Matters Arising: Vengeance-Taking

Rev. Fr. Nicholas Mary, CSSR

Fr. Nicholas answers topical questions in the light of moral theology and canon law.

Vengeance is Mine, God tells us. Does this mean that it is always wrong for us to seek revenge in this world?

It is true that St. Paul commands us:

Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine,1 I will repay, saith the Lord. But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good. (Rom 12:19–21)

Nonetheless, he goes on directly to warn evildoers to fear, for [a prince] beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. (Rom 13:4)

Straight away we learn two things. Firstly, revenge cannot be intrinsically evil, for God, Who cannot sin, promises to exact it Himself. Secondly, He does not reserve its exercise to Himself exclusively, but allows men to administer it on His behalf at least some of the time. There is question here of vindictive or corrective justice, which, as Fathers McHugh and Callan, OP explain, is:

‘A virtue inclining a public person or a superior, such as a ruler, magistrate, or judge, to inflict on evildoers penalties adequate to their faults. It is not to be confused with just vengeance or retaliation, which is the virtue that moderates in a private person the desire for punishment of an offence against self.’2

Vengeance both vice and virtue

This latter kind of private vengeance is also lawful when rightly ordered. While we may not render ‘evil for evil’, we may pay back evil in a manner which is not sinful. The evildoer sins against his neighbour, committing a moral evil. What is rendered to him may be an evil in the broad sense of the word, i.e. being something disagreeable or adverse, but not in the moral sense. Clearly the intention of the one paying back evil will be crucial in determining whether or not revenge is lawful. Here is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas:

‘Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. Accordingly, in the matter of vengeance, we must consider the mind of the avenger. For if his intention is directed chiefly to the evil of the person on whom he takes vengeance and rests there, then his vengeance is altogether unlawful: because to take pleasure in another’s evil belongs to hatred, which is contrary to the charity whereby we are bound to love all men. Nor is it an excuse that he intends the evil of one who has unjustly inflicted evil on him, as neither is a man excused for hating one that hates him: for a man may not sin against another just because the latter has already sinned against him, since this is to be overcome by evil, which was forbidden by the Apostle, who says Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good. (Rom 12:21)

‘If, however, the avenger’s intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honoured), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed. He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God.’3

Vengeance is forbidden when it is the paying back of sin with sin, and permitted, and sometimes even obligatory, when it is the paying back of a culpable evil by a penal evil. But because we have a fallen nature and disordered passions, we have to cultivate a special virtue to get this paying back right. Fr. Francis Cunningham, OP explains why there has to be a special virtue of vengeance:

‘One of the most powerful inclinations found in man is to avenge injuries. And because it is so easy for this natural urge to get out of hand, especially through excess, there is need of a virtue to assist man in confining his spirit of revenge within reasonable limits. This is the job for the virtue called revenge (or, variously, vengeance, vindication, punishment), which may be defined as the virtue inclining man to employ lawful means for punishing private persons because of the evil they have voluntarily committed, in order to heal the disorder brought upon society and the rights of either self or others.

‘There are two points especially to be noted regarding this virtue: first, it is a virtue of private persons; and, secondly, the obligation that it imposes is one of moral debt only. Therefore, the proper subjects of this virtue are private citizens; the strict obligations to punish malefactors belongs to those alone who have received official authorisation. Consequently, no one is bound under strict obligation to exact vengeance for a purely personal injury. Indeed, the more perfect course is to pardon the wrong, for pardon may result in the conversion or amendment of the offender, or the edification of one’s neighbour, or give reasons for a greater claim to the mercy of God. But when the injury done to an individual is tantamount to an injury to God, the Church or the civil society, there is a strict obligation for that individual to take action against the offender.

‘But what course of action does this virtue allow? Certainly not lynch law, vendetta, unlimited and unbridled private revenge, which are acts of sinful violence. The individual citizen may employ strong measures to defend himself when attacked, but once the attack has ceased, the matter of inflicting further punishment must be turned over to the civil authority. Rarely, then, and only in light matters, will the private citizen be obliged and permitted to seek private vengeance — for example to manhandle, though not too roughly, an unruly and undisciplined youth who is causing some harm. Parents may exercise this virtue when they properly chastise and correct their children. More often, however, the act of this virtue will consist in taking legal action to secure just punishment for the offender.’4

Getting the balance right

St. Thomas says that ‘two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing, while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing.’5

How do we find the right balance? Though Fathers McHugh and Callan, OP consider here how the balance is to be achieved in the public administration of corrective justice, what they say applies equally to the virtue of vengeance in the private sphere:

‘Punitive justice is a moral virtue and hence should be characterised by moderation as to all its circumstances. It should avoid the extremes of excess and defect.

