’end

inview

,all

sufferingcannot

bejustified

inthis

way,

saysJohn

jul,because

“itis

nottrue

thatall

sufferingis

aconsequence

of afault

andas

thenature

ofapunishm

ent”(SD

,par.

ii).

Inother

words,

thereis

suf

gw

ithout

guilt,innocent

suffering,because

notall

thatsuffer

aretg

punish

edfor

moral

evil.“S

ufficeit

tom

ention,”the

Pope

says,-r-l

disastersor

calamities,

andalso

allthe

forms

ofphysical

dis

iilityor

ofbodily

orpsychological

diseasesfor

which

peopleare

notn

ewo

rthy

.”2°

The

Old

Testam

ent justm

anJob

isdecisive

proofof

this

i8.G

risezcorrectly

qualifiesthis

pointthat

sufferingis

aneducative

punish

.rnênt.

He

says,“In

thenext

life,of

course,those

who

persistedin

evilw

illexperience

irow

nw

retchedness,andtheir

pu

nish

men

tno

longerw

illbe

educative”(L

ivinga

ristianLife,

p.32).

19.John

PaulII,

generalaudience

(March

30,

1983),published

inL

’Osservatore

.0,

5A

pril1983:

4.:

20.John

Paul

II,C

atechesison

theC

reed,vol.

I,p.

269.

ia811

9

DU

AR

D0

J.E

CH

EV

ER

RIA

claim.

As

JohnP

aulsays,

“Already

initself

itis

sufficientargum

entw

hy

the’answ

erto

thequestion

aboutthe

meaning

ofsuffering

isnot

tobe

i,

unreservedlylinked

tothe

moral

order,based

onjustice

alone.”“W

hile

suchan

answer,”

headds,

“hasa

fundam

ental

andtranscendent

reason

andvalidity,

atthe

same

time

itis

seento

benot

onlyunsatisfactory

in

casessim

ilarto

thesuffering

ofthe

justm

anJob,

but

iteven

seems

totrivialize

andim

poverishthe

conceptof

justicew

hichw

eencounter

in

Revelation”

(SD,par.

ii).

Inshort,

thereis

more

tosuffering

thanguilt.

While

itis

trueto

saythat

theinnocent

alsosuffer

andhence

theyare

notbeing

punish

edfor

sin,it

isalso

trueand

more

important

tou

n

derstandthatbiblically

thereis

onlyone

classof

persons,nam

ely,sinners

I

—all

havesinned

andcom

eshort

ofthe

gloryof

God

(Rom

.3

:23

).S

aint

Thom

asA

quinasm

akesthis

important

pointin

hiscom

mentary

onJo

b.

21

.

He

reminds

usof

thesinful

characterofhum

anbeings,

evenof

thosew

hoinnocently

sufferand

thatsuffering

andtribulation

ofall

sortsm

ayhelp

thesinner

forward

tothe

ultimate

goodof

unionw

ithG

od.W

eread

in

theE

pistleto

theH

ebrews:

“For

whom

theL

ordloves

hechastens.

...

Now

nochastening

seems

tobe

joyfulfor

thepresent, b

ut

painful;n..

theless,afterw

ardit

yieldsthe

peaceablefruit

ofrighteousness

tow

ho1

havebeen

trainedby

it”(1

2:6

,11).

Nevertheless,

JohnP

aulacknow

ledgesthat

thereare

limits

toesti

mating

thevalue

ofall

sufferingas

ajust p

unish

men

tfor

hum

ansin.

And

,

sohe

wrestles

with

thetraditional

problemof

evilthat

isusually

pre-sented

asa

dilemm

afor

standardth

eism

.2

2In

hisow

nw

ords,the

pro

b

lemis

thus:“H

owcan

eviland

sufferingbe

reconciledw

iththat

paternal•solicitude,

fullof

love,w

hichJesus

Christ

attributesto

God

inthe

Gos

pel?H

oware

theyto

bereconciled

with

thetranscendent

wisdom

and

zi.On

this,see

Eleonore

Stum

p,“A

quinason

theS

ufferingsof

Job,”in

TheEvi-

,

dentialA

rgument from

Evil,

ed.D

anielH

oward-S

nyder(B

loomington,

md.:

Indiana

University

Press,

1996),pp.49-68.

Seealso

Paul

Helm

,The

LastT

hings:D

eath, Judgment,

Heaven,

andH

ell(E

dinburgh:B

annerof

Truth

Trust,

1989),p.

72.

22.B

ystan

dard

theismI

amreferring

tow

hat

William

L.R

owe

hascalled

“any

vieww

hichholds

thatthere

existsan

omnipotent,

omniscient,

omnigood

beingw

ho

createdthe

world.”

Row

ealso

distinguishesw

ithinstan

dard

theismtw

oview

s:re

strictedtheism

andexpanded

theism.

“Expanded

theismis

theview

that[G

odJexists,

conjoinedw

ithcertain

othersignificant

religiousclaim

s, claims

aboutsin,

redemption,

afuture

life,a

lastjudgm

ent,and

thelike.

(Orthodox

Christian

theismis

aversion

of

expan

ded

theism.)

Restricted

theismis

theview

thatG

odexists,

unaccompanied

by

other,in

dep

end

ent

religiousclaim

s”(“E

viland

theT

heisticH

ypothesis:A

Response

toW

ykstra,”in

TheProblem

of Evil,ed.

Marilyn

McC

ordA

dams

andR

obertM

errihew

Adam

s[N

ewY

ork:O

xfordU

niversityP

ress,‘9901,

p.i6o).

The

Gospel

ofR

edemptive

Suffering

omnipotence

ofthe

Creator?

And

ina

stillm

oredialectical

form—

inth

epresence

ofall

theexperience

ofevil

inthe

world,

especiallyw

henco

nfronted

with

thesuffering

ofthe

innocent,can

we

saythat

God

doesnot

will

evil?A

ndif

hew

illsit,

howcan

we

believethat

‘God

islove’?

—all

em

oreso

sincethis

loveis

om

nip

oten

t?”23

Inother

words,

thisproblem

(Iis

whether

thepropositions

(i)“T

hereis

anom

nipotent,om

niscient,and

•perfectlygood

God”

and(2

)“T

hereis

evilin

thew

orld,”are

logicallyconsistent

inview

ofthe

claimthat

()“A

perfectlygood

God

would

want

toelim

inateall

ofthe

evilthat

exists.”B

esidesthe

freew

illdefense

adumbrated

above,JohnP

aulsketches

some

otherw

ell-known

theisticresponses

tothe

problemof

eviland

suf

°fering.

He

acceptsthe

validityof

theseargum

entsand

thushe

thinksthat

thereare

arguments

availableto

showthat

evil’sexistence

isnot

anin

su:P

eraleintellectual

obstacleto

believingin

apersonal,

infinite,and

all

j.goodG

od.

24

For

instance,heaccepts

aversion

ofthe

naturallaw

theodicyirw

hich

evilisthe

resultof

theoperation

ofa

uniformnatural

order.G

odcreated

asystem

ofnature

governedby

naturallaw

sfor

thesake

ofthe

“o.o

ds

thatit

alonecan

realize.W

ateris

necessaryfor

lifebut

human

lungscannot

absorbw

aterw

ithoutdrow

ning.G

odforesees,but

doesnot

directlyintend,

thatthis

andm

anyother

sortsof

evilarise

fromthe

sys

:temof

naturehe

hascreated.

Inother

words,

heperm

itsbut

doesnot

in:te

nd

andapprove

suchevils.

This

divineperm

ission,of

course,is

notto

will

evildirectly

andfor

itsow

nsake.

The

evilin

questionis

anu

nin

Ltended

but

necessaryconsequence

ofa

uniformnatural

orderthat

pro

lucescertain

kindsof

good,for

thevictim

sof

evilas

well

asfor

others.S

omething

likethis

viewis

implied

inthe

Pope’s

claimthat

God

permits

::il“in

viewof

theoverall

goodof

them

aterialco

smos.”

25

This

“md

i

23.Jol-in

PaulII,A

Catechesjs

onthe

Creed,

vol.I,p.

269.T

heP

operaises

aso

me

vhat

differentb

ut

relatedquestion

inC

rossingthe

Threshold

ofH

ope,pp.

60-61:

“We

cannotforget

thatin

everycentury,

atthe

hou

rof

truth,even

Christians

haveasked

them

selves

atorm

entingquestion:

How

tocontinue

totrust

ina

God

who

issu

pp

osed

‘to

bea

merciful

Father,

ina

God

who

—as

theN

ewT

estament

reveals—

ism

eantto

eL

oveitself,

when

suffering,injustice,

sickness,and

deathseem

todom

inatethe

Largerhistory

ofthe

world

asw

ellas

oursm

allerdaily

lives?”24.John

Paul

II, AC

atechesison

theC

reed,vol.

1,pp.2

71-7

2:

“Undoubtedly

itis

are

at

lightw

ereceive

fromreason

andrevelation

inregard

tothe

mystery

ofdivine

providencew

hich,w

hilenot

willing

theevil,

toleratesit

inview

ofa

greatergood.”

st, theP

opeadds

clearly,“H

owever,

thedefinitive

lightcan

come

tous

onlyfrom

thecross

ofC

hrist.”25.John

Paul

II,AC

atechesison

theC

reed,vol.

I,pp.270

-71:

“Sacred

Scripture

as

ure

sus

that:‘against

wisdom

evildoes

notprevail’

(Wisdom

7:3

0).

This

strengthens

I

120

121

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IAT

heG

ospelof

Redem

ptiveS

uffering

cates,”he

adds,“that

God

permits

evilin

thew

orldfor

higherends,

doesnot w

illit.”26

SoG

odis

notthe

directcause

ofevil,

andhe

fora

time

toleratesevil

onlyto

bringabout

agreater

good.N

onetheless,there

aredefinite

limits

tothe

rational-abstractap

proachto

theproblem

ofevil

andsuffering,

accordingto

JohnP

aul.U

n-like

many

criticsof

theoretical theodicy, however, John

Paul

doesnotco

nsider

philosophicalreflections

onevil

asirrelevant

andim

moral,

but

he•does

recognizetheir

limitations.

As

hesays:

Why

evil, why

pain,w

hythis

human

crossw

hichseem

sco-essential

toour

nature, andyet, in

som

anycases, is

absurd?T

heyare

questionsw

hichhave

always

tormented

theheart

andm

indof

man

andto

which

perhapsthere

canbe

givenpartial

answers

ofa

theoreticalo

r:der,

butw

hichcontinue

tocrop

upagain

inthe

realityof

life,so

me

times

ina

dramatic

way, especially

when

it isa

caseof

thesuffering

ofthe

innocent,of

children,and

alsoof

groupsand

entirepeoples

sub-.

jectedto

overbearingforces

which

seemto

indicatein

thew

orldthe

triumph

ofevil.

Which

ofus

doesnot

feelpierced

tothe

heartin

thepresence

ofso

many

painfulfacts,

som

anycro

sses?27

Tw

oreasons,

chiefly,stand

outfor

thelim

itationof

theoreticaltheodicy,

asIunderstan

dJohn

Paul’s

views.

(i)L

etus

supposethat

thereare

validdefenses

againstthe

problemof

evilshow

ingthat

(a)the

evils.are

logicallynecessary

tothe

bestof

allpossible

worlds,

or(b)

thateaclI

evilis

logicallyconnected

with

some

greatenough

goodlike

aperfect

balanceof

retributivejustice, or

(c)that

therisk

ofevil

islogically

implied

.

bythe

goodof

freecreatures.

These

logicallypossible

reasonsare

part

of

our

convictionthat

inthe

Creator’s

pro

vid

ential

plan

inregard

tothe

world,

inthe

lastanalysis

evilis

sub

ord

inated

togood.

Moreover,

inthe

contextof

theintegral

truth.about

divineP

rovidence,one

ishelped

tobetter

un

derstan

dthe

two

statements:

‘God

doesnot

will

evilas

such’and

‘God

permits

evil’.In

regardto

thefirst

itis

opportunçto

recallthe

words

ofthe

Book

ofW

isdom:

‘God

did

notm

akedeath, and

He

doesnot

delightin

thedeath

ofthe

living.F

orH

ecreated

allthings

thatthey

may

exist’(W

isdom

1:1

3-1

4).

As

regardsthe

permission

ofevil

inthe

physicalorder, e.g.,

thefact

that

material

beings(am

ongth

emalso

theh

um

anbody)

arecorruptible

and

under{death,

itm

ustbe

saidthat

thisbelongs

tothe

verystru

cture

ofthe

beingof

thesecrea

tires.In

thepresen

tstate

ofthe

material

world,

itwo

uld

bedifficult

tothink

ofthe

un

limited

existenceof

everyin

div

idual

corporealbeing.

We

cantherefore

understan

dthat,

if‘G

oddid

notm

akedeath’,

asthe

Book

ofW

isdomstates,

He

nonethelessper

mitted

itin

viewof

theoverall

goodof

them

aterialcosm

os.”26.

JohnP

aulII,A

Catechesis

onthe

Creed,

vol.I,

p.273.

27.

L’O

sservatoreR

omano,

April

5,1983:

4.

ageneral

strategyfor

explainingw

hyan

omnipotent,

omniscient,

andperfectly

goodG

odw

ouldperm

itor

allowevil

tooccur.

