Summary
Introduction
1 The Human Experience of Evil in the History of Moral Theology
1.1 The First Human Experience of Evil
1.2 In the History of Moral Theology
2 Characteristics of Evil
3 Symbolism of Evil
4 Guilt and Sin
5 Forms of Expression
6 Response to Evil
7 Jesus Against Evil
References
Introduction
Before starting the development of each of the mentioned points, it is necessary to briefly situate the subject of evil. First of all, it is important to note that the problem of evil has been and can be approached in various ways, for example, from a psychological point of view; others believe that evil is a matter of metaphysical nature, others that it is almost exclusively moral. But first and foremost, everyone agrees that evil is a reality that affects human beings. Secondly, there are various theories about the nature of evil, among which are those that say: a) evil is part of reality; b) evil is the lowest degree of being, understood as ontological poverty; c) evil is part of the real, but as an entity that operates dynamically and contributes to the logical-metaphysical development of what exists; d) evil is the sacrifice that a part executes for the benefit of the whole; e) evil is a complete lack of reality, it is pure and simply non-being; f) evil is conceived as a departure from God and, in this religious perspective, is conceived as a manifestation of sin. Thirdly, the most important doctrines on the origin of evil present that: a) evil comes from God or the first cause; b) evil has its origin in the human being; c) evil is the result of chance; d) it is a consequence of nature, matter, or other sources. Traditionally, the types of evils have been classified between physical evil, which is equivalent to pain and suffering, and moral evil, which is identified with sin (and some authors conclude that this is the origin of physical evil). From Leibniz, who classified evil into three types – metaphysical, physical, and moral – metaphysical evil is also discussed. There are also the following ways to face evil, or attitudes towards it that have been identified: a) acceptance of evil; b) despair; c) escape; d) adherence; e) individual or collective action to radically transform evil (FERRATER MORA, 1979, pp. 2079-2086).
Finally, it is important to emphasize that most religions have understood the problem of evil essentially from its moral dimension and not as a physical or metaphysical question, but in mythical stories all these aspects are always related. For the vast majority of religions, evil consisted of a violation of divine law; therefore, suffering, pain, and death are consequences of the infraction (GONZÁLEZ, 2014, p. 49).
1 The Human Experience of Evil in the History of Moral Theology
1.1 The First Human Experience of Evil
We must begin by highlighting that addressing a reflection on the question of evil is not an easy or simple task, because of all the problems, the presence of evil in the world is undoubtedly the one that raises the most questions. The difficulty also lies in the multiplicity of approaches due to the diversity of ways in which evil presents itself (LATOURELLE, 1984, pp. 335-337).
Likewise, we must clarify that raising the question of evil in terms of a problem is a consideration that can be incomplete and insufficient, since evil is also presented as a mystery (LACOSTE, 2007, p. 733). We can say that if evil is both a problem and a mystery, its approach does not belong exclusively to the philosophical field, but also to the religious and theological field (LATOURELLE, 1984, pp. 337-339).
The whole enigma of evil lies in that we understand under the same term, at least in the Western Judeo-Christian tradition, phenomena as diverse as, in a first approximation, sin, suffering, and death. It can even be said that if the question of evil is distinguished from sin and guilt, it is because suffering is constantly taken as a term of reference (RICOEUR, 2007, pp. 23-24).
Moreover, the phenomenon of evil is an indisputable fact in human experience (BRAVO, 2006, p. 17). One thing all human beings, not just Christians, are aware of: the existence of evil. We do not need a particular revelation or a specific demonstration to verify the experience of its effects (GUTIERREZ, 2014, p. 21). We can all see how “the problem of evil cuts like a sword, harsh and terrible, through all human history. No culture, and within it no individual, could escape its confrontation” (TORRES, 2011, p. 11). From this experience of evil arise pressing questions. Why hunger? Why genocides? Why such cruelty? Why so many senseless wars? Why the suffering of so many innocent human beings? (RUBIO, 1999, pp. 151-155).
