Archive for March, 2012
When someone treats me unkindly, I just strive for justice by forthrightly asking for fairness. I try to get the person to change. This is sufficient, without even bringing in forgiveness, isn’t it?
Why not do both? Why not forgive first, which probably will lower your anger, and then ask for fairness? The asking may turn out to be more civil if you ask when not angry. In other words, think in “both-and” ways rather than “either-or” ways.
Is Forgiveness Essentially Selfish?
I just read an article from an online forum. The authors said that forgiveness is essentially selfish. They said this because one of the *consequences* of forgiveness is emotional improvement. They are confusing *what forgiveness is* and *one consequence* of practicing forgiving. A consequence is not the same as the essence of a thing. Forgiveness in its essence is focused on goodness toward someone who has been unjust to the forgiver. This is hardly an essentially selfish activity. This confusion of essence and consequence is one reason why we need to have clarity far and wide on this issue of forgiveness. Well-meaning people get confused on what the essence of forgiveness is and is not.
Do Legal Pardon and Forgiveness Differ? How?
In January, 2012, Mr. Haley Barbour, former Republican Governor of Mississippi, granted legal pardon to over 200 prisoners as he left office. His rationale for the pardons was to show mercy in a *spirit of forgiveness* and to give each prisoner a second chance. Yahoo.com news reported on Sunday, March 11, 2012 that the final group of prisoners will be released this week following the state highest court’s ruling that they can be released.
The pardons set off a firestorm of controversy. Yahoo.com news describes an “outcry” from victims and their families. The state’s Attorney General challenged some of the pardons and there has been talk of trying to amend the governor’s power to grant such pardons.
The actions by the former governor raise the important question: What is the relationship between legal pardon and forgiveness, especially given that a spirit of forgiveness motivated the pardons? Legal pardon is always conducted by a third-party authority who is not a victim or someone connected to the victims. In other words, legal pardon is an attempt to be impartial. Forgiveness, on the other hand, is anything but impartial. It is a virtue, centered in goodness, precisely because it is the victim or someone who cares deeply for the victim who reduces resentment and offers compassion through his or her pain. It is not a detached action, as legal pardon must be to retain its objectivity.
Thus, the governor’s act of pardon actually cannot be in a spirit of forgiveness, which would imply that he is somehow a victim and therefore would have had to recuse himself in the decision.
We can see why the victims and their families are perplexed. Only they are the ones who can forgive. And, when we realize that legal pardon is no protection against recidivism, we can understand victims? fear of further injustice from at least some who have been pardoned.
An important lesson here is for people to realize how legal pardon and forgiveness differ. The former belongs to authorities and the latter to victims. Also, when an authority is contemplating legal pardon, it would be prudent, where possible, to discuss this with victims to ascertain their sense of safety. In other words, the issue of recidivism and the possibility of re-victimization need to be considered.
The Obligation to Forgive
We all have an obligation to be just or fair. If you decide to disobey traffic laws, for example, you could get fined or arrested. To be fair is your obligation. Yet, we are not under an obligation to be merciful. For example, if you receive a phone call to contribute to the local food pantry, no one will issue a fine or arrest you for saying “no.”
Yet, I think there are two instances in which mercy (and we turn now specifically to one form of mercy, forgiveness) becomes obligatory. The first instance is your overall pattern of living a life that includes forgiveness. It may be true that you are not under an obligation to forgive *this* particular person on *this* particular day for *this* particular offense, but if you are never forgiving to anyone under any circumstances, there is something there to criticize. Forgiveness, as a part of mercy, is a form of goodness and if it is ignored entirely then an aspect of goodness is ignored entirely. If we are to grow as persons, we are cutting ourselves off from one important pathway to moral growth.
The second instance occurs once you have deeply and consistently practiced forgiveness. Once practiced and accepted as good, forgiveness becomes a part of whom you are as a person. When this happens, to not be forgiving is to contradict the self, to go against who you are. It is here that you hold yourself to the high standard of making this virtue obligatory for you, even when it is difficult to do so. Of course, this does not mean that you quickly jump into the practice of this virtue when you have just been deeply hurt. Instead, the point is that you know you will practice it at some time when you are ready. It seems to me that the more deeply you understand and practice forgiveness, then the more quickly you will be ready even in the face of considerable injustice.
My anger is what motivates me to solve problems and to uphold justice. Forgiveness is the opiate of the people, reducing anger and thus reducing our motivation to seek and to find fair solutions. Can you convince me otherwise?
This is a good challenge and so I thank you for the question. There are different kinds of anger. One kind,which I call healthy anger, is expressed within reasonable, appropriate limits and can energize us to seek fair solutions. You are talking about healthy anger.
We also have the kind of anger that sits inside of us and chips away at our energy, our well-being, our very happiness. This kind of anger we could call resentment or unhealthy anger. Forgiveness targets this kind of anger and helps to reduce it so it does not destroy the forgiver. As a person forgives, he or she sees more clearly, not less clearly, that what happened was unfair. Thus, someone who forgives is not likely to fall into an unnatural state of lethargy regarding the injustice.
So, keep your healthy anger and fight for justice. Forgiveness is not a foe of justice, keeping it at a distance. Instead, justice and forgiveness can work side by side for a better world. If you think about it, don’t you think that you will be better able to fight for justice if your energy is not brought low by unhealthy anger? Forgiveness can be of considerable help here in aiding the person to control the kind of anger that can thwart the quest for justice.
