Posted on 01/14/2009 6:19:50 AM PST by NYer
One of the curious side effects of my line of work as a Catholic writer is that people will sometimes confess very odd phenomena they normally won’t discuss with people who aren’t known for believing in miracles. Some years ago, a woman I know cleared her throat awkwardly, looked very sheepish, asked me, “If I tell you something that happened to me once, will you promise not to laugh at me?” and (when I promised) told me a very strange Tale of the Unexplained.
She was a diabetic. She found out she was diabetic, she said, when she had gone into a diabetic coma a few years before and had to be rushed to Ballard Hospital in Seattle. She soon came around, but for a day or so, she was well enough to be bored, but not quite well enough for the doctors to let her go.
So she lay there in her bed twiddling her thumbs. Presently, she became aware of a sound from the other room: a sound she took for a radio broadcast. As she listened she realized that it was the sound of a Mass being said. Being a lapsed Catholic and having nothing better to do, she lay there and listened.
As the liturgy went on, she listened to the music, the readings, the homily, and the prayers. When it came to the prayers of the faithful, she heard them pray for the repose of Father So and So’s soul and, to her surprise, they also offered a prayer for her.
Immediately, she started trying to figure out how somebody on the radio would be praying for her and she concluded that the Mass must be broadcast from St. Martin’s College in Olympia, some 50 miles south of Seattle. She assumed this because her mother worked at St. Martin’s.
So when her mother came to visit her she thanked her for enrolling her for prayer and told her she’d heard the broadcast.
Her mother said, “What broadcast?”
She replied, “The broadcast of the Mass from St. Martin’s.”
Her mother said, “We don’t broadcast our Mass.”
My friend was taken aback. “Well, I heard it!” she said.
Her mother asked her what she heard and she described the liturgy, homily and prayers precisely. Her mother looked thoughtful and said, “Yes, that’s what happened. But we don’t broadcast our Mass.” Just to be sure, they checked with the priest who celebrated. Nope. No Mass broadcasts. The priest remarked to my friend, “It would appear you were given a rather singular favor by our Lord.”
My friend, after relating this strange story, looked at me with pleading eyes, hoping I would not think her crazy. “Do you believe me?” she said, clearly worried I would laugh at her.
Actually, I did believe her. She was pretty obviously telling the truth. And she had nothing to gain from such a tale.
So I told her, “Yes, I believe you.” She looked deeply relieved. Then I asked her if she’d gone back to Mass as a result of this experience.
“No!” she said. “Why would God allow me to have diabetes?”
It is to shake one’s head.
I thought, “Sheesh, lady! What do you want? An engraved invitation?”
My pal Dave has an entirely different approach to the whole suffering thing. For him, the question is not “Why does God allow me to suffer?” Rather, it’s “If God himself has to suffer, what makes me think I’m so special as to get a pass? We are, after all, talking about the worship of a crucified God who warned us that those who would walk in his footsteps must likewise carry a cross.” Dave thinks that’s going to involve Christ’s followers in a spot of bother now and then.
That sort of thinking, though it probably accounts for why Dave will never be a pastor, is well-grounded in his work as an historian of 20th Century Eastern Europe and has stood me in good stead in my own times of suffering. The option has never been “Shall we suffer?” The option has always and only ever been “Shall our suffering be a doorway to heaven — or not?”
I suspect that many — indeed most — people who think they disbelieve in God are really just angry at him. It’s hard to believe he loves you when you are suffering great pain or loss. But the Sign of the Cross is the sign that God is with us in our suffering. Not merely “with us” in that empty, tedious Hallmark greeting card way. (Dave also remarks “When people say, ‘I’ll be there in spirit’ what they mean is ‘I won’t be there.’”) Rather, God is with us — right at our side — in the very worst suffering the human person can endure. Hunger, homelessness, fear, whisper campaigns, loss of friends and loved ones, terror, betrayal, kangaroo courts, excruciating physical pain — he’s felt it all. Attempting to get rid of him by an act of anti-faith will not make the hurting stop: It will merely make it meaningless. With him, the suffering can do more than mean something: it becomes the prelude to our glorious resurrection in the Victor over death.
A truly remarkable experience that turned into a missed opportunity.
Thank you for reminding me of this. This might be a God Thing.
ping for more thorough consideration
With all due respect and no intention of disrupting, it seems that with God's great power, it doesn't seem like there's any reason at all for suffering to exist...none. He could create a world where we can learn without such things.