This human experience of evil is found in natural phenomena such as earthquakes, droughts, volcanoes, floods, etc.; in physical and psychic evils that are related to physical and mental illness. Similarly, the experience of evil is present in the moral evil that affects individuals and groups. We could say that the latter, moral evil, from a theological perspective, refers to sin. It has its origin in the heart of man and is the cause of most physical and psychic diseases (LATOURELLE, 1984, pp. 339-340). Therefore, the experience of evil is theologically linked to what we call structural sin, collective sin, or social sin (ESTRADA, 2012, p. 92). Thus, moral evil refers to a problematic of freedom. Intrinsically. Thus, it is possible to be responsible for it, to assume it, to confess it, and to fight it. Evil is inscribed in the heart of the human being. Evil refers to a question of freedom, or morality (RICOEUR, 2007, p. 15). If so, the question is no longer where evil comes from, but where it comes from that man does evil.
1.2 In the History of Moral Theology
The Church Fathers, from Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, to Augustine, raised the problem of evil with reference to creation. However, and since Augustine, evil is conceived not only as negativity, but above all as the free decision of the person. The cause is the deficiency of the person that applies to all their will. For although the human being tends, by nature, to the good, there is always the possibility of choosing evil. In this lies the greatness of man, but also the greatest deficiency of his being (GONZALEZ, 2014, pp. 5-9). From this approach, we speak not of evil, but of constitutive sin, and this as a cause of personal sin and moral evil.
2 Characteristics of Evil
In the context of Western rationality and the Judeo-Christian religion, evil is characterized by being universal, irrational, personal, and social. It is universal because the oldest myths testify to it, seeking to explain the presence of evil in the world[1].
All stages of history are traversed by the presence of evil which, in various forms, reaches the present. Evil, at least as a threat, is found in all created realities and adopts a multiplicity of forms; therefore, we can say that its presence is universal and multidimensional (GELABERT, 1999, pp. 191-192). Evil is irrational. Evil is always irrational, it has no reason to be and is beyond all reason (GELABERT, 1999, pp. 192-193). As an example, we can see this irrationality in the concentration camps of Auschwitz, in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just to illustrate what we say. However, there are many situations that show the irrationality of evil.
One of the most important characteristics is that evil is a problem of human freedom. For this reason, the human being can be responsible for it, accept it, confess it, and fight it. Evil is written in the heart of man; therefore, evil is also of a moral order, as we have already pointed out (RICOEUR, 2007, p. 15).
3 Symbolism of Evil
The symbolism of evil is an attempt to interpret, understand, and explain the question of evil. In other words, it is a hermeneutic because, as Ricoeur says, “if ‘the symbol gives us to think’, what the symbolism of evil gives us to think refers to the greatness and limit of any ethical vision of the world, since the man who shows this symbolism seems no less a victim than guilty” (RICOEUR, 2004, p. 17). Symbols are signs that express and communicate a meaning; Ricoeur rightly says that mythos is already logos (RICOEUR, 2004, pp. 179-183). Within the religious worldviews that Ricoeur presents, four types of myths about evil can be described: 1) in the first mythical narrative, Ricoeur places the beginning of evil at the very origin of being, in the gods who create the world; 2) in a second group of myths, it is affirmed that destiny marks events and evil, therefore, is intrinsic to existence and permanent suffering; 3) the third is the Judaeo-Christian Adamic myth, which says that it was the human being who introduced evil into the world; 4) finally, there is the Orphic myth, which indicates that a soul of divine origin is imprisoned in a body that drags it to evil (DE COSSIO, 2011, pp. 338-339). There is, in fact, no direct, non-symbolic language of evil suffered, endured, or committed. That is, man already recognizes himself as responsible or victim of an evil that attacks him and is expressed, from the beginning, in a symbolism (RICOEUR, 2004, p. 27). However, the symbols of evil, par excellence, are indigence and finitude (ESTRADA, 2012, p. 74).
