Human Redemptive Suffering in the Catechism

In the Roman Catholic tradition, human suffering is distinct from, yet participatory in, Christ’s. This view is expressed throughout the Catechism of the Catholic Church, scripture, theological writings, and the lives of the saints. To begin with, the Catechism outlines the relationship between human suffering and Christ’s suffering: “For those who die in Christ’s grace, it is a participation in the death of the Lord, so that they can also share in his Resurrection” (Catholic Church 1997, sec. 569). While here the Catechism of the Catholic Church reemphasizes the relationship between Jesus’s suffering and salvation, it also proclaims the invitation to humanity to share in Jesus’s suffering and thus share in salvation.

Redemptive Human Suffering in Scripture

Sharing in Christ’s suffering is also evident in scripture. Jesus shared in others’ suffering, and others shared in his suffering. He was not crucified alone but rather between two others who were also condemned (Luke 23:32–33 NABRE). Likewise, according to scripture, as Christ lay upon the cross, Mary, his mother, stayed by his side (John 19:25 NABRE). She accompanied him in his suffering, sharing in it. Her suffering, though human, was “a special sort of sharing in the redeeming death of her Son” (John Paul II 1987, para. 25). It “was mysterious and supernaturally fruitful for the redemption of the world” (John Paul 1984). This is a key example of shared suffering—where two or more individuals experience a similar suffering, with their suffering serving as sources of redemption for others. While John Paul II upholds Mary’s suffering as redemptive, he makes it clear that her suffering is a sharing in Christ’s suffering. She is not co-redeemer but rather Mother of the Redeemer (John Paul II 1987, para. 1) and a “model in faith hope and charity” (John Paul II 1987, para. 2). In the Catholic view, humanity is invited, like Mary, to share in the suffering of Christ. This theme of shared suffering is indeed prevalent throughout scripture.

In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, for example, he teaches that suffering can bear fruit for others when it is united to Christ’s own suffering:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . who encourages us in our every affliction, so that we may be able to encourage those who are in any affliction with the encouragement with which we ourselves are encouraged by God. For as Christ’s sufferings overflow to us, so through Christ does our encouragement also overflow. If we are afflicted, it is for your encouragement and salvation; if we are encouraged, it is for your encouragement, which enables you to endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is firm, for we know that as you share in the sufferings, you also share in the encouragement. (2 Corinthians 1:3–7 NABRE)

Here, Paul highlights the meaning of human suffering in that it is a participation in Christ’s suffering. He also points to the intersection of theology and psychology, where embracing one’s own suffering leads to strength in helping others endure their suffering. This seems to be an acknowledgment of the natural way in which one’s endurance of suffering can strengthen another person.

This passage opens the door to further inquiry into how the theological reality of redemptive suffering might be reflected in the very design of the human person. The mystery, in other words, is embodied in the human person and thus may support one’s understanding of the redemptive value of human suffering.

Theology of Redemptive, Human Suffering

Roman Catholic theologians have also explored human suffering, recognizing it as “inseparable from man’s earthly existence” (John Paul II 1984, sec. 3). It is understood to be a consequence of evil (John Paul II 1984, sec. 7) and not “of fault” (John Paul II 1984, sec. 11). As such, suffering “strikes the innocent” and is thus not a considered a punishment for sin (John Paul II 1984, sec. 12). It is recognized that suffering can be physical, psychological, and spiritual (John Paul II 1984).

In this perspective, it is an obligation “both in justice and in love” to “do whatever we can to reduce suffering” (Benedict XVI 2007b, sec. 36); yet, it is also acknowledged that we “cannot eliminate it” (Benedict XVI 2007b, sec. 37). This call is quite nuanced, though. In addition to striving to alleviate the suffering of others, Benedict XVI (2007b, sec. 37) explains, we should recognize that our own healing will not be fostered from “withdrawing from anything that might involve hurt” but “rather by our capacity for accepting it, maturing through it and finding meaning through union with Christ, who suffered with infinite love.” As such, in this perspective, suffering is not something that can be avoided, but by enduring it, we allow for growth and healing.