This

strategyex

pressesgeneric

andglobal

reasons,according

toM

arilynM

cCord

Ad

.She

explains,“generic

inso

faras

some

gen

eralreason

issought

tor

allsorts

ofevils;

globalinso

faras

theyseize

uponsom

efeature

ofthe

world

asa

whole.”

Follow

ingA

dams,

Iw

illalso

distinguishbetw

eentw

odim

ensionsof

God’s

goodnessin

relationto

creation:G

odas

“pro

dücerof

globalgoods”

andG

od’s“goodness

toor

loveof

individualcre

Ip

erso

ns.”

28

2N

owI

thinkthat

theP

ope’sconcern

with

them

eaningof

human

lifeand,w

ithit, hum

ansuffering

inthe

contextof

anindividual

person’slife,

‘ad

shim

tothink

thatfixing

ongeneric

andglobal

goodsas

well

asd

efending

God’s

goodnessqua

producerof

suchgoods

isa

mere

abstractan

swer

tothe

meaning

ofthe

individualperson’s

suffering.A

bstractinsofar

as,.firstly, atheoretical

globalgood

theodicydiscusses

theevil

ofsuffering

at

ageneral level

ratherthan

interm

sof

specificityand

personalm

eaning,engaging

theindividual

personw

hois

suffering.A

she

seesit,

anabstract

.general

goodtheodicy

doesnot

clearlyshow

God’s

providentialcare

and4ove

forhum

anbeings,

leavingout

ofthe

picturehow

God,

thetran

scendent good,

relateshim

selfto

theevil

ofhuman

sufferingof

individualper

fsons.Secondly, this

theodicyis

abstract insofaras

thesegeneric

andglobal

,go

od

soffer

onlya

setof

imm

anent,created

goodsrather

thanthe

infiniteand

uncreatedgoodness

ofG

od.A

ndthough

JohnP

aulII

insiststhat

God

valueshum

anfreedom

evento

thepoint

ofperm

ittingevil

tooccu

ihis

permission

isnot

forthe

sakeof

some

globalgood

likefreedom

;instead

suchperm

issionis

justifiedonly

ifit

bringsthat

personinto

unionw

ithG

od,w

hichis

humanity’s

highestgood.

,(2

)L

etus

supposethat

atheoretical

theodicycould

showthat

thexisten

ceof

God

iscom

patiblew

iththe

existenceof

evilsof

theam

ountsànd

kindsw

efind

inthe

actualworld,because

theycould

beshow

nto

beher

notevils

atall

orevils

necessarilybuilt

intothe

veryidea

ofhaving

aw

orldin

thefirst

place.B

uteven

thisapproach

hasits

limits.

Father

ich

ols

hasm

adea

decisiveobjection

toit

asa

totalresponse

tothe

pro

bi

ofevil,

orso

atleast

itseem

sto

me.

Were

thisargum

entand

otherse

it,he

says,

28.

Marilyn

McC

ordA

dams,

“Horrendous

Evils

andthe

Goodness

ofG

od,”in

eProblem

ofEvil,ed.

Marilyn

McC

ordA

dams

andR

obertM

errihewA

dams

(New

ork:O

xfordU

niversityP

ress,199

0),

p.213.

Seealso

herbook-length

treatment,

Hor

rendousE

vilsand

theG

oodnessof

God

(Ithaca,N

.Y.:

Cornell

University

Press,

a9),

pp.16-3

1,

particularlypp.

29-3

0.

12

212

3

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IAThe

Gospel

ofRedem

ptiveSuffering

anadequate

andtotal

vindicationof

the‘justice

ofG

od’,it

would

b..exceedingly

hardto

findroom

forthe

theologicalconcept

ofredem

p-tion,

aconcept

which,

however,

liesat

theheart

ofC

hristianfaith.

,

Thus

Christian

theodicists,aim

ingfor

totalvictory,swing

theirsabers

andcut

offtheir

own

head

s...

.[In

otherw

ords,]if

intheodicy

we

couldclear

upthe

problemof

evilto

ourcom

pletesatisfaction,

thenthere

would

beno

needfor

salvationas

presentedin

Christian

revela

tion.G

odcom

esin

His

incarnateSon

asthe

world’s

Redeem

er,and

iby

His

Spirit

asits

Renew

er,so

asto

repairthe

world’s

defects.B

ut

therew

ouldbe

nopoint

inredem

ptionif

thesedefects

couldbe

shown

tobe

eithernot

defectsat

allor

thingsbuilt

intothe

veryid

eaof

havinga

world

inthe

firstp

lace.

29

JohnP

aulagrees,

andhe

puts

thepoint

inhis

own

words

asfollow

s,

InG

od’seternal

plan,and

inH

isprovidential

actionin

human

his:

tory,every

evil,and

inparticular

moral

evil—

sin—

issubjected

tothe

goodof

theredem

ptionand

salvationprecisely

throughthe

crossand

resurrectionof

Christ.

Itcanbe

saidthat

inH

imG

oddraw

sforth

goodfrom

evil.H

edoes

itin

acertain

sensefrom

thevery

evilof

sin,w

hichw

asthe

causeof

thesuffering

ofthe

Imm

aculateL

amb

andof

His

terribledeath

onthe

crossas

avictim

forthe

sinsof

thew

orld

The

Church’s

liturgydoes

nothesitateeven

tospeak, in

thisregard, o

fthe

‘happyfault’

(felixculpa;

cf.E

xsultetof

theE

asterV

igilL

iturgy);T

husa

definitiveansw

ercannot

begiven

tothe

questionabout

thelreconciliation

ofevil

andsuffering

with

thetruth

ofdivine

pro

cdence,

without

referenceto

Ch

rist.3

0

The

questionarises

hereas

tow

hetherthe

Pope

thinksthat

theun-.

thinkablygreat

goodof

theincarnation

andredem

ptionoutw

eighsan

d:1

justifiesall

theevilin

thew

orld.T

hispassage

clearlysuggests

thatallevil

inthe

world

isabsorbed

bythe

singlegood

ofredem

ptionand

salvation.B

utwhat

remains

unclearis

whether

inhis

accountof

redemptive

suffer

ingJohn

Paul

IIthinks

thatthis

goodultim

atelyovercom

esor

ratherthan

justifiesevil,

inthe

sensethat

thereis

alogically

necessaryconnection

between

theevils

thatoccur

andthe

goodjustifying

God’s

permitting

them.

Yetw

hat

isabundantly

clearis

JohnP

aul’sinsistence

thatthecross

of

29.N

ichols,The

ShapeofC

atholicTheology,pp.

70,

72.

30. John

Paul

II,A

Catechesis

onthe

Creed,

vol.I,

Pp.

27

3-7

4.

Jiris

tredeem

sboth

sinand

suffering.“In

thecross

ofC

hristnot

onlyis

,the

Redem

ptionaccom

plishedthrough

suffering,butalso

human

suffering.

‘ltsefhasbeen

redeemed.

.In

bringingabout

theR

edemption

throughsu

ffering,

Christ

hasalso

raisedhum

ansuffering

tothe

levelof

Red

emp

tion

.”3’

/Thus

eachm

an,”the

Pope

adds,“in

hissuffering

canalso

become

aharer

inthe

redemptive

sufferingof

Christ”

(SD,

par.19).

The

crossdoes

ot

onlyalter

ourperspective

aboutsuffering.M

ost important,by

Christ’s

passion,John

Paul

says,all

sufferingis

objectivelyand

inprinciple

changed,assmned

in“a

completely

newdim

ensionand

anew

order”(SD

,i8).T

hism

eans,asIu

nderstan

dit,that

“sufferingloses

itsprim

afacie

ative

characterfor

thevictim

bybeing

givena

transcendent,positive

g.”

32

SaysJohn

Paul,

“One

cansay

thatw

iththe

passionof

Christ

allhuman

sufferinghas

founditself

ina

newsituation”

(SD,par.

19

).A

nd

asthe

Pope

alsosays,

“Christ’s

cross—

thepassion

—throw

sa

corn

1pletely

newlight

onthis

problem[of

evil]by

conferringanother

meaning

onhum

ansuffering

ing

eneral.”

33

Inother

words,

theright

kindof

con

nectionis

apparentlym

adehere

between

anindividual’s

sufferingand

the,,single

goodof

incarnationand

redemption:

notonly

isG

od’sprovidential

‘careand

lovefor

human

beingsdefinitively

andunsurpassably

man

ifested

inhis

conqueringor

overcoming

evilthrough

thesaving

work

ofcihrist

crucified,but

alsosuffering

nowpossesses

aredem

ptiveand

.salvific

valueand

power,

andthus

my

sufferingcan

beredem

ptivefor

myself

andfor

others,provided

Iunite

itw

iththe

sufferingsof

Christ.

Inh

ort,

Im

usttake

upm

ycross

andfollow

theL

ord(M

ark8:34).

31.

Iretu

rnlater

inthe

pap

erto

theall-im

portantquestion,

inw

hatsense

issu

f...g

redeemed?

Itseem

sclear

tosay,

inthe

lightof

Christian

soteriology,that

ours

havebeen

redeemed

bythe

passionand

deathof

Christ,

butJohn

Paul’s

frequentertion

inSD

that“h

um

ansuffering

itselfhas

beenredeem

ed”(par.

19

)is

noteasily

ërstood.

32.S

tanvan

Hooft,

“The

Meanings

ofS

uffering,”p.

15.

33.John

Paul

II,A

Catechesis

onthe

Creed,vol.

II,Jesus,

Sonand

Savior(B

oston:.e

Books

&M

edia,1

996

),pp.

453-54:“T

heredem

ptioncarried

outby

Christ

at..e

priceof

hispassion

anddeath

onthe

crossis

adecisive

eventin

hum

anhistory,

notonly

becauseit

fulfillsthe

supreme

divineplan

ofjusticeand

mercy,but

alsobecause

itgave

newm

eaningto

theproblem

ofsuffering.

No

problemhas

weighed

more

heavilyoh

thehum

anfam

ily,especially

inits

relationshipw

ithG

od.W

eknow

thatthe

valuebfhum

anexistence

isconditioned

bythe

solutionof

theproblem

ofsuffering.

Toa

cer

ainextent

itcoincides

with

theproblem

ofevil,

whose

presencein

thew

orldis

sod

ificult

toaccept.

..

.Thanks

toC

hrist,the

meaning

ofsuffering

changesradically.

Itno

ongersuffices

tosee

init

ap

unish

men

tfor

sin.O

nem

ustdiscern

initthe

redemptive,

icp

ow

erof

love.T

heevil

ofsuffering,

inthe

mystery

ofC

hrist’sredem

ption,is

Orercom

eand

inevery

casetransform

ed.”

12

4125

ED

UA

RD

OJ,

EC

HE

VE

RR

IAThe

Gospel

ofRedem

ptiveSuffering

Furtherm

ore,G

odis

notan

impersonal

absolutethat

remains

out

sideof

hum

anhisto

rycold

anddistant

fromhum

ansuffering,

accordingto

JohnP

aulII.

“He

isE

mm

anuel,G

od-with-us,

aG

odw

hoshares

man’s

lotand

participatesin

hisdestiny.”

“God

isnot

someone

who

remains

onlyoutside

ofthe

world,”

theP

opeadds,

“contentto

bein

Him

selfall-

knowing

andom

nipotent.H

isw

isdomand

omnipotence

areplaced,

byfree

choice,at

theservice

ofcreation.If

sufferingis

presentin

thehistory

ofh

um

anity, oneunderstan

ds

why

His

omnipotence

was

manifested

inthe

omnipotence

ofhumiliation

onthe

Cross,

The

scandalof

theC

rossrem

ainsthe

keyto

theinterpretation

ofthe

greatm

ysteryof

suffering,w

hichis

som

ucha

part

ofthe

historyofm

ankin

d...

.Christ

isproofof G

od’ssolidarity

with

man

inhis

sufferin

g.”

34

Thus,

inthe

mystery

ofredem

ptivesuffering

God

himself

participatesin

hum

andistress.

As

apersonalist,

JohnP

aulunderstan

ds

God’s

responseto

hu

man

sufferingto

bea

personalresponse

oflove.

Indeed,thetrue

answer

tothe

questionof

why

we

sufferm

ustbe

foundin

therevelation

ofdivine

love,w

hichis

theultim

atem

eaning-givingsource

ofeverything

thatexists,in

cludingsuffering.

“This

answer

hasbeen

givenby

God

tom

anin

t1”

crossof

JesusC

hrist,”according

toJohn

Paul

(SD,

par.13).

As

thesu-

preme

mystery

ofdivine

love,C

hristis

thegreatest

possibleansw

erto

thequestion

aboutsuffering

andthe

meaning

ofsuffering.

He

isthe

an

swer,says

theP

ope,“not only

byH

isteaching, th

atis, bythe

Good

New

s,but

most

ofallby

His

own

suffering,w

hichis

integratedw

iththis

teaching

ofthe

Good

New

sin

anorganic

and

indissolublew

ay.”“A

ndthis

is,”adds

JohnP

aulII,

“thefinal,

definitivew

ordof

thisteaching:

‘thew

ordof

thecross’,

asSt.

Paul

oneday

will

say”(SD

,par.

i8).T

hecross

is,th

en,

theansw

erto

theproblem

ofevil,b

ut

thisansw

eris

nota

theoreticalone

thatrefutes

allobjections.