4 Guilt and Sin
It was said in the first point of this writing that evil is conceived not only as lack or negativity, but also as free choice of the human being. It is that “evil belongs to the drama of human freedom. It is the price of freedom” (SAFRANSKI, 2005, p. 10). Thus, it is from this approach that we should speak, no longer of evil, but of constitutive sin[2]. However, speaking of sin, we must take a step forward, and it is the step from reason to faith, because, as Ricoeur notes, the personal relationship with God establishes the spiritual space in which one tries to explain evil, but at the level of sin. Therefore, the category that governs the notion of sin is that which understands it as something done “before God”. Thus, sin is a religious magnitude before being ethical; there is no injury to an abstract rule or violation of a law or regulation, but primarily it is the breaking of a personal bond (RICOEUR, 2004, p. 214). And evil appears not only as a deficiency, but as the breaking of a relationship (BRAVO, 2006, p. 218).
Besides personal sin, there is the reality of social or structural sin, in the sense that every personal sin has an impact on the whole community (MATHIAS, 2011). The author states, in his book, that there is a structural sin, whose subject is constituted by the community present in that social institution that openly attacks human life, analyzing the effects in which the existence of a structural sin in a given social system is recognized (VIDAL, 2012, pp. 261-292).
5 Forms of Expression
It is an indisputable fact that the human being inhabits a world where evil exists and in which various types or forms can be recognized in which it is expressed (MONTERO, 2010, p. 7). Among the various manifestations of evil that man recognizes are natural disasters, physical evil manifested in diseases such as cancer, AIDS, Ebola, mental illnesses, etc. However, the presence of moral evil – such as wars, terrorism, hunger, cruelty, the death penalty, exploitation and abuse of women and children, evil disguised as progress, corruption, and an endless list of etceteras (LOPEZ, 2012, pp. 20-49) – should make us think that we are all responsible. To illustrate this, we present some data. In 2000, the President of the World Bank said:
There are many countries where HIV/AIDS has prevented the increase in life expectancy and caused so much pain and suffering. There are many countries where weapons, war, and conflicts have undermined development (…) We live in a world marked by inequality. Something is wrong when the richest 20% of the world’s population receive more than 80% of global income. Something is wrong when 10% of the population receive half of the national income, as happens in a large number of countries. Something is wrong when the income of the 20 richest countries is 37 times the average income of the 20 poorest countries, a difference that has more than doubled in the last 40 years. Something is wrong when 1.2 billion people still live on less than $1 a day and 2.8 billion on less than $2. At a time when all forces are making the world smaller, it is time to change our way of thinking. It is time to realize that we live together in one world, not two; that this poverty is in our community, wherever we live. It is our responsibility. It is time for political leaders to recognize this obligation (WOLFENSOHN, 2000).
Stiglitz, Nobel Prize in Economics, says that 1% of the population has what 99% need. That 1% of the population enjoys the best houses, the best education, the best doctors, and the best standard of living.
On April 1, 2014, Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank, stated:
We live in a world of inequalities. The disparities between rich and poor are as evident here in Washington as in any other capital in the world. However, for many of us in the wealthy world, people who are excluded from economic progress remain largely invisible. As Pope Francis said verbatim: “That some homeless people die of cold on the street is not news. On the contrary, a drop (…) in the stock market is a tragedy”.
Pope Francis, in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, says:
Just as the commandment “You shall not kill” sets a clear limit to safeguard the value of human life, so today we must say no to an economy of exclusion and inequality. This economy kills. It is not possible that the death by freezing of a homeless person is not news, while a two-point drop in the stock market is. This is exclusion. It can no longer be tolerated that food is thrown away when there are people who are hungry. This is social inequality. Today, everything enters into the game of competitiveness and the law of the strongest, where the powerful swallow up the weaker. As a result of this situation, large masses of the population find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without prospects, in a dead end. (FRANCISCO, 2013, n. 53)
We live in a world torn apart by injustice, hunger, wars, and so on. And we are doing something wrong, because these numbers and many other reports presented each year show that inequality in the world, instead of decreasing, is increasing.
6 Response to Evil
It should be an indisputable fact that “evil calls everyone to fight on a common front: to find answers that, despite the terrible and endless challenges of evil, allow us to live without succumbing to absurdity and without giving up to repair the damage and seek possible improvements” (TORRES, 2011, p. 111). However, against evil we find a wide range of responses, among which are: joyful acceptance of evil (attitude that finds satisfaction or complacency in evil); resigned acceptance (passive or rationalized attitude towards evil); despair (attitude of psychological escape); adherence (attitude of submission or reconciliation with evil); and finally, action (attitude of confrontation and contestation) individual and community (FERRATER MORA, 1979, p. 2084).