Such theology also acknowledges the potential for human suffering to foster growth for others. It is noted that “not only is the Redemption accomplished through suffering, but also human suffering itself has been redeemed” (John Paul II 1984, sec. 19). Tapping into the human experience, John Paul II (1984, sec. 4) states that “human suffering evokes compassion.” He further describes human suffering as a “call for communion and solidarity,” as “people who suffer become similar to one another through the analogy of their situation, the trial of their destiny, or through their need for understanding and care, and perhaps above all through the persistent question of the meaning of suffering” (John Paul II 1984, sec. 8). Importantly, he proposes that “love is . . . the fullest source of the answer to the question of the meaning of suffering” (John Paul II 1984, sec. 13). These writings suggest that because of love, suffering indeed has meaning. It opens one’s hearts to the suffering and needs of others and unites those who share common sufferings.

Benedict XVI further emphasizes that enduring suffering is transformative for others, emphasizing the role of finding meaning in suffering. He writes:

[T]he individual cannot accept another’s suffering unless he personally is able to find meaning in suffering, a path of purification and growth in maturity, a journey of hope. Indeed, to accept the “other” who suffers, means that I take up his suffering in such a way that it becomes mine also. Because it has now become a shared suffering, though, in which another person is present, this suffering is penetrated by the light of love. The Latin word con-solatio, “consolation”, expresses this beautifully. It suggests being with the other in his solitude, so that it ceases to be solitude. (Benedict XVI 2007b, sec. 38)

Such theology, again, characterizes the path by which suffering becomes redemptive. It involves an acceptance of it out of love and an encounter with its meaning. It involves the sharing of suffering with others—a recognition of others’ suffering alongside one’s own suffering.

Witnessing the suffering of another is also understood to evoke compassion from others. John Paul II (1984, sec. 29) writes: “Suffering, which is present under so many different forms in our human world, is also present in order to unleash love in the human person, that unselfish gift of one’s ‘I’ on behalf of other people, especially those who suffer. The world of human suffering unceasingly calls for, so to speak, another world: the world of human love; and in a certain sense man owes to suffering that unselfish love which stirs in his heart and actions.” This demonstrates that suffering might evoke a response of compassion and love from others.

Modern-day scholars have also contributed to the theology of human suffering. Stuart Jesson (2024), for example, explores the role of sharing attitudes in finding meaning in suffering. He proposes that humanity is invited to share concern with, not just for, others. Jesson (2014, 2017) suggests that suffering evokes compassion, which relies on attention and receptivity. This work aligns with John Paul II’s (1984, sec. 29) assertion that suffering evokes unselfish love and that love is the ultimate source of meaning in suffering. It further aligns with Benedict XVI’s (2007b) discussion of being with others in their suffering, with this “being with” plausibly relying upon attentional resources.

It is thus clear that in the Catholic tradition, human suffering is redemptive—not only for the one who suffers but also for others—because it participates in the paschal mystery: the death and resurrection of Christ, who is believed by Christians to be love incarnate (Benedict XVI 2005, sec. 12).

Redemptive, Human Suffering in the Lives of Christian Saints

The intrinsic relationship between suffering and salvation is not only central to scripture but is also manifested in the lived experience of heroic individuals, including, but not limited to, those recognized by the Catholic Church as saints. These individuals are “sources of wisdom and courage, witnessed through their actions, writings, and spirituality” (Osgood 2023). Many saints found meaning in their suffering through their faith and thus embraced their suffering, noting how it strengthened them. Through their suffering, they reported having found greater identification with Christ and the poor.

Venerable Dorothy Day is known for her sacrificial devotion and active commitment to the poor during the mid-twentieth century. Her life as well as her words bore witness to a desire for sacrificial love. She wrote, for instance, “I want to be poor, chaste, and obedient. I want to die in order to live” (Day 1948, 75). Immersed in the hardships of the poor, she endured cold, relentless domestic labor and the emotional and material challenges of raising a child in poverty. These sufferings, she reflected, allowed her little “time to think of self, either, or comfort—physical, spiritual, or mental” (Day 1948, 75). This, she concluded, was ultimately “good too,” since the “‘Self’ is the great enemy” (Day 1948, 75). For Day (1948), true discipleship required self-denial, the taking up of one’s cross, and faithful following of Christ.

