QUESTION 108: OF VENGEANCE
We must now consider vengeance, under which head there are four points
(1) Whether vengeance is lawful?
(2) Whether it is a special virtue?
(3) Of the manner of taking vengeance;
(4) On whom should vengeance be taken?
Article 1: Whether vengeance is lawful?
Objection 1: It seems that vengeance is not lawful. For whoever usurps what is
God's sins. But vengeance belongs to God, for it is written (Dt. 32:35, Rm. 12:19): "Revenge to Me, and I will repay." Therefore all vengeance is
Objection 2: Further, he that takes vengeance on a man does not bear with him.
But we ought to bear with the wicked, for a gloss on Cant 2:2, "As the
lily among the thorns," says: "He is not a good man that cannot bear with
a wicked one." Therefore we should not take vengeance on the wicked.
Objection 3: Further, vengeance is taken by inflicting punishment, which is
the cause of servile fear. But the New Law is not a law of fear, but of
love, as Augustine states (Contra Adamant. xvii). Therefore at least in
the New Testament all vengeance is unlawful.
Objection 4: Further, a man is said to avenge himself when he takes revenge
for wrongs inflicted on himself. But, seemingly, it is unlawful even for
a judge to punish those who have wronged him: for Chrysostom [*Cf. Opus
Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth., falsely ascribed to St. Chrysostom] says:
"Let us learn after Christ's example to bear our own wrongs with
magnanimity, yet not to suffer God's wrongs, not even by listening to
them." Therefore vengeance seems to be unlawful.
Objection 5: Further, the sin of a multitude is more harmful than the sin of
only one: for it is written (Ecclus. 26:5-7): "Of three things my heart
hath been afraid . . . the accusation of a city, and the gathering
together of the people, and a false calumny." But vengeance should not be
taken on the sin of a multitude, for a gloss on Mt. 13:29,30, "Lest
perhaps . . . you root up the wheat . . . suffer both to grow," says that
"a multitude should not be excommunicated, nor should the sovereign."
Neither therefore is any other vengeance lawful.
On the contrary, We should look to God for nothing save what is good and
lawful. But we are to look to God for vengeance on His enemies: for it is
written (Lk. 18:7): "Will not God revenge His elect who cry to Him day
and night?" as if to say: "He will indeed." Therefore vengeance is not
essentially evil and unlawful.
I answer that, 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 (Rm. 12:21): "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome
evil by good."
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 honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due
circumstances be observed.
Reply to Objection 1: 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. For it is written (Rm. 13:4) of the earthly
prince that "he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him
that doeth evil." If, however, a man takes vengeance outside the order of
divine appointment, he usurps what is God's and therefore sins.
Reply to Objection 2: The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in
due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: but they do not
bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their
neighbor. For Chrysostom [*Cf. Opus Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth.,
falsely ascribed to St. Chrysostom] says: "It is praiseworthy to be
patient under our own wrongs, but to overlook God's wrongs is most
Reply to Objection 3: The law of the Gospel is the law of love, and therefore
those who do good out of love, and who alone properly belong to the
Gospel, ought not to be terrorized by means of punishment, but only those
who are not moved by love to do good, and who, though they belong to the
Church outwardly, do not belong to it in merit.
Reply to Objection 4: Sometimes a wrong done to a person reflects on God and the
Church: and then it is the duty of that person to avenge the wrong. For
example, Elias made fire descend on those who were come to seize him (4
Kgs. 1); likewise Eliseus cursed the boys that mocked him (4 Kgs. 2); and
Pope Sylverius excommunicated those who sent him into exile (XXIII, Q.
iv, Cap. Guilisarius). But in so far as the wrong inflicted on a man
affects his person, he should bear it patiently if this be expedient. For
these precepts of patience are to be understood as referring to
preparedness of the mind, as Augustine states (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i).
Reply to Objection 5: When the whole multitude sins, vengeance must be taken on
them, either in respect of the whole multitude---thus the Egyptians were
drowned in the Red Sea while they were pursuing the children of Israel
(Ex. 14), and the people of Sodom were entirely destroyed (Gn. 19)---or
as regards part of the multitude, as may be seen in the punishment of
those who worshipped the calf.
