Lesson 3 · 18 min
The Problem of Evil: Faith and Suffering
A rigorous treatment of the logical and evidential problems of evil, and the Catholic theological and philosophical responses rooted in free will, the fall, and the redemptive value of suffering.
Introduction
What this is
A skeptical friend asks, 'If God is all-good and all-powerful, why does He allow children to suffer from cancer, natural disasters to kill thousands, and evil men to prosper?' This is perhaps the single most powerful objection to theism, and this lesson equips you to engage it with philosophical rigor and pastoral sensitivity.
Why it matters
The problem of evil is the leading cause cited by those who abandon belief in God. A Catholic apologist must distinguish between the logical problem (largely resolved by philosophers), the evidential problem (which requires humility and theodicy), and the existential problem (which requires compassion, not arguments).
The Logical Problem of Evil
The logical problem of evil, classically formulated by Epicurus and restated by David Hume, argues that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. If God can prevent evil, is aware of it, and wants to prevent it, then evil should not exist; since evil does exist, such a God does not exist. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga's 'free will defense' (God, Freedom, and Evil, 1974) is widely regarded, even by atheist philosophers like J.L. Mackie, as having refuted this argument: it is logically possible that a world containing free creatures who sometimes choose evil is more valuable than a world of programmed automatons incapable of love, and that God cannot create free creatures and guarantee they will never sin without contradiction. The Catechism affirms this: 'God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil' (CCC 311), and evil arises from the misuse of the freedom God gave rational creatures for the sake of genuine love.
The Evidential Problem: Gratuitous Suffering
A harder challenge is the evidential problem, advanced by philosophers like William Rowe: even granting that some evil is necessary for free will and moral growth, there appears to be 'gratuitous' or 'pointless' suffering — a fawn burning slowly to death in a forest fire, unseen by anyone, serving no discernible greater good. The Catholic response begins with epistemic humility: our inability to see the good that comes from a particular evil does not prove no such good exists (the 'noseeum' fallacy, moving from 'I don't see a good reason' to 'there is no good reason'). St. Paul writes, 'For now we see through a glass, in a dark manner; but then face to face' (1 Corinthians 13:12), and the Book of Job ends not with an explanation of Job's suffering but with God's revelation of his own transcendence and Job's humble submission (Job 38-42). The Catholic tradition also holds that God can bring good even from natural evil through the mysterious ordering of providence, without needing each instance individually justified to human satisfaction.
Original Sin and the Fall
Catholic theology traces much of the disorder in creation — moral evil through sin, and even a dimension of natural evil — to the Fall of Adam and Eve, described in Genesis 3, whose consequences wounded human nature and disordered creation itself (CCC 400: 'harmony... is now destroyed'; Romans 8:20-22 speaks of creation itself being 'subject to vanity' and groaning, awaiting redemption). This does not mean every individual instance of suffering is a direct punishment for personal sin — Jesus explicitly rejects this simplistic reading in John 9:2-3 regarding the man born blind — but it means the world as we experience it, with disease, decay, and death, is not the world as God originally intended, and the disorder introduced by sin has cosmic as well as personal effects. This gives a coherent theological account of why a good creation contains suffering: it is a wounded, not an originally defective, creation, awaiting the restoration promised in Christ (Romans 8:21; Revelation 21:4).
The Cross: God's Ultimate Answer
The uniquely Christian — and specifically Catholic — response to suffering is not merely philosophical but Christological: God did not remain distant from suffering but entered into it personally in the Incarnation and Passion of Jesus Christ. Pope St. John Paul II's apostolic letter Salvifici Doloris (1984) teaches that Christ's redemptive suffering gives human suffering itself a supernatural meaning: united to Christ's Cross, suffering can become participatory and redemptive rather than merely destructive, as St. Paul writes, 'I fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church' (Colossians 1:24). This does not explain away the mystery of evil intellectually — the Church calls it a genuine mystery, not a puzzle with a tidy solution — but it transforms the human posture toward suffering from despair to hope, since the God who permits suffering is the same God who suffered for us and promises that 'he will wipe away all tears from their eyes; and death shall be no more' (Revelation 21:4).
Knowledge check
Answer each item, then read why the answer is correct.
What is the core claim of Alvin Plantinga's 'free will defense'?
True or False: The Catholic Church teaches that all individual suffering is a direct, specific punishment for that person's own sin.
Match each concept to its correct description regarding the problem of evil.
Match each item to its pair.
Which verse teaches that St. Paul unites his own sufferings to Christ's redemptive suffering for the Church?
In your own words, explain why the existence of unexplained suffering does not logically disprove God's existence.
Apologetics practice
Choose the response you would give, then see how it holds up.
Objection
“'A good God simply would not allow a child to die of leukemia. Since children die of leukemia, there is no good God.'”
Objection
“'If God foreknew Adam and Eve would sin, He is still responsible for all the evil that followed from the Fall.'”
Key points
- Plantinga's free will defense is widely regarded as resolving the logical problem of evil.
- The evidential problem requires epistemic humility, not a claim that every evil is individually explicable.
- Original sin wounded human nature and creation, explaining disorder without making God its author.
- The Cross gives suffering redemptive meaning when united to Christ.
Lesson summary
Main points
- The logical problem of evil is widely regarded as resolved by the free will defense.
- The evidential problem calls for epistemic humility, not despair.
- Original sin explains disorder in creation without making God its author.
- The Cross transforms suffering from meaningless to redemptive when united to Christ.
Important verses
Job 38-42 · Romans 8:18-22 · Colossians 1:24
Important quotations
“God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.”
St. Augustine of Hippo — Enchiridion 11 (c. AD 421)
Quick defense answer
Evil is real, but its existence does not disprove a good God; free will, human limits in seeing providence, original sin, and above all the Cross together give a coherent Catholic account.