Love
A Forgotten History of Polish People’s Forgiveness After Auschwitz
This is a guest blog post from Edward Reid, who runs the “Polish History” site on Facebook. The essay, copied in full here with Mr. Reid’s permission, shows the forgiving nature of the Polish people after Rudolf Höss brutalized so many in Auschwitz.
Facebook page – April 16, 2025
The essay is as follows:

Image by Karolina Grabowska, Pexels.com
In 1947, Rudolf Höss, commandant of German KL Auschwitz in the years 1940-1943, was sentenced to death by the Supreme National Tribunal in Poland. Two weeks later, on 16 April, he was hanged next to the crematorium of the former concentration camp.
Rudolf Höss did not fear death. What he feared was torture, which he believed was inevitable at the hands of his Polish captors. After all, Auschwitz had been located in German-occupied Poland, and it was the Polish people who had suffered so terribly under his command.
What he encountered instead left him stunned.
He was not met with hatred or violence, but with decency and restraint. “I have to confess that I never would have expected to be treated so decently and so kindly in a Polish prison,” he later wrote. That unexpected mercy opened something within him. Several of the Polish guards, themselves former prisoners of Auschwitz, quietly showed him the tattoos burned into their arms. Rather than seek revenge, they treated him with dignity.
It was an act that brought him shame. If those he had helped torment could offer him humanity, then perhaps, he began to wonder, God might offer him mercy as well. Apathy gave way to guilt. Recognition replaced denial. He began to grasp the weight of what he had done.
For the first time, his soul responded to a flicker of love. The ideology he had once followed so blindly had taught him that Poles were inferior, little more than cattle. But now, through their compassion, he saw clearly the humanity of those he had dehumanized. And in that realization, he began to understand the true gravity of his crimes.“In the solitude of my prison cell, I have come to the bitter recognition that I have sinned gravely against humanity,” he wrote. “I caused unspeakable suffering for the Polish people in particular. I am to pay for this with my life. May the Lord God forgive one day what I have done. I ask the Polish people for forgiveness.”
By all accounts, his repentance appeared genuine. On April 4, 1947, which was Good Friday that year, Höss asked to make a confession. The prison guards struggled to find a priest who spoke fluent German. That is when Höss remembered Father Władysław Lohn, a Jesuit he had once saved from execution. The guards located him in Łagiewniki, Poland, where he was then serving as chaplain at the Shrine of Divine Mercy. Father Lohn heard his confession on the Thursday of Easter week. The next day, he gave him Holy Communion and Viaticum.
Witnesses said that as Höss knelt in his prison cell, he appeared like a small boy.
The man who had once been trained to suppress all weakness now wept openly.
Five days later, on April 16, 1947, as the noose was placed around his neck at Auschwitz, Father Tadeusz Zaremba stood beside him and recited the prayers for the dying.
Whether or not he deserved forgiveness is something each person must decide for themselves. But the crimes committed against the Polish people must never be forgotten.
And neither should the quiet strength of those who, even in the face of unimaginable suffering, chose mercy. This is also why the Polish people, despite their profound heroism and the scale of their suffering were left behind in the telling of history. They did not turn their pain into politics or profit. They did not build monuments to themselves and demand all the world bow to their wounds. They endured in silence behind the Iron Curtain. Many showed mercy when they had every right to hate. And in doing so, they were forgotten by a world that rewards those who shout the loudest, not those who suffer with dignity.
But the truth remains. It was not only the victims who showed humanity – it was the forgotten Polish guards, the priests, the villagers, the mothers, the resistance fighters. They gave the world a quiet, sacred kind of courage.
The kind that history has yet to fully honor…
The Role of Emotional Validation in Apologies and Forgiveness
This blog post is by Dr. Suzanne Freedman, a Contributing Writer and Researcher to the IFI. She is a Professor in the Educational Psychology department at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls, Iowa.
I did something to hurt my daughter the other day. It was unintentional, but she was angry and hurt, and she had a right to her feelings. When she shared her emotions with me, I realized that my actions were wrong. I felt bad about what I had done; I apologized and assured her that it would not happen again. However, I apologized immediately after she expressed her anger, while she was still upset. Fortunately, through my study of forgiveness and the psychological process of forgiving for over 30 years, I understand that forgiveness is not instantaneous.
