What is forgiveness?

Crucial in the definition of 'forgiveness' is the connection with 'reconciliation'. These two concepts have a close relationship, but also a clear difference. Overcoming these differences leads to the blockades that can be recognized by the interviewed men. The distinction between the two terms is indicated in the subtitle of my article - 'role and right of the victim'. In forgiveness, I place all the emphasis on the victim's right, in reconciliation on his role. After I have distinguished those two and put them face to face, I will go into the context more closely. For clarity it is good to first indicate what forgiveness is not:

• Forgiveness is not forgotten or denied what happened
• Forgiveness is not to excuse the perpetrator
• Forgiveness does not make the fault disappear
• Forgiveness is not trivializing the consequences religiously
• Forgiveness is not to humiliate the victim (yourself)
• Forgiveness is not the perpetrator's confidence
  For the time being, I see forgiveness when, with the recognition of the offender's fault, he refrains from revenge by the victim. Here two elements are kept together and opposite each other, which in practice are often mixed and thereby cause damage. On the one hand, the debt is fully recognized, on the other hand the punishment / revenge action is not carried out. The mixing of the two means that the debt is taken away, denied or downplayed. This makes punishment meaningless and forgiveness impossible. The damage will be borne by the victim. Actual forgiveness - as I have described here - has the connotation of loosening (...). The bond between guilt and revenge is cut. At the same time, the intrusive relationship between victim and perpetrator through which the victim remains bound to the perpetrator's power for life in secrecy. So forgiveness is the end-stage of a process that is very similar to a mourning and processing process.

Forgiveness then has to do with the victim's right. The culprit may not demand or enforce forgiveness. The position of power that he or she has acquired through the abuse even means that every question of forgiveness must be mistrusted as a possible manipulation that leads to no real forgiveness. The only one who can decide and have this interpersonal forgiveness is the victim. By emphasizing this right, the power of the victim is also restored. Only then can forgiveness contribute to reducing the consequences of sexual abuse.

Another issue is the victim's right. Not only is he the one who decides whether or not to forgive, real forgiveness starts from recognizing the guilt. The injustice is not covered by actual forgiveness, but denounced. This makes it clear that forgiveness in no way contradicts a confrontation with the perpetrator or an indictment against the perpetrator. With the refraining of the punishment or revenge action by the victim, it is also meant that he does not perform it himself (internally or actually). He can, however, surrender it to legal institutions, or lay it in the hands of God (Romans 12:19). As an aside, but important, it should be noted that only the victim can decide on this.

Reconciliation is another category. This involves restoring the relationship and the rule of law. A sacrifice is necessary in classical theology, and the term 'victim' alone makes it tempting to make him responsible for it. As I have shown before, the loyalty of children is so great that many victims automatically choose to take responsibility for the reconciliation. They sacrifice themselves for that purpose, with all the damaging consequences that entails. The failure of the reconciliation then also contributes to the 'fault' of the victim.

Actual reconciliation, as a relational category, assumes a willingness and commitment from both parties. On the part of the guilty, recognition of the blame and genuine repentance is necessary. This must become visible in the effort to reduce the damage, to compensate and to seek the salvation of the victim. On the part of the victim, forgiveness (in the sense described above) is required. Where one of them is unable or unwilling to make this contribution, no real reconciliation can occur, although a kind of superficial recovery of the relationship is sometimes possible.

Real reconciliation also means that the balance of power in which the guilty person imprisoned the victim is broken. For that reason, the suspicion must be repeated here with every request for forgiveness. True repentance will often be formulated as a request for forgiveness. At the same time, someone who has truly repented has become aware that this forgiveness is not deserved and can not be demanded. That is why, in the case of true repentance, it is more obvious not to ask for that forgiveness, because it is not allowed to count on it. Real repentance also leaves the possibility of punishment and retribution completely open.

Where forgiveness emphasizes, it concerns the right of the victim (in the sense of decision-making and of indictment of injustice), this is the role of the victim as a social category. Reconciliation means that the victim is no longer held in the role of victim for the sake of the guilty party, but gets the room. Even that the culprit delivers himself to the freedom of the victim to restore the relationship. This places the responsibility for the damaged relationship with the guilty party and restores the victim's power over his life and relationships.

Reconciliation therefore also has to do with the legal order. No reconciliation can take place without the breached legal order being restored. This may include redress, either in the form of compensation for the victim or in the form of punishment of the perpetrator. Reunification and reconciliation are not mutually exclusive; rather they can be seen as different aspects of the same process. Without justice, reconciliation becomes an empty concept.

If there is a clear distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation, coherence can also be indicated without the risk of mixing the two. Equalization of forgiveness and reconciliation keeps the victims in the grip of the guilty party, and makes them powerless, as was evident from the rendering of the interviews and questionnaires. The distinction gives them back their voice, right and power. This makes both forgiveness and reconciliation possible.

In an ideal situation there is real repentance, unlimited forgiveness and complete reconciliation. The adjectives indicate how utopian this is. In the case of sexual abuse and all consequences, there is practically no such ideal situation. Most victims have to live with the consequences, while the offender goes free. In many cases, the sexual abuse is not negotiable with the perpetrator, while often the bystanders / family members and the church (perhaps unconscious !?) also choose the perpetrator. It is also common that the perpetrator is unattainable or has died in the meantime, for example because the victim only needs to acknowledge the abuse some decades later.

The interviewed men indicate that it is difficult to forgive. This is fully understandable, but can be the consequence of an unclear interpretation of the concepts of 'forgiveness' and 'reconciliation'. In the case of an absent perpetrator or one who is not prepared to repent, reconciliation is not a viable goal. Restoring the relationship can only be achieved through the cooperation of the partners in that relationship.

Forgiveness, however, is not dependent on the perpetrator. It belongs to the autonomy and authority of the victim to recognize the debt of the perpetrator and (yet) refrain from revenge. The victim has the right to forgive or not to do so. Whether or not the culprit has anything to do with that is fundamentally a side issue for me. The victim's choice to forgive, and the process in which that happens, can be promoted, for example by understanding the weaknesses and backgrounds of the perpetrator, by understanding his situation, or by signs of repentance. This does not, however, detract from the recognition of the offender's fault and the victim's right to refrain from revenge or not.