‘The sin of excess here is cruelty, which in the quality or the quantity of the punishment offends human rights or surpasses the measure of the crime or the custom of the law. Thus, it is immoral to associate young prisoners with hardened criminals, to deprive an offender of religious opportunities; it is inhuman to treat a human being as if he were a brute or less than a brute (e.g. by confinement in a loathsome dungeon, by overwork with starvation, by torture); it is unfair to use severe punishments unknown to law or custom, or whose rigour far surpasses the degree of offence. There is excess even in medicinal or reformatory penalties, if a higher good is sacrificed for a lower (e.g. the spiritual for the temporal, a major for a minor good quality), for then the remedy is worse than the disease.

‘The sin of defect in punishments is laxity, which rewards crime, or allows it to go unpunished, or imposes penalties which are agreeable to offenders, or not a deterrent, or not at all equal to the offence. Scripture condemns this lenity when it declares that the parent who spares the rod spoils the child (Pr 13:24). In weighing the gravity of a delinquency, account should be taken of the fault itself, of the injury done and the scandal given. In the fault consideration must be had of the objective element (i.e. the nature and importance of the law violated), of the subjective element (i.e. the age, instruction, education, sex, and state of mind of the offender), of the circumstances (e.g. the time, the place, the persons involved, and the frequency).’6

We are here a long way from the mentality of our modern, liberal society, based as it is on the theoretical and practical denial of Original Sin. Both the modern world and the modern Church have reduced all punishment to medicinal punishment, and have misunderstood the nature of justice.7

The consequences of a lack of due vengeance

The result on a public level is injustice, and on a private level, laxity and indulgence, which is another kind of cruelty. A recent writer, Mgr. Charles Pope, notes that:

‘Too many today who have authority to punish wrongdoing are unwilling to do it. And this leads to many vices proliferating in our culture. Children are widely spoiled and incorrigible. Crime is rampant in many of our cities where prosecutors refuse to punish crimes and return repeat offenders to the streets. This leads to many grave violations against life, property, and the dignity of persons. This is a defect of proper vengeance by those who have the authority and duty to execute it. … In our times, cruelty and excess are not unknown, but being remiss in needed punishment is more widespread and, as noted, causes great harm by the consequent proliferation of sin. Vengeance is lawful and virtuous insofar as it tends to the prevention of evil. Clearly vengeance is a kind of forgotten virtue, indeed even a virtue often mislabelled as evil.’8

Always in loving our enemies it is necessary to let go of the wish to see them eternally confounded. When forgiving those that trespass against us, we hope for them what we hope for ourselves — salvation and all that leads to it and is compatible with it. We must genuinely desire this and work for it. Our very real wish should be that when our enemies come to judgement, the sins they have committed against us will not so much as be mentioned, let alone held against them. None of this excludes the possibility — sometimes the duty — of seeking justice against them in this world. It is praiseworthy to bear wrongs to oneself patiently, to turn the other cheek and to overcome evil with good. When injury is done to others, however — when God’s rights are trampled upon, or those of the Church, or when the common good or charity to others require it —there is virtue in right-ordered vengeance, and sin in its omission. †

• 1

  The more familiar Vengeance is mine is from the King James Version.

• 2

  Fr. J A McHugh, OP & Fr. C J Callan, OP, Moral Theology (Wagner, New York, 1958), rev. ed., no. 1707.

• 3

  St. Th. II.II, Q. 108, Art. 1 (English Dominican translation).

• 4

  Fr. F Cunningham, OP, The Christian Life (Priory Press, Dubuque, IA, 1959), pp. 638–9.

• 5

  Op. cit.., II.II, Q. 108, Art. 2 ad 3. 

• 6

  Op. cit., no. 2383.

• 7

  Sometimes the misunderstanding is one of terminology, and due to an abandonment of traditional formulations and distinctions. Consider, for example, the following words of Pope Francis: ‘What Jesus wants to teach us is the clear distinction we must make between justice and vengeance — to distinguish between justice and vengeance. Revenge is never just. We are permitted to ask for justice; it is our duty to practice justice. However we are forbidden from taking revenge or in some way fomenting vengeance, inasmuch as it is an expression of hatred and violence.’ (Angelus Address of 19th February 2017). A confusing disjunction is hereby introduced between justice and vengeance, whereas the virtue of vengeance belongs to justice, and the vice to be avoided is a sin against charity, or sins against the virtue by excess or defect.

• 8

  Mgr. Charles Pope, ‘Pondering a Forgotten Virtue: Vengeance’,  Community in Mission (22 May 2022) Online here

View all articles from Ite Missa Est.