Why might God be justified in giving these people a child?
I suppose we are not in a position to answer this question, but I wonder if you have any insight to help reconcile great evil with Christian faith.
Please read this story of manslaughter through neglect and answer the following questions. Or, if you don’t want to read it, here’s one portion:
The boy weighed only 12 pounds when he died. An autopsy showed that he died of malnutrition, and the sheriff told 10News that the child spent most of his life in a car seat and was fed only once a day.
God, being smarter than we are and knowing this kid’s parents better than we do, has a better idea what sort of parents they might be if they were given a child, right? And children are a gift from God, right? Without God’s direct action “ensouling” the fertilized egg, conception does not occur, right? The soul gives life to the body, so the fertilized egg would not develop (and would effectively be a failed conceptus, not a human being) unless God gives it a soul, right?
So we can suppose God sees good in these people, and blesses them with a child. Now, God is outside of time, right? So God sees all actions happening as like a mural painting, right?* So doesn’t God see this kid suffering of starvation and neglect in a car seat even while its still in the womb?* Why didn’t God take his life then?^ or, if these parents were Christian (“Catholic”), after his infant baptism?
It just seems ridiculous to suppose that God let this suffering happen.
You can respond, “We don’t know the value of suffering. Perhaps when this kid died, God enabled him to do so much good with such a short life of pain, helping to better not only the lives of those he interacted with, but also, spiritually, doing good in the world all over the place. Perhaps now he’s a greater intercessor for us in heaven than he would have been if the Lord took him from his neglectful parents while he was still in the womb.”
How is this not ‘begging the question’, assuming what one must prove? I mean, doesn’t God call us to be rational?
- You can respond, “God doesn’t see life events all at once on a mural until they’ve actually occurred. So when the boy was in utero, God did not see him suffering in the car seat as he did.”
I think this is a sound rebuttal. Yet one may then pivot, challenging instead free will, ‘It seems our actions are always determined by what we think is best (God knows our hearts) given our circumstances,’ but this seems ultimately arrogance, since the interplay of circumstances among each person and in consequence of each action is so complex that the boy’s pitiful existence might have done good to justify his suffering and death – but this is just a repetition of the above argument.
^ I suppose the argument against euthanasia is that human suffering has value, and it is better to suffer and die than to die rather than suffer. But why doesn’t God make this more clear? God gives us motivation to go to Confession; why doesn’t God give us the same motivation to suffer?
I suppose, ultimately, my question is about “acceptable suffering” vs “unacceptable suffering”: It seems unacceptable for people to suffer without knowing why or what they can do about it.