If God is good, why does he allow the devil to do so much evil?

That's actually not the question I wanted to ask. Here is the one that mystifies me

What is the difference between actually doing evil and allowing someone else to do it?

In our legal system, if someone pays another to murder a person, that person who paid the other is just as culpable as the one who actually does the murder (most states? all? I don't know but at least in some)

so it seems you could make the argument that God really is responsible for evil?

I mean, I don't want to think like that but can't help having that thought...

just don't get it...

Summa Theologica, Part I, question 2, article 3:

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

I've heard this argument but didn't know it was from Aquinas.

Thanks. I need to read Aquinas, not familiar w/ him except have heard of the Summa T in dribs & drabs

But that answer about God bringing about good from evil never did much for me.. (laugh)

Thanks for not pointing out an "error" in OP that I thought about a few minutes ago, namely:

In the analogy I gave of someone paying someone to murder a person.. well, I never believed that God actually "pays" anyone (the devil) to do evil.. (I see where God may not want the evil bad enough to "pay" for it) but I guess the point is that regardless of how the murder comes about, someone IS murdered. So the end result is the same regardless.

a better analogy would be the parent who does not exactly want Person A murdered but lets his son do it just the same, parent knows about his offspring wanting to kill Person A, but doesn't do anything to stop it.

I guess I will have to look @ certain "evil situations" I know about and try to figure out what good came from it. I will probably discover some good but the problem is: I tend to be negative-- and only see.. the evil, so this may take some mental work..

Let me give you a concrete example. I hope you would agree that it is good to show compassion for suffering. Yet this good can never be realized in a world in which there is no suffering. Therefore, if God wants to allow the good of compassion to be realized, He has to allow suffering.

so you are saying in order for humans to get in touch with their feelings of empathy/compassion, there have to be people who suffer egregiously so that those people can.. I don't know.. feel good about themselves?

OK, so I admit: i don't get it

I meant "realize" in the sense of "make real," not in the sense of "take notice of."

well, either way.. are you saying that God allows people to suffer so that others can have or experience the grace of CARING about those people?

somehow that doesn't sound right, assuming that is what u mean.. but I will think about it. Just off the top of my head it doesn't sound like God but who knows? no one ever accused ME of knowing a lot about God..

No (and it's not a grace). I am saying that compassion is, objectively speaking, a good thing, in and of itself, without reference to anyone's subjective experience of giving it or receiving it.

so what do u think of people who suffer and there is no one around to have compassion or to help in any way? I know at least one person who fits that description

I didn't propose compassion as the sole reason for suffering; I proposed it as one example of something good that requires allowing something bad.

Father, it's worth noting that the argument you quoted doesn't specify that God draws a greater good out of evil. [I think that is true, but St. Thomas is only trying to show that this not a contradiction in terms at this point.]

ok, thanks for clarifying.

I think one of the sole reasons for suffering is that people are selfish jerks and people run the world.. or Satan does, i should say and many (most) follow Satan.

Nothing happens unless God allows it to happen. So you're back to God and why he permits evil.

God permits evil because he has to

he gave man free will and he knew 9 times out of 10 man would choose unwisely and/or w/ evil intent.

We cannot (I tell myself) do evil and/or look around @ all the evil in the world and say WHY, God?

when it is HUMANS who do all that evil. But that said, why doesn't God do thus and so when that evil is done by the evil humans ?

I guess that was the actual question i wanted 2 ask

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are placing an obligation on God.

I think that this has been answered.

thank you for that video. I had heard Fr Corapi's homily on this topic but not the whole thing, apparently.

But I think something terrible happened and Coropi left the priesthood. Do you know much about that? I never found out what exactly happened --

Then you are around.

Do you think there is a "thus and so" that God ought to do? God is under no obligations. Nothing is "over" God. As free as humans are, God is freer still. So God certainly could do your thus and so in any and every case if He so chose. That is to say, He could act exactly according to your expectations in response to evil. But I hope so stated you might see the error in the proposition. I would wonder about a God who always acted in accordance with my expectations -- that would suggest that such a God is one I fully comprehend, one that is, in some real sense, made in my image (rather than I in His). But, of course, Scripture says that God will respond fully to evil. So is it not fitting that this very response of His, including allowing the time between the perpetuation of that evil and God's remedy for it, would display something of His nature? The response, His justice; the delay, His kindness and mercy; the forgiveness for those that respond to His kindness, His grace; His allowing the evil in the first place, His willingness to graciously demonstrate His glory. The thought crosses my mind that God could have perfectly well chosen to remain hidden. There is nothing in Him to compel Him to do anything, as if He must reveal Himself. And yet He chose to do so, and not for Himself, as if He could gain anything; but then He chose to reveal Himself for us. He chose to give us a supernatural end, beyond ourselves, not owed or merited, but given by grace. So He allows a time for the world to see creation without Him so that we might fully be changed by and embrace Him forever.

None of that is required. God could have done anything He wanted (that doesn't constitute a self-contradiction (Plantinga, I'm looking at you)). But I see a poetic fittingness in this.

With that said, if Obi or the pickle or one of the other adequately trained Catholics want to correct or nuance what I'm saying as not correctly representing what the Church says on the matter (or of what can be said based on what the Church has said), by all means, accept their corrections. I do think my answer here is faithful to what has been taught.

Nothing I want to get into.