Forgiveness

Forgiveness

Forgiveness is a fountain, a source of new behavior. The ascetical side, (not the psychological side) includes a negative and positive battle:

Ascetical notions of forgiveness:

NEGATIVE BATTLE:

*Fighting against poor memories, seeking not to replay them, even if they are substantially true (though we should know our memories. are usually poor and selective in our favor); especially fighting the recalling and "drinking the bitter draught".
*Fighting musings and daydreams, "what I should have done, said" "what I would do, say, if..." etc.
*Fighting self-pity.
*Fighting the desire to run down others, or justify our passions before others.
*Fighting negative feelings and moods.

POSITIVE BATTLE:
*Fighting for helpful moods and feelings. Fostering the passions in the way they will help us, make us more willing to do good.
*Recalling God's love for us, and especially the supernatural truth of our divine sonship in grace.
*Praying for understanding and the way to excuse that which can be excused.
*Praying for the stout forgiving of that which is left as sure matter for forgiveness, recalling our desire to be forgiven.
*Looking to do favors, as is possible and prudent, (if feelings are overwhelmingly negative still, prudence would not have us put ourselves in a position to be overcome and renew grief and lose ground) physical proximity and communications might have to wait.
*Saying good things about the others.
*Looking to the past where favors, goodness, was done to us by the others. This remains in God's sight, and should in ours.
*Looking perhaps, at photos of good times, etc.
*Wishing well for the one whom we must forgive. Praying for them and their good.

THE BIGGEST PART: TAKING THE HURTS TO PRAYER

*One must make time for mental prayer.

*In Mental prayer, one brings the hurts to our Lord, one at a time, or a piece at a time, to find the way, with Him, to give it to Him.

*Sometimes one needs to repeat a particularly difficult piece, and talk about it with Him, so as to abandon the resentment, and give it to Him.

*If the situation involves ongoing abuse, one must be forgiving even daily! Else the resentment will pile up and become unmanageable.

*Sometimes going into your Garden of Gethsemane, or going to the foot of the Cross with Jesus is the way to talk to our Lord and get insight on how He did it; it will involve a conversation and His grace.

*Confession for our part in any set of hurts is important.

*We must not condition our forgiveness; we cannot wait till the other says sorry or even comes to realize the damage done, or make amends.

The following is an excerpt from a book on forgiveness that a psychiatrist friend of mine co-authored:

The Definition of Forgiveness

It is important at this point to introduce more formally our definition of forgiveness, a definition we draw on in the remainder of the book. The definition forms the basis for our process model of forgiveness therapy. Our intent is to generate a definition that is "water tight," not easily sunk by outside arguments or examples. If a critic is able to give legitimate examples, falling within the purview of our definition, that clearly describe a phenomenon other than forgiveness, then we must revise or completely change the definition.

Following North's ideas, we define forgiving as follows:

People, upon rationally determining that they have been unfairly treated, forgive when they willfully abandon resentment and related responses (to which they have a right), and endeavor to respond to the wrongdoer based on the moral principle of beneficence, which may include compassion, unconditional worth, generosity, and moral love (to which the wrongdoer, by nature of the hurtful act or acts, has no right).

WHAT FORGIVENESS IS NOT

Knowing what constitutes forgiveness was our first step. We now must explore the myriad concepts and expressions that people too often confuse with forgiveness. One job of clinicians is to ascertain which of the incomplete or incorrect ideas below clients or patients are entertaining about forgiveness before proceeding more deeply with the therapy. As we present a concept that is confused with forgiveness, we ask: What features does the concept share with the definition of forgiveness? How does the idea differ from the genuine construct of forgiveness?

We do not want this discussion merely to be the statement of our opinion, which will be countered in the future by others' opinions. Little will be accomplished if we say "Condonation is not the same as forgiveness," and another writer says "We believe condonation to be a synonym of forgiveness." Our basic approach to settling opinion is as follows. We first generate legitimate examples of the concept currently under scrutiny, such as condonation. Then we show how the example takes the construct of interest far afield of forgiveness. In other words, some concepts can appear to be very much like forgiveness if certain narrow examples explicating that concept are used. Yet, to qualify as a synonym, no reasonable example of the concept can be used that places the concept outside the meaning of forgiveness.