There is no doubt that for theology, the reality of evil is a challenge (RICOEUR, 2007) and an invitation to think of it as the common root of sin and suffering. The question of evil requires a convergence of thought and action that, politically and morally, in turn, requires a transformation of feelings. Therefore, from this transformation arises not the classic question “why evil”, but “what to do against evil?” (Ricoeur, 2007, pp. 25, 58, 60).
The response of faith in a God who freely and gratuitously communicates himself to man (DV n. 2), leads us to affirm, with Ellacuría, that it is necessary to face reality, bear reality, and take responsibility for transforming it (ESTRADA, 2012, p. 789). It is important to bear in mind that J. Sobrino considers mercy in the face of the suffering of victims as the fundamental attitude of every just human being and as an articulating category of theological reflection (TAMAYO-ACOSTA, 1999, pp. 241-242). This approach to action does not intend to provide a ready-made solution, but only to present the outline of a response (BRAVO, 2006, p. 220), because we know that “human triumph over evil is always partial and each conquest is precarious, a prelude to new challenges (…)” (ESTRADA, 2012, p. 87). However, in the face of evil, we must have hope, because the love of God incarnate in Jesus enables the human being to generate good from the experience of evil (ESTRADA, 2012, p. 94). There is no doubt that the mystery of evil is very deep, but even deeper is the abyss of God’s love. The strength to fight evil is found in a God who committed himself with merciful love on the cross and gives us the hope of victory in the resurrection. Consequently, what makes us Christians is believing that the ultimate and definitive word of hope in the struggle against evil has come to us in the cross and resurrection (TORRES, 2005a, p. 267) of Christ, of whom it was said that: “(…) went about doing good (…)” (Acts 10:38).
7 Jesus Against Evil
In the previous section, we made a brief approach to the theme of the response to evil and suggested the limits and possibilities it has. We have also suggested that the strength and hope in this attempt to respond to evil are found in the love of a God who communicated himself in Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, looking at how Jesus positioned himself against evil can guide us in this great pending task of reacting and combating evil.
We must start by emphasizing that one of the characteristic features of Jesus is his sensitivity to suffering. “When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Mt 9:36). This sensitivity is transformed into compassion and solidarity with those who suffer and this is demonstrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:29-37), where it is evident that it is not enough to fulfill religious duties, but our love for God must be translated into effective solidarity with those who suffer (TAMAYO-ACOSTA, 1999, p. 243). Due to his sensitivity to suffering, Jesus is in solidarity with those who are stigmatized and excluded for religious, political, and social reasons, such as lepers (Lk 5:12-15; 17:11-19; Mt 8:1-4), the blind (Mt 9:27-31), the paralyzed (Mt 9:1-8; Lk 5:17-26), those possessed by demons (Mt 8:28-34; 9:32-34), sinners (Mt 9:10-13; Lk 5:29-32; Lk 7:36-50), Samaritans (Jn 4:9-10), etc. These are relationships of recognition and acceptance. It is such a deep solidarity that Jesus himself identifies with all those who suffer:
For I was hungry, and you gave me food; I was thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you welcomed me; I was naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me (…). Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me. (Mt 25:31-46)
However, Jesus does not stop at merciful, compassionate, and solidarity treatment with those who suffer; he goes further and denounces the religious, political, social, and economic powers that are causing this suffering (Mt 23:1-32; Lk 11:37-54). We could say that his attitude towards the marginalized, excluded, and stigmatized by all these powers is already a denunciation and confrontation against evil, that evil that we theologically identify with social sin or structures of sin (NEBEL, 2001, pp. 292-340; SARMIENTO, 1987, pp. 869-881; MOSER, 1992, pp. 1369-1383).