Day’s suffering not only drew her closer to Christ but also opened her heart to her mission. Her life of voluntary poverty gave her intimate insight into the material and emotional trials of the poor, shaping her response to their needs with authentic compassion and love (Day 2017). Day, together with her friend Peter Maurin, founded the Catholic Worker Movement, an activist movement devoted to ministering to the needs of the poor and homeless. Her suffering, it seems, strengthened her and her work, which continues its impact today.

Another individual whose actions and life reflect redemptive suffering is Saint Charles de Foucauld. This French soldier and Catholic priest embraced redemptive suffering through his life of radical simplicity and solitude among the Tuareg people in the Sahara. His writings suggest a deep theological understanding of suffering. “Suffering,” he wrote, “detaches [one] from the world and lifts up [one’s] gaze to Christ” (de Foucauld 1977). For de Foucauld, suffering fostered his relationship with Christ. Blessed Charles de Foucauld ultimately suffered a violent death at the hands of the very people he sought to serve—an act of solidarity that paralleled the vulnerability and violence experienced by those among whom he lived (Bazin 1923). His life inspired many communities which were, and are still today, devoted to solidarity and presence among the poor and suffering.

Saint Teresa of Calcutta, known for her ministry to the poor and dying in India, also exemplified redemptive suffering in her ministry to the “poorest of the poor.” Her writings reveal a prolonged interior darkness, a sense that “the place of God in [her] soul [was] blank” (Mother Teresa and Kolodiejchuk 2007). Yet, in this darkness, she entered more deeply into Christ’s own abandonment and poverty. Saint Teresa of Calcutta’s experience of deep interior desolation, during which she experienced a sense of abandonment by God and an unrelenting thirst for God’s love (Mother Teresa and Kolodiejchuk 2007), was a suffering she shared with the poor whom she loved and served. This interior crucible is linked to the fruitfulness of her mission among the destitute. She was canonized in 2016, and hundreds of homes for the poor around the world were established through her work.

The lives of heroic individuals such as these saints might reflect the Apostle Paul’s exhortation: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1 NABRE). These individuals embraced suffering in union with Christ’s redemptive suffering on the cross. Their suffering became a pathway to transformation, drawing their hearts toward the eternal: “[F]or what is seen is transitory, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18). In them, the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection was embodied, as they were “constantly being given up to death for the sake of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in [their] mortal flesh” (2 Corinthians 4:11 NABRE). Through such suffering, they found new life in Christ (Matthew 16:25 NABRE). As such, the saints’ suffering became sources of growth for them and fruitfulness for others.

Yet more, in examining the lives of the saints and their suffering, it is apparent that their suffering was often a suffering with—a profound solidarity with those to whom they ministered. It is also plausible that the sufferings of the saints oriented them towards their mission. For example, if Saint Theresa of Calcutta endured a sense of abandonment by God, she likely desired communion with him and identified with the suffering of the abandoned whom she served. In turn, she may have been more driven to alleviate such suffering, knowing as she did the pain of it.

This might be compared to the thirst experienced by Christ on the cross, with this thirst proposed to be related to a thirst for the fulfillment of the will of God (Tabb 2013). This thirst also reflects his previous suffering in the desert (Matthew 4:1–11 NABRE). Indeed, the saints’ personal suffering was often tied to their unique gift—or rather, fruitfulness—in the world.

Forms of Human Suffering and Their Consequences

Christ’s suffering is understood to encompass all human suffering, which assumes various forms and has a range of consequences. Human suffering manifests in physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions. Causes of human suffering include the effects of natural disasters, accidents, and illness. Like Christ’s suffering, human suffering is also sometimes the result of the harmful actions of others, and such suffering can be perpetuated by systemic injustices such as poverty, discrimination, and violence (Galtung 1969; Farmer 2004; Homan, Brown, and King 2021).