“Love

is,”according

tothe

Pope,

“therichest

sourceof

them

eaningof

suffering,w

hichalw

aysrem

ainsa

mystery:

we

areconscious

ofthe

insufficiencyand

inadequacyof

ourexplanations.

Christ

causesus

toenter

intothe

mystery

andto

discoverthe

‘why’

c.suffering,

asfar

asw

eare

capableof

graspingthe

sublimity

ofdivine

,

love”(SD

,par.

13).

SoI

nowintend

tolook

firstat

thew

holem

atterof

Christ’s

crossG

od’sresponse

tosuffering;

thenat

howG

odin

Christ

ispresent

inh

um

ansuffering,

andfinally

atthe

meaning

ofsuffering

inthe

lightof

Christ’s

passion,death

andresurrection.

34. JohnPaulII,

Crossing

theThreshold

ofHope,

62-63.

.Thevery

heartof

Christian

soteriology,the

theologyof

salvationdealing

with

God’s

savingw

orkin

Christ,

isthe

divinevictory

overthe

evilsof

fhum

ansuffering.

This

sufferingpertains

notonly

totem

poralsuffering,

however.

Rather,

thedefinitive

eviland

sothe

definitivesuffering

thathum

anitycan

knowis

eternalseparation

fromG

od,w

hois

thesuprem

egood.

As

theC

atechismof

theC

atholicC

hurchstates:

“God

pu

tus

inthe

world

toknow

,to

love,and

toserve

him,

andso

tocom

eto

paradise.B

eatitude

makes

us‘partakers

ofthe

divinenature’

andof

eternallife.

With

rbeatitude,m

anenters

intothe

gloryof

Christ

andinto

thejoy

ofT

rinitar

ianlife.”

Beatitude

is,the

Catechism

adds,“not

found...

inany

creature,but

inG

odalone,

thesource

ofevery

goodand

ofall

love”(par.

17

21

,

17

23

).T

heloss

ofbeatitude,

rejectionby

God,

damnation

andthe

lossof

ieternal

lifeis

thefundam

entaland

definitivem

eaningof

suffering.A

ccording

tothe

Pope,

thelove

ofthe

Father

ism

anifestedin

thegift

ofhis

only-begottenSon,

whose

salvificw

orkis

comm

unicatedthrough

the.

Holy

Spirit.

Inhis

salvificm

ission,C

hriststrikes

atthe

veryroots

ofevil,

which

aresin

anddeath,

freeinghum

anityfrom

theloss

ofeternal

lifeand,

with

it,our

sufferingin

itsfundam

entaland

definitivem

eaning.“T

hem

issionof

theonly-begotten

Son

consistsin

conqueringsin

anddeath.

He

conquerssin

byH

isobedience

untodeath,”

saysthe

Pope,

“andH

eovercom

esdeath

byH

isresurrection”

(SD,

par.14).

Because

ofthe

redemptive

efficacyof

Christ’s

salvificw

orkin

striking

evilright

atitsroots,

eviland

definitiveeschatological

sufferingis

totally

vanquished.“For

God

soloved

thew

orldthat

He

gaveH

ison

lybeg

otten

Son,that

whoever

believesin

Him

shouldnot

perishbu

thave

eternallife”

(John3:1

6).

Yet

thereis

stillm

ore:“evil

andsuffering

intheir

teinporal

andhistorical

dimension”

(SD,

par.15),

saysJohn

Paul,

arealso

struck

attheirroots.

What

thism

eansis

that inthe

deathand

resurrection[.ofJesus

Christ

thereis

alsovictory

oversin

anddeath

inthis

earthlylife.

Nonetheless,

thoughthe

dominion

ofsin

anddeath

aredefeated

inJesus

:Christ,

saysJohn

Paul

II,“H

iscross

andresurrection

doesnot

abolishtem

poralsuffering

fromhum

anlife,

norfree

fromsuffering

thew

holehistorical

dimension

ofhum

anexistence”

(SD,

par.15).

Som

uchis

thisthe

case,one

might

add,that

therestill

remains

aboutas

much

reasonas

everto

wonder

whether

perhapsC

hristw

asvic

torio

us

overthe

dominion

ofsin

anddeath

inhis

crossand

resurrection.T

here’s

anobvious

question:W

hy,if

thedom

inionof

sinand

deathhas

ndefeated,

isn’tevil

andsuffering

intheir

temporal

andhistorical

di-

JesusC

hrist:

Su

ffering

sD

efeatedby

Love

126

12

7

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IAT

heG

ospelof

Redem

ptiveS

ufferin

g

mension

abolished?In

otherw

ords,w

hythe

divineperm

issionfor

eviland

suffering?Fr.

Benedict

Ashley

makes

thesam

epoint

evenclearer:

“Even

ifthe

promise

[of Rom

ans8:18-24]

thatG

odin

hisjustice

will

more

than

compensate

inour

futurelife

forevery

sufferingin

thepresent

and

wifi

seeto

itthat

our

effortsto

helpothers

willnot

havebeen

invain,

thesubjective

problemrem

ains.W

hyhas

anall-pow

erfulG

odperm

ittedus

tosuffer

som

uchhere

andnow

?W

hyhas

henot

eliminated

thesuffering

andsim

plygiven

ushappiness

thatafter

allis

ultimately

hisgift

tog

ive?”

35

The

Pope

facesthis

vexingquestion

head-on,as

we

shallsee

be

low.

For

now,

itsuffices

tounderstan

dth

atC

hrist’ssaving

work

defeatsthe

dominion

ofsin

and,w

ithit,

itspresence

and

power

inhum

anlife

thattook

rootin

human

naturew

ithoriginal

sin.W

eneed

toconsider

thedoctrine

oforiginal

sin,even

ifonly

briefly,in

orderto

answer

theq

ues

tion, inw

hat

senseis

oursuffering

redeemed?

What,

then, isoriginal

sin?F

ollowing

theteaching

ofthe

Catholic

Church,

theorthodox

Ch

ristian

doctrineof

originalsin

hasthe

following

fourpoints,

which

theP

opedevelops

inV

olume

IIof

hisC

atechesison

theC

reed:Jesus,

Sonand

Savior.F

irst,original

sinis

universalsinfulness,

consistingof

attitudes,ten

den

cies,and

aninclination

tosin,

toevil,

thatthe

Council

ofT

rentcalled

“concupiscence,”and

which

arecontrary

toG

od’sw

ill,at

oddsw

ithhis

holiness,and

presentin

allpersons,

inall

areasof

theirlives.

Second,

originalsin

isnatural sinfulness: it belongs

tohum

annature

ina

realsense,

andis

presentfrom

birth;w

eare

born

with

afallen

hum

annature.

Third,

originalsin

isinherited

sinfulness:th

isfallen

hum

annature

isinherited

which

resultsin

human

beingsthat

areborn

ina

stateor

conditionof

he

reditarym

oralw

eaknessand

alienationor

estrangement

fromG

od,now

havinglost

thegrace

oforiginal

holinessand

righteousness.A

nd

fourth,original

sinis

Adam

icsinfulness:

itstem

sfrom

Adam

,w

hocom

mitted

thefirst

sinand

whose

disobediencetow

ardG

odgave

originalsin

ah

istori

cal beginning,and

which

hasleft

itsconsequence

inevery

descendantof

Adam

,so

that

thesinful

situationof

hum

anity

isconnected

with

thefault

ofA

dam,

thefirst

man

andprogenitor

ofthe

race,

36

Benedict

Ashley,

O.E

,C

hoosinga

World-V

iewand

Value-System

: An

Ecum

enicalA

pologetics(N

ewY

ork:A

lbaH

ouse,2

00

0),

p.316.

36. JohnP

aulII,A

Catechesis

onthe

Creed, vol.

II,pp.1

7-7

7. O

noriginal sin

asuni

versalsinfulness,

seePP.

31,

33-34,36-37,

39,4

1,

and46;

onn

atural

sinfulness,see

Pp.

28,30

onin

herited

sinfulness,see

pp.28, 36-37,

39-43, 45-46, 48, and;

onA

dam

icsinfulness,

seepp.

23

-27

,41,

43,44-46,

48,an

d6o.

Ihave

profitedm

uchfrom

Henri

Blocher,

Original

Sin:Illum

inatingthe

Riddle

(Grand

Rapids:

Eerdm

ans,1997),

espe

We

donot

yethav

eo

rigin

al

sinfu

llyin

view

,h

ow

ever.

Orig

inal

sinunderscores,

firstly,th

eC

hu

rch’s

insisten

ceon

the

contingencyof

evil.

As

Father

Nichols

rightlystates:

“Sinm

usthave

enteredhum

anlife

atsom

eh

istoric

al

mom

ent.

..

.F

or

unle

ssev

ilm

arre

dth

ecreatio

nof

hu

manity

contingently(i.e.,historically),

itco

uld

only

hav

edo

ne

soesse

ntia

lly(i.e.,

byG

od’sow

ncreative

act),w

hichis

unthinkable.In

claiming

Adam

(with

Eve)

ashistorical

figures[sic],the

Church

isconfirm

edby

theN

ewT

estament,

especiallyby

Paul’s

appealto

Adam

’sfall

asthe

actw

hich

Christ’s

redemptive

actinverted.

Revelation

presentsboth

ashistorical

eventsw

ithm

etahistoricalm

eanin

g.”

37

daIlypp.

15-3

5. See

alsoP

eterG

each,Providence

andE

vil(C

ambridge:

Cam

bridgeU

ni

versityP

ress,1

977

),especially

Chapter

5,pp.

84

-101

.

37.A

idan

Nichols,

OP

.,E

piphany:A

Theological

Introductionto

Catholicism

(Collegeville,

Minn.:

Liturgical

Press,

19

96

),pp.

175-76.O

neproblem

thatarises

fromflattening

ou

tthe

differencebetw

eenh

um

anity

asG

odcreated

itand

hu

man

ityas

itexists

ina

fallenstate

isclearly

identifiedby

James

Orr

earlyin

thetw

entiethcentury.

He

wrote,

“Ifsinlies

inthe

constitutionof

thingsby

creation—

ifit

isa

necessaryo

ut

come

ofthe

conditionin

which

God

made

man,

andof

thenature

He

hasgiven

him

—

howcan

thecreature

beasked

toassum

eresponsibility

—at

leastserious

respon

sibil

ityfor

it”(G

od’sIm

agein

Man

andIts

Defacem

entin

theL

ightof M

odernD

enials,io

1904

Stone

Lectures

atP

rincetonT

heologicalS

eminary

[Grand

Rapids:

Eerdm

ans,19481,

pp.206-7).

The

Pope

up

hold

sthe

essentialhistoricity

ofthe

Fallin

Vol.

IIof

AC

atechesison

theC

reed:“T

hedescription

ofthe

firstsin,

which

we

findin

theth

irdchapter

ofG

enesis,acquires

agreater

clarityin

thecontext

ofcreation

andof

the

be

stowal

ofgifts.

By

thesegifts,

God

constitutedm

anin

thestate

ofholiness

andof

orig

inal

justice.T

hisdescription

hingeson

thetransgression

ofthe

divinecom

mand

not

toeat

‘ofthe

fruitof

thetree

ofthe

knowledge

ofgood

andevil’.

This

isto

bein

terpreted

bytaking

intoaccount

thecharacter

ofthe

ancienttext

andespecially

itsliterary

form.

How

ever,w

hilebearing

inm

indthis

scientificrequirem

entin

thestu

dy

ofthe

firstbook

ofS

acredS

cripture,it

cannotbe

deniedthat

onesure

element

emerges

fromthe

detailedaccount

ofthe

sin.Itdescribes

aprim

ordialevent,

thatis, afact,

which

accord

ingto

revelationtook

placeat

thebeginning

ofhum

anhistory”

(p.2

7).

IfI’m

notm

istaken,

wh

atthe

Pope

issaying

inthis

citationis

similar

tothe

pointm

adeby

Hen

riB

locher,“T

hereal

issuew

hen

we

tryto

interp

retG

enesis2—

3is

notw

hetherw

eh

ave

ahistorical

accountof

thefall,b

ut

wheth

eror

notw

em

ayread

itas

theaccount

ofa

his

toricalfall.

The

problemis

nothistoriography

asa

genrenarrow

lydefined

—in

an

nals,chronicles,or

evensaga

—b

ut

correspondencew

ithdiscrete

realitiesin

ourord

inary

spaceand

sequentialtim

e”(O

riginalSin,p.

so).See

also,T.C

.O

’Brien,

OP

.,w

ho

writes,

“Original

sinis

takenon

thelevel

ofa

historyof

salvation,and

thestate

andthe

sinof

Adam

aretreated

asreal

eventsan

dparts

ofa

divineplan,

economy,

form

an,To

regardthe

firstsin

andthe

fallas

am

eresym

bolor

mythological

representationof

men’s

collectivityin

theirsinful

conditionis

incompatible

with

Catholic

teaching,w

hichenvisages

areal

situationof

areal

person, namely

a‘sin’

actuallycom

mitted

byan

ind

ivid

ual

togetherw

ithits

consequencesfor

him.”