It is evident that the persecution, judgment, condemnation, cross, and death that Jesus suffered was the result of his life, his struggle against evil, and his commitment to justice and good (GELABERT, 1999, p. 217). Therefore, the cross is not a sign of God’s weakness, but a symbol of the strength of his love. The cross is not the symbol of a God who patiently accepts suffering, being himself a victim of evil; on the contrary, the cross is the strongest protest cry that someone can manifest against evil.
The cross is not a sign of failure and despair in the fight against evil, because “(…) God sympathizes with the victim (…) God is in the crucified and in all the massacred of history, including the one hanging on the barbed wire of Auschwitz (…) God is involved in evil not from power, but from love (…) He does not eliminate death, but offers life from it” (LOIS, 2004, pp. 35-36).
When observing what Jesus’ attitude is against evil, we must keep in mind that “the binding reference to the memory of the crucified and resurrected, subversive and subjugating memory (…) allows the believer to intuit what his God wants from him in relation to existing evil (LOIS, 2004, 40). Therefore, Christianity is not, in the first place, a doctrine that must be kept as pure as possible, but a praxis that we must live as radically as possible (METZ, 1982, p. 33).
Something seems clear from the life and message of Jesus, from his death and resurrection, God, his God, as Schillebeeckx says, is anti-evil. This is the great contribution of Christian faith to the problem of evil. By placing Jesus at the center of his life and message, serving a kingdom of justice and brotherhood, the fight against evil becomes an essential component of the life of every follower of Jesus (LOIS, 2004, p. 40).
Jesus’ attitude against evil shows that neither sin nor death have the last word. The last word is the loving and merciful closeness of the God who communicated himself and wanted to become part of our history.
María Isabel Gil Espinosa. Pontifical Xavierian University, Colombia. Original text in Spanish[3]
References
BRAVO, L., C. S.J. (ed. Germán Neira F. S.J.) The Problem of Evil. Bogotá: PUJ, 2006.
ESTRADA, J. A. Evil and Belief in God. In: GÓMEZ-NOVELLA, A. D. (Dir.). Mystery of Evil and Christian Faith. Valencia: Tirant Humanidades, 2012. pp. 69-100.
FERRATER MORA, J. Evil. In: ______. Dictionary of Philosophy, 2. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana, 1979.
FRANCISCO, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, 2013. Available at: https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html Accessed on: Nov 30, 2014.
GELABERT, M. Evil as a Theological Stigma. A Question Mark in the Discourse on God? Moralia: Journal of Moral Sciences, vol. 22, no. 82-83 (Apr-Sep 1999), pp. 191-222.
GONZÁLEZ, A. God and the Reality of Evil from the Thought of Zubiri. Available at: https://www.praxeologia.org/malum97.html Accessed on: Jul 5, 2014.
GUTIERREZ, H. The Evil: Between Cosmology, Anthropology, and Theology. In: Ce. Do. MEI, Livorno, Pharus, 2014. pp. 21-30.
KIM, JIMYONG. Speech of the President of the World Bank Group, before the Council on Foreign Relations. Washington, DC, United States, April 2014. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2014/04/01/speech-world-bank-group-president-jim-yong-kim-council-on-foreign-relations Accessed on: Dec 5, 2014.
LACOSTE, J.Y. Evil. In: LACOSTE, J.Y. (Dir.) Critical Dictionary of Theology. Madrid: Akal, 2007. pp. 731-734.
LATOURELLE, R. Man and His Problems in the Light of Christ. Salamanca: Sígueme, 1984. pp. 335-359.
LOIS F, Julio, The Silence of God and the Suffering of Man. (Dealing with Job and Auschwitz: Possibility or Impossibility of Theodicy). In: BARCENA, Fernando, et al. The Authority of Suffering. The Silence of God and Questions of Man. Barcelona: Anthropos, 2004.
LÓPEZ R., M. A. The Faces of Evil Today. In: GÓMEZ-NOVELLA, A. D. (Dir.) Mystery of Evil and Christian Faith. Valencia: Tirant Humanidades, 2012. pp. 19-50.
METZ, J. B. Beyond Bourgeois Religion. Salamanca: Sígueme, 1982.