We realize that some readers will not want all of our detail in trying to settle opinion on these issues. In such a case, readers may wish to skip our arguments, focusing instead on each misperception until they understand what that misperception is. As an overview, we present a checklist of 20 misperceptions (see Exhibit 3.1). The checklist may be a convenient summary for clients and will help quickly identify the client's particular misperceptions. Therapists may then wish to read those sections of the text for greater insight, which may aid the client's understanding and clarity.

EXHIBIT 3.1
Checklist for Ideas Regarding What Forgiveness Is Not

1. Philosophers' Distinctions Between Forgiveness and Related Concepts

·         Pardon, legal mercy, leniency (a merciful judge is not the one hurt)

·         Condoning and excusing (putting up with an offense or letting it go)

·         Reconciliation (two people coming together again)

·         Conciliation (to appease, placate an offender)

·         Justification (believing what the person did was fair)

·         Forgetting (ceasing to remember the offense, possibly leaving one vulnerable to the offense again)

·         Becoming disappointed (one can be disappointed without being unjustly treated by another)

·         Balancing scales (getting back something in kind, punishing the offender)

·         Self-centering (forgiving only for one's own benefit, focusing on oneself, and not the offender)

2. Reductionistic Thinking That May Be Accurate but Incomplete

·         Letting time heal the wound (passive rather than active)

·         Abandoning resentment (one can abandon resentment but have a cool, detached attitude toward the offender)

·         Possessing positive feelings (one can have positive feelings toward people who have not been unfair)

·         Saying "I forgive you" (one can forgive without using specific words)

·         Making a decision to forgive (decisions to forgive are part of but not all that is encompassed in the definition: i.e.., one who decides to go to college (does not receive a degree until work is accomplished)

3. Common Colloquialisms Confused With Forgiveness

·         "Forgiveness is a quick fix" (forgiveness can be a struggle that takes time)

·         "I've accepted what happened" (one can accept an event while rejecting a person involved in the event)

·         "I accept what happened knowing that God will punish him or her" (this could be cloaked revenge)

·         "I have moved on" (One can "move on" while rejecting a person)

·         "I have the satisfaction of not letting the person get to me" (this may be cloaked revenge)

·         "I like to let the person know how much he or she owes me" (this may be a form of cloaked revenge)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.       PHILOSOPHERS' DISTINCTIONS AMONG RELATED CONCEPTS

Within the last three decades of the 20th century, philosophy delved more deeply than any other discipline into the meaning of forgiveness. Philosophers made important strides in distinguishing forgiveness from a number of related ideas. Without this scholarship, the concept of forgiveness would remain superficial. Even the best dictionaries compare forgiving with pardoning, reconciling, and excusing (see, e.g.., Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1979). Clients or patients who consult the dictionary for added meaning to their already established ideas about forgiveness may compound error.

Pardon, Legal Mercy, and Leniency

There has been a consensus within philosophy for many years that forgiving and pardoning differ. Both are within the realm of mercy, and so both give to an offending person undeserved social or moral good. Pardon, however, is played out in the public arena of jurisprudence, whereas forgiveness is played out in the private realm of personal injury and injustice. Pardon involves a judge presiding over a case in which charges are brought against a defendant. In deciding to reduce or even eliminate a deserved sentence, the judge never should be the one personally wronged by the defendant. In other words, there are objective checks and balances intended to dissuade biased people from passing judgment on the offender. Forgiveness, in contrast, belongs to the offended, one who does have subjective hurts and swirling ambivalence toward the offender. Forgiveness is not an official act in reducing a deserved sentence, but a personal choice of mercy by the one hurt.

Pardon and forgiveness do not have to coexist. Can we not imagine instances in which an injured party forgives someone who does not receive legal mercy from the state? Can we not imagine the reverse: The state pardons a criminal while the victim seethes over the decision? Finally, can we not imagine instances in which a person forgives without there being any possibility of legal pardon? Not all forgivable offenses are legal offenses. Insensitivity, rudeness, and betrayal of certain trusts are not crimes legislated by the state

Some may argue that pardon is not always in the legal realm. For example, a parent may be punishing a child by telling her that she must stay in her room for an hour. As the parent then reduces the punishment to only a half hour, the parent is pardoning the child. Even in this private expression of pardon, the example is not one of forgiveness. The parent may pardon the child but still be harboring resentment. In this example, there is pardon but no forgiveness. Conversely, the parent may be reducing resentment and increasing a sense of compassion for the child as she remains in her room. This is a case of forgiveness being used without pardon.