Again:

“All

theliterary

forms

1281

29

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

IIEV

ER

RIA

TheG

ospelof

Redem

ptiveS

uffering

Secondly,

theconsequence

oforiginal

sinis

death,so

that“w

edie

notb

ecause

we

comm

it individualsins

ofour

own

volition;rather

we

sin,

andinevitably, w

edie,

andinevitably,

asa

resultof

Adam

’ssin

.”38

The

up

shotof

thedoctrine

oforiginal

sin,says

theP

ope,is

thatit

helpsus

to“u

nderstan

dthe

mysterious

anddistressing

aspectsof

evilw

hich[w

e]

dailyexperience.”

Otherw

isew

e“end

upby

wavering

between

ahasty

andunjustffied

optimism

anda

radicalpessim

ismbereft

ofhope.”

39

John

Henry

Cardinal

New

man

was

alsopersu

aded

thatthe

doctrineof

orig

i

nalsin

was

necessaryto

explainevil in

ourw

orldin

lightof faith

inG

od’s

goodnessand

omnipotence:

“eitherthere

isno

Creator, or

thisliving

soci

etyof

men

isin

atrue

sensediscarded

fromH

ispresence.

..

.And

soIar

gueabout

thew

orld;—

fthere

bea

God,

sincethere

isa

God,

thehum

an

raceis

implicated

insom

eterrible

aboriginalcalam

ity.It

isout

ofjoint

with

thepurposes

ofits

Creator.

This

isa

fact,a

factas

trueas

thefact

of

itsexistence;

andthus

thedoctrine

of what

istheologically

calledoriginal

sinbecom

esto

me

almost

ascertain

asthat

thew

orldexists,

andas

the

existenceof

God.”

4°So

temporal

orhistorical

eviland

sufferingentered

thew

orldw

ith

theF

alland

originalsin.

Infact,

theH

olyF

athersays

that“suffering

can

not bedivorced

fromthe

sinof the

beginnings, fromw

hatSt. John

callsthe

‘sinof

thew

orld’,fromthe

sinfulbackground

ofthe

personalactions

andso-

aresh

aped

anddirected

tobring

outashistory

God’s

planof

man’s

creation,fall

and

redemption.

There

isa

reallink

between

past

events,under

wh

atever

literaryform

theyappear,

andthe

conditionspresent

tothe

authorand

explainedin

thelight

of

theseorigins.

Unlike

theancient

myths

theseB

iblicalaccounts

arenot

asym

bolicex

pressionof

some

universaltruth;

theyare

anaccount

ofan

actualsituation

interm

sof

itscauses:

thepresen

tis

seenin

thepast,

thep

astin

thepresent”

(Appendix

3an

d4,

respectively,in

Volum

e26,

Original

Sin,of

St.T

homas

Aquinas,

Summ

aTheologiae

la2ae.81-85,

atpp.

115,

121).

38.F

atherE

dw

ardT.

Oakes,

S.J.,“O

riginalSin:

AD

isputation,”First

Things87

(Novem

ber1998):

23. See

alsoJohn

Paul

II,AC

atechesison

theC

reed, vol.II:

“Finally

the

whole

ofh

um

anexistence

onearth

issubject

tothe

fearof

death,w

hichaccording

to

revelationis

clearlyconnected

with

originalsin.

Sinitself

issynonym

ousw

ithsp

iri

tualdeath, because

thro

ug

hsin

man

haslost

sanctifyinggrace, the

sourceof

supern

at

urallife.

The

signand

consequenceof

originalsin

isbodily

death,such

asit

hasbeen

experiencedsince

thattim

eby

all humanity

Man

was

createdby

God

forim

mortality.

Death

appearsas

atragic

leapin

thedark,

andis

theconsequence

ofsin,

asifby

anim

man

ent

logic,b

ut

especiallyas

thep

un

ishm

ent

ofG

od.S

uchis

theteaching

ofrev

ela

tionand

suchis

thefaith

ofthe

Church”

(pp.5o-51).

39.John

Paul

II, AC

atechesison

theC

reed,vol.

II,p.

42.

40.John

Henry

Cardinal

New

man

, Apologia

ProV

itaSua

(London:J. M

.D

ent&

Sons

Ltd.,

1864),p

artV

II,p.

218.

cialprocessesin

hum

anhistory.”

“[Olne

cannotrejectthe

criterionthat,

atthe

basisof

human

suffering,there

isa

complex

involvement

with

sin,”the

Pope

adds,“the

sinthat

tookroot

inthis

historyboth

asan

originalin

heritanceand

asthe

‘sinof

the

world’

andas

thesum

ofpersonal

sins”(SD

,par.15).

We

livein

afallen

world

asa

consequenceof

theoriginal

sinthat

amounts

tothe

lossof

ourshare

inthe

divinelife,

ordivine

friend

ship,enjoyedby

Adam

andE

ve,andthus

ofthe

integrityand

imm

ortalitythat

stemm

edfrom

suchsanctifying

grace.T

houghthe

Pope

urgesus

toexercise

“greatcaution

injudging

man’s

sufferingas

aconsequence

ofconcrete

sins”(par.

15

),becausethere

isno

necessaryconnection

between

sufferingand

punishment,

henonetheless

insiststhathum

anitysuffers

asa

resultof

theradical

natureof

ourfall

fromsanctifying

grace,w

hichbe

ganw

ithoriginal

sinand

isextended

throughpersonal

sins.T

hus,in

defeatingthe

dominion

ofsin

anddeath

broughtabout

bythe

Fallandoriginal

sinthrough

thesaving

work

ofC

hrist,God

giveshu

man

beingsa

newsupernatural

principle,w

hichm

akesthem

anew

cre

ation,to

replacethat

giventhem

byoriginal

sinan

dthis

makes

itpossible

forhum

anityto

liveanew

insanctifying

grace.In

short,hu

man

sufferingitself

hasbeen

redeemed

fromthe

dominion

ofsin

and

death

and

raisedto

thelevel

ofredem

ption.F

orour

purposeshere,

then,the

most

important

aspectof

Christ’s

victoryover

sinand

deathis

notonly

thathe

hastaken

uponhim

selfthe

sinsof

allpersons

but

alsotheir

suffering.If

Iunderstan

dthe

Pope

cor

rectly,C

hristin

hissuffering

anddeath

onthe

crossnot

onlytakes

uponhim

selfsuffering

inits

fundamental

anddefinitive

sense,accom

plishingour

redemption

throughit;

butalso,

insiststhe

Pope,

Christ

himself

“inH

isredem

ptivesuffering

hasbecom

e,in

acertain

sense,a

sharerin

allh

um

ansufferings”

(SD

,par.

20

).A

gain:“C

hristth

roug

hH

isow

nsalvific

sufferingis

very

much

presen

tin

everyh

um

ansuffering,

andcan

actfrom

within

thatsu

ffering

by

thepo

wers

ofH

isS

piritof

Truth,

His

con

solingS

pirit”(S

D,

par.26).

Still

again:“C

hrist,the

Incarn

ateW

ord,co

nfirm

edthrough

hisow

nlife

—in

poverty,hum

iliationand

toil—

andes

peciallythrough

hispassion

anddeath,

thatG

odis

with

everyperso

nin

hissuffering.

Ind

eedG

odtakes

up

on

himself

them

ultifo

rmsuffering

ofm

an’searth

lyexistence.

At

thesam

etim

eJesus

Christ

revealsthat

thissuffering

possesses

ared

emptiv

ean

dsalvific

valu

ean

dp

ow

er.”

41

41.John

PaulII,A

Catechesis

onthe

Creed,vol.

I,p.

274.

Elsew

herethe

Holy

Fa

thersays,

“TheG

ospelof

sufferingsignifies

notonly

thepresence

ofsuffering

inthe

Gospel,

asone

ofthe

themes

ofthe

Good

New

s,butalso

therevelation

ofthe

salvific

13

01

31

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IAThe

Gospel

of Redem

ptiveSuffering

The

doctrineof

God’s

sufferinglove

goesbeyond

thehope

ofR

omans

8and

touchespresent

sufferingitself.

As

Fr.Ashley

explainsthis

most

important

point:

God

theF

atherw

illw

ipeaw

ayour

tearsand

giveus

ultimate

andsu

perabundantcom

pensationin

thefuture

Kingdom

.Y

et hew

ishesus

toachieve

thisnot

merely

asa

puregift, but

alsoas

thejust

reward

ofour

own

achievements

thatbecause

theyare

human

necessarilyin

volvepain

andstruggle.

Hum

angrow

thin

knowledge,

human

growth

invirtue,

human

transformation

ofthe

world

must

bein

tr

human

mode

thatw

orksdialectically

throughcontrasts,

struggle,courage,

andpatience.

Yet

God

understandsthat

subjectivelyit

isvery

hardfor

usto

acceptand

endurethis

fact ofactual,even

ifriecessary,

suffering.T

heonly

way

tom

akeour

sufferingeasier

andulti

mately

tocom

pensateit

superabundantlyis

bysym

pathynot

merely

inthe

senseof

appreciatingour

pain,but

of experiencingit

himselfw

ith,us.

Imm

anuel,‘G

odw

ithus’,Jesus

Christ,

haschosen

tosuffer

anddie

withl

usand

thusto

enterinto

infinitedelight

throughsuffering

with

us.

,

Yet there

ism

ore:the

Achilles

heelof

thedoctrine

ofG

od’ssuffering

love,at

leaston

some

interpretations,is

foundin

thisquestion:

“ifG

odis

tosuffer

with

us,how

canw

ebe

assuredthat

inthe

endw

ew

illbe

victo

rious

with

him

?”

43

This

questionis

particularlytroublesom

efor

thosew

h6!im

plythat

God

must

undergochange

giventhat

hesuffers

with

us.T

his

1conclusion

limits

God,

takingaw

ayhis

omnipotence

andour

assurancethat he

cansurely

saveus. A

shley’sresponse

tothis

questionis

satisfying:

The

doctrineof

theIncarnation

avoidsthis,since

God

theF

atherdoes

notbecome

incarnate,butonly

God

theSon,and

God

theSon

suffersw

ithus

notthrough

hisdivine

naturebut

throughhis

assumed

hu-m

annature

thatunlike

hisdivinity

iscapable

ofsuffering.

But

doesnot

thism

eanthat

hedoes

notreally

suffer,but

onlythat

hishum

annature

suffers?N

o,because

itis

oneand

thesam

edivine

Person

who

isboth

God

andhum

an.T

hesuffering

of hishum

annature

ishis

suf-1fering,

noone

else’s,just

asm

ybodily

sufferingis

my

sufferingali

thoughI

amnotjust

abody.

Moreover,

thisincarnate

Sonis

anointed.

with

theH

olyS

piritw

homhe

sendsupon

theC

hurchand

thew

ork’

power

andsalv,fic

significanceof

su

fferin

giZ

hris

t’s

messia

nic

mis

sio

nan

d,

sub

se-

quently

,in

the

mis

sio

nand

vocatio

no

fth

eC

hu

rch

”(SD

,par.

25).

42.

Ashley,

Choosinga

World-V

iew,p.

31

7.

43.A

shley,C

hoosinga

World-V

iew,p.

317.

ashis

infinitestrengthening

andconsoling

pow

eiso

thatthe

God

who

trulysuffers

remains

infinitein

hispow

erto

saveus.

44

So,on

theone

hand,C

hristsuffers

inour

placehum

anity’s:odforsakenness, our

abandonmentby

God,this

sufferingw

hichis

these

paration,the

rejectionby

theF

ather,theestrangem

entfromhim

,which

isthe

ultimate

evilof,andthus

theprice

paidfor,the

turningaw

ayfrom

God

thatis

containedin

sin(SD

,par.

i8).In

thissuffering

we

havethe

dep

thof

Christ’s

sacrificefor

us.As

JohnP

aulsays,

“Jesusknew

thatbythis

ultimate

phaseofH

issacrifice,reaching

theintim

atecore

of His

being,He

completed

ew

orkofreparation

which

was

thepurpose

ofHis

sacrificefor

theex

pia

onof

sins.Ifsinis

separationfrom

God,Jesus

hadto

experiencein

thecri

isof

His

unionw

iththe

Father

asuffering

proportionateto

thatsep

araL

ion.”4

5In

aneloquentpassage

thatbearsquoting

infull,John

PaulIIw

rites:

Behold,

He,

thoughinnocent,

takesupon

Him

selfthe

sufferingsof

allpeople,

becauseH

etakes

uponH

imself

thesins

ofall.

“The

Lord

haslaid

onhim

theiniquity

ofus

all”:all

human

sinin

itsbreadth

anddepth

becomes

thetrue

causeof

theR

edeemer’s

suffering.If

thesu

ffering

‘ism

easured’by

theevil

suffered,then

thew

ordsof

thepro

phet

[Isaiah]enable

usto

understandthe

extentofthiseviland

sufferingw

ithw

hichC

hristburdened

Him

self.It

canbe

saidthat

thisis

“substitu

tive”suffering;

butabove

allit

is“redem

ptive.”T

heM

anof

Sorrow

softhatprophecy

[of Isaiah]is

trulythat“L

amb

ofGod

who

takesaw

aythe

sinof

thew

orld.”In

His

suffering,sins

arecancelled

outprecisely

becauseH

ealone

asthe

only-begottenSon

couldtake

themup

on

Him

self,accep

tth

emw

iththat

lovefo

rthe

Father

which

overcomes

theevil

ofevery

sin[i.e.,

estrangement

fromG

od];in

acertain

senseH

eannihilates

thisevil

inthe

spiritualspace

ofthe

relationshipbetw

eenG

odand

humanity,and

fillsthis

spacew

ithgood.