Sometimes, however, if there is hope of many making amends, the severity
of vengeance should be brought to bear on a few of the principals, whose
punishment fills the rest with fear; thus the Lord (Num 25) commanded the
princes of the people to be hanged for the sin of the multitude.
On the other hand, if it is not the whole but only a part of the
multitude that has sinned, then if the guilty can be separated from the
innocent, vengeance should be wrought on them: provided, however, that
this can be done without scandal to others; else the multitude should be
spared and severity foregone. The same applies to the sovereign, whom the
multitude follow. For his sin should be borne with, if it cannot be
punished without scandal to the multitude: unless indeed his sin were
such, that it would do more harm to the multitude, either spiritually or
temporally, than would the scandal that was feared to arise from his
Article 2: Whether vengeance is a special virtue?
Objection 1: It seems that vengeance is not a special and distinct virtue. For
just as the good are rewarded for their good deeds, so are the wicked
punished for their evil deeds. Now the rewarding of the good does not
belong to a special virtue, but is an act of commutative justice.
Therefore in the same way vengeance should not be accounted a special
Objection 2: Further, there is no need to appoint a special virtue for an act
to which a man is sufficiently disposed by the other virtues. Now man is
sufficiently disposed by the virtues of fortitude or zeal to avenge evil.
Therefore vengeance should not be reckoned a special virtue.
Objection 3: Further, there is a special vice opposed to every special virtue.
But seemingly no special vice is opposed to vengeance. Therefore it is
not a special virtue.
On the contrary, Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii) reckons it a part of
I answer that, As the Philosopher states (Ethic. ii, 1), aptitude to
virtue is in us by nature, but the complement of virtue is in us through
habituation or some other cause. Hence it is evident that virtues perfect
us so that we follow in due manner our natural inclinations, which belong
to the natural right. Wherefore to every definite natural inclination
there corresponds a special virtue. Now there is a special inclination of
nature to remove harm, for which reason animals have the irascible power
distinct from the concupiscible. Man resists harm by defending himself
against wrongs, lest they be inflicted on him, or he avenges those which
have already been inflicted on him, with the intention, not of harming,
but of removing the harm done. And this belongs to vengeance, for Tully
says (De Invent. Rhet. ii) that by "vengeance we resist force, or wrong,
and in general whatever is obscure" [*'Obscurum' Cicero wrote 'obfuturum'
but the sense is the same as St. Thomas gives in the parenthesis] "(i.e.
derogatory), either by self-defense or by avenging it." Therefore
vengeance is a special virtue.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as repayment of a legal debt belongs to commutative
justice, and as repayment of a moral debt, arising from the bestowal of a
particular favor, belongs to the virtue of gratitude, so too the
punishment of sins, so far as it is the concern of public justice, is an
act of commutative justice; while so far as it is concerned in defending
the rights of the individual by whom a wrong is resisted, it belongs to
the virtue of revenge.
Reply to Objection 2: Fortitude disposes to vengeance by removing an obstacle
thereto, namely, fear of an imminent danger. Zeal, as denoting the fervor
of love, signifies the primary root of vengeance, in so far as a man
avenges the wrong done to God and his neighbor, because charity makes him
regard them as his own. Now every act of virtue proceeds from charity as
its root, since, according to Gregory (Hom. xxvii in Ev.), "there are no
green leaves on the bough of good works, unless charity be the root."
Reply to Objection 3: 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, wherefore it is written (Prov. 13:24): "He
that spareth the rod hateth his son." But the virtue of vengeance
consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the
Article 3: Whether vengeance should be wrought by means of punishments customary among men?
Objection 1: It seems that vengeance should not be wrought by means of
punishments customary among men. For to put a man to death is to uproot
him. But our Lord forbade (Mt. 13:29) the uprooting of the cockle,
whereby the children of the wicked one are signified. Therefore sinners
should not be put to death.
Objection 2: Further, all who sin mortally seem to be deserving of the same
punishment. Therefore if some who sin mortally are punished with death,
it seems that all such persons should be punished with death: and this is
Objection 3: Further, to punish a man publicly for his sin seems to publish
his sin: and this would seem to have a harmful effect on the multitude,
since the example of sin is taken by them as an occasion for sin.
Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted
for a sin.
I answer that, Vengeance is lawful and virtuous so far as it tends to
the prevention of evil. Now some who are not influenced by motive of
virtue are prevented from committing sin, through fear of losing those
things which they love more than those they obtain by sinning, else fear
would be no restraint to sin. Consequently vengeance for sin should be
taken by depriving a man of what he loves most. Now the things which man
loves most are life, bodily safety, his own freedom, and external goods
such as riches, his country and his good name. Wherefore, according to
Augustine's reckoning (De Civ. Dei xxi), "Tully writes that the laws
recognize eight kinds of punishment": namely, "death," whereby man is
deprived of life; "stripes," "retaliation," or the loss of eye for eye,
whereby man forfeits his bodily safety; "slavery," and "imprisonment,"
whereby he is deprived of freedom; "exile" whereby he is banished from
his country; "fines," whereby he is mulcted in his riches; "ignominy,"
whereby he loses his good name.
Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is
fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it. But sometimes the
wicked can be uprooted by death, not only without danger, but even with
great profit, to the good. Wherefore in such a case the punishment of
death may be inflicted on sinners.
Reply to Objection 2: All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as
regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the
divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal
character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins
alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others.
Reply to Objection 3: The very fact that the punishment, whether of death or of
any kind that is fearsome to man, is made known at the same time as the
sin, makes man's will avers to sin: because the fear of punishment is
greater than the enticement of the example of sin.
Article 4: Whether vengeance should be taken on those who have sinned involuntarily?
Objection 1: It seems that vengeance should be taken on those who have sinned
involuntarily. For the will of one man does not follow from the will of
another. Yet one man is punished for another, according to Ex. 20:5, "I
am . . . God . . . jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children, unto the third and fourth generation." Thus for the sin of
Cham, his son Chanaan was curse (Gn. 9:25) and for the sin of Giezi, his
descendants were struck with leprosy (4 Kgs. 5). Again the blood of
Christ lays the descendants of the Jews under the ban of punishment, for
they said (Mt. 27:25): "His blood be upon us and upon our children."
Moreover we read (Josue 7) that the people of Israel were delivered into
the hands of their enemies for the sin of Achan, and that the same people
were overthrown by the Philistines on account of the sin of the sons of
Heli (1 Kgs. 4). Therefore a person is to be punished without having
deserved it voluntarily.
Objection 2: Further, nothing is voluntary except what is in a man's power.
But sometimes a man is punished for what is not in his power; thus a man
is removed from the administration of the Church on account of being
infected with leprosy; and a Church ceases to be an episcopal see on
account of the depravity or evil of the people. Therefore vengeance is
taken not only for voluntary sins.
Objection 3: Further, ignorance makes an act involuntary. Now vengeance is
sometimes taken on the ignorant. Thus the children of the people of
Sodom, though they were in invincible ignorance, perished with their
parents (Gn. 19). Again, for the sin of Dathan and Abiron their children
were swallowed up together with them (Num 16). Moreover, dumb animals,
which are devoid of reason, were commanded to be slain on account of the
sin of the Amalekites (1 Kgs. 15). Therefore vengeance is sometimes taken
on those who have deserved it involuntarily.
Objection 4: Further, compulsion is most opposed to voluntariness. But a man
does not escape the debt of punishment through being compelled by fear to
commit a sin. Therefore vengeance is sometimes taken on those who have
deserved it involuntarily.
Objection 5: Further Ambrose says on Lk. 5 that "the ship in which Judas was,
was in distress"; wherefore "Peter, who was calm in the security of his
own merits, was in distress about those of others." But Peter did not
will the sin of Judas. Therefore a person is sometimes punished without
having voluntarily deserved it.
On the contrary, Punishment is due to sin. But every sin is voluntary
according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. iii; Retract. i). Therefore
vengeance should be taken only on those who have deserved it voluntarily.
I answer that, Punishment may be considered in two ways. First, under
the aspect of punishment, and in this way punishment is not due save for
sin, because by means of punishment the equality of justice is restored,
in so far as he who by sinning has exceeded in following his own will
suffers something that is contrary to this will. Wherefore, since every
sin is voluntary, not excluding original sin, as stated above (FS, Question , Article ), it follows that no one is punished in this way, except for
something done voluntarily. Secondly, punishment may be considered as a
medicine, not only healing the past sin, but also preserving from future
sin, or conducing to some good, and in this way a person is sometimes
punished without any fault of his own, yet not without cause.