These explanations all seem post hoc, trying to fit some meaning in what has no real meaning. How is that refuted?
If God gave her diabetes so she would go back to mass, why not just give her some other reason instead of sending her to the hospital and making all those people work extra and worry about her?
A tough question indeed, although it may be more profitable for us to move on from it. We know there is suffering in this world, and we can’t change it. This is the way it is. Questioning God as to why he would allow it gets us nowhere I think. The greater question is how we respond to suffering. Do we respond like Peter? or Jesus?
Perhaps He has, and that world awaits us.
You can’t possibly appreciate Spring until you have gone through Winter.
Isn’t it possible that her body and her lifestyle choices gave her diabetes, and God used it as an opportunity to call her?
We do have free will. Our choices matter.
I don’t agree.
Perhaps, but one would think that God could certainly figure out a better way to get people to church..or maybe her going to church wasn’t even an issue with God? Just think if she were a non-Christian and a similar event happened?
more likely God found a way to tell her he cared about HER.....and she rebuffed Him for it....events like this are what builds a faith community up. So sad for her she is too angry to love Him back.
It all depends on what God’s actual purposes are as opposed to what humans would like them to be.
If one believes that this mortal life is the beginning and end of everything then a God who allows suffering is a curious - and very intimidating - sort of monster full of strange contradictions and utterly unpredictable because utterly capricious. Religious sects have been built on this view of God. They often engage in blood sacrifice in an effort to propitiate this sort of being.
If one believes that this mortal life is only a brief episode in an eternal journey then God is a quite different being. In this eye blink of a life such things as pain and anguish may serve a purpose quite different from that assumed by materialists. They may serve as opportunities to build and develope traits of character that are vital for one’s overall existence. One who believes this does not suffer less but would look for the lesson offered in the suffering with a view to a spiritual increase that can be carried forward perpetually. And as a result he or she may bear suffering with patience and humility and experience a kind of comfort in the midst of it. I have known people who suffered terribly who managed to maintain faith, dignity and hope despite the pain.
It should also be kept in mind that the suffering of individuals is a test and a lesson not just for that individual but for all who have contact with that individual. How people react to suffering in others may well be as important as how the sufferer reacts.
The standard for judging these matters is presented by way of revelation and written in scripture.
As with anything to do with humans there is no uniformity in belief, degree of belief, reaction to suffering or in how suffering is born directly. The big test is the direction in which one is facing while undergoing the trial. Is one facing toward despair, anger, resentment, confusion and death? Or is one facing toward hope, meekness, increase and salvation?
Suffering is a necessary part of life. Suffering focuses the mind and presents stark choices. It is easy to be wishy-washy and hypocritical while living in comfort and relative ease. Not so easy when one is enduring pain, emotional turmoil, depression or the prospect of bodily death. Suffering in this life is always temporary. The lessons we choose to learn and the decisions we make can carry forward for a long, long time.
I look at these things as being in God's hands. In many cases I understand completely why He chose to let things happen a particular way, or why He gave us the freedom of choice that we have used poorly, leading to unplesant outcomes. In other cases, I cannot understand. I consider that lack of understanding my own shortcoming, and I assume God makes better decisions than I would. My expectation is that it will all make sense to me later.
Please save
You are correct in that was God’s original intent and creation but that all changed with the fall of Adam. God’s gift of the 2nd Adam in the form of Jesus is the answer to that fall which will some day result in an eternity without pain and suffering.
Until that time God has an ultimate purpose in allowing suffering in our lives, and that is to bring us to Him. Through my suffering I realize how much I need Him. Times of deep suffering are an incredible opportunity for growth “if” we choose to accept it as such.
You are free to disagree. But it seems obvious to me. I’m not sure how you would posit a true appreciation for sunshine and sweetness and warmth without knowledge of the opposites.
God's not doing parlor tricks.
He created a miracle especially tailored for this one person. And she turns away. It's maddening.
I think the difference between the friend's view and "Dave's" is simply education. Dave somehow was made to understand. The friend, being lapsed, had no way to understand the meaning of suffering -- Christ's first, ours, second -- apart from some supernatural grace of understanding.
A great deal of educating needs to be done. And finally, it seems a great many people are ready to be educated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.