..

.This

work,in

theplan

ofeternal

love,has

aredem

ptivecharacter.

(SD,

pars

.1

7,

i6)46

44.A

shley,C

hoosinga

World-V

iew,

pp.3

17-1

8.

4.

JohnP

aulII,

AC

atechesison

theC

reed,v

ol.

II,p.

473.46.

Inthe

backgroundof

Joh

nP

aulIi’s

accou

nt

of

Jesu

sC

hrist’s

suffe

ring

isa

Chalced

onian

Christology:

“Here

we

touchupon

theduality

ofnature

ofa

singlep

er

sonalsubject

ofredem

ptivesuffering.

He

who

byH

ispassion

anddeath

onthe

crossbrings

aboutthe

Redem

ptionis

theonly-begotten

Son

whom

God

‘gave’.A

ndat

theam

etim

ethis

Sonw

hois

consubstantialwith

theFather

suffersas

am

an.H

issuffering

hashum

andim

ensions;it

alsohas

—u

niq

ue

inthe

historyof

hum

anity

—a

dep

than

din

tensityw

hich,w

hilebeing

human,

canalso

bean

incomparable

dep

thand

intensityof

suffering,insofar

asthe

man

who

suffersis

inperson

theonly-begotten

Son

Him

self:

133132

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

SC

HE

VE

RR

IAThe

Gospel

of Redem

ptiveSuffering

Yet,on

theother

hand,as

JacquesM

aritainhas

said,“Itis

indeedtrue

thateverything

hasbeen

expiatedby

thesuffering

ofJesus

alone,but

asH

eadofH

umanity

incom

munion

with

allotherm

en,and[hence]

recapitu

latingin

Him

allthe

sorrows

ofall

otherm

en.”“T

hereis

butone

singleC

ross,”adds

Maritain,

“thatof

Jesus,in

which

allare

calledto

participate.IJesus

hastaken

onH

imall

thesufferings

atthe

same

time

asall

thesins,

allthe

sufferingsof the

past,ofthepresent,and

ofthefuture,gathered

together,concentrated

inH

imas

ina

convergentmirro

iin

theinstant thatby

His

sacrifice

He

beam

e,—

ina

mannerfully

consumm

atedand

throughthe

sover

‘.

eignexercise

ofH

isliberty

andof

His

loveof

man

achievingin

supreme

obedienceand

supreme

unionthe

work

which

was

entrustedto

Him

,—

theH

eadof hum

anityin

thevictory

oversin

.”47

John

Paulis

gettingatthe

same

dimension

ofC

hristiansoteriology

inclaim

ingthat

“Christ’s

passionand

deathpervade,

redeem,and

ennobleallhum

ansuffering,because

throughthe

Incarnationhe

desiredto

expresshis

solidarityw

ithhum

anit

which

graduallyopens

tocom

munion

with

himin

faithand

love.”

48

As

Isee

it,both

Maritain

andJohn

Paul

IIare

suggestinghere

adistinctly

Catholic

interp

retation

ofthe

meaning

ofh

um

ansuffering

i-‘

lightof

Christian

soteriology.John

Paul

IIdevelops

thisinterpretation,:

asI

will

showbelow

.T

hisin

terpretatio

nis

notm

erelyabout

our

iden

tifying

with

Christ,

who

thro

ugh

hispassio

nan

ddeath,

saysthe

Pope,

“isa

divinem

odelfor

allw

hosuffer,

especiallyfor

Christians

wh

cknow

and

acceptinfaith

them

eaningand

valueof

thecross.”

Of

coursew

eshould

followthe

way

ofthe

cross,JohnP

auladds,

because“T

hein

-carnate

Word

sufferedaccording

tothe

Father’s

plan

soth

atw

etoo.

‘shouldfollow

inhis

steps’(1

Pet.

2:2

1).

He

sufferedand

taught

ust

suffe

r.”49

But

thisis

notthe

heart

ofhis

interpretation.

‘God

fromG

od’.T

herefore,onlyH

e—

theonly-begotten

Son—

iscapable

ofem

br-,

ingthe

measure

ofevil

containedin

thesin

of man:

inevery

sinand

in’total’sin,

acJcording

tothe

dimensions

ofthe

historicalexistence

ofhum

anityon

earth”(SD

,pa

17).O

nthe

relevanceofC

halcedonianC

hristologyfor

theproblem

ofevil,see

Marilyn;

McC

ordA

dams,

“Chalcedonian

Christology:

AC

hristianS

olution’tothe

Problem

of

Evil,”

inPhilosophy

andTheology

Discourse,

ed.S

tephenT.

Davis

(New

York:

St.M

ar-itin’s

Press,

19

97

),pp.

17

3-1

98

.

47. JacquesM

aritain,O

nthe

Grace

andH

umanity

ofJesus,trans.Joseph

W.E

van

(New

York:

Herder

andH

erder,1969),

pp.4

1-4

2.

148.

JohnP

aulII,A

Catechesis

onthe

Creed,

vol.II,

p.439.

49.John

Paul

II,A

Catechesis

onthe

Creed,

vol.II,

pp.439-o.

InSD

,John

Pau

l1

says,“C

hrist’ssufferings”

have“the

power

ofa

supreme

example”

(par.22).

Inthis!,

light,we

canunderstand

theclaim

that“S

ufferingis

alsoan

invitationto

manifest

theç

‘im

oralgreatness

ofm

an,hisspiritual

maturity.”

That

is,the

“spiritualtem

peringof m

an.t

It isalso

notm

erelyabout

thefuture

resurrectionand

heavenlyglo

rification

thatfinds

itsbeginning

inC

hrist’scross

(Gal.

6:14;Phil.

3:io

-ii;R

om.

8:17-18;2

Cor.

4:17-18;1

Pet.4:1

3).

“Ch

rist’sresu

rrection

has

revealed

‘theglory

ofthe

futureage’

and,atthe

same

time, has

confirmed

‘theboast

ofthe

cross’:the

glorythat

ishidden

inthe

verysuffering

of Christ”

(SD,

par.

).

No

ris

it merely

aboutthe

triumphant

loveof

God

inC

hristJesusfrom

which

thevery

worst

ofhum

ansufferings

cannotseparate

us(R

om.

8:31-

39). Ofcourse

theP

opeunderstands

well

theevangelical m

otifof suffering

andglory,

especiallyw

ithreference

tothe

crossand

resurrection.A

she

says,“T

heresurrection

became,

firstof

all,the

manifestation

ofglory,

which

correspondsto

Christ’s

beinglifted

upthrough

thecross.

If,infact,

thecross

was

tohum

aneyes

Christ’s

emptying

of Him

sefatthe

same

time

itw

asin

the

eyes

ofG

od

His

beinglifted

up.O

nth

ecro

ss,C

hrist

attained

and

fullyaccom

plishedH

ism

ission:by

fulfillin

gth

ew

illof

the

Fath

er,H

eat

the

same

time

fully

realizedH

imself.

Inw

eakn

essH

em

anifested

His

and

inhum

iliation

He

man

ifestedall

His

messianic

greatness”(SD

,‘ipar.

22).T

hisinterpretation

isalso

notmerely

aboutwhat

theP

opecalls

the“G

ospelparadox

ofw

eaknessand

strength”(SD

,par.

23;

2C

or.12:9

;2

Tim

.1

:12

;Phil.

4:1

3).

Christ

experiencesthe

coreand

sum

mit

ofhum

anw

eak-and

powerlessness

inbeing

nailedto

thecross

and,nevertheless,

ins

weakness

heis

liftedup,

confirmed

bythe

power

ofthe

resurrection._im

ilarly,

“thew

eaknessesof

allhum

ansuffering

arecapable

ofbeing

in-fused

with

thesam

epow

erof G

odm

anifestedin

Christ’s

cross.”“In

sucha

• i.concept,”the

Pope

adds,“to

suffermeans

tobecom

eparticularly

susceptible,particu

larlyopen

tothe

working

of thesalvfic

powers

of God,offered

toh

um

anity

inC

hrist”(SD

, par.2

3).5

0O

nlyone

who

isopen

tothe

savingpow

ersof

God

canhear

andact

onthe

Word

ofG

od:“M

yg

raceis

sufficien

tfo

ryou,

Iform

ypow

eris

made

perfectin

weakness”

(2C

or.1

2:9

-11

).

them

idstof

trialsand

tribulations,w

hichis

theparticular

vocationof

thosew

hohare

inC

hrist’ssuffering.

.. .Suffering,

asit

were,

containsa

specialcall

tothe

virtu

e

man

must

exerciseon

hisow

npart.

And

thisis

thevirtue

ofperseverance

in‘g

whatever

disturbsand

causesharm

.In

doingthis,

theindividual

unleashestibpe

which

maintains

inhim

theconviction

thatsuffering

will

notget

thebetter

of•

him,

thatitw

illnot

deprivehim

ofhis

dignityas

ahum

anbeing,

adignity

linkedto

-ren

ess

ofthe

meaning

oflife”

(par.23

).

o.

The

Pope

isnot

suggestingthat

inour

sufferingw

eliterally

experiencea

..reof

Christ’s

pain,or

mystically

identifyw

iththe

“innerlife

ofG

od,”because

Ch

rist“H

imself

inH

isredem

ptivesuffering

hasbecom

e, ina

certainsense,

asharer

in,âl1

human

suffering”(SD

,par.

20).

Marilyn

McC

ordA

dams

sketchesthese

andother

possibleinterpretations

ofsuffering

inlight

ofC

hristiansoteriology

in“H

orrendousis,”

pp.2

18

-19

;see

alsopp.

16

1-7

3.

13

4135

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IAThe

Gospel

of Redem

ptiveSuffering

Sharers

inthe

Sufferin

gof

Christ

What,

then,does

JohnP

aulII

haveparticularly

inm

indw

heninsistin”

that“the

victoryover

sinand

deathachieved

byC

hristin

His

crossand

,

resurrectio

n.

..throw

sa

newlight

uponevery

suffering:the

lightof

salva

hon.T

hisis

thelight

ofthe

Gospel,

thatis,

ofthe

Good

New

s.”C

hristi

strikes, hesays,

“atthe

veryroots

ofhuman

eviland

thusdraw

[sjclose

in‘-

asalvific

way

tothe

whole

world

ofsuffering

inw

hichm

anshares”

(SD,

par.15).

God

theF

ather’slove

forus

ism

ostperfectly

revealedon

theC

rossof

JesusC

hrist,w

hereG

odthe

Son

suffersall

thatw

ecan

suffer.Says

Ashley,

“Looking

athim

andbelieving

that heis

nowat

theF

ather’sright

han

dsending

theH

olyS

piritupon

us,our

own

presentsuffering

is1

united

with

his.W

hileit

remains

hum

anpain,

itis

transformed

byth

e

hopeof

glory,a

hopethat

isnot

merely

futureb

ut

presentin

theinfinite

pow

erof

God

inC

hrist.A

ndas

Christ

byhis

sufferingsaved

thew

orld,

soby

oursuffering

with

himw

esave

eachoth

er.”

5T

wo

obviousquestions

arisehere.

First,

what

sensecan

begiven

to

thenotion

thatC

hristtakes

thew

holew

orldof

hum

ansuffering

upon

hisvery

self?S

econd,w

hat

soundtheological

sensecan

begiven

tothe

no-hon

thatby

unitingour

sufferingw

ithC

hrist’sP

assionw

efu

lfila

role

thatG

odhas

givenus,nam

ely,to

participatein

thehistorical

outworking

ofG

od’splan

ofsalvation

forthe

whole

hum

anrace,

which

was

accom

plishedin

andthrough

thefinished

work

ofC

hriston

thecross?

As

tothe

first question, doesthe

Pope

mean

tosay

that Christ actually

experiencedin

hissuffering

anddeath

onthe

cross, ashum

anity’shead,th

epast,

present,and

futuresufferings

ofall

human

beings?Y

es,that

isp

re

ciselyw

hat heis

saying:theSon

ofGod, Jesus, the

Crucified, has

takenupon

‘

himself

thesufferings

ofall

peopleand

offeredthem

up,in

lovingobedi-

‘

ence, tohis

Father

forthesuprem

egood

of theredem

ptionofthe

world

(SD,:

par.i8).In

short, thevicarious

sufferingof Jesus

onthe

Cross

hasredeem

ed

human

sufferingitself.So

not onlyis

redemption

accomplished

throughthe,

sufferingof

Christ,

but

sufferingitself,

saysthe

Pope,

“hasentered

intoa

completely

newdim

ensionand

anew

order:ithas

beenlinked

tolove,to

that,,

lovew

hichC

hristspoke

toN

icodemus

[John3:161, to

thatlove

which

cre

51. A

shley, Choosinga

World-V

iew,p.

318. The

phrase“w

esave

eachother”

isptentially

misleading.

It suggeststhe

heresyofPelagianism

, meaning

therebythe

teach-’ing

“thathuman

beingscartachieve

salvationthrough

theirow

nsustained

efforts.”(A

Concise

Dictionary

of Theology, editedby

Gerald

O’C

ollins, S.J.,andE

dward

C.Farru:

S.J. [New

York:P

aulist Press,19911, p.

176). ofcourse

Iam

not suggestingthat Fr.Be

dictAshley

hadthis

meaning

inm

ind.

atesgood,

drawing

itoutbym

eansofsuffering,just as

thesuprem

egood

of

eR

edemption

ofthe

world

was

drawn

fromthe

crossof C

hrist,and

fromt

crossconstantly

takesits

beginning”(SD

,p

ar.18).