Pardon always involves issues of punishment and leniency, whereas forgiveness does not. Is it not possible to forgive without punishment being involved at all? What if someone decides to forgive his father, deceased for the past two decades? It would seem odd to say that the forgiver is commuting punishment, pardoning, or being lenient with his father.

If a person confuses forgiving and pardoning, he or she may be hesitant to explore forgiveness within therapy. After all, the person may believe that the offender is being let off the hook. We must recall that the definition of forgiveness does not include dropping legal charges or turning away from demands for fairness and civility on the offender's part.

Condoning and Excusing

When a person condones, he or she recognizes a moral infraction in the other person but puts up with it because of the pressure of circumstances. For example, an employee, Jennifer, condones her supervisor's rude behavior to keep her job. She refrains from retaliation; she keeps quiet about her discontent even though upset. A forgiver, too, recognizes the injustice, as the condoner does, but does so for decidedly moral reasons. Jennifer, in condoning, may view her boss as a snake; in forgiving, she actively strives to see him as a human being worthy of respect, not because of his actions but in spite of them. Condonation can leave a person with smoldering resentment; one who forgives seeks to end the resentment for moral reasons.

If a client confuses condonation and forgiveness, the therapist must take steps to correct the misperception. Otherwise the therapist unwittingly may be deepening the client's resentment as he or she silently puts up with unfairness in the name of "forgiveness." His or her clinical symptoms may worsen rather than ameliorate.

To excuse is to conclude that the problem is not worth an argument (Kolnai, 1973-1974). Unlike condonation, a person who excuses does not necessarily see a moral infraction on the offender's part. If a person is just learning a particular skill, such as a child learning to set the table for meals, we can excuse, rather than forgive or condone, if he or she drops a glass or fails to place the fork in the right spot.

Reconciliation

Forgiveness and reconciliation are sometimes equated. Both are concerned with welcoming a person who may have acted unfairly. Yet, there are differences. Forgiveness is one person's individual choice to abandon resentment and to adopt friendlier attitudes toward a wrongdoer. Because forgiveness is a free choice on the part of the one wronged, it can be unconditional regardless of what the offender does. Reconciliation always involves at least two people-the offender and the offended. Reconciliation, when there has been a serious moral breech, should be conditional on the offender's willingness and ability to change the offensive ways.' Reconciliation is dependent mainly on the ability of the individuals involved to reestablish trust, that is, a sense of safety in their relationship. We say this because hasty "reconciliation" with a physically abusing partner could be life threatening. Whenever an offended person wishes, he or she can commence forgiving. Whenever that same person wishes reconciliation, he or she must await the negotiation, the discussion, and the cooperation of the other party.

Forgiveness is an internal process; reconciliation is an overt, behavioral process of two or more people working out an existing difficulty. Forgiveness must not be contingent on the offender's willingness to reconcile. Otherwise, the offended person is trapped in unforgiveness until the injurer decides to make amends and change. Is this not giving extraordinary power to one who already has behaved badly? Forgiveness is a necessary condition for genuine reconciliation, but a willingness to reconcile on the offender's part is not a necessary condition for forgiveness.

In our many discussions with people about these ideas, some claim that reconciliation is the ideal that should be connected with forgiveness. Under many circumstances, and certainly when the offense is minor, reconciling is a moral good following forgiving. This link between forgiving and reconciling has a long history. One goal of forgiveness within the Hebrew and Christian traditions is to effect reconciliation with neighbor or God. Yet, even in these traditions, forgiving and reconciling are not automatically equated. For example, consider Paul's words in his letter to the Rom(5:8): "But God showed his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us". The unconditional act of forgiving love did not lead to all people being automatically reconciled to God. For example, elsewhere in this same letter Paul wrote (1:18) "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth." The goal in the Hebrew and Christian traditions is reconciliation when forgiveness is offered. The goal of reconciliation following forgiveness is not always reached.

'If both have offended each other, then both may have to change certain behaviors to reestablish the relationship.

