Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Reparation--the Dilemma?

Ann Bendall, Qld., Australia

    "To forgive is divine." So we are told. And as each of us strives to be more god-like, we are confronted with the dilemma of identifying who did what to us and why and what are the consequences.

    To forgive another requires first of all identification of the evil perpetrated. It is the epitome of vaingloriousness to consider that we can forgive sin which is solely God's prerogative (or at least it is under the jurisdiction of the appropriate spiritual Court of Inquiry).

    It is also highly unlikely that we are capable of gathering sufficient information to make an informed decision as to whether the "perpetrator" has committed an error, sin, evil act, or is iniquitous. For example, when I look at the chaos caused by Adam and Eve's transgression I would have ranked them as having "sinned," and yet they were classified as having perpetrated "an error of judgment."

    From a human perspective in trying to assess what the "evil act" was which requires forgiveness being extended, we strive to appreciate both the victim's and the perpetrator's perspective--and discover that each often has a totally different view of the act. Commonly the perpetrator has a decided bias to minimize what occurred and also has a tendency to blame their transgression on external influences whether it be alcohol or drugs or the "they made me do it" syndrome.

    This striving to diminish responsibility appears to be encouraged by current society, perhaps because we feel uncomfortable with the fact that "nice people" can commit evil acts.

    The victim, on the other hand, has a tendency to see the act as premeditated, more pervasive in its deleterious  impact on their well-being, and to view the act in a way that frees self from any blame or responsibility for one's own misfortune.

    Consequently three issues become involved, the first dealing with what the evil act actually was, the second, who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, and the third, can the perpetrator be held to be responsible, or to have diminished responsibility for their acts due to external influences?

    In our society there is a growing need to see events in either/or, yes or no, black or white terms, so as to clearly identify perpetrators and victims. Due to the real difficulties in doing so, we have created a "grey area" that we label "diminished responsibility."

    Who is the victim? Is it possible that a perpetrator can also be a victim and the converse? In our society, in the interests  of cognitive parsimony (minimized thinking), there is a need to identify and classify people as "good" or "bad," and, on the assumption that for each perpetrator of an evil act there must be a victim, we seek to identify who is what.

    For example, we prefer to think of family violence as a matter of evil and sick individuals who lash out against totally innocent, helpless family members. Unfortunately, there are many cases in which this assessment is accurate. However, among adults, more often the evil act of violence may emerge from a cycle of events in which victim and perpetrator both act dangerously or aggressively, and violence is the end point of an escalating quarrel.

    Whilst we focus on the extent of visible damage done as indicative of who is the "evil one," we fail to address the problems of the "victim." Many times people puzzle as to how "she could have gone back to him after he did that," we fail to help her deal with her guilt as perpetrator (sorry for sounding sexist but research does show that males are more prone to physical violence than females). Thus we tend to confuse blame by assuming a guilty and an innocent party when the interaction has really taken place between two imperfect individuals.

    Consequently, in such circumstances, each party must strive to clearly identify that two sets of events have occurred--which necessitates from each party, extension of forgiveness for their role as victim and acceptance of forgiveness for their role as a perpetrator.

    Childhood sexual abuse is another matter. Due to the power differential and position of trust, the child is a victim and is violated by the perpetrator. The perpetrator of evil is often a person close to the child, and the victim has memories of loving times along with those of abuse of trust and power.

    If only people could be either all good or all bad, life would be so much less complicated. But the reality is that people are imperfect, a mixture. Hence it is difficult to forgive if we strive to understand them based upon the expectation of consistency. ("The better man understands his neighbor, the easier it will be to forgive him, even to love him." p. 38)

    At some point, as we grow, we realize we are stuck in the perpetrator's past transgression, continuing to harbor anger and pain at their misdeed whilst struggling to forgive.

    Forgiveness frees us but is dependent upon being able to "love the sinner whilst hating the

Home Page    Previous Page    Next Page