Although I wanted my daughter’s forgiveness, I knew expecting it right away was neither fair nor realistic. People often apologize and expect immediate absolution before the injured has processed their emotions. Many individuals who say, “I forgive you” upon receiving an apology later discover they do not feel that forgiveness in their hearts. This is because genuine healing requires time, not just words.
One of the most overlooked aspects of apologizing is allowing the hurt people time to work through their emotions. Expecting immediate forgiveness disregards the necessary emotional processing that follows a deep, personal, and unfair injury (Smedes, 1996). Emotional reactions to conflict and personal injury are normal and natural, and those who have been hurt need time to feel and express their emotions. As a student in my college class on interpersonal relationships stated, “Forgiveness is not immediate—you cannot just say ‘I forgive you’ and expect everything to be better. Especially if saying it is not true—saying it just to stop talking about it does not make it better for you or them. Yet, I see it all the time, and people wonder why their relationships/friendships are never the same. There are steps you can take to forgive someone, even if you never forget what happened or your relationship isn’t the same” (personal communication, March 2025).
A sincere apology involves emotional validation—the acknowledgment of another person’s feelings as real and important. Research shows that interpersonal hurt often evokes a mix of emotions, including resentment, anger, and/or sadness (Freedman & Zarifikar, 2016). If these emotions are dismissed—such as when an offender urges the injured to “move on” or “let it go”—it can lead to emotional suppression or denial rather than genuine healing (Gregory, 2025). Admitting and expressing feelings is a critical step before forgiveness can occur, as emphasized in the first phase of Enright’s (2019) process model of interpersonal forgiveness. Forgiveness is often criticized because individuals fail to recognize this critical step in the forgiveness process and mistakenly believe that forgiveness involves the suppression or denial of one’s emotions (Freedman & Zarifkar, 2016).
I knew that allowing my daughter to feel, express, and process her emotions was just as important as my apology. By validating her anger rather than dismissing it or pushing her toward forgiveness, I communicated that her pain mattered. This act of validation fosters an environment where forgiveness can develop naturally over time. Parents often struggle when they see their children in pain and may react by suggesting they quickly move past the hurt. However, individuals need time to experience and process their emotions before they are ready to move forward. According to Damour (2020), when teens can sit with their feelings and then move beyond them, they develop resilience, realizing they can endure difficult emotions.
Pressuring someone to forgive before they are ready can lead to resentment, emotional dissonance, and distrust in the forgiveness process (Worthington, 2006). Instead of fostering healing, forced forgiveness creates obligation, often resulting in superficial reconciliation (Freedman & Chang, 2010). My college students frequently report that they remember being told in childhood to forgive after receiving a forced apology, despite still feeling hurt. Similarly, offenders are often encouraged to apologize before they truly feel remorse. Genuine forgiveness and apology cannot be demanded—it must arise from within.
In my situation, if I had expected my daughter to forgive me immediately, she might have felt pressured rather than supported. This could have led to resentment or suppression of her emotions instead of real healing. By giving her the space she needed, I conveyed that her emotions were valid. As Damour (2020) explains, psychological health is not about avoiding discomfort but about experiencing the appropriate emotion at the right time and developing the capacity to endure it.
Conclusion
Forgiveness is a process, not a transaction. While an apology is a critical step in making amends, it does not guarantee immediate and automatic forgiveness. Emotional validation plays an essential role in healing by acknowledging the injured person’s emotions rather than rushing the person toward a resolution. Additionally, while an apology is not necessary for forgiveness to occur, it is often important for reconciliation and can make forgiving easier. However, requiring an apology before forgiving can leave the injured trapped in resentment, waiting for an apology that may never come (Freedman, 1998).
My experience with my daughter reinforced a fundamental truth—forgiveness cannot be rushed or forced. Healing requires time, understanding, and the space to process emotions fully. By allowing my daughter to work through her pain without pressure, I honored her emotional experience and our relationship, fostering the conditions for true forgiveness to emerge.