Hav

ing

mad

ehis

own

thesufferings

ofallpeople,

thissuffering

hasa

redemptive

power.

As

JacquesM

aritainsays,“w

eare

nolonger

alonein

bearingour

sufferings(w

ehad

neverbeen,but w

ehave

known

thisonly

when

He

came).H

ehas

borneoursufferings

beforeus,and

He

put into

themtogether

with

graceand

char

asalvific

power

andthe

seedof

transfiguration.”

-T

hereis

anobvious

question:Ifhum

ansuffering

hasbeen

redeemed,

Why

hasG

odnot

abolishedthe

mass

ofsufferings

engenderedby

original-sin

andour

own

personalsins?

As

Iasked

earlier“w

hyhas

anall

;‘powerfui

God

permitted

usto

sufferso

much

hereand

now?

Why

hashe

“hoteliminated

thesuffering

andsim

plygiven

ushappiness

thatafter

allis‘ultim

atelyhis

giftto

give?”M

aritain’sreply,

andthe

answer

ofJohn

Paul

asw

ell,is

that“hum

ansuffering

isnot

abolished,because

men,

bythe

bloodof

Christ

andthe

merits

ofC

hristin

which

theyparticipate,

arew

ithH

imthe

co-authorsof

theirsalvation.”

This

bringsus

tothe

secondques

-hon

Iraised

above,nam

ely,the

theologicalsense

thatcan

begiven

tothe

nthatby

oursuffering

beingunited

with

Christ’s

sufferingsw

epar

-ticipatein

thehistorical

outworking

ofG

od’splan

ofsalvation.

Maritain’s

answ

erto

thisquestion

isas

follows:

becauseC

hristsuffered

oursu

fferi.in

gs

“He

hasrendered

allthese

sufferingsm

eritoriousof

eternallife,holy

and

redemptive

inthem

selves,and

co-redemptive

inthe

Church,

which

is•b

oth

His

Spouse

andH

isM

ysticalB

ody.”T

hatis,w

eshare

inC

hrist’ssu

frin

gin

sucha

way

thatoursuffering,too, is

redemptive,and

evenessen

“halto

furtheringthe

planof

salvation,not

inthe

senseof

coursethat

we

canadd

any

thin

gto

Christ’s

merits

andto

hisblood,

saysM

aritain,but

ther

inthe

sensethat

throughour

sufferingand

ourlove

we

app

lyth

eiaustible

andinfinite

merits

thatC

hristw

onfor

uson

thecro

ss.32

Joh

nP

aulII

developsthis

verysam

eline

ofinterpretation.

All

peo

pie,says

theP

ope,are

“calledto

sharein

thatsuffering

thro

ugh

wh

ichth

eV

Redem

ptionw

asaccom

plished.”T

heyare

called,he

adds,“to

sharein

tsuffering

thro

ugh

which

allhum

ansuffering

hasalso

beenideem

ed.In

bringingabout

theR

edemption

throughsuffering,

Christ

has‘also

raisedhum

ansuffering

tothe

level ofRedem

ption.T

huseach

man,

inhis

suffering,canalso

become

asharer

inthe

redemptive

sufferingof

Christ”

D,

par.19).

Inother

words,

“insofaras

man

becomes

asharer

inthe

52.

The

quotesin

thisparagraph

aretaken

fromM

aritain,O

nthe

Grace

andH

u-m

anityof Jesus,

.42.

136137

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IAT

heG

ospelof

Redem

ptiveS

uffering

Christ’s

sufferings—

inany

part

ofthe

world

andat

anytim

ein

history;

---

tothat

extenthe

inhis

own

way

completes

thesuffering

throughw

hichC

hristaccom

plishedthe

Redem

ptionof

thew

orld”(SD

,par.

24).

This

passageraises

severalquestions.

First,

what

doesit

mean

toshare

inC

hrist’ssufferings?

Itmeans,

first,that

throughm

ystical unionin

faithw

ithC

hrist we

areindw

elt bythe

thirdperson

ofthe

Holy

Trinity, the

Holy

Spirit.

“God’s

lovehas

beenpoured

intoour

heartsthrough

theH

oly•S

pirit which

hasbeen

givento

us”(R

om.

5:5). Christ

isin

usand

we

arein

himas

sharersof

God’s

lifein

Christ

throughthe

agencyof

theH

olyS

pirit.In

thisunion,

Idiscover

thatm

ysufferings

arealready

Christ’s

andtherefore

are“enriched

with

anew

contentand

meaning”

(SD, par.

20).

Ihave

alreadym

entionedsom

eof

thisenrichm

entin

theconcluding

para.graph

ofthe

lastsection.

Let

me

singleout

justone

ofthe

pointsI

made.

The

incomparable

goodof

unionw

ithG

odin

heavencom

pensatesall

thefinite

evilsw

esuffer

here(R

om.

8:i8).T

heultim

atem

eaningof

sufferingand

deathis

revealedin

theresurrection

of JesusC

hrist.Says

St. Paul,

“Forif

we

havebeen

unitedw

ithhim

ina

deathlike

his,w

eshall

certainlybe

unitedw

ithhim

ina

resurrectionlike

his..

..B

utif

we

havedied

with

Christ, w

ebelieve

that we

shallalso

livew

ithhim

”(R

om.

6:5,8).G

ermain

Grisez

makes

thispoint

well.

“Justas

Jesusw

illinglysuffered,

becausehe

lookedforw

ardto

thejoy

ofresurrection

(seeH

eb.12:2

),S

OC

hristians‘-

who

arefaithful

cananticipate

gloryeven

amidst

sufferings,and

socan

honestlysay:

‘When

we

cry,“A

bba,F

ather”it

isthat

veryS

piritbearing

witness

with

ourspirit

thatw

eare

childrenof

God,

andif

children,then

heirs,heirs

ofG

odand

jointheirs

with

Christ

—i,

infact,

we

sufferw

ithH

imso

thatw

em

ayalso

beglorified

with

him’

(Rom

.8:15-17).”53

Yet there

isstill

more:

we

walk

innew

nessof

lifehere

andnow

.“W

ew

ereburied

thereforew

ithhim

bybaptism

intodeath,

sothat

asC

hristw

asraised

fromthe

deadby

theglory

ofthe

Father, w

etoo

might

walk

innew

nessof

life”(R

om.

6:4).In

otherw

ords,w

eare

unitedw

itha

resur

rected,living

Christ,

andfrom

thism

ysticalunion

with

thisliving

Christ

we

havethe

highcalling

ofbringingforth

fruitto

God.

As

oneauthor

puts4it,

“Christ

isthe

vine,and

we

arethe

branches,abiding

inhim

,bringing

forthfru

it.”54

This

bringsus

toa

secondpoint.

Mostim

portant,as

asharer

inthe

sufferingsof

Christ,

Idiscover

throughfaith

thatin

unitingm

ysu

fferings,

inloving

obedience,to

Christ’s

sacrificeI

amfurthering

theg

lory

.

53.G

risez,L

ivinga

Christian

Life,p.

33.54.

Francis

A.

Schaeffer,

TheFinished

Work

ofC

hrist:The

Truth

ofR

omans

i—S

(Wheaton,

Ill.:C

rossway

Books,

19

98

),p.

176.

“-“-1and

hisplan

ofsalvation.

SaysJohn

Paul,

“For,w

hoeversuffers

innion

with

Christ

—just

asthe

Apostle

Paul

bearshis

‘tribulations’in

Un

“ionw

ithC

hrist—

notonly

receivesfrom

Christ

thatstrength

alreadyre

ferredto

but

also‘com

pletes’by

hissuffering

‘what

islacking

inC

hrist’safflictions

[forthe

sakeof

hisbody,

thatis,

theC

hurch]’(C

ol.1:24).”

Here,

too,w

em

eetthe

troublesome

word

“complete,”

andthe

:questio

narises

asto

whether

theP

opeis

suggestingthat

Iam

addingto

.Christ’s

sufferings,as

ifit

takesm

ysuffering

andC

hrist’ssufferings

—

hetw

otogether

—to

make

upthe

fullsu

m.

55

Let

uslook

brieflyat

thentire

versein

St.Paul’s

letterto

theC

olossiansthat

playsa

keyrole

heret.John

Paul’s

interpretationof

God’s

sufferinglove.

“Now

Irejoice

in‘y

sufferingsfor

yoursake,

andin

my

fleshI

complete

what

islacking

iC

hrist’safflictions

forthe

sakeof

hisbody,

thatis

thechurch.”

Again,

:the

Pope

suggestingthat

theatoning

work

ofC

hristis

stillin

com

.ete?O

fcourse

not:John

Paul

neverw

aversfrom

insistingthat

nothing‘lacking

inthe

finish

edw

orkof

Christ

onthe

cross.N

othingcan

beld

edand

nothingneed

bead

ded

tohis

merits

andto

hisatoning

blood.le

diedsaying,

“Itis

finished”(John

19:3

0).

Christ’s

actualdeath

iseffi

ious,com

pleteand

once-for-all.C

hrist’ssufferings

areinexhaustible

hd

infinitein

theirm

eritand

savingpow

er.B

utthen

what

couldSt.

Paul

mean?

As

New

Testam

entscholar

Eduard

Schw

eizersays,

“The

decisivequestion

inthis

caseis

thatof

them

eaningof

‘Christ’s

afflictions’.”“T

hisexpression,”

headds,

“isnever

usedin

theN

ewT

estamentfor

theP

assion,norforJesus’

experienceofsuffering

ingeneral.”

Rather,C

hrist’safflictions

thisverse

referto

the“sufferings

enduredin

thecom

munity

forthe

sakeo

Christ,

or‘in

Christ.’.

..If

oneunderstands

thesentence

thus,then

thev

pointis

thatthe

‘afflictionsof

Christ’

areonly

enduredin

aw

aythat

stilllacks

something,that is,thatthey

arenot yetcom

plete;butthat

‘Christ’s

af

flictions’are..

.stillou

tstandin

g.”

56

Thus,ifS

chweizer

isright in

hisex

ege

:sisof

thisverse

thenC

hrist’safflictions

referto

“what

isyet

tocom

eof

theafflictio

ns

ofthe

(corporate)C

hrist.”

57

And

sincethe

bodyof

Christ,

the“L

h,

isincorporated

with

Christ

asits

head,and

isone

with

him,

theirufferin

gs

arehis,

andhis

aretheirs.

SaysFr,

Ashley,

“The

doctrineof

the

55. On

this,see

Hans

Urs

vonB

a1thasai“B

oughtat

aG

reatP

rice,”in

YouC

rown

theY

earw

ithY

ourG

oodness,pp.

76-81,and

forthis

point,p.

8i.6.

Ed

uard

Schw

eizer,The

Letter

tothe

Colossians:

AC

omm

entary(M

inneapolis,M

irin.:A

ugsburg,1

982

),pp.

101,

104-5

.

57.C

.F.

D.

Moule,

TheC

ambridge

Greek

Testament

Com

mentary:

TheEpistles

tothe

Colossians

andto

Philemon

(Cam

bridge:C

ambridge

University

Press,

19

58

),pp.76-77.

138139

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IA

Incarnationincludes

theC

hurchas

theB

odyof

Christ

inthat Jesus

continues

tobe

presentreally,

thoughsacram

entally..

..O

ur

consolation,therei

fore,is

inthe

companionship

ofthe

sufferingC

hristpresent

inour

fellowC

hristians, theC

hurch.We

beara

comm

onw

itnessan

dcarry

ona

comm

oilstruggle

that we

believeand

experienceto

bea

sharein

Christ’s

sufferin.endow

edw

iththe

power

oftran

sform

ing

ourselvesan

dthe

wo

rld.”

58

Athe

Pope

elaboratesin

apassage

thatrepays

meditation:

The

sufferingof

Christ

createdthe

goodof

thew

orld’sR

edem

ptio

nT

hisgood

initself

isinexhaustible

andinfinite.

No

man

canadd

aii

thingto

it.B

utat

thesam

etim

e,in

them

ysteryof

theC

hurchas

Hi

Body,

Christ

hasin

asense

openedH

iso

wn

redemptive

sufferingall hum

ansuffering.

Insofaras

man

becomes

asharer

inC

hrist’ssu

feringsto

thatextent

hein

hisow

nw

aycom

pletesthe

suf

throughw

hichC

hristaccom

plishedthe

Redem

ptionof

thew

or.D

oesthis

mean

thatthe

Redem

ptionachieved

byC

hristis

notcoi

plete?N

o.It only

means

thatthe

Redem

ption,accom

plishedthrou,

satisfactorylove, rem

ainsalw

aysopen

toalllove

expressedin

human

s.fering.

Inthis

dimension

—the

dimension

oflove

—the

Redem

pticthat

hasalready

beencom

pletelyaccom

plishedis,

ina

certainsen

constantlybeing

accomplished.

Christ

achievedthe

Redem

ptiorcom

pletelyand

tothe

verylim

it;but

atthe

same

time

He

didno

bringit

toa

close.In

thisredem

ptivesuffering, through

which

theR

e’dem

ptionof

thew

orldw

asaccom

plished,C

hristopened

Him

selffrom

thebeginning

toevery

human

sufferingand

constantlydoes

5

Yes, it seem

sto

bepart

of thevery

essenceof C

hrist’sredem

ptivesufferit,.

thatthis

sufferingrequires

tobe

unceasinglycom

pleted...

