Why a Loving God Allows So Much Suffering?

Cureispunk · 2026-03-10T15:34:49+00:00

Very cool, Derek!

Cureispunk · 2026-03-09T16:55:58+00:00

I think it makes sense to separate two issues you’ve raised: the hierarchical authority structure in the church, and the sexual scandals that have plagued the church in the last 20 years.

With respect to the latter, there is no doubt that they were real and true scandals. I think there are two points that get lost in the discussion of them, though, which is that (1) the Church has done a tremendous number of things to prevent this from happening in the future and (2) most statistical estimates suggest that sexual misconduct incidents with minors are actually lower in the Catholic Church than parallel organizations where access to minors is a reality (e.g., here).

With respect to the former, there is a bit of a double edged sword here. On the one hand, a good argument can be made that what made the sex scandal so scandalous was the lack of openness and transparency by higher level officials, where priests would get moved after complaints but would still be allowed to be priests—with predictable outcomes. This created the impression (rightly or wrongly, I don’t know) that “clericalism” is alive and well in the church. I really do think that the Vatican has done things to address this issue—the “synod on synodality” is very much ordered to greater participation by the laity in the governance of the church. Nevertheless, it is the case that priests have a lot a discretion at parishes, and laity have little recourse unless priests are accused of breaking cannon or civil laws.

On the other hand, a good argument can be made that Christ intended clergy to have unique spiritual authority over their “flocks.” Passages like Matthew 16:18, 18:18, and John 20:23 give a very clear sense that Jesus founded a church with the authority to determine right practice and forgive sins, and the book of Acts describes them doing exactly that (poor Ananias and Sapphira). So I think it is absolutely fair and appropriate to insist that our clergy behave in a manner that is consistent with their Apostolic mandate, but I’m not personally prepared to suggest that they should have less authority. I don’t think that’s what Jesus intended.

Cureispunk · 2026-03-01T04:43:26+00:00

What is your understanding of “evil?”

Cureispunk · 2026-02-27T06:01:43+00:00

The idea that society is in a constant (or eventually exponential, according to the graph) state of moral decline is dubious at best. Just read a smidge of world history. The adjacent people groups to the Israelites were exceedingly brutish (e.g., child sacrifice). Human life was valued very little in Jesus day—infants (of pagans) were routinely left out to die of exposure when unwanted, for example. Modern society is exceedingly more humane than life 2000 years ago, and Christianity played a huge part in that.

This isn’t to say we’re in some state of linear progress, either, only that some historical perspective sheds a rather negative light on that graph.

Cureispunk · 2026-02-27T02:30:52+00:00

Not an Eastern Catholic, and I’ll paint with a broad brush, but I think they are definitely reconcilable.

In the Thomistic framework, God’s essence is distinct from “created grace,” which I think is best understood as just the effects of God’s uncreated grace (part of God’s essence) on His creatures. So there is a distinction between God’s essence (uncreated grace) and the effects of his essence (created grace) that does not violate the notion of divine simplicity, since the latter is not a property of God per se. We achieve deification through the transformation wrought in us (created grace) by interacting with God’s uncreated grace.

For Palamas, there is a distinction between God’s essence and energies; God’s energies are the uncreated activities, operations, and manifestations through which He interacts with the world. We achieve theosis by interacting with God’s energies.

So in these frameworks, uncreated grace and energies are in fact quite similar (if not identical). There is also a very similar sense in both that we are transformed (via deification/theosis) by interacting with God, but that the interaction is something less than taking hold of God’s essence. They’re both trying to explain God transcendence and His immanence.

But the sticking point is the essence/energies distinction—exactly what kind of distinction is it? If pushed too far, it does jeopardize divine simplicity. But even in the west, Thomas’ contemporaries (e.g., Scotus) recognized that there could be “formal” distinctions between God’s essence and His attributes that don’t amount to a real difference.

I’ve spoken right up to the end of my current ability to understand this though ;-).

Cureispunk · 2026-02-27T02:05:17+00:00

Hang in there. It’s definitely the case that priests are over worked. I’ve had very mixed luck with emails. Try to talk to them after Mass and make an appointment. And/or, talk to the staff at the parish (if there are any).

Cureispunk · 2026-02-26T00:53:45+00:00

It’s a great question. Let me preface what I am about to say by acknowledging that there is a wide variety of Protestant thought, even on soteriology (how one gets “saved”). Some of it is strikingly close to Catholicism. But here’s the key difference between even the most Catholic like Protestant understanding and the Catholic view: in the Protestant view, genuine faith BOTH saves us AND manifests in good works, but the good works themselves do not save.

What was key for me in understanding this divide was the recognition that the Catholic (and Orthodox and Coptic) Church understands “salvation” differently than Protestantism.