References
Damour, L. (2020) Helping teens make room for uncomfortable emotions. New York Times, April 21, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/well/family/coronavirus-teenagers-uncomfortable-emotions.html
Enright, R. D. (2019). Forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process for resolving anger and restoring hope. American Psychological Association.
Freedman, S. (1998). Forgiveness and reconciliation: The importance of understanding how they differ. Counseling and Values, 42(3), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1998.tb00426.x
Freedman, S., & Chang, W.-C. R. (2010). An analysis of a sample of the general population’s understanding of forgiveness: Implications for mental health counselors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 32(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.32.1.a0x246r8l6025053
Freedman, S., & Zarifikar, T. (2016). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness and guidelines for forgiveness therapy: What therapists need to know to help their clients forgive. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 3(1), 45-58. https://doi.org/10.1037/scp0000087
Gregory, A. A. (2025). You don’t need to forgive: Trauma recovery on your own terms. Broadleaf Books.
Smedes, L. B. (1996). The art of forgiving: When you need to forgive and don’t know how. Penguin Random House.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
What Moral Virtue Underlies Forgiving?
Some say the underlying moral virtue of forgiveness is respect as we see the worth in others. I make the claim in the book, The Forgiving Life, that the deepest moral virtue underlying forgiveness is love, particularly agape. Here is an excerpt on agape from The Forgiving Life (2012):

Image by Pexels.com
Love, properly understood, reaches higher and goes farther in explaining who we are compared with rationality, free will, and even good will. According to Aristotle, there are four different kinds of love: the natural love that exists, for example, between a mother and her child (storge in Greek), the love that develops strongly among friends (philia), the love that is forged between romantic partners (eros), and a fourth love (agape) based on service to others (developed more fully in medieval times by Thomas Aquinas). The first three kinds of love (storge, philia, and eros) depend for their proper expression on agape or service love (loving even when you do not feel like it, loving when you are tired, loving when the other seems unlovable). C.S. Lewis, who wrote The Chronicles of Narnia, makes this point of the philosophical centrality of agape. Agape, according to Lewis, is the highest form of love precisely because it nobly and courageously perseveres when the other kinds of love say, “Ouch! I’m outta here! Run!” With agape love, a person chooses to love, even when it hurts. In other words, it comes from a free will (we choose it) and from both a good will (we choose it to help others even if we are uncomfortable) and a strong will (we do not run away from and carry on despite the difficulty), and it makes sense (coming from a position of rationality).[1] Agape love has an inherent goodness within it that is missing from rationality and free will.
Further, without a sense of love which is deliberately in service to others, all of the other loves can be distorted and not be inherently good in themselves. Take eros as an example. Is it the best kind of romantic relationship when the partner degenerates into a “What’s in it for me?” pattern? Agape balances the tendency in eros to seek one’s own pleasure primarily and says, instead, “How may I serve you?” Agape is a kind of love that has dignity, quiet, and strength as it seeks to build up and even restore others. Agape helps us to see others as possessing inherent worth, a quality that is not earned. The paradox of agape in the context of forgiveness is that as a person reaches out to others who have been unjust, he experiences considerable emotional healing.
I used the word “balance” in the paragraph above. Balance was an important idea for Aristotle, who called it temperance. Each expression of love, whether it is storge, agape or another variety, itself needs balance unless it becomes distorted by overdoing or under-doing it. For example, if people distort agape by begrudgingly overdoing it, they could perform supposed acts of love with deep resentment, deplete their own reserves, or burn out, without being able to love well at all. If people under-do agape, their efforts may be half-hearted, even indifferent as they preform this lazy distortion of agape. The point is to strive for a good, solid expression of service love without overdoing or under-doing it. Wisdom helps us to know how much is enough.
Love then, in the form of agape, may be the most fundamental and the most important aspect of our being for this one reason: It is inherently good in that, by its definition, we seek meaningful and healthy relationships with others, and therefore it is good for others and for us. All other virtues, by themselves, do not necessarily fulfill any lasting connection between and among people. Justice, by itself, can be a rather cold virtue as, say, a magistrate almost indifferently sentences a person as a rightful punishment for a crime. Courage, by itself, can be a grim duty as, say, a soldier goes to battle because he is ordered to do so. If the need for meaningful connections is part of our religious, ethical, psychological, and biological essence, then agape love is central to that essence. If the fulfillment of meaningful connections is part of our end-point as human beings, then the mature understanding and expression of agape love is a major part of that end point or what philosophers call our summum bonum or greatest good to which we strive.
