Finitude and Suffering

A theological question from a non-Catholic reader about a section of Spe Salvi:

In the encyclical Pope Benedict affirms that evil, in addition to resulting from sin, stems partly from our finitude.  This is troubling to me for two reasons.  First, God created us finite—so is the Pope saying that God created us to suffer, created us knowing that suffering would be part of our lot even if we hadn't fallen?  Would children and young mothers and so on still have died of cancer (for example) even if we hadn't sinned?  Second, presumably we will still remain finite even after the resurrection or in the beatific vision or whatever; wouldn't the belief that finitude itself causes suffering imply that we will continue to suffer in the world to come?  Or how will God eradicate suffering while preserving our finitude?

Here is the pertinent paragraph (#36) from the encyclical:

36. Like action, suffering is a part of our human existence. Suffering stems partly from our finitude, and partly from the mass of sin which has accumulated over the course of history, and continues to grow unabated today. Certainly we must do whatever we can to reduce suffering: to avoid as far as possible the suffering of the innocent; to soothe pain; to give assistance in overcoming mental suffering. These are obligations both in justice and in love, and they are included among the fundamental requirements of the Christian life and every truly human life. Great progress has been made in the battle against physical pain; yet the sufferings of the innocent and mental suffering have, if anything, increased in recent decades. Indeed, we must do all we can to overcome suffering, but to banish it from the world altogether is not in our power. This is simply because we are unable to shake off our finitude and because none of us is capable of eliminating the power of evil, of sin which, as we plainly see, is a constant source of suffering. Only God is able to do this: only a God who personally enters history by making himself man and suffering within history. We know that this God exists, and hence that this power to “take away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29) is present in the world. Through faith in the existence of this power, hope for the world's healing has emerged in history. It is, however, hope—not yet fulfilment; hope that gives us the courage to place ourselves on the side of good even in seemingly hopeless situations, aware that, as far as the external course of history is concerned, the power of sin will continue to be a terrible presence.

Feel free to offer your finite thoughts with infinite charity and clarity...

Comments

[TerryC]

It seems to me that any of the aspects of our finitude are the result of Original Sin. Death is a fruit of Original Sin. If Adam and Eve could not die prior to committing Original Sin then it follows, or at least seems probable that they also did not age. Nor were they susceptible to disease or injury.
This was not a result of any intrinsic characteristic of Adam and Eve, but was due to their relationship with God. Similarly the characteristics of the beatified body of the Risen Christ were an aspect of his relationship to the Father and his own divinity. As Christians we will rise with Him, through his power, not our own. Our beatified bodies will possess similar characteristics also through our relationship with the Father through the divinity of Jesus Christ. Therefore suffering will indeed end, because it will be banished from the world through the power of God, not through the power of man.

[Tom]

Our finitude can be seen clearly in the fact that we are body-soul composites. Bodies are subject to decay by nature. As i understand it, one opinion about this is that the gift of original justice which was lost with the first sin, preserved man in his bodily life and prevented the corruption to which his flesh would otherwise have beene subject. So, while his bodily nature was subject to the natural evil of decay, a preternatural gift was bestowed on man from the outset to prevent his suffering this evil.

There may be other explanations, as well.

On the other hand, the pope may be speaking of our finitude after sin. The fact is that, while we desire perfect wisdom, love, and everlasting life, we do not possess it in this life. The very non-possession causes suffering in us, since it is an implicit consciousness that we are not what we should be.

[Charles Robertson]

Like much of Spe Salvi, this concept of finitude as a source of suffering is thoroughly Augustinian. Only infinite being (God alone) is impassible by nature, whereas all finite being is subject to change, either for the better or the worse. It is the latter kind of change that entails suffering, which also presupposes sin. Sin, as a change of the will for the worse, has no efficient cause, but rather a deficient cause -- for Augustine, the very fact of our finitude and that we have been created out of nothing makes sin possible. Book 12 of City of God explores this notion.

[Mark Brumley]

Indeed, we must do all we can to overcome suffering, but to banish it from the world altogether is not in our power. This is simply because we are unable to shake off our finitude and because none of us is capable of eliminating the power of evil, of sin which, as we plainly see, is a constant source of suffering.

It seems that what is being said here is that we cannot banish suffering from our world altogether because we are finite, in contrast to God, who is infinite and who can and will.

What, exactly, is the issue here? The questioner seems to be reading into the statement a host of issues that the statement doesn't address. As far as I can see, the statement above simply says that we human beings do not have the power to eliminate suffering/evil/sin from our world because we are finite.

