The absence of suffering (Impassibility)—that one does not suffer any pain, disagreeableness, or inconvenience—could be seen as flowing from a kind of powerful Knowledge that would enable us to control our pain, and avoid the sources of trouble. The loss of that gift would mean that humans would suffer, be subject to discomfort, and unpleasantness.

A more enlightened intelligence would enable a person to see ways out of difficulties without harming his/her neighbor or going against his conscience. One would not have to struggle to attain the knowledge that would make it possible to protect oneself from stronger forces of nature and animals. The basic truths for a happy life such as God’s existence and the ultimate meaning of life might easily be known. This would support the development of Integrity, the control of one’s lower nature and the power to do right by one’s neighbor.

Without the gift of knowledge one would not have these advantages. One would see problems fraught with difficulties and would have to struggle for knowledge that would enable one both to protect oneself from the forces of nature and easily to grasp those necessary basic truths. With the loss of integrity one would find it difficult to control one’s lower nature and treat others fairly.

So, a more recent view of the Fall might have death, suffering, and the need to struggle for knowledge and integrity as characteristics of the first human beings. Such characteristics would be not the consequences of punishment, not the watering down of superior perfections because of a previous fault. What would remain of the traditional view is, of course, that early humans did evil things--they were sinners.

If we ask how or when they became sinners we come upon various possibilities. Philosophically, the first humans could have been amoral, without a sense of morality, and after a while came upon the ideas of justice, compassion, temperance, and the like. Or, indeed, it is possible that for a long or short time humans were innocent, with common sense and perception, with consideration toward each other, with control of their emotions and without fear of death. It is possible that they had the special gifts of the traditional view but lost them through their own inattention and unappreciativeness or even through a sin of disobedience as the traditional view would have it. Surely, there was a first sin, a first time when one person said to another, "Why did you do this to me?" This could have been a sin of disobedience of one’s own conscience. And we might be dealing with "first sins," morally evil actions that were rooted in a human freedom that allowed persons to do what they knew they should not do. The "dark side" of humans--conscious weaknesses unattended to that led to acts of selfishness, greed, inconsiderateness, cheating, and injustice--were very likely found among the early humans, as they are found in the present world. It is possible, too, that the effects of bad example, reprisals, and efforts of good people to protect themselves from those who would harm them increased the amount of human evil. And it does not take much for such a state to deteriorate with the result that human evil--some of it justified, some unjustified-- snowballed.

If we accept the view that the evils of our world are not necessarily due to God’s punishment for our sins, then we must see them as possibly integral parts of our world. Here we must recall the distinction between natural evils and human evils.

Natural evils are those we connect with physical suffering, such as that brought upon us by disease, lightning, tornadoes, hurricanes, rockslides, floods, hostile animals, death, and the like. Ignorance is another possible source. They are important for us here because, although they might not be evils inflicted on us because of original sin (in the old understanding of it), they are part of our world. So, we must suffer, die, struggle for knowledge that will allow us to protect ourselves from threatening elements in our environment, and control our dark side.

If we accept this view, then the natural evils function in part as tests and challenges for us. At times we will overcome the obstacles they present. At other times we will fall short and perhaps be forced to endure the consequent suffering. Some might say that God is punishing us when we must undergo the trials of the natural world, but this is a strange way of conceiving punishment. Most of us do not see as punishment what we must go through as a consequence of living in a complex and sometimes dangerous world.

Even though the evils of our world are not seen as God’s direct punishment for our sins, there are ways in which we can understand the evils that we must suffer as rightful punishment.

The first of these senses is that in which we might say that the world punishes us. When humans fail to inform themselves of the workings of the world, or when we disregard the laws of nature, then we must pay the price. If one abuses one’s body or one’s family, nature has a way of punishing, as well as of teaching and disciplining. In anything we do we might make a mistake, as when we set out sailing or on a picnic without carefully checking a weather report. Having to cope with our capsized boat or our ruined outing can be conceived as punishment for not taking the expected standard precautions for such activity. If we drink too much the night before and wake up with a throbbing head, nature is rightfully punishing us. So too, if we crash our car by speeding on a slippery rain soaked road . . . Often we will hear a person say, "I did a stupid thing, and look what happened." Having to suffer is true punishment, but we see it as justified. Contemporary thinkers at times talk about evil as undeserved suffering, but this suffering is deserved and hence cannot be called evil. We were inattentive, prone to take too great risks, or stupid. We got what we deserved. Or we can call it justified evil, as when we must endure something that is for our own benefit.