MONTERO, S. (Coord.) The Faces of Evil. University Institute of Religious Sciences. Madrid: Khaf, 2010. Review: De Cossio, P. M. ‘Ilu. Journal of Religious Sciences, no. 16, 2011, pp. 337-340. Available at: https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/ILUR/article/view/37718/36501 Accessed on: Aug 20, 2014.
MOSER, A. Structural Sin. In: COMPAGNONI, F.; PIANA, G.; PRIVITERA, S. (Dirs.) New Dictionary of Moral Theology. Madrid: Paulinas, 1992. pp. 1369-1383.
NEBEL, Mathias. The Moral Category of Structural Sin: An Essay in Systematic Theology. Madrid: Trotta, 2011.
RICOEUR, P. Evil: A Challenge to Philosophy and Theology. Madrid: Amorrortu, 2006. (reprinted 2007).
_____. Finitude and Guilt (includes the works L’homme faillible and La symbolique du mal). Madrid: Trotta, 2004.
RUBIO, M. Our Daily Evil. Moralia: Journal of Moral Sciences, vol. 22, no. 82-83 (Apr-Sep 1999), pp. 151-172.
SAFRANSKI, R. Evil or the Drama of Freedom. Barcelona: Tusquets, 2005.
SARMIENTO, A. Social Sin. Scripta Theologica, vol. 19, 1987, pp. 869-881.
STIGLITZ E. J. The Price of Inequality. The 1% of the Population Has What the 99% Need. Bogotá: Aguilar, Altea, Taurus, Alfaguara, 2012.
TAMAYO-ACOSTA, J. Good Friday in the Welfare Society. The Experience of Evil from the Perspective of the Victims. Moralia, vol. 22, 1999, pp. 223-252.
TORRES, A. The Concrete Realization of Hope: Evil from the Cross and Resurrection. Theologica Xaveriana, vol. 154, 2005a, pp. 267-292.
______. Rethinking Evil. From Ponerology to Theodicy. Madrid: Trotta, 2011.
VIDAL, M. Structural Moral Evil. Hermeneutical Place of Moral Responsibility and Ethical Values. In: GÓMEZ-NOVELLA, A. D. (Dir.) Mystery of Evil and Christian Faith. Valencia: Tirant Humanidades, 2012. pp. 261-292.
WOLFENSONHN, J. D. President of the World Bank Group. Speech to the Board of Governors, Prague, Czech Republic, September 26, 2000. Available at: https://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/11/12/000334955_20091112040027/Rendered/PDF/ATTAZNN7.pdf Accessed on: Dec 5, 2014.
For further reading
ABINGDON, O. The Origin of Our Knowledge of Right and Wrong. New York: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009.
ALBERTOS, J. E. Evil in the Philosophy of Will by Paul Ricoeur. Pamplona: University of Navarra, EUNSA, 2008.
ARENDT, H. The Human Condition. Castilian translation by Ramón Gil Novales. Barcelona: Paidós, 2002.
AYAN, S. Beyond Evil. Mind and Brain, no. 52, Jan-Feb 2012, pp. 75-77.
BARAHONA, A. The Problem of Evil in R. Girard. Religion and Culture, vol. 44, no. 206, Jul-Sep 1998, pp. 513-536.
BOTERO, A. G. Radical Evil and the Banality of Evil. The Two Faces of the Horror of Totalitarian Regimes from the Perspective of Hannah Arendt. Universitas Philosophica, vol. 30, no. 60, Jan-Jun 2013, pp. 99-126.
CARBONELL, J. A Reflection on the Problem of Evil. Revista Javeriana, vol. 95, no. 471, Jan-Feb 1981, pp. 53-59.
CARDONA, L. F. Evil and Human Suffering: A Philosophical Approach to a Classic Problem. Bogotá: PUJ, 2013.
CASTILLO, M. Reality and Transcendence in the Approach to the Problem of Evil According to Xavier Zubiri. Doctoral thesis (Philosophy), PUG, Rome, 1997.
CE.DO. MEI. Religions and the Problem of Evil. Livorno: Pharus, 2014. pp. 31-44.