[rd]

i was about to post a reply, but mark had already posted the same points and the same quotation, but in much better words.

i would only add that the paragraph emphasizes the doctrine that man alone cannot save himself--that the message of john lennon's "imagine" (no hell below us ... above us only sky ... no religion ... all the people living life in peace) is a false hope, because it's incomplete.

i think the questioner needed to read as deeply into the middle section of the paragraph as into the first section.

[Tom L]

"First, God created us finite -- so is the Pope saying that God created us to suffer, created us knowing that suffering would be part of our lot even if we hadn't fallen?"

No, suffering is a direct result of the fall. No fall, no suffering.

(CCC 376: "As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.")

God created man naturally finite, but He willed from the beginning that man participate in His divine life. Man is subject to suffering only because, when tempted by the devil, he freely chose to reject God's plan and separate himself from God by sinning.

"Second, presumably we will still remain finite even after the resurrection or in the beatific vision or whatever; wouldn't the belief that finitude itself causes suffering imply that we will continue to suffer in the world to come? Or how will God eradicate suffering while preserving our finitude?"

Again, finitude alone doesn't cause suffering; it requires our submission and obedience to God, our refusal of which led to suffering. Being finite, man by himself was incapable of reconciling himself to God, so God became man to redeem mankind by suffering, thereby transforming suffering and making it the means of man's redemption. Though we remain finite, if we follow Christ's example and suffer obediently with Him, we will ultimately be united with Him in eternal happiness.

[Daniel Fink]

It seems obvious to me that Pope Benedict alludes to man after sin. Genesis 2:9 speaks of the "tree of life". Imaging God in their free will and capacity for complete self-giving love, they instead allowed the "father of lies" to tempt them to self-love, self-assertion, and distrust of God's Fatherhood. Therefore, death came into the world through sin (Rom 5:12, Heb 2:15). Christ has restored our justice in partaking of the "tree of life" forever (Rev 22:2).

"Although the mystery of death utterly beggars the imagination, the Church has been taught by divine revelation and firmly teaches that man has been created by God for a blissful purpose beyond the reach of earthly misery. In addition, that bodily death from which man would have been immune had he not sinned will be vanquished, according to the Christian faith, when man who was ruined by his own doing is restored to wholeness by an almighty and merciful Saviour". (Gaudium Et Spes, 18)

[Rick]

Our finitude, always a tough one! One professor offered this statement on the human condition, “I suffer, therefore I am.” From the standpoint of metaphysics, part of finitude also has to do with the fact that we are creatures, our being and nature have an existence (that it is) and an essence (what it is). It is complex simply because we come into existence at some point in time. Only God can be an infinite being, who is simple in that there are no parts to God, he is pure act and his essence is “to be.” That is part of the great lie with sin, we try to be as gods.

As with death, there is the action (suffering) and the concept itself (What does it mean to suffer?). One’s awareness of death and dying is psychologically more distressing than “death” itself, the same holds with suffering. It would be naïve to think that humans never would “suffer” in terms of actually doing physical work, being winded when running etc. if there were never Original Sin. Even in the Garden, work was done, even with preternatural gifts I would imaging toiling in the hot sun is not an easy thing to do, one grows weary and tired. Is this not a form of suffering? Now, this is different than man’s awareness of suffering, which causes him to “know” it as an evil. I would argue that this latter idea of suffering is result of sin and not the former.

[Brian Schuettler]

A supernatural gift may be defined as something conferred on nature that is above all the powers (vires) of created nature. When God created man, He was not content with bestowing upon him the essential endowments required by man's nature. He raised him to a higher state, adding certain gifts to which his nature had no claim. They comprise qualities and perfections, forces and energies, dignities and rights, destination to final objects, of which the essential constitution of man is not the principle; which are not required for the attainment of the final perfection of the natural order of man; and which can only be communicated by the free operation of God's goodness and power. Some of these are absolutely supernatural, i.e. beyond the reach of all created nature (even of the angels), and elevate the creature to a dignity and perfection natural to God alone; others are only relatively supernatural (preternatural), i.e. above human nature only and elevate human nature to that state of higher perfection which is natural to the angels. The original state of man comprised both of these, and when he fell he lost both. Christ has restored to us the absolutely supernatural gifts, but the preternatural gifts He has not restored.