The second way in which we are punished can be seen when we suffer from human evil, when our neighbor harms his fellowman or even himself. It is the kind of evil that is still left from the traditional view of original sin and the Fall. Primitive man was a sinner. Although his first sin possibly did not cause all the physical evil in the world, it almost certainly started a decline toward immorality, toward negligence, anger, greed, laziness and mean-spiritedness toward his neighbor. This inclines us to look upon original sin more as the source of human, not physical, evil. In this sense we can even say that by our mistaken actions we are punishing ourselves.

John Hick says that we were created imperfect, immature, with weaknesses, and that our task in life is to perfect ourselves into the image of God. The Fall occurred during the childhood of man. We should understand it as a fallen state in which childhood weaknesses and moral immaturity result in mistakes and harm done to our neighbors.

This might be right, but when we consider the harm done to each other today, we wonder why after so many years we have not grown out of childhood. Early humans might have had shortcomings which to some degree we have by now corrected. And yet, due to advances in knowledge which give a single person the power to destroy a huge building or blast an airliner out of the sky, modern humans are confronted with complex issues. In one way we are more mature, in another way we are not, as we must face new and disturbing challenges. Science and technical progress give rise to possible, hitherto unimaginable, evils. The new possible sins are original in a very real sense--and frightening. The availability of ever more powerful weapons to back up demands give devastating power to those who are bitter and convinced that they are being exploited, and make them more of a threat to the rest of us. New occasions of evil arise from the vast differences of wealth in the world as the "have nots" can see vividly on television the life styles of the wealthy. They are tempted to envy and to use violence even against those who justly have earned their riches. To forestall such evils the prosperous must overcome the temptation of apathy and the reluctance to share.

Today in our shrinking world, an individual’s mistake, whether it be unavoidable or culpable, can affect not only the person next door but also many others in society. A drug dealer on one’s block, a prostitute with AIDS, or a terrorist with a bomb can cause tremendous damage. Insensitivity, selfishness, lack of compassion, lack of care for others, failures to attain required knowledge can result in undeserved harm to others.

We might be tempted to say that when a person does evil to his neighbor, then his neighbor is being punished for being part of a dysfunctional society. One might say that persons who do evil have become what they are because of the failure of society or our own failure to bring them up properly, to show them enough love and attention, to expose them to moral questions, to adequately educate and discipline them. In short, one might say that the evil we suffer from these persons is deserved, that it is punishment. That we cannot walk certain streets at night or leave our car parked in certain places without fear of dire, even life-threatening consequences, could be seen as punishment for our apathy, our lack of concern for others, and our failure to resolve pressing problems.

In this regard, the large scale of society presents a special problem as we see how, in a complex and densely populated neighborhood, it is difficult to control crime and wipe out evils. Unfortunately, many of the people who suffer thereby have little power and in a sense suffer undeservedly. However, all of us depend on the talented and brightest among us to afford effective civic leadership. And we know that it can be done once concern, desire, and a willingness to sacrifice are there.

The third way in which we are rightfully punished occurs when we are deliberately punished for having inflicted undeserved evil on others. Our punishment is justified, for we have injured others or violated rightful laws necessary for the orderly existence of society. The arrest and punishment of a drunken driver or someone who races at 50 miles an hour in a school zone is a justified evil.

All of the above senses are relevant to the question of why children suffer. The sense in which the world punishes us for mistakes that we have made can help us to understand why children must suffer. Our failure to attain or be aware of the proper knowledge necessary for parenting and for living a reasonable life, and our failure to control our darker tendencies can do irreparable damage to our children. One might surmise that the world is punishing us for our mistakes by visiting the consequences upon our children who in turn at times cause us grief.

If this view can stand, that the source of evil can be something other than God punishing us, Camus’s complaint that innocent children suffer and die would be undermined. If evil and suffering need not be God’s punishment for our sins, then a child’s death and suffering is not so much of an outrage. For we could not establish that an innocent person who has done no evil is being punished. This does not solve the problem of evil in regard to children, but, at least in this view, God is not in the position of punishing the innocent, something which offends Camus’s sense of justice.