.[This

Re

demption]

livesan

ddevelops

asthe

Body

ofC

hrist,the

Church,

ancin

thisdim

ensionevery

human

suffering, byreason

ofthe

lovingun

ionw

ithC

hrist,com

pletesthe

sufferingof

Christ.

Itcom

pletesth

sufferingjust

asthe

Church

completes

theredem

ptivew

orkof C

hrist.I

mystery

ofthe

Church

—that

bodyw

hichcom

pletesin

itselfal

Christ’s

crucifiedand

risenbody

—indicates

atthe

same

time

tispace

orcontext

inw

hichhum

ansufferings

complete

thesufferin

ofC

hrist.(SD

,par.

24)

58. Ashley,

Choosing

aW

orld-View

,p.

31

9.

59. TheH

olyF

athercontinues

explaining:“O

nlyw

ithin

thisradius

andd

imen

sionof

theC

hurchas

theB

odyof

Christ,

which

continuallydevelops

inspace

and

time,

canone

thinkand

speakof

‘what

islacking’

inthe

sufferingsof

Christ.

The

Apostle,

infact,

makes

thisclear

when

hew

ritesof

‘completing

what

islacking

i

140

The

Gospel

ofR

edemptive

Suffering

_,:

Itshouldbe

clearthat

theP

opeis

notclaim

ingthat

individualsearn

their

salvationby

thew

orksof

suffering.S

alvationis

throughthe

fin.

ishedw

orkof

Christ

only.Yetsuffering

isan

indispensableelem

entinthe

redem

ptio

nthat

was

initiatedand

merited

byC

hrist.C

hristw

antsu

sto

,collaboratein

hisplan

ofsalvation,

andhence

oursufferings,

wh

enof

fere

dup

inlove,

unitingour

sufferingsto

hisall-sufficient

suffering,can

‘beof

benefitto

ourselvesand

others.T

hisem

phasisis

notincom

patiblew

iththe

gratuityof

grace.A

sH

ansU

rsvon

Baithasar

says,“E

vensu

ffer‘in

g,

particularlysuffering,

isa

preciousgift

thatthe

onesuffering

canrhand

onto

others;it

helps,it

purifies,it

atones,it

comm

unicatesdiv

ine

)graces.T

hesufferings

ofa

mother

cartbring

aw

ayward

sonback

tothe

righ

tpath;

thesufferings

ofsom

eonew

ithcancer

orleprosy,

ifoffered

toM

GO

d, canbe

acapital

forG

odto

use, bearingfruit

inthe

most

unex

pected

places.S

uffering,accepted

with

thankfulnessand

handedon,

partici

,.patesin

thegreat

fruitfulnessof

everythingthat

streams

fromG

od’sjoy

and

returnsto

himby

circuitousp

ath

s.”6°

Itis

throughthe

overflowing,

superabundantfullness

ofgrace

won

bythe

crossof

Christ,

notbecause

ofany

flaw,

imperfection,

orincom

pleteness,that

acalling

isgiven

tous

thew

orkof

redem

ptio

n.

61

“Suffering

is,”says

theP

ope,“a

vocation;it

Christ’s

afflictionsfor

thesake

ofhis

body,that

isthe

Church’.

Itis

preciselythe

Church,

which

ceaselesslydraw

son

theinfinite

resourcesof

theR

edemption,

intro

duc

ingitinto

thelife

ofhumanity, w

hichis

thedim

ensionin

which

theredem

ptivesu

ffering

ofC

hristcan

beconstantly

completed

bythe

sufferingof

man”

(SD,

par.24).

That

Christ’s

sufferingsare

inexhaustibleand

infinitein

theirm

eritand

savingpo

wer

isJ’

alsoexpressed

inthe

following

passage:“A

ndso

theC

hurchsees

inall

Christ’s

suffer

“ing

brothersand

sistersas

itw

erea

multiple

subjectof H

issupernatural

power

The

Gospel

ofsuffering

isbeing

written

unceasingly,and

itspeaks

unceasinglyw

iththe

words

ofthisstrange

paradox:the

springsof

divinepow

ergush

forthprecisely

inthe

midst

ofhum

anw

eakness.T

hosew

hoshare

inthe

sufferingsof

Christ

preserv

ein

their

own

sufferingsa

veryspecial particle

of theinfinite

treasureof

thew

orld’sR

edem

ption,

andcan

sharethis

treasurew

ithothers”

(SD,

par.2

7).

6o.H

ansU

rsvon

Balthasar,

You

Crow

nthe

Year

with

Your

Goodness,

p.30.

61.JohnP

aulII, A

Catechesis

onthe

Creed,vol.

II:“EThel

truthof

ourfaith

doesno

texclude

bu

tdem

andsthe

participationof

eachand

everyh

um

anbeing

inC

hrist’ssacri

‘ficein

collaborationw

iththe

Redeem

er,A

sw

esaid

above,no

hu

man

beingcould

carryout

thew

orkof

redemption

byoffering

asubstitutive

sacrifice‘for

thesins

ofthe

whole

world’

(cf.1

John2:2

).B

utit

isalso

truethat

eachone

iscalled

uponto

participatein

Christ’s

sacrificeand

tocollaborate

with

himin

thew

orkof

redemption

carriedou

tby

him.T

heA

postleP

aulsays

soexplicitly

when

hew

ritesto

theC

olossians:‘N

owI

rejoicein

my

sufferingsfor

yoursake, and

inm

yflesh

I complete

what

islacking

inC

hrist’saf

fictionsfor

thesake

of hisbody,

thatis, the

Church’

(Col.

1:2

4)

Here

we

haveone

ofthe

cornerstonesof

thespecific

Christian

spiritualitythat

we

arecalled

uponto

reacti

J4j

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IAThe

Gospel

ofRedem

ptiveS

uffering

isa

callingto

acceptthe

burd

enofpain

inorder

totransform

itintoa

sacrifice

ofpurification

andof

reconciliationoffered

tothe

Father

inC

hristan

dw

ithC

hrist,for

one’sow

nsalvation

andth

atof

oth

ers.”

62

Fellow

shipin

Christ’s

sufferings(Phil.

3:1

0)

isthe

onlyw

ayto

hearhis

answer

tothe

questionof

them

eaningof

suffering.

Co

nv

ersion

toth

eG

osp

elof

Sufferin

g

We

continueto

write

newchapters

ofthe

gospelof

sufferingin

ourC

hris

tianlives

whenever

we

suffertogether

with

Christ,

inloving

unionw

ith.

hissalvific

sufferings.C

onversionis

requiredto

discovernot

onlythe..f

salvificm

eaningof

suffering,b

ut

aboveall

todiscover

thecalling

that‘

Christ

givesus

tocollaborate

inhis

work

ofredem

ptionby

sufferingto-

‘

getherw

ithhim

,uniting

oursufferings

tohis

redemptive

sufferings.T

his.-

conversiondoes

notlead

usto

thinkthat

initself

sufferingis

agood,

,

thing.N

o,saysJohn

Paul,

“Suffering

is,initself,an

experienceofevil.B

ut.C

hristhas

made

sufferingthe

firmest basis

ofthe

definitivegood, nam

elythe

goodof

eternalsalvation”

(SD,par.

26).R

ather,w

ediscover

theposi-i

tivevalue

ofsuffering

onlyw

henitis

united

tothe

sufferingsof

thecru

cified

Christ.A

sJohn

Paul

says,“E

versince

Christchose

thecross

and

ci:’

onG

olgotha,all

who

suffer,especially

thosew

hosuffer

with

out

fault,can

come

faceto

facew

iththe

‘holyone

who

suffers’.T

heycan

findin

hpassion

thecom

pletetru

thabout

suffering,its

fullm

eaningan

dits

im-

portance.In

thelight

ofthis

truth,all

thosew

hosuffer

canfeel

calledto.,.

sharein

thew

orkof

redemption

accomplished

bym

eansofthe

cro

ss.”63

This

kindof

sufferingbears

witness

toan

interiorm

aturity

andsp

iritual

greatness.A

sthe

Holy

Father

says,“T

hisinterior

maturity

andspin-.

tualgreatness

insuffering

arecertainly

theresult

ofa

particularconversion-

vatein

ourlifeby

virtueofB

aptismitselfw

hich, asSt. P

aulsays

(cf.Rom

.6:3-4)

brin

g.

about sacramentally

ourdeath

andburialby

imm

ersingus

inC

hrist’ssalvific

sacrifice.IfC

hristhasredeem

edhum

anityby

acceptingthe

crossand-rleath

‘for all’,thesolidarity

of:C

hristwith

everyhum

anbeing

containsin

itselfthe

calltocooperate

insolidarity

with

himin

thew

orkofredem

ption.This

isthe

eloquenceofthe

Gospel. T

hisis

especiallythe

eloquenceofthe

cross.T

hisis

theim

portanceofB

aptism, w

hich,asw

eshallsee

indue Jf’

course,alreadyeffects

initself

theparticipation

of everyperson

inthe

salvificw

ork,inw

hichhe

isassociated

with

Christby

thesam

edivine

vocation”(pp.

447-49).6a.

Cited

inSaw

ard,C

hristIs

theA

nswer,p.

88.Saward

statesthe

Holy

Fath

er’view

precisely:“To

sufferin

lovingunion

with

Christis

tobe

anapostle,a

missionary,

anactive

labourerin

thevineyard

ofthe

Lord.”

63. JohnPaul

II,ACatechesis

onthe

Creed,vol.

II,p.456.

14

2

andcooperation

with

thegrace

ofthecrucified

Redeem

er.It

isH

eH

imself

Ew

hoacts

atthe

heartof

human

sufferingsthrough

His

Spirit

ofT

ruth,hro

ugh

the

conso

ling

Spirit.

Itis

He

who

transfo

rms,

ina

certainsen

se,he

verysubstance

ofthe

spirituallife,

indicatingfor

theperson

who

suf

fersa

place

closeto

Him

self.ItisH

e—

asthe

interio

rM

asteran

dG

uid

e—

r.vhoreveals

toth

esu

ffering

bro

ther

and

sisterthis

wonderful

interchange,sit

atth

every

heart

ofth

em

ystery

ofR

edem

ptio

n.

..

.F

orsu

ffering

ann

ot

be

transformed

and

chan

ged

by

thegrace

fromou

tside,

bu

tfrom..bithin”

(SD

,par.26).T

hisprocess

ofsanctificationm

aybe

lengthy,help

ing

oneto

overcome

thesense

ofthe

uselessnessof

sufferingand

therebyp

ro“siv

elybring

oneselfcloser

tohearing

Christ’s

answer

tothe

mean

ing

ofsuffering

and,w

ithit,

tothe

ultimate

goalof

unionw

ithG

od.T

hisinterior

processof

conversionis

oftenset

inm

otionby

aty

pi

callyhum

anprotest

and,w

ithit,

thequestion

why.

This

protestis

imIby

theperception

thatthere

doesn’tseem

tobe

am

orallysufficient

reasonw

hyG

odw

ouldperm

itthese

evilsto

actuallyoccur.

We

arelo

ok

ing

forsom

em

eaningto

oursuffering,

andusually

we

aresearching

forth

at

meaning

-onthe

human

level.In

particular,w

ehave

asense

thatsu

fering

isuseless;

thissense

notonly

tendsto

engulfus,

butit

makes

usa

burdento

others.Says

theP

ope,“T

heperson

feelscondem

nedto

receivehelp

and

assistancefrom

others,and

atthe

same

time

seems

uselessto

(SD,par.

27).

We

canovercom

ethis

feelingby

sharingin

there

demptive

sufferingof

Christ.

An

obviousquestion

isthis:

howdoes

discoveringthe

redemptive

ofsuffering

inu

nio

nw

ithC

hristtransform

thisfeeling

ofuse

ess?In

thisarticle,

Ihave

triedto

showJohn

Paul

II’sansw

erto

thissfio

n.

Perhaps

evenm

orebasic

isthe

questionw

hyG

oduses

suffer-to-lead

usto

recognize,in

some

way,

thesacrifice

ofC

hriston

thecross

and,ultim

ately,to

acknowledge

andfollow

him.

This

question;—

arisesbecause

theP

opesuggests

that“it

issuffering,

more

thananything

else,which

clearsthe

way

forthe

gracew

hichtransform

shum

ansouls”

D,

par.27).

We

knowthat

individuals’souls

needtransform

ationbe

use

oftheir

sinfulcharacter.

But

why

choosesuffering,

more

thanan

y_in

gelse,

asthe

instrument

thatm

akesus

receptiveor

inclinesa

personito

sanctifyinggrace?

The

Holy

Father

doesn’tsay

exactly,but

Ithink

we

nsurm

isethat

hisansw

erw

ouldbe

nodifferent

thanthe

answer

C.

S.L

ewis

givesin

TheProblem

ofPain:

painand

sufferingof

allsorts

ared’s

instru

men

tforgetting

therebellious

selfto

laydow

nits

arms.

God

piallows

theevil

ofsuffering,

then,only

becauseit

may

producea

benefitif for

thesufferer.

Now

,G

odeither

couldnot

providethis

benefitw

ithout

14

3

C.11

I..