[1] Lewis, C.S. (1960). The four loves. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World. I can almost hear Kant say something like this: Love is an end-point of morality (what we are striving for) whereas a good will is what we need fundamentally at the beginning to make any moral response possible. I would argue, instead, that love is both a fundamental issue (existing at first in us as a capacity and as an actuality developing slowly in small ways) and as an end-point. It is our essence (our fundamental building block of morality, along with rationality, and a free, good, and strong will) and its perfection is our goal (as we grow stronger in it with practice and reflection).
Reflecting on Resolutions — Again
Editor’s Note: Exactly 10-years ago this week, in this very same website section, Dr. Robert Enright urged his blog followers to consider adopting a New Year’s resolution to “have a strong will as a forgiver.” Given the unprecedented hyperawareness of forgiveness and forgiveness interventions that has developed since then, his 2012 essay “A Reflection on Resolutions” merits an encore. Here is part of what he wrote:
“This New Year’s Day, my challenge to you is: resolve to have a strong will as a forgiver. . . By that I mean your inner determination and behavioral manifestation of staying the course, finishing the race. . . We talk in society about free will and good will, but rarely about the strong will that helps us stay the course.
“To forgive requires a free will to say yes to the path of mercy and love, a good will to embrace mercy in the face of unfair treatment, and a strong will so that you do not stop persevering in forgiveness. To persevere in forgiveness is one of the most important things you can do for your family, your community, and for yourself.
“Without the strong will, you could easily be like the rowboat, once tethered to the dock, now loosened from the moorings as it slowly drifts out to sea. As the cares of the world envelope you, the opportunity to cling to the forgiving life may slowly fade until you are unaware that the motivation to keep forgiving is gone.
“Having a strong will means that you will remember what you resolved; you will follow through with the resolution. You have the opportunity to make a merciful difference in a world that seems not to have a strong enough collective will to keep forgiveness alive in the heart. The choice is yours. The benefits may surprise you.”
Dr. Robert Enright, Ph.D., who pioneered the social scientific study of forgiveness, is co-founder of the International Forgiveness Institute. He is also a professor of educational psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a licensed psychologist. The various titles and labels that have been bestowed on him during his 37-year career devoted to forgiveness include:
- Dr. Forgiveness. . .
- Dr. Bob. . .
- The forgiveness trailblazer. . .
- The father of forgiveness research. . .
- The man who pioneered the social scientific study of forgiveness. . .
- Creator of a Pathway to Forgiveness. . . (the Enright Process Model of Forgiveness)
- The guru of what many are calling a new science of forgiveness. . .
- Aristotelian Professorship in Forgiveness Science. . .
In Memoriam – Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu
Editor’s Note: Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Anglican cleric who helped end apartheid in his native South Africa, died Sunday at the age of 90. Called the “Man of Forgiveness” by The New York Times, Archbishop Tutu worked closely for many years with Roy Lloyd, President of the International Forgiveness Institute’s Board of Directors. Here are Dr. Lloyd’s reflections on his years with the incomparable Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu was a person of immense generosity, joy and courage and I was privileged to call him a friend. Desmond and I knew each other, over many years, through anti-apartheid work including sanctions against South Africa, divestment efforts and protests. I also was privileged to spend a considerable amount of time with him when he was in New York City at General Theological Seminary as a scholar in residence. Later on, when he was speaking and teaching at Emory University in Atlanta, he and I produced TV and radio spots enlisting aid for those suffering so horrifically in the Kosovo conflict. This was entirely in character. For him, caring meant acting, not just talking about it.
This was a man who stood on principle, calling out oppression of every kind, albeit with a generosity of spirit, decency and respect. Desmond believed that when people can come face-to-face with each other to speak the truth with sincerity, then it is possible to achieve closure and a more equitable outcome.