Indeed, there are other reasons why children suffer. They must suffer physical evils because they are physical and biological beings. Biologically, children, like the rest of us, are members of the life world which operates on the principle of the breakdown and assimilation of physical bodies. It is nigh impossible to articulate a world in which children would not be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

From a creative and intellectual standpoint, our children have the potentiality to far surpass other creatures, but, as humans, they also have physical bodies. This means that not only are they subject to physical laws but also, like all of us, in many respects they are inferior to other physical creatures. An atom, a tiger, a boa constrictor, even a bird or a rock, surpass humans in some sense. When we come into contact with such entities we must yield, sometimes flee, and sometimes suffer. A world in which children were not subject to the same such limitations as the rest of us would be strange, a violation of the laws of nature.

Again, how can children not be subject to the accidents which happen in this world of physical and intellectual creatures. Such are part of life. Nature does not act rigidly--and all of us are either helped or hurt by such events. Many of us accept this kind of world, looking forward to the future, waiting for the outcome of things which are not certain, anticipating defeat or victory, knowing that at any time all that we enjoy might be taken from us. It is not at all clear that a world in which no accidental happenings occurred, one in which human beings knew everything that would happen in the future, would be a better world.

Again, children must suffer human evil because of their dependence on adults. The society in which a child is born has a profound effect on his/her life. A child might live in a country whose leaders and power factions are unwilling to compromise and bring about peace. If those in power are convinced that their people must wage war in order to assure some future good, then everyone--the innocent and the guilty--must suffer. Since children are exceptionally dependent on society for their survival, when society disintegrates, children, the most needy of all citizens, must do without the necessities of life. In such a case, man, not God, inflicts cruel punishment on himself, and, at times, no member of the human race--adult, aged, or child--can escape it.

It is hard to understand the kind of world in which children would not be affected by their parents or surrogates. How would a child avoid the consequences of a mother’s smoking, heavy drinking, or taking drugs during pregnancy? How would a child avoid the abuse and neglect of irresponsible or selfish parents or caregivers? Of course, our mistakes can accumulate and feed back on themselves, putting us in dire straits and making it difficult to get back on track. Mistakes made by human society years ago can be so influential that their effects become embedded and have a powerful influence on us at present. Such mistakes suggest that a world in which children would not suffer is almost inconceivable.

It should also be noted that children do not see suffering necessarily in the manner of an adult. They are inclined to see it as part of life, a mystery like so many other aspects of their existence. The chances are that they do not see suffering as an unjust outrage as Camus would have it.

1. Albert Camus, The Plague (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966) Part II, Ch. 3, pp. 78-84.

2. T.R. Heath, "Adam" (In Theology) The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1, p. 114.

3. Karl Rahner, "Original sin, polygenism, and freedom," Theology Digest, Spring, 1973.

4. Corcoran, C. J. "Impassibility," New Catholic Encyclopedia, 7 (Washington: The Catholic University of America, 1967), p. 394.

5. I. Hunt, ibid., p. 816.

6. Ibid., p. 816.

7. Thomas Bokenkrotter, Dynamic Catholicism (New York: Doubleday, 1992), Pp. 300-303. Cf. George Vandervelde, Original Sin: Two Major Trends in Contemporary Roman Catholic Interpretation (Washington: University Press of America, 1981).

8. Barry Whitney, Evil and the Process God (Lewiston, N. Y.: Edward Mellen Press, 1985), p. 27. In Ecclesiastes 9:2, we see that the same fate befalls the just and the unjust; in Matthew 5:45, that God makes the sun rise on the good and bad alike; and in Luke 13:1-3, where Christ says that the Galileans and those who were killed when the tower fell upon them did not die because they were more guilty than others. Cf. p. 27.

9. Heath, "Adam," The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1, p. 115.

10. The Warriors, p. 51.

11. C.G. Jung, "Letter to William G. Wilson, Jan 30, 1961," The Parabola Book of Healing, Introduction by L. E. Sullivan (New York: Continuum, 1994), p. 132.

12. M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie, p. 183 and Ch. 5

13. Hick, Evil and the God of Love, p. 220.

14. Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers, The Power of Myth, p. 114.

15. Albert Camus, The Plague, pp. 180-187.

16. Albert Camus, The Rebel, trans. Anthony Bower (New York: Vintage, 1960), p. 303.

17. William Alston, "The Inductive Argument from Evil," Philosophical Perspectives, 5, Philosophy of Religion, 1991, ed. James Tomberlin (Atascadero, Ca.: Ridgeview Publishing Co., 1991), pp. 29-67, pp. 37-38. Cf. Elenore Stump, "The Problem of Evil," Faith and Philosophy, 2, no. 4, (Oct. 1985).

18. Ibid.