Human suffering also ranges in intensity from mild to severe, with its consequences on the human person also varying in intensity. More intense forms of suffering include oppression, poverty, long-term illness, and disability. It should be noted that cases of extreme suffering, such as those referred to as trauma and adversity, are often immensely harmful to the human person, adversely impacting cognition (e.g., Schwabe et al. 2012), emotion regulation (Tottenham et al. 2010), and physical health (Flaherty et al. 2006). In some cases, trauma elicits a decline in religious beliefs (Leo et al. 2021), thereby inducing what is referred to as spiritual suffering.

Such intense suffering has been shown to have a physiological impact as well. It predicts less activity in the prefrontal cortex, impaired decision-making, and increased risk for neuropsychiatric disorder (Weber and Reynolds 2004). Chronic trauma can even interfere with empathy (Levy et al. 2019). As such, Catholic social teaching rightly calls for urgent action to alleviate human suffering (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2025). Recognizing human suffering as redemptive in that it is united with Christ’s suffering does not reduce its adverse, often serious, consequences. While suffering can often have adverse consequences for the human person, it also can foster intrapersonal growth. Such growth has been shown for suffering caused by illness, natural disasters, accidents, and even the harmful actions of others (Tedeschi and Calhoun 2004; Hartley et al. 2016; Rahayu, Hamidah, and Hendriani 2019). In psychological literature, such suffering and its antecedents are often referred to as trauma (Krupnik 2019). Research shows that interventions are effective in promoting positive intrapersonal change, or what is referred to as posttraumatic growth—thereby suggesting that learned mechanisms play a role (Roepke 2015). Yet, genetic (Dunn et al. 2014; Dell’Osso et al. 2023) as well as affective and cognitive factors (Linley and Joseph 2004) have also been shown to impact the likelihood of one experiencing posttraumatic growth. Multiple perspectives have theorized about the relationship between the adverse and positive consequences of suffering, leading to the conclusion that the effects of suffering are multifaceted, and thus both positive and negative effects can occur within the same individual (Dekel, Mandl, and Solomon 2011). Moreover, it is important to note that reduction in suffering and growth from suffering are two distinct outcomes. Scientific evidence on aspects of suffering and the mechanisms of its potential positive consequences are discussed in the following section.

Existing Research Demonstrating the Role of Religion in Coping

It should be noted that existing research demonstrates the role of religious belief and practices in alleviating the burden of suffering (Pargament, Koenig, and Perez 2000), likely due to processes related to forgiveness, support, spiritual connection, and religious reappraisal (Pargament et al. 1998; Pargament 2011). Extensive work also demonstrates the ways in which religious and spiritual-based practices offer effective treatment for religious, spiritual, and mental health struggles (Exline 2013; Pargament and Exline 2021). Such interventions include emotional disclosure to God, surrender, religious imagery, and fellowship with others (Exline 2013). In one study, activation of existing religious belief via presentation of religious imagery reduced pain perception by recruiting neural regions involved in top-down regulatory processes (Wiech et al. 2008). Other work shares personal accounts of how religious belief has offered strength during times of suffering (Koenig 2013). Further, effective religious and spiritual practices may arise from spiritual struggles, thereby pointing to the role of spiritual struggle in wellbeing (Pargament, Wong, and Exline 2016). While existing research demonstrates the potential for growth from religious and spiritual beliefs, practices, and struggles. Yet psychological studies, beyond those examining the role of religion and spirituality, may conceptually reflect Roman Catholic beliefs regarding redemptive suffering and thus, offer insight into this mystery.

Intrapersonal Growth and Resilience

The Christian belief is that Christ was, in a sense, strengthened by what he suffered. Although he died on the cross, through his suffering, he destroyed death (2 Timothy 1:10) and accomplished God’s will (Luke 22:42), which is his food (John 4:34). Though distinct, human suffering also has potential to strengthen an individual.

Research in psychology demonstrates that one’s own suffering can serve as a catalyst for positive intrapersonal change. Overall, though, studies consistently demonstrate that depending on how an individual copes with or adapts to a particular suffering, they may subsequently perceive more meaning in life, find greater joy in mundane moments, and shift priorities to increase participation in more meaningful activities such as spending time with loved ones (Tedeschi and Calhoun 2004).

Those who adapt to or cope with suffering may also develop more meaningful interpersonal relationships (Bastian, Jetten, and Ferris 2014) and may find themselves more empathetic towards others who endure similar sufferings (Frazier et al. 2013). Growth in spiritual and existential domains is also possible, as some individuals who have endured past suffering engage more deeply with existential questions (Tedeschi et al. 2017). This aligns with the suffering of saints such as de Foucauld (1977), who expresses that his sufferings detached him from worldly goods and lifted his gaze towards God. It also may explain the relationship between the saints’ suffering and the fruitfulness of their mission. Psychological findings reinforce the following: as the saints’ suffering increased, so too did their empathy towards others who experienced similar sufferings, and thus, their motivation to alleviate such suffering may have increased as well. This may also reflect Jesus’s proclamation of thirst while on the cross, which has been taken as a longing for the fulfillment of God’s will (Tabb 2013).

Similar to these findings, researchers have also found that a low-to-moderate degree of stress (which we take here as a form of suffering) can actually physiologically inoculate the sufferer against future stressors. Such adverse experiences equip individuals to face future challenges. Specifically, enduring a moderate level of stress can, under certain conditions, lead to a reduction in the release of the stress hormone, cortisol, in response to future stressors (Brockhurst et al. 2015). It can also promote cognitive processing that fosters resilience (Bemath, Cockcroft, and Theron 2020). Although it is important to acknowledge that suffering can, and often does, have negative consequences; it is also possible to be physiologically and psychologically strengthened in and through suffering. This aligns with Benedict XVI’s (2007b) assertion that we will not be healed by avoiding hurt but by accepting suffering and recognizing meaning in it. It aligns further with the Christian belief in the mystery of death and resurrection by which Christ’s suffering and death led to new life (John Paul II 1979; Van Nieuwenhove 2005). On a natural level, one’s own suffering can, when oriented towards it properly, lead to healing.

Meaning in Suffering

The Roman Catholic view is that both Christ’s suffering and human suffering have meaning (John Paul II 1984, para. 20). Recognizing such meaning in suffering can in turn strengthen the one who suffers. In psychology, the discovery of meaning (Joseph, Murphy, and Regel 2012) in suffering—a concept closely aligned with Viktor Frankl’s theory of logotherapy—is one of the most prominent pathways to post-traumatic growth. Frankl, an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist, endured the loss of his father, mother, and brother in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. A survivor himself, he later established a private clinical practice and ministered to many fellow Holocaust survivors. Through this work, he developed logotherapy, a therapeutic approach in which a patient is “confronted with and reoriented toward the meaning in his life” (Frankl 2006, 153). He recounts the story of a man grieving the loss of his wife during the Holocaust. When Frankl asked what would have happened if he had died first, the man realized that his wife would have been left to suffer instead. This recognition—that his own loss spared her suffering—transformed his pain into purposeful sacrifice. Frankl (1006, 117) concludes that suffering “ceases to become suffering as soon as we form a clear and precise picture of it,” suggesting that finding meaning in suffering alleviates its burden.

This aligns with Benedict XVI’s (XVI 2007b) assertion that finding meaning in suffering is a path to hope. Further, love, or for Christians, the belief in Christ and his offering on the cross, is itself an endowed meaning (and for Christians, the ultimate meaning). As such, an orientation towards love and/or belief in the redeeming power of love may serve to foster the process of finding meaning in suffering, thereby enhancing growth from such suffering. Contemporary psychological research has continued to develop this insight. Modern therapists often guide clients in reauthoring their life narratives, emphasizing moments of resilience and personal growth in the aftermath of trauma. In this process, individuals are not only encouraged to find meaning in their suffering but are also empowered through it. This therapeutic method echoes the Christian belief that suffering has potential to lead to positive transformation. Christian theology points to love as the ultimate meaning of suffering. Such perspective may further enlighten the therapeutic process of finding meaning in suffering. One might be asked, for example, how one’s suffering expands one’s capacity to love or potentially alleviates the burdens of others either via increased empathy or insight into practical solutions to problems.