That was certainly at the heart of his leadership of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa that brought together perpetrators of violence facing people who had been persecuted. An open atmosphere was created in which participants could confess what they had done or be candid about what they had endured. The desired result of mutual responsibility for moving forward in a more positive way was achieved by facing reality, while not denying justice. Those responsible for their actions received whatever penalty was necessary. Yet, that wasn’t the end of the story. Those who were sincere in their confession were forgiven and welcomed into a higher level of meaning in interracial relationships.
It was through a commitment to these kinds of meaningful endeavors that Desmond and I became involved in the initial days of the International Forgiveness Institute. Desmond declared, at our first national conference, the message that drove his lifelong ministry: “Without forgiveness there is no future.”
This is the central message of the International Forgiveness Institute (IFI).
Forgiveness is an opportunity to accept that gift for ourselves, liberating us from whatever harm we have experienced and the freedom to offer it to others. Desmond knew well that this doesn’t necessarily lead to reconciliation or to the denial of justice. Those who commit harm deserve a just penalty. However, through forgiveness the equation is vastly changed. A never-ending problem of harm that challenges us can become an opportunity for growth, renewal and regeneration of life.
The Archbishop was someone who was effervescent in personality, continually joyous and always with a twinkle in his eye. This was a hero who was continually committed to walking the hard road to achieve the common good. I always found him to be looking forward rather than backward. As the saying goes, he always had his eye on the prize.
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
I firmly believe that Desmond Tutu provided a template for how all of us can lead a meaningful existence—one that celebrates the bonds of our humanity and grants to each we meet our thoughtfulness, consideration and esteem.
We at the International Forgiveness Institute pay homage to this marvelous man and are honored by his years of commitment to forgiveness and as an honorary IFI board member.
Roy Lloyd
President, Board of Directors
International Forgiveness Institute
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:
- Before his death, Archbishop Tutu had served as an Honorary Member of the International Forgiveness Institute Board of Directors for more than 25 years.
- In 1995, Archbishop Tutu provided the opening remarks (by recorded audio) at the historic international forgiveness conference hosted by the IFI and held at the University of Wisconsin-Madison–the first academic forgiveness conference ever held at any university in the world.
- Archbishop Tutu wrote the “Foreword” to the 1998 book Exploring Forgiveness, a collection of forgiveness essays edited by IFI-founder Dr. Robert Enright and philosopher Joanna North. That Foreword is titled “Without Forgiveness There Is No Future.”
- In 2014, Dr. Enright announced to IFI website followers the Tutu Global Forgiveness Challenge–a free 30-day program developed by Archbishop Tutu and his daughter Mpho Tutu, designed to teach the world how to forgive. In that article, Dr. Enright said of Archbishop Tutu: “He has lived forgiveness. He has embodied it.”
- Read “Quotations on Forgiveness from Desmond Tutu.”
- Read “Desmond Tutu Wins 2013 Templeton Prize for Forgiveness Work.”
- Called the “Man of Forgiveness” by The New York Times, Archbishop Tutu is the author of several books including: No Future without Forgiveness and The Book of Forgiving: The Fourfold Path for Healing Ourselves and Our World.
- Read a biographical account of Archbishop Tutu’s life and global activities in The New York Times or watch a biographical video at CNN News. Archbishop Tutu is survived by his wife of 66 years, Leah, and their four children.
_____________________________________________________________
About Roy Lloyd:
In addition to being the long-term President of the IFI Board of Directors, Roy Lloyd is an IFI founding director and contributing writer. He is a retired communications executive with graduate degrees in education, communications and theology. Before retiring to Springfield, MO, Dr. Lloyd was a regular commentator on all-news radio station 1010 WINS in New York City and he appeared with Desmond Tutu on Good Morning America, CNN, Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Live with Regis and Kelly, and other programs. His high-profile career activities included his service as media officer for the Jesse Jackson trip to Belgrade in 1999 that gained the release of three American soldiers held by the Milošević regime. He has also served as executive producer of numerous network television programs and as producer and host of Public Television’s “Perspectives” series. He can be contacted at: roytlloyd@gmail.com