Author Archive: directorifi

I just wanted you to know that I have visited three different therapists, and all three encouraged me to forgive a parent who was cruel to me when I was a child.  At first, this idea of forgiving offended me, but having heard it so often, I have come around to trying it and liking it.  I just wanted to give you this feedback.

Thank you for letting me know that you tried forgiveness after three therapists recommended it. We have to be careful that the therapists do not pressure us into forgiving. Forgiveness is your choice, not the choice of the therapists.

You distinguish forgiveness and reconciliation, but I am wondering if linking the two is actually good for the one who keeps on offending.  In other words, maybe you should emphasize that an offended person is doing something altruistic by withholding forgiveness until the other person changes.  This gives the offender a chance to alter bad behavior.  What do you think?

An offended person can ask the offending person to change whether or not that offended person first withholds forgiveness or not.  In other words, I see no reason to make forgiving conditional on the offending person’s behavior if there are other avenues for assisting that person in changing unjust behavior.  The offended person can be gentle and persistent in asking for change, even with forgiveness having been offered beforehand.  Forgiving is not an open door for the offending person to keep on being unjust.

The Summer of 2024 Now Has Seen Three Published Criticisms of Forgiveness

At least three essays have appeared in the summer of 2024 criticizing the practice of forgiveness.  At my website, The Forgiving Life, at Psychology Today, I have two recent essays criticizing two essays critical of forgiveness, one from the New York Times (posted as a blog here at our International Forgiveness Institute) and another one at the Psychology Today website.

Well, another essay critical of forgiveness was published on July 29 this year at the Washington Post.  The point of this blog post is to examine the claims of that essay to see if they stand up to scrutiny.

Source: Suzy Hazelwood/Pexels.com

Susan Shapiro has the intriguing title, Eight Times It May Be Healthier Not to Forgive.  Let us examine each of the eight issues.

Point 1. If prejudice is involved. 

The argument is based on one case study in which a son did not want to forgive his mother for homophobic reactions to him.  This one event is used to generalize to all situations in which a person (the forgiver) is upset by harsh judgements from another person, invalidating forgiveness.  It is as if forgiving, in this case, would give the message: “Your homophobia is okay.”  Yet, this is not true about forgiveness.  A person can forgive another because the forgiver sees the other as wrong.  The forgiveness is toward the person, not toward the content of the other person’s thinking.  Some people would forgive under this circumstance while others would not.  We need to be gentle with each of these cases of non-forgiveness and forgiveness because this is the choice of the one who feels unjustly treated.  Thus, this issue of an absolute prohibition of forgiveness when the would-be forgiver suspects prejudice is not warranted.

Point 2. When you aren’t ready. 

Yes, this is a good point because the decision to forgive belongs to the one who has examined the situation and concludes that there was injustice.  If the person is not ready, then this person should not be pressured into forgiveness.

Point 3. When “sorry” is insufficient. 

Some people will not forgive until the other person or persons make adequate reparation either by a sincere apology or some other way that seems fair.  If the unjustly treated person is doing this to help the offending person to repent and change, then this is a good motive.  Yet, the offended person can help the other to change even after forgiving has occurred.  In addition, this kind of conditional forgiveness itself may be unhealthy because it gives way too much power to the one(s) who acted badly.  In other words, the wronged person may continue to live with unhealthy resentment until the other proclaims three little words: “I am sorry,”  which may never occur.  Why give that kind of power to anyone?  Thus, point 3 does not hold up to scrutiny.

Point 4. If there’s no regret or repairs. 

This argument, as in Point 3, treats forgiveness as conditional, dependent on what others do before you are able to forgive.  In other words, forgiveness is never your free-will choice, but instead is dependent on how others behave.  Thus, Point 4 does not hold up to scrutiny.

Point 5. When conditions aren’t met. 

Again, one case study is presented in which a person demanded fairness and, upon receiving it, proceeded to forgive.  Yet, what if the fairness never comes, which too often is the case in many people’s lives?  This is similar to Points 3 and 4 with the power given to others and so it does not stand up to scrutiny.

Point 6. If personal safety is compromised. 

The one case study was of a child who was raped in the home.  She was urged, mistakenly by a counselor, to go back into the home to keep the family together.  She was raped again.  The substantial philosophical error here is the counselor’s confusion of forgiveness and reconciliation.  It obviously was dangerous for her to reconcile with a father who is having extreme moral difficulties.  Also, the pressure to forgive by the counselor should not have occurred, as discussed in Point 2 above.  In equating forgiving and reconciling, Point 6 does not stand up to scrutiny.  Some do decide, by free-will choice, to eventually forgive such atrocities, while others do not.  A person can forgive and then not reconcile.

Point 7. When forgiving could endanger others. 

The one case study here is of a former police officer involved in the January 6 conflicts at the United States Capitol.  The former officer was fearful that if he forgave, the defendants might be let out of jail and hurt others.  This is another confusion, this time between forgiving and legal pardon.  Just because a person forgives from the heart does not mean that this person now wants to open all the jail cell doors.  Opening those doors is not the decision of the forgiver anyway.  It is the decision of a judge and jury that were not offended or physically hurt in the case.  Such confusion of forgiveness and legal pardon means that Point 7 does not stand up to scrutiny.

Point 8.  Before you have all the information.

This is one of two points (including Point 2) that is philosophically reasonable.  One example given is of a driver very upset with another driver, who stopped her car to save her choking child.  Once the other driver learned of this situation, there was nothing to forgive.  Why?  It is because the mother was not doing wrong even though it temporarily frustrated the one who might have forgiven without this important extra information.

So, in summary, the supposed eight points of unhealthy forgiveness have been reduced to two out of eight.  As further clarification, it is not forgiveness itself that is the problem in Points 2 and 8.  In Point 2, the problem centers on when a person starts to forgive (or is pressured to forgive), not on forgiveness itself.  In Point 8, the problem centers on gathering the right information and not on forgiveness itself.  The other points can and should be dismissed because of a lack of understanding of what forgiveness is or what it is not.  It is not reconciliation or legal pardon or placing it in the context of conditionality, waiting for apologies or recompense of some kind that may never happen.  In conclusion, it can be unhealthy to misunderstand forgiveness while thinking you see it clearly.

I am trying to find a quotation that I read in the past from Dr. Viktor Frankl, who was imprisoned in a concentration camp during World War II.  Do you know of a quotation by him that focuses on suffering and hope in the future?

Yes, here is a quotation from Dr. Frankl that I have used in the book Forgiveness Is a Choice: “People can’t change the past, but they can change their attitudes toward injustice and suffering.”  For Dr. Frankl, finding new meaning when one suffers is important. This can include becoming more sensitive to other people who are suffering. This finding meaning was important to him as a path toward emotional healing.

How do I convey to my partner that forgiveness takes time? When he reads advice on the Internet, he is often faced with advice suggesting that forgiveness can be accomplished quickly, in four or five sessions. From my own experience, this is not true when there is deep hurt. How can I get this through to my partner?

I definitely understand your frustration with the advice that is all over the Internet.  As you say, forgiveness takes time.  I use the analogy of physical fitness.  One does not become physically fit overnight.  It takes time and practice.  It is the same with forgiveness when a person has not practiced it much and there is deep hurt.  I suggest using the analogy of physical fitness with your partner.  I also suggest passing the following essay on “quick fix” forgiveness from my Psychology Today blog site to your partner: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-forgiving-life/202302/be-wary-of-quick-fix-forgiveness