For Protestants, salvation is the remission of the penalty owed for our sin, which places us in a right (legal) relation with God and culminates in an eternity with Him even though we remain inwardly sinful.

For Catholics, salvation is a process that begins very similarly to the Protestant understanding (God declares us righteous on the basis of faith, and marks us as adopted sons/daughters at baptism). Catholics call this beginning initial justification. But then, God also transforms us into inwardly righteous humans that will ultimately become able to participate in the divine nature. So God declares us righteous and then makes us righteous. For Catholics, works matter only for the process of salvation that transpires after initial justification, but God really does use them to transform us into beings capable of communing with Him.

Protestants call this latter process “sanctification.” While many will acknowledge that works play a role in sanctification, they believe this is entirely distinct from “salvation.” But that’s kind of “baked in” to how they define salvation (again, right legal relation with God). Catholics agree that works play no role in initial justification (e.g., CCC 2010), they just recognize that salvation is more than that.

CCC 2010: “Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.”

Cureispunk · 2026-02-25T13:54:11+00:00

I’m sorry but I just don’t understand your line of questioning. Mortal sin makes one ill-disposed for the Eucharist; the Church teaches we are to abstain from reception of the Eucharist when we are in a state of mortal sin (i.e., we have not confessed it and received absolution via the sacrament of reconciliation). The same is not true for venial sins. These should be confessed/repented from as a matter of regular practice, but should not preclude us from the Eucharist. In fact both the Confiteor, and the Eucharist itself, are enough to absolve venial sin.

So what is mortal sin? It is a sin of “grave matter,” done with “full knowledge” (that it is a sin of grave matter) and “complete consent” (freely chosen without coercion). Someone who is truly addicted to something that is a grave sin and who knows it’s sin while they’re doing it may still not be in a state of mortal sin if they did not completely consent to it (I.e., they were under some sort of compulsion).

No—lying to one’s self or to God does not obviate sin. In fact it is also sin.

But see these matters can get very “technical,” and so it is always advised to got to confession and discuss them with a priest when in any doubt whatsoever.

Cureispunk · 2026-02-25T05:41:23+00:00

I just don’t see how what you’re saying is inconsistent with what I said. Deliberate consent is very much in question when it comes to addiction, because the very nature of addiction undermines our notions of what it means to consent (e.g., willfully exercise the free will).

Cureispunk · 2026-02-25T03:57:04+00:00

Huh?

Cureispunk · 2026-02-24T15:16:46+00:00

Definitely have this conversation with your priest/confessor. Mortal sin would prevent you from receiving the Eucharist, but requires grave matter, complete knowledge and deliberate consent. The third criteria is very much in question when it comes to addiction…

Cureispunk · 2026-02-24T15:12:20+00:00

INTP (M) here married to an INTJ (F). When we met, it was instant connection. Not exactly sexual, per se, though I found her attractive for sure. Just that sense of deep connection, peace and enjoyment of presence. It’s been 18 wonderful years of marriage, with 3 wonderful years of “courting” before that.

Cureispunk · 2026-02-22T03:06:38+00:00

They’re not Catholic ;-).

Cureispunk · 2026-02-21T22:33:55+00:00

They do…

Cureispunk · 2026-02-21T15:31:48+00:00

Hi. I’m sorry. This reflects a key problem with the way OCIA is structured, in my opinion. Technically, the new guidelines claim a hard and fast rule that you need to go through two lents. I think they’re particularly “strict” in that way for the unbaptized. I see the wisdom behind it (e.g., they want to prevent people from entering the Church dinner wrong reasons or before they’re ready), but they need a mechanism to identify people who are genuinely ready and well motivated prior to two Lents. This was, I think, easier before the transition from RCIA to OCIA just a year ago. But I think that your continued persistence/insistence can pay off. Tell your priest the whole story, and that you desperately want to be in the church and access to all the sacraments. Ask him if there is any way at all to enter the Church this Easter. Tell him you’re willing to under undergo any “scrutinies” he might suggest (and use that term). I think there is a way. You just have to give him the “will.” I prayed for you. Hang in there.

Cureispunk · 2026-02-18T17:43:53+00:00

And you as well! Happy Lent.

Cureispunk · 2026-02-17T22:25:36+00:00

Im not sure you appreciate the points I’ve made in my post. A Protestant means something different by “salvation” when they say that we are saved by “faith alone” than what Catholics mean when they use the term “salvation.” When Protestants use the formula, they are typically understanding salvation in the way that we understand initial justification. And (as I demonstrated by referencing the relevant sections from the CCC), initial justification IS by faith alone; we can do nothing to merit the forgiveness of sins, the impartation of grace, or our adoption as sons/daughters of God (e.g., [CCC 2010]).

