Why Do Children Suffer? The Most Difficult Question
Perhaps no question challenges faith more than the suffering of innocent children. Cancer. Abuse. War. Starvation. How do wisdom traditions address this ultimate theodicy?
Moderator: Let's be honest from the start: this may be the hardest question religious traditions face. A child with cancer. A baby dying of starvation. Sexual abuse. How do your traditions approach this?
Rabbi Levy: Judaism doesn't offer easy answers because there aren't any. The Book of Job directly addresses innocent suffering—and God's response isn't an explanation. It's "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"
That's unsatisfying to modern ears. But perhaps the point is: some suffering has no explanation. The question isn't "why" but "what now?"
When children suffer, we're called to respond—to comfort, to heal, to prevent, to rage against it. Not to explain it away.
Fr. Rohr: Christian theology has wrestled with this forever. Some say suffering is God's will—which makes God monstrous. Others say God allows it for mysterious reasons—which isn't much better.
I've come to believe: God doesn't will or allow suffering. God suffers with us. The cross isn't God punishing Jesus but God entering human pain fully.
When a child suffers, God is present in that suffering, weeping with the parents, holding the child. Not causing it. Not preventing it mysteriously. But present in it.
That doesn't answer "why." But it addresses "where is God?"
Buddhist Representative: Buddhism begins differently: suffering (dukkha) is the first noble truth. It's built into existence. Not as punishment but as condition.
Children suffer for the same reasons adults do—illness, accident, other people's cruelty, the nature of conditioned existence. There's no cosmic justice requiring an explanation.
This may sound cold, but it's actually compassionate. It's not that suffering children did something wrong in past lives or that God is testing them. It's that suffering is part of being alive.
Our response: reduce suffering wherever possible. Cultivate compassion. Work for justice.
Dr. Mattson: Islam teaches that this life is a test—but what's being tested isn't the suffering child. What's tested is how we respond to suffering.
When we see a child suffering, the question isn't "why did God allow this?" It's "what is my responsibility?" Feed the hungry. Care for the sick. Protect the vulnerable. Stop the abuse.
Islam also teaches that those who suffer innocently, especially children, are not accountable for sins and will be with Allah in the hereafter. This life isn't everything.
That may not satisfy Western thinking, but it provides comfort to many: this suffering is temporary; justice comes.
Dr. Pargament: From a psychological perspective, I study how people actually cope with this question, regardless of what theology says.
What I find: intellectual answers rarely satisfy parents whose child is suffering. What helps is:
- Community surrounding them
- Practices that give them something to do
- Meaning-making that allows them to continue living
- Sometimes, anger at God—which is still relationship
The parents who do worst are those who blame themselves or who have their faith tell them they must accept this without question.
Moderator: So should we say suffering is random? That God isn't in control?
Fr. Rohr: I think we've misunderstood power and control. If God is the puppeteer making every event happen, then yes, God is responsible for children's suffering—and that's monstrous.
But what if God's power isn't control but love? What if God created a world with genuine freedom—and freedom means the possibility of great evil alongside great good?
God doesn't micromanage. The universe operates by certain laws. Humans have free will. Tragedies occur. God doesn't prevent each one—but God is present in each one.
Rabbi Levy: I'll add: sometimes the question "why" is the wrong question. A parent whose child is sick doesn't need philosophical answers. They need help. They need community. They need hope.
Judaism is very practical. When someone suffers, you don't theologize—you show up. You bring a meal. You sit with them. You help however you can.
The answer to suffering isn't an explanation—it's a response.
Buddhist Representative: The Buddha refused to answer metaphysical questions that didn't reduce suffering. "Why does suffering exist?" doesn't help. "How can we reduce it?" does.
For children suffering: provide medical care, ensure safety, offer love, work to prevent future suffering. This is more valuable than any explanation.
Dr. Mattson: I agree that explanation falls short. But meaning still matters. In Islamic tradition, we believe:
- This life isn't the only life
- Justice will ultimately prevail
- Suffering isn't wasted—it counts
Parents can bear unbearable things if they believe it means something, even if they don't understand what.
Moderator: What about the argument: if God is all-powerful and all-loving, children wouldn't suffer?
Dr. Pargament: This is the classic theodicy problem. Let me offer what different people conclude:
Some modify "all-powerful": God is limited by natural law or human freedom.
Some modify "all-loving": God loves in ways we don't understand, including through suffering.
Some modify "suffering is bad": Perhaps it serves purposes we can't see.
Some abandon God: If this is how God operates, I want nothing to do with God.
All are legitimate responses to irreducible mystery.
Fr. Rohr: I'll say what may be controversial: I don't think God is "all-powerful" in the way we've imagined. Not a cosmic magician who could eliminate all suffering with a snap.
I think God is all-loving—and love doesn't coerce. Love allows freedom. Freedom means risk.
God's power is the power to be present in suffering, to redeem it, to bring resurrection from death. Not the power to prevent every tragedy.
Rabbi Levy: Judaism has multiple voices on this. Some maintain God's absolute sovereignty—everything is from God. Others see more human agency. Still others admit mystery.
What's consistent: we don't blame the victim. We don't say the child deserved it. We don't theologize away their pain.
We sit with them in it. And we fight like hell to prevent and reduce suffering.
Moderator: How should someone who's watching a child suffer hold their faith?
Buddhist Representative: Don't pretend to understand what you don't. Admit: this is terrible. I hate it. And I don't know why.
From that honest place, do what you can. Be present. Practice compassion. Don't add suffering by demanding answers that don't exist.
Dr. Mattson: Cry out to Allah if you need to. That's allowed. Job questioned. The Prophet grieved deeply when his son died.
Your faith doesn't require accepting this cheerfully. It requires trusting that somehow, in ways you can't see, this isn't the end of the story.
Fr. Rohr: Let yourself be angry. Let yourself question. Don't perform piety you don't feel.
And if you can, stay in relationship—even furious relationship—with God. Better angry prayer than no prayer.
Rabbi Levy: Show up. For the child if you can. For the family. Bring food. Offer help. Sit in silence.
Sometimes the answer to "why" is "I don't know." But the answer to "what now" is always "love."
Dr. Pargament: From research, what helps people maintain faith through this:
- Community that doesn't demand false cheer
- Practices that connect them to the sacred
- Permission to be angry and questioning
- Meaning that incorporates, not denies, the suffering
- Seeing others who've survived similar tragedy
It's not about having the right answers. It's about having support for staying engaged with questions.
This roundtable was facilitated by the Calm Faith Circle. No easy answers emerged—because none exist.