**************

In order to live worthy of our Divine dignity and to attain our Divine end, we stand in need of supernatural aid. This supernatural aid to a supernatural end is called grace. For our present purpose it will be sufficient to note that grace is either habitual (i.e. sanctifying, making us pleasing to God) or actual (i.e. enabling us to produce works deserving of salvation). There are other aids sometimes bestowed less for our own benefit than for the benefit of others. These are called gratiae gratis datae (charismata). They do not directly and immediately help to the attainment of our end, but assist as it were from without. The theological virtues and the moral virtues are graces properly so called. So. too, are the gifts of the Holy Ghost (see HOLY GHOST).

It may be well here to say a few words on the preternatural (relatively supernatural) gifts bestowed on our first parents, which are sometimes confused with the supernatural gifts properly so called. In the beginning God exempted man from the inherent weakness of his nature, i.e. the infirmities of the flesh and the consequent infirmities of the spirit. He made man immortal, impassible, free from concupiscence and ignorance, sinless, and lord of the earth. These privileges are beyond man's nature, but not beyond that of some higher creature (e.g. the angels); hence they are preternatural (praeter naturam). The Fathers look upon them as a glorification of nature, applying the words of Ps. viii, 5-9. In point of fact these gifts were not conferred apart from the supernatural gifts; a preternatural state is, however, conceivable, and the separability of the two sets of gifts is clear from our now possessing the supernatural without the preternatural gifts. "Although distinct and separable, unite into one harmonious and organic whole. The Fathers look upon this union in the original state of man as an anticipation of his state of final beatitude in the vision of God, so that grace bears to integrity the same relation which the future glory of the soul bears to the future glory of the body. Integrity and grace, when combined, elevate man to the most perfect likeness with God attainable in this life; they dispose and prepare him for the still more complete likeness of eternal life".
Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Spiritual Gifts
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm

*****************

Before the Fall Adam "toiled" in the Garden but didn't suffer. Toiling in full relationship with the Lord prior to the Fall could hardly be called "suffering".
After the Fall Adam toiled "by the sweat of his brow" i.e. he suffered in the human condition just as Eve would suffer the pains of giving birth. Suffering and death are the fruits of sin and neither can be said to have meaning either conceptually or existentially prior to the original sin of our parents.

[Rick]

If you want to use the word "toil" fine, it still means strain, exert effort, etc., it nevertheless refers to the fact that such work reminded him of his finitude, but I think you should specify what is meant by suffering and death. As Benedict states in Spe Salvi "Suffering stems partly from our finitude, and partly from the mass of sin which has accumulated over the course of history," this certainly seems like an allusion to our finitude not being just an effect of sin.

I think it is important to define the problem of suffering and death from a theological point of view and not biologically. Would there be no biological death of any kind if man had not sinned? Given the many natural disasters which seem part of nature and which tragically cause death for man, would then man be exempt from these or would they be non-existent had man not sinned? These remain valid theological questions. We should view these questions in light of the gift of “immortality” as a promise of a totally gratuitous transformation at the end of human existence—a transformation in the sense of 1 Cor 15:51—“not all will die but all will be transformed”. In terms of eschatology, life and death are certainly not univocal. Suffering and death are the ultimate barriers for man, so freedom from death is the logical conclusion of the pain of death and a hope in many cultures. In the OT, death is exclusion from God and the covenant, life and death must be understood in the light of friendship with God. In the NT, death is described as a falling asleep in Christ, a giving over to God. Did sin create biological death? The Church is silent on this. I Corinthians describes death as a falling asleep in Christ. Death is larger than biology, it is reasonable to assume that physical death would have existed if we had not sinned. However, we must say that sin did in some way alter death. The effects of sin would be there, the loss of God and alienation that stems from it. In terms of immortality, we know it as the gratuitous promise of transformation after death and a sharing in the resurrection of Christ. This is the answer to the all the evils of the world where man’s original destiny is restored.

[Brian Schuettler]

"Suffering stems partly from our finitude,(i.e. effects of Original Sin) and partly from the mass of sin which has accumulated (i.e. all personal sins committed subsequent to the Fall)over the course of history," this certainly seems like an allusion to our finitude being just an effect of sin.

[Rick]

Suffering and death are the fruits of sin and neither can be said to have meaning either conceptually or existentially prior to the original sin of our parents.