COOPER, T. D. The Dimensions of Evil: Contemporary Perspectives. Bilbao: Mensajero, 2009.
DÍAZ, J. A. Sources of Evil. Bogotá: National University of Colombia, 2012.
DUQUOC, Ch. O.P. Evil, Enigma of Good. Theological Selections, vol. 130, no. 118, Apr-Jun 1991, pp. 83-90.
ECHEVERRÍA, J. Science of Good and Evil. Barcelona: Herder, 2007.
FABRIS, A. Religions as a Response to the Problem of Evil: A Philosophical Approach. In: Ce.Do. MEI. Livorno: Pharus, 2014. pp. 31-44.
FRAIJÓ, M. God. Evil and Other Essays. Madrid: Trotta, 2004.
HAAG, H. The Problem of Evil. Barcelona: Herder, 1981.
LATOURELLE, R. Moral Evil. In: Latourelle, R.; FISICHELLA, R. Dictionary of Fundamental Theology. Madrid: Paulinas, 1992. pp. 849-858.
Marcel, N. The Enigma of Evil. Cantabria: Sal Terrae, 2010.
MATHIAS, N. Philosophical-Theological Perspectives on the Work of Hannah Arendt. Moralia: Journal of Moral Sciences, vol. 24, vol. 3, no. 89, Jan-Mar 2001, pp. 119-140.
NEIRA, E. S.J. Teilhardian Problems II: The Problem of Evil and Sin. Revista Javeriana, vol. 75, no. 372, Mar 1971, pp. 169-181.
NEUSCH, M. The Enigma of Evil. Maliaño, Cantabria: Sal Terrae, 2010. 216 N38.
PEÑA, J. Evil for Ricoeur. 2nd Notebooks of Philosophical Yearbook, U. de N. Available at: https://www.unav.es/filosofia/publicaciones/cuadernos/serieuniversitaria/ Accessed on: Jul 5, 2014.
PÉREZ, F. J. S.J. The Problem of Evil Re-examined. Revista Estudios Eclesiásticos vol. 66, no. 256, 1991, pp. 67-86.
QUESADA, J. Philosophy and Evil. Madrid: Synthesis, 2004.
SEGUNDO, J. L. S.J. Evolution and Guilt. Buenos Aires: Lohle, 1972.
SERRANO DE HARO, A. On the Triviality of Evil. As an Introduction to the Thought of Hannah Arendt. Deusto Letters vol. 27, no. 74, Jan-Mar 1997, pp. 25-41.
SOLOVYOV, V. S. The Justification of Good: An Essay in Moral Philosophy. Salamanca: Sígueme, 2011.
TAMAYO-ACOSTA, J. J. Evil. Theological Moral Dimensions. Moralia: Journal of Moral Sciences, vol. 22, no. 82-8, Apr-Sep 1999, pp. 223-252.
TORRES, A. The Fundamental Structure of Biblical Hope. Theologica Xaveriana, vol. 154, 2005b, pp. 227-252.
ZIMBARDO, P. G. The Lucifer Effect: The Why of Evil. Barcelona: Paidós, 2008.
[1] “Evil is in the oldest myths as a power whose roots are in primordial chaos or in the realms of the divine. It belongs, as M. Eliade said, to the world of religion and surpasses the possibilities of human knowledge and action until, in modern times, it begins to undergo a process of secularization.” (Montero, 2010, 6-7)
[2] “The decision to enter the problem of evil through the narrow door of human reality therefore expresses only the choice of a central perspective (…) It will be objected that the choice of this perspective is arbitrary, that it is, in a strong sense of the word, a prejudice. Absolutely not. The decision to face evil from the point of view of man and his freedom is not an arbitrary choice, but one that is adequate to the very nature of the problem.” (RICOEUR, 2004, p. 14).
[3] Doctor in Theology from the Pontifical Xavierian University, Master in Theology, Pontifical Xavierian University, Specialist in Bioethics, Pontifical Xavierian University, Bachelor in Religious Sciences, Pontifical Xavierian University. Professor of Moral Theology at the Faculty of Theology, Pontifical Xavierian University – Bogotá. Email: maria.gil@javeriana.edu.co