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IA

thesuffering,

orat

leastsuffering,

more

thananything

else,seem

sthe

bestm

eansfor

attainingthat benefit.

As

Fr. Benedict A

shleyexplains

ina

passagew

ellw

orth

quotingin

Ml:

Ifthe

endof

theuniverse

andits

greatestgood

isfor

intelligentand

freecreatures

tocom

eto

shareknow

inglyand

freelyin

God’s

lifeof

self-givinglove,then

itis

understandablew

hya

lovingG

odm

ayper

mit

themto

sinif they

freelyso

choose. This

willbe

true,if onlyin

this

way

theycan

fromtheir

own

experiencecom

eto

knowbest

what

.“

God’s

lovem

eansin

theirlives,

Thus

thew

holeof

human

historycan

beunderstood

asa

schoolof

lovein

thatthe

lessonsare

nottaught

ab-1

stractlybut

fromthe

experienceof

lifelived

infreedom

.B

ecauseh

u

man

beingsonly

learnperfectly

fromactual

experienceand

experi-

encem

eansthey

learnbest

fromthe

contrastof

goodand

evil,it

is

clearerw

hyG

odhas

chosenthis

pedagogy.Is

itnota

fact thatfor

hu

mans

lovein

itsfullest

senseis

neverachieved

without

astruggle

be-

tween

thelovers,

without

offenseand

forg

iven

ess?6

4

The

Holy

Father

directshis

attentionto

thequestion

regardingthe

meaning

ofour

suffering.W

eoften

pu

tthis

questionto

God-in-C

hrist.

Christ

repliesfrom

thecross,

saysthe

Holy

Father,

which

isthe

heartof

his

ow

nsuffering.

“Itoften

takestim

e,even

along

time,

forthis

answ

e±

tobegin

tobe

interiorlyperceived”

(SD,

par.26).

The

Pope

issensitive

to

theindividualized

dynamics

involvedin

coming

tothe

interiorpercep

tionthat

sharingin

thesufferings

ofC

hristis

theonly

way

tohear

Christ’s

savingansw

erto

thequestion

ofm

ysuffering.

What

isit

thatI

hear?F

aithin

sharingm

thesuffering

of Christbrings

with

it theintenor

certaintythat

thesuffering

person‘com

pletesw

hat

islacking

inC

hrist’s

afffictions’;the

certaintythat

inthe

spiritualdim

ensionof

thew

orkof

Re

demption

heis

serving,like

Christ,

thesalvation

ofhis

brothersand

sisters.

Therefore,

heis

carryingout

anirreplaceable

service.”In

some

way,

and

itis

am

ysterythat

we

shallnever

graspin

thislife,

inthe

mystical

body‘

ofC

hrist,the

sufferingsof

onem

ember,

when

offeredup

inlove,

canbe

ofbenefit

toanother.

As

Saint

Paul

wrote

in2

Corinthians:

“Ifw

eare

flicted,it

isfor

yourcom

fortand

salvation”(1:5).

This

answer

tothe

problemofm

ysuffering

doesnotrefute

all oL

.

tions.S

aysJohn

PaulII, “C

hristdoesnot

answer

directlyand

He

doesn

ot;

answer

inthe

abstractthis

hum

anquestioning

aboutthe

meaning

ofsu

f1

fering..

..T

heansw

erw

hichcom

esth

rough

thissharing

[inthe

suffer-

64. Ashley,

Choosing

aW

orld-View

,P.308.

TheG

ospelofR

edemptive

Suffering

ings

ofC

hrist],by

way

ofinterior

encounterw

iththe

Master,

isin

itselflsom

ethingm

orethan

them

ereabstract

answer

tothe

questionabout

theof

suffering.”If

Iunderstan

dthe

Holy

Father

correctly,that

we

don’t

receivean

abstractansw

erto

ourquestion

implies

thatC

hrist’san

swer

doesnotcover

all evilsat

once;and

itcertainlydoes

notfocus

onge

-,

-neric

andglobal

goodsin

theface

ofm

anyand

greatevils.

The

Holy

Father’s

approachis

am

oreperson-centered

one.C

hristreplies

bycalling

usto

avocation

andthose

who

followit

must

takeup

theirow

ncrosses.

He

“doesnotexplain

inthe

abstractthe

reasonsfor

suf

fering, but

beforeall

elseH

esays:

‘Followm

e’!C

ome!

Take

partth

rough

‘our

sufferingin

thisw

orkof

savingthe

world,

asalvation

achieved.igh

my

suffering!T

hroughm

ycross!

Gradually,

asthe

individualtakes

phis

cross,spiritually

unitinghim

selfto

thecross

ofC

hrist,the

salvificlean

ing

ofsuffering

isrevealed

beforehim

.”In

otherw

ords,the

indiv

idal

discoversC

hristhimself

asthe

personalansw

erto

theproblem

ofsu

ffering.

“He

doesnot

discoverthis

meaning

athisow

nhum

anlevel,b

ut

atthe

levelof

thesuffering

ofC

hrist.”“A

tthe

same

time,”

theP

opeadds,

.iom

thislevel

ofC

hristthe

salvificm

eaningof

sufferingdescends

tom

an’slevel

andbecom

es,in

asense,

theindividual’s

personalresponse.

Itis

thenthat

man

findsin

hissuffering

interiorpeace

andeven

spiritual9oy”

(SD,

par.26).

For

him,

eviland

sufferingare

notirreconcilable

with

God’s

goodnessand

power;rather

theyhave

become

anindispensable

el

êment

inG

od’sprovidential

plan.A

sF

atherA

veryD

ullescorrectly

states,“G

od’slove

ism

anifestedin

weakness

andhum

iliation—

inw

hat

hnP

aulII

calls‘the

omnipotence

ofhum

iliationon

theC

ross’.C

hristbiu

mphs

overevil

and

enablesus

toshare

inhis

triumph,

providedthat

efo

llow

thepath

tow

hichhe

callsus.

The

scandalof

thecross

thusbe

comes

thekey

tothe

interpretationof

thegreat

mystery

ofsuffering.

The

inysteriumpietatis,

which

coincidesw

iththe

mystery

ofredem

ption,is

od’s

response

tothe

mysterium

iniq

uitatis.”

65

This

interiorprocess

ofconversion

leadsto

thecertainty

thatm

ystzffering

isnot

useless;indeed,

itprovides

anirreplaceable

servicew

henunited

tothe

sufferingsof

Christ

because,like

Christ,

Iam

servingthe

salvationof

others.“In

theB

odyof

Christ,

which

isceaselessly

bornof

becross

ofthe

Redeem

er,itis

preciselysuffering

permeated

bythe

spirit_:2

ct’ssacrifice

thatis

theirreplaceable

mediator

andauthor

ofthe

good..hIngs

which

areindispensable

forthe

world’s

salvation.It

issuffering,

riore

thananything

else,w

hichclears

thew

ayfor

thegrace

which

trans

i65. D

uIles,The

SplendorofFaith,

p.92.

II

14

4145

ED

UA

RD

OJ.

EC

HE

VE

RR

IA

•1The

Gospel

ofRedem

ptiveSuffering

forms

souls.S

uffering, more

thananything

else, makes

presentin

theh

is

toryof hum

anitythe

powers

ofthe

Redem

ption.In

that‘cosm

ic’struggle

between

thespiritual

powers

ofgood

andevil,

..

.hum

ansuffer

united

tothe

redemptive

sufferingof

Christ,

constitutea

specialsupportj

thepow

ersof good,

andopen

thew

ayto

thevictory

ofthese

salvificpo

ers”(SD

, par.27). In

short, Christ w

illsto

beunited

with

thosew

hosuffe:

andsom

ehowhe

allows

theirsufferings

tocom

pletehis

own.

Of

couthere

isno

insufficiencyin

Christ’s

redemptive

suffering;indeed,

our’‘m

akingup’

ofw

hat

is‘lacking’

derivesits

redemptive

efficacyfroth

Christ’s

crossand

resurrection.

The

Good

Sam

aritan

This

evangelicaltheology

ofredem

ptivesuffering

givesrise

toco

mp

assion

forthe

sufferingof

others.“If

God

soloved

us[in

Christ],

we

oughtto

loveone

another”(i

John4:1

1).

Indeed,having

unitedour

suf

feringw

iththe

sufferingsof

thecrucified

Christ,

we

areim

pelledto

love

of neighbor.“T

heparable

ofthe

Good

Sam

aritanbelongs

tothe

Gospel of

suffering.F

orit

indicatesw

hat

therelationship

ofeach

ofus

must

beto

.

wards

oursuffering

neighbor”(SD

,par.

28).T

heH

olyF

atherinsists

tha

Christ’s

revelationof

theredem

ptivem

eaningof

sufferingshould

inna

way

beidentified

with

passivity,docility,

and

resignationto

human

fering.W

ehave

abasic

obligationto

stophum

ansuffering

thatis

aresult

ofinjustice.

This

obligationis

fundamental

tothe

morality

ofall

cultu

rand

civilizations.It

bearsw

itnessto

thefundam

entalm

oralvalues

oC

hristianlove

ofneighbor

andhum

ansolidarity

(SD, par.

29). Y

et therei

more

tothis

relationshipto

my

neighborth

anan

obligation; we

must

also

beinternally

disposedto

besensitive

tothe

suffering, ofothers

—that

compassionate.

SaysJohn

Paul,

“IfC

hrist,w

hoknow

sthe

interioro

man,

emphasizes

thiscom

passion,this

means

thatit

isim

portantfor

ouw

holeattitu

de

toward

others’suffering.

Therefore

onem

ustcultivate

this

sensitivityof heart, w

hichbears

witness

tocom

passiontow

ardsa

sufferin

person.S

ometim

esthis

compassion

remains

theonly

orprincipal

expres

sionof

ourlove

forand

solidarityw

iththe

sufferer”(SD

,par.

28).A

tthe

rootof

compassion

isthe

Christian

understan

din

gthat

“man

canfully

discoverhis

trueself

onlyin

asincere

givingof him

self.”“A

Good

Sam

ar

itanis

theperson

capableof

exactlysuch

agift

ofsef’(SD

,par.

28),66G

od

66. As

theH

olyF

atherexplains,

“Follow

ingthe

parableof

theG

ospel, we

coulc

om

etimes

permits

suffering,then,

asan

opportunity“to

releaselove,

in;

orderto

givebirth

tow

orksof

lovetow

ardsneighbor,

inorder

totrans..

‘-—‘i

thew

holeof

human

civilizationinto

a‘civilization

oflove’.

Inth

isthe

salvificm

eaningof

sufferingis

completely

accomplished

and

reachesits

definitivedim

ensions.C

hrist’sw

ordsabout

theF

inalJu

dg

ment

[Matt.

25

:34-4

5]

enableus

tounderstand

thisin

allthe

simplicity

andclarity

ofthe

Gospel”

(SD,

par.3

0).

Every

work

oflove

toward

one’sneighbor,

especiallya

sufferingneighbor,

isdirected

toward

Christ

him

self.“T

hesew

ordsabout

love,about

actionsof

love,acts

linkedw

ithhu

man

suffering,enable

usonce

more

todiscover,

atthe

basisof

allh

um

an:

sufferings,the

same

redemptive

sufferingofC

hrist.C

hristsaid:

‘You

didit

to:

me’.

He

Him

selfis

theone

who

ineach

individualexperiences

love;H

eH

imself

isthe

onew

horeceives

help,w

henthis

isgiven

toevery

suffer

ingperson,

sinceH

issalvific

sufferinghas

beenopened

onceand

forall

toevery

human

suffering”(SD

,par.

30).

There

remains

tom

akethe

concludingpoint

thatin

lightof

theH

olyF

ather’stheology

ofredem

ptivesuffering

theproper

responseto

sufferingis

adouble

one.“A

toneand

thesam

etim

eC

hristhastaughtm

anto

dogood

‘yhis

sufferingand

todo

goodto

thosew

hosuffer.

Inthis

doubleaspectH

ehas

completely

revealedthe

meaning

ofsuffering”

(SD,

par.30).

On

theone

Vhand,by

sufferingin

lovingunion

with

the

sufferin

gs

ofthecrucified

Christ

we

applythrough

oursuffering

andour

lovethe

superabundantgood,in

finite

inits

merit and

savingpow

er,ofthe

world’s

redemption

accomplished

throughthe

sufferingof

Christ.

It isin

thisw

aythat

onedoes

goodby

one’ssuffering.

On

theother

hand,every

work

oflove

towards

one’ssuffering

neighboris

directedto

Christhim

self.“A

ssuredly,I sayto

you,inasmuch

asyou

didit to

oneof

theleast

ofthese

My

brethren,you

diditto

Me”

(Matt.

25:4

0).

Itisin

thisw

aythat

we

dogood

tothose

who

suffer.

saythat

suffering,w

hichis

presen

tun

der

som

anydifferent

forms

inour

hum

anw

orld

,is

alsop

resent

inorder

tounleash

lorein

thehum

anperson,

thatunselfish

giftof

.ipne’s‘I’

onbehalf

ofother

people,especially

thosew

hosuffer.

The

world

ofhu

man

,‘sufferingunceasingly

callsfor,

soto

speak,another

world:

thew

orldof

hum

anlove;

jandin

acertain

sensem

anow

esto

sufferingthat

unselfishlove

which

stirsin

hisheart

..idactions”

(SD,

par.29).

1461

47