Yet, in the Genesis text 2:16 the man is told that if he eats of the forbidden fruit he will "die." If death has no conceptual or existential meaning prior to sin, the man could not have sinned because he would have lacked the knowledge and thus the free choice to do so. John Paul II argues quite the opposite in his Theology of the Body. He points out that those words relate to both the conceptual in terms of understanding and existential in terms of dependence in relation to God. JP II argues that man's death, which is much broader than biological death, depends on his free decision. He has awareness of finitude and suffering the possibility of non-existence.

Please answer this question: If he knew that he could die prior to sin, then how could sin be the cause of his finitude? His finitude is related primarily and ontologically in an existential sense to his dependence on God. Also, would you care to offer a definition of suffering and death? If not, then I really don't have the time to respond anymore.

[Michael]

Hello, I am the poster of this question. Thank you all for taking the time to respond. I agree with Brian S. that the quote "Suffering stems partly from our finitude, and partly from the mass of sin which has accumulated over the course of history" seems to imply that our finitude is not a result of sin. Otherwise, presumably he would have said, "Suffering stems partly from our finitude, which itself stems from sin..." Nothing in the Holy Father's statement suggests that finitude and sin are causally related, and in fact a straightforward reading seems to suggest that suffering is just a part of finite, created life. Which brings me back to my original question. I wish the Pope would have elaborated here. From Tom L's quote from Gaudium et Spes-- "bodily death from which man would have been immune had he not sinned"-- it is pretty clear that Brian S. is mistaken the Church has not been silent about whether sin caused biological death. That answers most of my question, since death is one of the chief causes of suffering in this life, and so at least that much suffering would not have existed, just because we are finite, if we had not sinned. No cancer, I guess, or hurricanes or things like that. In fact, in light of that quote, it doesn't really seem like the Pope can actually be saying what a straightforward reading of the text in question seems to imply.

[john]

I could be totally wrong, but I think the Holy Father is just stating the fact that any sentient finite being can potentially suffer (i.e. endure pain), since it is limited in its powers. God, being infinite, cannot suffer (unless He assumes a human nature to do exactly that).

So, a finite creature can suffer potentially, and a finite rational creature that sins makes that suffering actual.

[john]

Sorry, finite creature is redundant I think.

[Rick]

Michael, a great question that you sent. Though, I think you are confusing the statements of myself and Bryan. There is a distinction between biological and bodily death. For an indepth reading of this, see Joseph Ratzinger's Eschatology, particularly the essays entitled "The Theology of Death" and "Immortality of the Soul," he does leave open the question of natural evil and biological death present in creation before the Fall. Cardinal Schonborn seems to indicate something similar in terms of natural evil in his Chance or Purpose, he states "In a world of becoming, there is inevitably decay, destruction and death. He also cites the CCC 310 which states, "But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection." Referencing this, the Cardinal's point is that while disease or malformation may be present as natural evil, they are never greater than the good they are derived from.

In reference to GS 18, it uses the term "bodily death" while then Cardinal Ratzinger consistently uses "biological death." I don't think that this is just semantics, John Paul II used similar terminology when describing the death of Mary stating "Whatever from the physical point of view was the organic, biological cause of the end of her bodily life, it can be said that for Mary the passage from this life to the next was the full development of grace in glory, so that no death can ever be so fittingly described as a "dormition" as hers." http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm53.htm

Is it fair to assume that sin is the cause of bodily death of humans as referenced in GS 18 but not biological death as in Mary's case because she was preserved from Original Sin? Possibly. For these reasons, I believe that the questions of natural evil and biological death occuring before the Fall remain an open question within Catholic Theology.

Thanks for these thought provoking questions. Have a blessed Easter.

[Rick]

Sorry, I must restate this part of the last post: Is it fair to assume that sin is the cause of bodily death of humans as referenced in GS 18 but not biological death as in Mary's case because she was preserved from Original Sin? Yes, when those terms are used in these differnt senses. Mary's body could not undergo corruption and death due to sin but it could die in a biological and organic sense as referenced by John Paul II.

[Cristina A. Montes]

The mention of Mary, I think, sheds light on the quesiton. Mary was finite, but she was full of grace. And Mary suffered while she was on earth -- a sword shall pierce your heart."

[Michael]

Rick: Thanks again for your thoughts. You're right. I think I did get the posts confused. Now, could you explain a little the distinction between bodily and biological death? I do not for the life of me understand how the two terms could have different meanings. In fact, unless I'm misunderstanding, even John Paul II didn't seem to observe such a distinction in the quote you provide about Mary: the "biological cause of the end of her bodily life".

