The paper is an attempt to put into focus the problem discussed by Kathryn R. Rogers and Hugh McCann whether or not Anselm of Canterbury makes God responsible for sin and evil. The obvious Anselmian text to refer to is that of the Philosophical Fragments, in which Anselm presents his understanding of the four ways of willing something (quattuor modi volendi), something which neither Rogers nor McCann seem to take into account. The whole purpose of Anselm’s distinguishing between four types of willing is to enable one to interpret properly passages of Scripture where God’s will is referred to and, one may add, to help scholars such as Rogers and McCann find a simple way out of the labyrinth, in which, it would seem, they have lost themselves in.
