By Judie Brown
The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses vengeance thusly:
Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.” If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”
The Catechism’s clear reprise of the error among those who seek vengeance came to mind as I read this quote from commentator/ethicist Anthony Esolen from his article “The King Wavers”:
As everyone in Shakespeare’s audience knew, when it comes to vengeance, we must avoid it as poison, for “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord; I will repay.” The question is not whether someone deserves to die. It is what happens to the soul of the revenger—who takes upon himself privately a responsibility that is public. Tudor and Stuart drama is full of what scholars call “revenge tragedy.”
In this article, Esolen is talking about the possible fate of Hamlet’s soul, but I would hasten to add that when it comes to those who facilitate the death of another, there is plenty of vengeance, often fueled by anger and pain, to go around.
Consider Wendy Duffy, the mother who sought the aid of others in her quest to kill herself because her son died a sudden death and left her grieving. The Swiss suicide clinic where Duffy’s life was taken is apparently protected by law, but this doesn’t negate the fact that her suicide compounded the tragedy of her son’s death.
Society is somehow immune from considering the far-reaching consequences of such acts taken without regard to the laws of God. In a culture where Catholic bishops respond to state approval of assisted suicide by issuing end-of-life guidelines, we are obliged to ask what has gone wrong in our world. Why are moral leaders left wallowing in the consideration of a guide to killing?
In their Now and at the Hour of Our Death guide, the bishops repeat the Church’s guidance on the difference between ordinary and extraordinary treatment, writing, “Weighing the burdens and benefits of particular medical treatments for each individual requires us to apply the virtue of prudence, using practical reason to discern the true good and choose the right path.”
The beauty of these words, however, may well be lost as a family confronts reality and the urging of others to “let go” or “hasten” death because of suffering. It seems that all too often, whether thinking about Duffy or the pastoral concern of New York’s bishops, people are left adrift in a sea of secular humanism, never reaching out for God but rather for the solutions our pagan culture strives to market.
In the Vatican’s Declaration on Euthanasia, we find the wisdom needed in today’s rush to hasten death:
Life is a gift of God, and on the other hand death is unavoidable; it is necessary, therefore, that we, without in any way hastening the hour of death, should be able to accept it with full responsibility and dignity. It is true that death marks the end of our earthly existence, but at the same time it opens the door to immortal life. Therefore, all must prepare themselves for this event in the light of human values, and Christians even more so in the light of faith. As for those who work in the medical profession, they ought to neglect no means of making all their skill available to the sick and dying; but they should also remember how much more necessary it is to provide them with the comfort of boundless kindness and heartfelt charity. Such service to people is also service to Christ the Lord, who said: “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt. 25:40).
Vengeance is diametrically opposed to such service to people and to God. It embodies the worst of humankind (the revengers), while those who follow the Lord’s teachings represent the best that one human being can offer another.