The ideal goal is not always reconciliation when one person forgives another. We already discussed the example of a physically abusing spouse. There are other examples: a partner who is continually unfaithful despite many attempts to reconcile by the other partner; a chronic gambler who continually absconds with the family's funds; a supervisor who will not pay a fair wage despite concerted effort on the worker's part. The examples are many.

This distinction between forgiving and reconciling is delicate and should be approached with great care because the distinction (or lack thereof) can be distorted. For example, one of us was greeted by a beaming friend who said, "Thank you for pointing out the distinction between forgiving and reconciling. I've been looking for an excuse to dump my husband and when I realized I could forgive without reconciling, I immediately started divorce proceedings as I forgave." The distinction between the two concepts became this person's excuse to leave her husband. Her use of the word immediately suggests a lack of deep thought before she acted. Our making the distinction should not be interpreted by anyone that there is no relation between forgiveness and reconciliation. This is just as incorrect as assuming that the two must be inextricably linked regardless of circumstances.

Conciliation

Some say that part of the definition of forgiving is the act of conciliation. Although there is an aspect of this word that is moral (for instance, its archaic meaning is linked with genuine reconciliation), there are too many nuances in which it suggests something that is amoral or even immoral. For example, conciliation can mean to appease, to gain someone's favor through pleasing acts. Cannot a person gain favor through insincerity or condoning? Conciliation also has the meaning of placation. One who is continually self-condemning to gain another's favor is placating, a state connected with psychopathology in her family therapy work.

If conflated with forgiveness, the act of conciliation can be dangerous as persons deny their own rights in the name of placation. It also can be dangerous because some may unwillingly try to win over another-conciliate-for Machiavellian advantage. Whenever a word that does not have an unambiguous moral meaning is equated with forgiveness, there is likely to be mischief perpetrated on the meaning and activity of forgiveness.

Justification

A client who believes that the other person somehow was justified in the action may pose two problems. First, forgiveness would be inappropriate if it is true that the other was justified. Suppose, for example, that an adolescent, who was formerly angry with his parents because they denied him access to the family car for a month, now believes that the discipline was justified because his driving habits were becoming a bit lax. Because there is no moral infraction by the parents, forgiveness is not the correct response here. On the other hand, suppose another client was denied the opportunity to date as a condition for payment of college tuition because the parents said that he "just wasn't ready," even when he reached the age of 25. If this client sees the parents as justified, he may need to rethink what it means to act in a way that is justified. He may be wrong in his initial assessment.

Forgetting

How often have we heard the words "forgive and forget"? Perhaps forgiving and forgetting are joined in people's minds because, when we forgive and forget, we try to "put the past behind us," as the colloquialism goes. Yet, the two concepts are different (Kolnai, 1973-1974; Smedes, 1984). When we forgive, we tend to remember in new ways. Rather than seeing the offender as evil incarnate, we see a vulnerable, fallible person. We do not cease to remember what happened. People carry memories of past, painful situations with them for many years. A person may not remember the precise feeling of pain in her broken wrist, sustained as a child, but she certainly will be able to recall quickly the event itself.

There are at least two complications in therapy when a client confuses forgiving and forgetting. First, some clients will be anxious that, in forgetting the past, the injustices against them will continue because they forgave. After all, if people forget who hurt them and why, then they again are vulnerable. Some clients who hold these beliefs will not be receptive to forgiveness therapy, and this is their prerogative. Others, on realizing that they have never forgotten past traumatic events, may come to realize that forgiveness does not impart a kind of moral amnesia.

A second complication arises in those clients who are anxious that, on forgiving, they might not forget, a state that is highly desirable to them. In other words, some clients desperately want to forget the traumas against them and, if forgiveness will not accomplish this forgetting, they have no interest in the therapy. The therapist might reassure the client that loss of memory is not the real goal, but the reduction in clinical symptoms of depression, anxiety, and the lack of hope and possibly a stronger relationship. Forgiving, whereas it may not eliminate memory of past events, may (without absolute assurance) reduce clinical symptoms.

Becoming Less Disappointed

People become disappointed for many reasons, not always in the context of being treated unfairly by others, where forgiveness continually resides. As a person forgives, he or she may or may not become less disappointed with the wrongdoer. For example, Alice thought she had an amicable relationship with her husband Seth, until he abandoned her and their three children. As Alice forgave him, she remained disappointed with Seth's lack of commitment as she relinquished resentment and began feeling more compassion and empathy for him. Because injustices sometimes remain as people forgive, the disappointment about the situation remains.