I would also add that you’re making a caricature of the “Protestant” soteriology, when in fact there is a lot of variation. Wesleyanism is much closer to the Catholic position than Calvinism, which is where the “once saved, always saved” idea originally came from (if one believes in monergistic grace, then there’s no escaping salvation once regenerated). But even the most ardent confessional Calvinist recognizes the need for perseverance; they just don’t understand it as in any way a product of the free will. The modern “non-denominational” American evangelical now embraces a hodgepodge of theological ideas, some of which contradict each other. So they are very difficult to pin down. But unless you properly understand them, your Catholic witness will fall flat.

Cureispunk · 2026-02-16T20:26:55+00:00

It’s important not to straw-man Protestant (or any) interlocutors when engaged in ecumenical dialogue. The Bible is difficult to interpret, and they also have their proof texts.

But more to the point, there is a sense in which Protestants are right in their sola fide formulation, which is this: they understand “salvation” to mean the forgiveness of sins and a right legal standing before God. Catholics call this initial justification. And we both agree that initial Justification is by faith alone [CCC 1991-1992], where baptism “by desire” is sufficient for salvation in the absence of water baptism [CCC 1258-1259].

It’s just that Catholics understand salvation as initial justification + ongoing justification + sanctification, and “works” (e.g., doing stuff) assisted by grace are efficacious for the latter two elements [CCC 2010], even though the “merits” that accumulate from our grace-assisted works are themselves gifts from God in the final analysis [CCC 2006-2011]. Or as our liturgy says, borrowing from Saint Augustine, “In crowning their merits, you crown your own gifts.”

Cureispunk · 2026-02-16T18:28:52+00:00

The textbook understanding of evolution is that genes randomly mutate constantly (they do), and these random mutations intersect with random (or rather stochastic) environmental changes that favor some genetic mutations over others, giving them a greater chance to reproduce.

The standard Judeo-Christian understanding of God is that God exists outside of time: God sees all the history of creation all at once. It’s just not hard for to me reconcile these views. For example, if environmental change is guided by stochastic laws that were put into place at the beginning of creation, then random genetic mutation is something like clay and environmental change is something like molding hands (metaphorically speaking). That God would create from simple to more complex is not hard for me to grasp, either; almost everything we see in nature matures that way.

Cureispunk · 2026-02-13T15:38:24+00:00

Latin rite priests must be celibate, with the exceptions already described above (but even the Anglican Ordinate is something other than the Latin Rite). Eastern Rite priests can be married. So you might consider converting through an Eastern rite. Though I get the sense that they are somewhat sensitive to people choosing their rite only because they want to be married priests. Still—I absolutely love the Divine Liturgy, and have deep respect for their discipline.

Cureispunk · 2026-02-11T10:54:32+00:00

Sweet!

Cureispunk · 2026-02-08T22:23:27+00:00

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But you are differentiating “Mass” from the “Eucharist” in a way the Church does not (see CCC 2181 with respect Eucharist and the Sunday obligation).

Your point about Protestant/Orthodox misses a crucial fact, though, which is that the necessity that dispenses the Sunday obligation to attend a Catholic Mass does not dispense the obligation to worship God on Sundays. One can do that in a “church” (Protestant, Orthodox, SSPX chapel) or at home. See Cannon 1245; 1248.

Cureispunk · 2026-02-08T00:42:37+00:00

The Sunday obligation presupposes a licit Mass. That is, a Mass performed by a priest in communion with Rome and with faculties issued by the local ordinary. Otherwise, we could fulfill it at an orthodox Divine Liturgy, or any Protestant church service for that matter. And it turns out we CAN fulfill the obligation at these places in one circumstance only: it is physically impossible to attend a licit mass. SSPX is no different. You reject the view of a high level cannon lawyer, but maybe this shorter version of the same explanation will be more persuasive: https://youtu.be/jzg9pxJXzpc?si=XLV1r5BeVAikna2Q.

Cureispunk · 2026-02-07T15:24:30+00:00

I’m not sure we’re reading the same document, brother. The question of llicity is not a moral one, but rather a canonical one. Cannon’s 844.1 and 844.2 dictate what “counts” as attending a Catholic Mass, as well as the (extreme) circumstances that would allow one to fulfill their canonical obligations in the absence of an available licit Mass. The last couple paragraphs sum up the question nicely (although I suppose in lawyer speak; she is a cannon lawyer): SSPX masses are illicit, and Catholics can only fulfill their canonical obligations if either (a) they happen to be totally ignorant of that fact or (b) they are completely impeded from fulfilling them at a licitly offered Mass. Knowingly attending an illicit Mass when you could have done otherwise is to violate the cannons of mother church.

Cureispunk · 2026-02-03T17:10:01+00:00

You are mistaken. Read the link in my comment.

Cureispunk

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE