EMPIRICAL NOTIONS OF SUFFERING

By: Rito V. Baring, Ed.D.

Religious Education Vol. 105 No. 2 March–April

Through exploratory factor analysis, the survey administered to some 300 tertiary
students in three universities within and near Manila identified a two-factor structure. The first
factor shows the strongly religious orientation of the student mindset. This factor is deeply
charged with religious sentiments (e.g., religious hope). This construct pours a significant insight
into human suffering as a gift (“Suffering is God’s gift to us”), a shared experience of Christ’s
suffering, and a measure of divine test. This explains the subjective experience of the person in
relation to suffering. It is a “gift” because it is given as an opportunity for the person to share in
Christ’s suffering. To suffer is to share in the sufferings of Christ (“We experience Christ’s
suffering when we suffer”). This sharing constitutes what human suffering as a gift is all about:
that it is sanctifying. It is sanctifying because Jesus’ suffering cannot be separated from
salvation. There is an underlying notion that Human suffering is at once redemptive just as Jesus’
suffering was (Catholic Faith Catechism #446 in CBCP 2005). This sharing in Christ’s
sufferings, which is at once salvific, makes human suffering reasonable and meaningful. Where
suffering is meaningful, it begets sentiments of gratitude in the person despite the difficulty and
pain involved. Overall, this component addresses the traditional Christian theological construct
that human suffering is meaningful. This cluster rejects innocent human suffering.
To say that human suffering is a test for the individual appears to elaborate the divine
proposition from the student’s viewpoint. The human experience of suffering as “gift” also finds
meaning as a “test.” While the “gift” of suffering forms character in the person (“I develop
character through human suffering”), it is human suffering as “test” that promotes the challenge
for the person to be strong. Human testing is for strengthening rather than destruction. Hence,
reflecting from Christ’s experience (“Suffering is an enlightening human experience”), suffering
is also seen as a divine gift and test. Here suffering assumes a new character: that of “gift” and
“test.” Suffering is seen not in contrast to Christ’s experience but “in relation to” Christ’s
suffering.
The strong relationship of “absence of faith,” “original sin,” and “reform” provides the
reflective function of the construct. It locates the identities of suffering as gift and test. Human
suffering is an invitation for the person to reflect. Within the reflective mode, the person is
brought into an appreciation (understanding) of the sufferings of others (“By suffering we learn
to understand others”). “Understanding” in this sense refers to the act of identifying with the
suffering of others. Somehow this experience brings the individual in close communion with
those who share the same negative experience. Suffering has a consoling effect on the person and
makes the person happy.
Human suffering is appreciated in terms of the person’s relationship with God. Hence it is
an issue of faith. The first instance of suffering is absence of faith (cause of suffering). The second
instance is the absence of divine grace (cause of suffering). Absence of faith also means the
absence of divine grace (God). Since “absence of faith” and “absence of divine grace” are seen as

1
“causes” of human suffering, the reverse idea could also be true. If the person has faith and receives
divine grace in his/her life, that individual may not have to suffer. Within the framework of this
understanding, the need for faith and divine grace (e.g., God) is appreciated within the context of
human suffering. Given these expressed needs, suffering is a time to embrace faith and find God.
This component shows off the interfacing between one’s real experiences of suffering and the need
for God. For a young Filipino, finding God and embracing the faith are occasions for reform and
conversion. The emerging mindset in this construct is that those who suffer are invited to reform
(purpose). The respondents’ religious bias appears to have dictated the character of this factor.
Human suffering reflects the human desire to meet with God. This factor sustains the
religious bearing of their attitudes. It speaks of the human travails marked by a deep longing to
encounter the divine because of the realization of the need for God. There are three sides to the
human prayer in the context of human suffering: Asking God for strength (effect), turning to God
for help (effect), and surrendering to God (effect). These three instances bespeaks of the human
longing for an assurance. Here prayer is the human expression of a faith that identifies God with
certain favors needed to face life. The first two (strength and help) appear to serve the temporal
side of human life while the third expresses the longing of the spirit before God.
The second factor describes the human dimension of suffering. Within the human
dimension, the students’ uniquely positive attitudes toward suffering are highly noticeable. The
human struggle to overcome the harsh realities of life provides a firm back draft to this optimistic
cluster. Here the nature of human suffering and the inner human resolve to reach out to God are
identified.
The students believed that the time of suffering is a time to be strong, to gather strength.
But this gathering of strength cannot be a purely personal effort because God remains to be the
force necessary for exigencies related to suffering. An effective antidote to a moment of weakness
is strength. Apparently, it suggested that strength is not to be extracted from the self but from God.
This factor is well introduced by the first factor; the youth struggle in the midst of suffering speaks
of an embedded longing for the divine (first factor). Suffering in this picture is not an end in itself.
It brings the person to a journey with God (first factor). It is the beginning of a dialogue with God
marked by the young person’s struggle seeking to bring his/her case before God. The desire for
dialogue is signaled by “turning to God,” “asking God,” and “praying to God” in the statements.
Within this construct is to be found the positive orientation of the respondents’ attitudes. Without
discounting the harsh conditions associated with the experience, this factor presents optimistic
human sentiments over the painful experience. It describes the human struggle to overcome the
harsh realities of life. The significant negative relationship shown to frustration (–.33) and giving
up (–.42) reinforces this inner youthful drive to master the sad impact of suffering. It is consoling
to note that failures (–.36), disappointments (–.34), or not finding joy in small things (–.44) do not
essentially define their subjective experience of suffering. What appears here is a blend of youthful
idealism inspired by religious optimism. While in some Asian cultures, suicidal tendencies and
secularized forms had adulterated youthful optimism, this optimistic attitude has formed a structure
on which student patterns of thinking are well rested.