The Problem of Evil and Catholic Responses
The Problem of Evil
The problem of evil is one of the oldest challenges to religious belief. If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) and all-loving, why does suffering exist? A God with all three attributes would have the power to prevent suffering, the knowledge to know about it, and the love to want to stop it. Yet suffering clearly exists — in disease, natural disaster, war and personal tragedy. This logical tension, sometimes called the Epicurean trilemma, leads some thinkers to conclude that either God does not possess all three attributes, or God does not exist.
The Bible does not ignore this question. Isaiah 45 acknowledges God as the one who creates both light and darkness, both peace and disaster. The Psalms also wrestle with it: Psalm 119 contains long passages of praise and lament as the writer turns to God during suffering, trusting in his word even when circumstances suggest abandonment. The book of Job is perhaps the most extended biblical engagement with the problem: Job loses his health, family and property without any obvious cause, and the bulk of the book is his anguished questioning of God and God’s eventual response from the whirlwind. Catholics do not read these texts as providing a neat intellectual solution — instead, they model the posture of honest prayer and trust in God’s ultimate justice.
Philosophers distinguish two kinds of evil: moral evil (suffering caused by human choices — war, murder, abuse) and natural evil (suffering from non-human causes — earthquakes, disease, famine). Moral evil raises questions about God’s purpose in creating free beings; natural evil is harder to explain by appeal to human freedom alone.
Augustine’s Free-Will Defence
St Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) argued that evil is not a positive thing God created. It is, instead, the privation of good — the absence or corruption of something good, just as darkness is not a substance but the absence of light. God did not create evil; he created a good world. Evil entered through the Fall, when humanity freely chose to disobey God. This applies to both moral evil (direct human wrongdoing) and, in Augustine’s view, natural evil (the disorder that followed the Fall and damaged creation as a whole).
Augustine’s key move is to protect God’s goodness by insisting that the source of evil lies in creaturely freedom, not in God. God gave humans free will — the capacity to choose good — because love chosen freely is infinitely more valuable than love compelled. By choosing evil, humanity brought suffering on themselves and, in Catholic theology, on creation as a whole. Augustine found support for this in the opening chapters of Genesis, where the Fall narrative shows human disobedience introducing pain, conflict and death into a previously harmonious creation.
One of the most common errors in RS exams is attributing the “soul-making” theodicy to Augustine. Augustine’s response is the free-will defence: evil is the privation of good, caused by the misuse of human freedom at the Fall. The soul-making theodicy — that evil is necessary for moral and spiritual development — belongs to St Irenaeus (c.130–202 CE), developed in the modern era by John Hick. If the exam question names “Augustine,” write about privation of good and the Fall. If it names “Irenaeus” or “soul-making,” write about moral development through challenge. Never swap them.
Irenaeus and the Soul-Making Theodicy
St Irenaeus offered a different kind of response. He argued that humans were not created perfect — they were created “in the image” of God (imago Dei) but needed to grow into the “likeness” of God. We are created as children who need to develop through challenge and experience. Suffering and moral struggle are the means by which human beings develop virtues like courage, compassion and patience. A world without challenge or risk would be a world in which no real growth or character formation could take place.
This idea was developed in the twentieth century by philosopher John Hick in Evil and the God of Love (1966). Hick described the world as a “vale of soul-making” — a place designed for moral and spiritual development rather than immediate comfort. On this view, God allows suffering because a pain-free world would produce no virtuous characters, no heroes of sacrifice, no genuine love of God chosen freely through difficulty. Hick also introduced the idea of “epistemic distance” — God remains somewhat hidden so that humans can freely choose to trust him rather than being overwhelmed by his immediate presence.
The soul-making theodicy was proposed by St Irenaeus (c.130–202 CE) and developed by John Hick in Evil and the God of Love (1966). It argues that evil and suffering are necessary for human beings to develop virtues and grow into the likeness of God. A world free of all challenge would be a world in which no real moral character could form.
Catholic Practical Responses: Prayer and Charity
Beyond philosophical theodicy, Catholics respond to suffering through practical action. Prayer is the primary response — turning to God in the midst of suffering, as the Psalms model, trusting that God hears and responds even when the reasons for suffering are not clear. Psalm 119 demonstrates this posture of trust: the writer cries out to God in distress yet returns repeatedly to the theme of delight in God’s word. Charity is the other key response: Catholics are called to address suffering directly through work with the poor, the sick and the marginalised. Organisations like CAFOD embody this in their global relief work.
Augustine’s free-will defence has been challenged on the grounds that natural evil (earthquakes, disease) cannot plausibly be attributed to human misuse of freedom — viruses do not choose to harm. The soul-making theodicy has been challenged because the amount of suffering in the world seems vastly disproportionate to what is needed for moral growth — the Holocaust, childhood cancer, and mass famines cannot be explained as mere educational experiences. Non-religious critics, including Humanists, argue that both theodicies are attempts to rationalise the actions of a God who does not exist. Catholics respond that no theodicy fully dissolves the mystery of suffering — but that the model of Christ on the cross, God entering into suffering rather than standing outside it, offers something more than argument: a personal response to human pain.