If a person believes that forgiving and lessening disappointment are equivalent, then that person may distort forgiveness. For example, if Mike is disappointed that his right hand is now arthritic, should he be encouraged to forgive his hand? If Sally considers the peeling paint on the west side of her house to be unsightly, might she forgive her house? If Sunny hates cloudy days, might she forgive the gray skies of winter?' Can we see how forgiveness unravels when we do not hold to proper, accurate definitions of the concept? Disappointment may accompany resentments when we are treated unfairly, but because disappointments also emerge in contexts other than unfairness, we cannot treat the two as synonymous. If we do, then we take forgiveness out of the moral realm, distorting its essence.

Balancing Scales

One researcher asserted that part of forgiveness is balancing the scales with the offending party before forgiveness is complete. By this she meant that the wronged party must somehow get back what was taken or punish the other in some way before moving on. For example, if the ex-husband gets the Porsche in the divorce settlement, the ex-wife, who coveted that car, will not forgive until she gets a car of similar value. In another example, a wife who reconciles with her husband may withhold sexual intimacy with him for a specified period of time because of his extramarital affair.'

One researcher made room for this concept because the women she interviewed for her book claimed that they engaged in this practice of scale-balancing as they forgave. Perhaps in their ambivalence they were blending some justice-seeking and a pinch of revenge into the forgiveness process.⁵ We must be careful when we incorporate new aspects into the definition of forgiveness because interviewees say it is so. Oftentimes, those interviewed in social scientific research have not reflected on the concept of interest for months or years before responding. Accepting people's spontaneous ideas as true (which they have not pondered) is a potential distortion for any definition. If the researcher confines the interviewee's data only to a description of what the people think forgiveness is, then there is no problem. To take the next step and now incorporate the findings into the definition of forgiveness is giving too much credence to spontaneous pronouncements.

Scale-balancing is not within the realm of mercy. It may be within the realm of justice, if tempered and appropriate, but we can imagine people seeking revenge in the name of scale-balancing disguised as forgiveness. It is important to ascertain whether a client is equating forgiveness with scale-balancing. Leaving the details of scale-balancing to an angry person is potentially dangerous and destructive to self and important relationships. We are aware of a man who tried this following his wife's affair. As his form of scale-balancing, he asked that she report to him on her daily activities for a period of several months. The wife complied and now a year later their largest area of conflict is her resentment over the scale-balancing incident and his guilt for being so demanding at the time when he was so angry. We must remember that a judge is never the offended party in a court of law, at least in part, because the state knows that the angry one will not always serve true justice. Anger can distort how people view both justice and forgiveness e.g. what they called "unforgivable" situations. Thus, they may have been ambivalent.

Self-Centering

Self-centering is one of the most serious misunderstandings of forgiveness because it distorts not only the meaning but also the entire course of forgiveness therapy. Some come to forgiveness therapy with the initial motivation to help the self overcome emotional trauma. This is not dishonorable. As we know, many seek help because of emotional disruption. Yet, the essence of forgiveness must be distinguished from initial motivation. Even if a client initiates forgiveness therapy to help himself or herself, this does not mean that forgiveness is centered solely on the self. On the contrary, by definition, when one forgives, he or she lets go of resentment and focuses on the other person's humanity and ultimately offers compassion to that person.

2.       REDUCTIONISTIC VIEWS OF FORGIVING

In the previous section, most concepts discussed had one detail in common: They did not contain within their meanings the moral element that defines forgiveness (the concept of pardon is an exception). In this section, most of the concepts will have this in common: They are part of the definition of forgiveness but lack completeness. As in the previous section, a client who believes that forgiveness is reduced to a particular

element within the definition is distorting the meaning of forgiveness, making therapy difficult.

Letting Time Heal the Wound

Part of forgiveness is the reduction of resentments and other negative emotions toward another. This usually takes time. Yet, forgiveness must not be confused with the passive waiting for time to heal the wound. Forgiveness is an active struggle to reduce the resentments. It takes work and can be difficult. If a client believes that forgiveness therapy is primarily a waiting game, then he or she will be missing the point. Sometimes it is the client's resistance to feeling emotional pain (inevitably involved in forgiveness therapy) that makes him or her adopt a passive approach. Our experience leads us to conclude that time by itself does not necessarily reduce clinical symptoms when the person has been deeply hurt by others' unfairness. For example, a middle-aged man made a stealthy trip across state lines to place a pipe bomb under the car of his wife's paramour. The affair was 16 years ago. His hate did not diminish; it grew over time.

