Are there any actions that are so heinous that the perpetrator does not deserve to be forgiven? Does the perpetrator need to do anything to be forgiven?
Forgiveness involves a change of attitude in the victim, not in the wrongdoer, as the victim tries to separate their feelings about the action from the feelings of the perpetrator. Yet couldn’t this be confused with a sense of letting go of one’s feelings and trying to move on with their lives as opposed to forgiving a perpetrator for the wrongs they committed?
Who Deserves Forgiveness? Case of Sexual Abuse
The case of ex-priest James Porter who received publicity in the early 1990s for his sexual abuse of children, and one of the victim’s response to the subject of forgiveness of Porter raises a tension in when it is appropriate to forgive.
Porter was convicted of the molestation of 28 children, even though he openly admitted to abusing over 100 more, and he showed no signs of remorse. It could be argued that the victims of Porter should forgive him based on the psychological benefits of forgiveness to the victim, yet it seems many victims of child abuse do not agree with such a response.
One of Porter’s victims, Frank Fitzpatrick, has been public in his condemnation of Porter, and thus received phone calls from over 3,300 (as of December 1997) survivors of sexual abuse and all but five agreed that Porter did not deserve their forgiveness. Fitzpatrick wrote a response to these five people, who argued he was not displaying ‘Christian forgiveness’ towards the ex-priest.
In his response, Fitzpatrick argued, “Sexual assault is a crime against society and against an individual kid… Justice should always take precedence over pity or forgiveness in cases of child sexual assault.” He continued to say that a victim who forgives the perpetrator is really just looking for an easy way out, and that justice, not feelings of forgiveness, should be at the forefront of victim’s minds.
It may not always be irrational to forgive unconditionally, as for the individual victim ‘forgiveness’ may seem rational because if they were not to ‘forgive’ then for the rest of their lives they may be bound in resentment and hatred. However, this may be a misunderstanding of the term ‘forgiveness’. Forgiveness does not only involve the victim, but inherently involved the perpetrator who is being ‘forgiven’.
Conditions for Forgiveness
Griswold in his 2007 article, ‘Forgiveness: a Philosophical Exploration’ outlines conditions for forgiveness that seem more conducive to a sense of healing and forgiveness of a perpetrator where it is deserved. These conditions include the perpetrator:
- Taking responsibility for performing the wrong action;
- Repudiating their deeds by recognising they were wrong and vowing never to do the same again;
- Experiencing and expressing regret at injuring the victim;
- Showing with not only words but actions that they will commit to becoming the kind of person that wouldn’t inflict such harms;
- Understanding the harm from the victim’s perspective; and
- Explaining their wrong action and how they have now become a person worthy of approval.
Therefore, forgiving is not appropriate just because it may be psychologically beneficial to the forgiver. There needs to be a wider sense of justice, where not only is forgiveness withheld – but that there are consequences for severe wrongdoing without fulfilling the above criteria.
Letting Go – Case of Dying German Soldier
Yet in saying this, it does not mean that the victim cannot let go of hostile anger and self-destructive resentment unless they forgive. Card, in his 1998 chapter ‘Rectification and Remainders’ in Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, recounts the experience of Simon Wiesenthal that demonstrates this. Wiesenthal, in a concentration camp, was confronted with a dying German soldier, ‘Karl’, who had confessed to having participated in mass murder of Jews.
Karl begged forgiveness from Wiesenthal as a Jew, and whilst Wiesenthal listened to Karl, and even tolerated Karl holding his hand, when Karl had finished speaking Wiesenthal walked away without a word. Wiesenthal decided against telling Karl’s mother of his murderous ways, however, thereby granting Karl’s wish that his mother be protected from knowing about her son’s true ways.
Whilst this scenario raises questions on whether people are able to forgive on behalf of others, it also poignantly captures the way in which it is possible for a victim not to be revengeful, spiteful, or hateful towards a perpetrator; but does not offer the perpetrator forgiveness for what they have done.