Let me make this a little more personal. I grew up Protestant fundamentalist, so I quite literally belived that the world and humans were all created perfect, the world was a paradise, and that all suffering-- natural and moral evil-- stem solely from the fall. Now, I admit that, in light of what we know about earth's history and biological development, it is very hard to make the belief that human death and what is sometimes called "natural evil" are only the result of the fall seem plausible. But I have a hard time understanding why a good God would create a world in which even perfect, sinless humans would suffer (and by "suffer" I do not mean "work"; I have in mind things like illness, death and destruction). Unless all suffering, in every instance it occurs and whatever the cause, is contrary to God's original intention for creation, then why are we promised that "He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes"? Why would God, in the world to come, feel the need to abolish an aspect of His creation-- namely, suffering-- that, "with infinite wisdom and goodness" (your quote from CCC 310) He planned to be part of creation all along?

[Michael]

To put it another way: Does God ever, not permissively, but directly, will human suffering? If one follows Schonborn and the Catechism, I do not see how one can avoid the conclusion that He does. David B. Hart's conclusion in his theodicy, "The Doors of the Sea," seems to be that natural evil can be blamed on "the prince of this world" and his "principalities." (In fact I do not remember his countenancing the view that natural evil is part of the "development" of an imperfect creation.) Hart's is a theodicy I can buy, because it does not directly implicate God. For a view like that of Schonborn and the Catechism, however, the 2004 tsunamis (on which Hart focuses) were all in a day's work.

[Michael]

OK, sorry, I won't post again until someone answers. But I wanted to add that I hardly think it would be much consolation to remind a grieving mother, or anyone in a state of intense grief, that natural evils "are never greater than the good they are derived from."

[Carl Olson]

For what it is worth, here is St. Thomas Aquinas on this question (or at least parts of the question).

[john]

For what it's worth ...

Why restrict the question to human suffering alone? Angels are part of the created order, and are created as finite rational non-corporeal beings. The suffering that existed in the created order due to the Fall of the angels preceded any human suffering. Lucifer was created finite and free of suffering, but with the potential to suffer if he sinned. His freely chosen sin of pride resulting in rebellion actualized Satan's suffering (and that of his followers) necessitating the environs of Hell (unless one contends that the fallen angels do not suffer) which became a realm of suffering in the created order.

Did God directly will the suffering of the fallen angels? Is God directly implicated in this suffering? In my view whatever answer you supply here applies likewise to all suffering in the created order (all of which is created and sustained in being by God), including human suffering.

My answer would be no, that God does not directly will any rational finite being to sin (which sin is always a failure of achievment on the part of the rational creature and not due to God's positive will) and therefore is not responsible for the necessary consequence of rebellion against him which is suffering and the realm of suffering in the created order that results. For us humans, this realm of suffering is our fallen universe, which through sin became a "creation that was made subject to futility" and that "awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God." (Rom 8:18-27).

The difference for us humans is that our rebellion was not our final end, but God in his mercy and love sent us Jesus Christ who takes on our human nature to redeem us and all of creation by making us partakers of his divine life.

[Brian Schuettler]

Clearly in the context of Gen. 3:17 where Yahweh warned of the consequences of disobedience, Adam and Eve died spiritually, not physically—they were separated from God and hid themselves. Their hiding themselves is the first indication, after their sin, of the ontological and existential awareness of suffering. Their relationship with God was broken. This does not refer to physical death for we know from Genesis that Adam lived for over 900 years.

Also, the fact that Mary suffered while being free from original sin does not equate with any necessity for suffering. Her suffering was volitional as Co-Redemptrix with our Lord. Jesus obviously was free of the stain of original sin but chose to suffer as our Redeemer. There was, however, no suffering prior to the Fall and. indeed, no need for suffering prior to the Fall. But that is what I believe based upon my readings and not official Church teaching.

These are wonderful thoughts for meditation and yet, as Rick said, "I believe that the questions of natural evil and biological death occuring before the Fall remain an open question within Catholic Theology."

Thanks, Michael!

[Carl E. Olson]

There was, however, no suffering prior to the Fall and. indeed, no need for suffering prior to the Fall. But that is what I believe based upon my readings and not official Church teaching.

That is, I think, completely in keeping with official Church teaching. For example:

"As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called 'concupiscence')" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 418)

"Union with the passion of Christ. By the grace of this sacrament the sick person receives the strength and the gift of uniting himself more closely to Christ's Passion: in a certain way he is consecrated to bear fruit by configuration to the Savior's redemptive Passion. Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus." (CCC, 1521)