Abandoning Resentment

The philosopher McGary argued that forgiveness is nothing more than reducing resentment toward an offender. Unlike the above ideas, he does not view the reduction as passive and time dependent. His definition of forgiving is consistent with the first of our two-part definition covered in the previous chapter. Yet, McGary argued against adding the second part to the definition-that of a more compassionate and empathetic stance toward the person. What is intriguing about his argument is that he manages in a certain way to keep forgiveness within the moral realm as he takes the concept away from a sympathetic focus on the offender.

McGary's argument goes something like this. As a person gives up resentment, he or she can be motivated by the desire to be rid of negative emotions and by the desire to improve his or her relationships with people other than the offender. McGary is aware of the psychological defense of displacement in which an angry person kicks the cat or yells at the children. Forgiving as he defined it, is moral because the children and cat have more peaceful environs as the person forgives.

What is missing from the definition is anything approaching a moral sense toward the offender. A client may cease resentment but then have a cool detachment toward the offender. Giving up resentment by itself is not necessarily moral, especially if it is not done on behalf of the offender for his or her good. For example, Alice may cease resenting Seth because she concludes that he is not worth the trouble. She may see him as morally unredeemable and incorrigible. Is she forgiving Seth as she judges him this way?

Is it not possible for someone to commit a horrendously immoral act in the name of reducing resentment? For example, what if Sam, so resentful of Reggie stealing his car, murders him, thus reducing resentment? Sam may even be kinder to the kids and the cat, but has he acted morally? Is it not absurd to conclude that Sam has forgiven Reggie as he lays the flowers at his grave? Unless forgiveness is centered in the moral realm, a realm that makes room for the forgiven, the meaning of forgiveness may be distorted beyond recognition. Clients who have the characteristics of McGary's forgiver actually may be hiding deep anger from themselves.

Possessing Positive Feelings Toward Others

McGary reduced the meaning of forgiveness by choosing only the first of the two-part definition. Others take only the second part, associating forgiving with compassion, love, and empathy only. For example, Casarjian (1992) suggested a "forgiveness exercise" in which one practices feeling love as one passes strangers on the street.' Seeing aspects of peace in others makes one more peaceful. We have no qualms with the practice of seeing goodness in others. Yet, if those others have not wronged us, we cannot be forgiving them. We must remember that forgiveness is not something other than what it is. The exercises Casarjian recommended may make people feel more connected, they may reduce alienation, but they do not deal specifically with forgiveness. Again, our using examples that fit the concept of interest, but not forgiveness, may be in order. As we look with love at a new baby in our arms or at a puppy scampering on the floor, are we forgiving them? What offense have they committed that warrants forgiveness? All feelings and acts of love are not forgiveness. Otherwise, clients or patients may erroneously take the easy but wrong roads, as they love only those who love them (or at least do not hate them). Forgiveness asks us to love those who may not love us and who may have wronged us.

Saying "I Forgive You"

Although language can symbolize forgiveness, it cannot be a substitute for it. Even if a person uses the seemingly correct words, he or she might be masking resentment. The sincerity of the words matters. Furthermore, because forgiveness is mostly an internal response, it has a wide variety of verbal and behavioral expressions, including the possibility of saying nothing about forgiveness. If the forgiver believes that his verbal proclamation will do more harm than good, then he may refrain from using the words. We all know of situations in which someone happily expresses forgiveness, only to be met with the blank stare of the recipient who mutters, "For what? What did I ever do to you?"

Making a Decision to Forgive

Some claim that forgiving is a decision rather than a process. Worthington and DiBlasio (1990) described the use of a forgiveness session within psychotherapy in which couples ask for forgiveness for specific acts (such as condemning the other in public). Only when ready does the offended one make the decision to forgive. There is much preparation before the couple enters the session, at which time each seeks the other's forgiveness for as many as five offenses.