It must, however, be observed that a medicine never removes a greater
good in order to promote a lesser; thus the medicine of the body never
blinds the eye, in order to repair the heel: yet sometimes it is harmful
in lesser things that it may be helpful in things of greater consequence.
And since spiritual goods are of the greatest consequence, while temporal
goods are least important, sometimes a person is punished in his temporal
goods without any fault of his own. Such are many of the punishments
inflicted by God in this present life for our humiliation or probation.
But no one is punished in spiritual goods without any fault on his part,
neither in this nor in the future life, because in the latter punishment
is not medicinal, but a result of spiritual condemnation.
Reply to Objection 1: A man is never condemned to a spiritual punishment for
another man's sin, because spiritual punishment affects the soul, in
respect of which each man is master of himself. But sometimes a man is
condemned to punishment in temporal matters for the sin of another, and
this for three reasons. First, because one man may be the temporal goods
of another, and so he may be punished in punishment of the latter: thus
children, as to the body, are a belonging of their father, and slaves are
a possession of their master. Secondly, when one person's sin is
transmitted to another, either by "imitation," as children copy the sins
of their parents, and slaves the sins of their masters, so as to sin with
greater daring; or by way of "merit," as the sinful subjects merit a
sinful superior, according to Job 34:30, "Who maketh a man that is a
hypocrite to reign for the sins of the people?" Hence the people of
Israel were punished for David's sin in numbering the people (2 Kgs. 24).
This may also happen through some kind of "consent" or "connivance": thus
sometimes even the good are punished in temporal matters together with
the wicked, for not having condemned their sins, as Augustine says (De
Civ. Dei i, 9). Thirdly, in order to mark the unity of human fellowship,
whereby one man is bound to be solicitous for another, lest he sin; and
in order to inculcate horror of sin, seeing that the punishment of one
affects all, as though all were one body, as Augustine says in speaking
of the sin of Achan (Questions. sup. Josue viii). The saying of the Lord,
"Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third
and fourth generation," seems to belong to mercy rather than to severity,
since He does not take vengeance forthwith, but waits for some future
time, in order that the descendants at least may mend their ways; yet
should the wickedness of the descendants increase, it becomes almost
necessary to take vengeance on them.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine states (Questions. sup. Josue viii), human judgment
should conform to the divine judgment, when this is manifest, and God
condemns men spiritually for their own sins. But human judgment cannot be
conformed to God's hidden judgments, whereby He punishes certain persons
in temporal matters without any fault of theirs, since man is unable to
grasp the reasons of these judgments so as to know what is expedient for
each individual. Wherefore according to human judgment a man should never
be condemned without fault of his own to an inflictive punishment, such
as death, mutilation or flogging. But a man may be condemned, even
according to human judgment, to a punishment of forfeiture, even without
any fault on his part, but not without cause: and this in three ways.
First, through a person becoming, without any fault of his, disqualified
for having or acquiring a certain good: thus for being infected with
leprosy a man is removed from the administration of the Church: and for
bigamy, or through pronouncing a death sentence a man is hindered from
receiving sacred orders.
Secondly, because the particular good that he forfeits is not his own
but common property: thus that an episcopal see be attached to a certain
church belongs to the good of the whole city, and not only to the good of
Thirdly, because the good of one person may depend on the good of
another: thus in the crime of high treason a son loses his inheritance
through the sin of his parent.
Reply to Objection 3: By the judgment of God children are punished in temporal
matters together with their parents, both because they are a possession
of their parents, so that their parents are punished also in their
person, and because this is for their good lest, should they be spared,
they might imitate the sins of their parents, and thus deserve to be
punished still more severely. Vengeance is wrought on dumb animals and
any other irrational creatures, because in this way their owners are
punished; and also in horror of sin.
Reply to Objection 5: The other apostles were distressed about the sin of Judas,
in the same way as the multitude is punished for the sin of one, in
commendation of unity, as state above (Reply Objection ,2).