Is a single session sufficient to sort out the complexities of 10 acts of seeking forgiveness and 10 acts of receiving forgiveness? If the partners had done much work prior to the session so that it is a kind of wrap-up, then we have more confidence. If the seeking and receiving are for relatively minor offenses, then we have more confidence.

Are decisions ever sufficient to define any moral quality? For example, suppose Harriet decides "I will be more merciful to the poor by working in a soup kitchen." Her decision is part of a moral process. She now must contact the administrator of the kitchen, show up for work, and dip the ladle into the broth. It would seem odd if Harriet felt that the moral requirements in attending to the poor were somehow realized upon her decision to be merciful. If on another occasion she decides "I will forgive my mother," Harriet now must work on reducing resentment and increasing friendlier attitudes. The decision itself does not fulfill all the requirements of the moral process. Harriet must now act accordingly.

In defense of certain aspects of this approach, we see that the authors acknowledge the necessity of more time when a partner is hesitant to extend forgiveness. This seems reasonable because the acts of abandoning resentment and increasing mercy need time to develop and cannot be forced, merely willed into existence, or ordered about by one's thought processes. In our view, the definition of forgiveness necessitates that we in the helping professions consider forgiveness to be an unfolding process, one that does not run smoothly, filled with starts and stops, only eventually culminating in reduced anger and more compassion. A decision to forgive is only a part of this process.

3.       COMMON COLLOQUIALISMS CONFUSED WITH FORGIVING

In this section, we consider those expressions that we frequently hear from clients or patients who are describing their attempts to forgive. Again, we compare the statements with the definition to see their validity.

"Forgiveness Is a Quick Fix"

Some enter forgiveness therapy with the mistaken notion that forgiveness is a quick, easy way to solve their problems. Perhaps this is what Prager was arguing against in his essay "The Sin of Forgiveness." He referred to the notion of "dumbing down" forgiveness in criticizing those who would have people forgive with little thought, with little effort, and with little time involved. Certainly, it is not the case that all instances of forgiveness are like being locked in the gym with only the 200-pound weights to work with. Sometimes it is quick, almost effortless, and painless, but when people are deeply hurt they rarely find a quick, pain-free solution.

If a client sees forgiveness as the effortless answer to all of life's problems, then he or she is starting with false expectations. Reviewing the process of forgiveness with him or her may lead to a more accurate view of what will come.

"I've Accepted What Happened"

Forgiveness is a form of acceptance, but not all forms of acceptance constitute forgiveness. If a client accepts what happened but does not accept the offender as a human being worthy of respect, he or she is not forgiving. Some people make peace with the past but not with the people of the past. This is the client's prerogative, but he or she will be distorting the situation if he or she equates this with forgiveness.

"I Accept What Happened Knowing That God Will Punish Him or Her"

Sometimes people let others do the punishing. Yet, nowhere in the definition of interpersonal forgiveness is punishment mentioned. If a client takes this attitude, perhaps he or she is focusing more on justice than on forgiveness. Of course, the two can be a tandem, but this form of justice-seeking is no substitute for genuine forgiveness.

"I Have Moved On"

One might "move on" without ever having accepted the situation. By not looking back, the person does not allow himself or herself the opportunity to feel bitter. There are many ways to move on. Some ways include the one who hurt us (reconciliation), some involve a softened heart, hoping the other will change (forgiveness), whereas others entail running as fast and furiously as possible away from the person (which can be, but is not always, a form of denial).

If the moving on is devoid of moral considerations of the other, it is unlikely that forgiveness is playing a part. Forgiveness is the client's choice exclusively, yet if he or she wants to forgive and confuses it with an amoral form of moving on, the therapist may need to instruct a bit more on the meaning of forgiveness.

"I Have the Satisfaction of Not Letting the Person Get to Me"

Sometimes a person will "forgive" so that the other will be bewildered as they play out a tit-for-tat game of subtle revenge. Forgiveness that is displayed as a way to seek and maintain advantage over another is a form of pseudo-forgiveness.

"I Like to Let the Person Know How Much He/She Owes Me"

Forgiveness does involve a certain amount of forgetting, not because the offended fails to remember, but because he or she refuses to continually bring up the subject to the offender. Because the offense no longer is the defining aspect to whom the offender is, the offended one usually does not broach the situation, especially when they reconcile. As in the above example, this expression is a form of cloaked revenge.