Forgiveness is not Reconciliation

First, let me apologize to any readers that I have not been putting out many posts, mostly because I am in the middle of a move.  We will see if I am able to resume fully in about two or three weeks.  But I don’t know for sure.

Today’s topic is something I encounter very often in the world, the topic of forgiveness and reconciliation.  Many good people, especially those whose moral universes are formed by Christianity, are very tuned into the necessity of forgiveness for several reasons.  Firstly, we forgive because through Christ we have received forgiveness (Ephesians 4:32).  We also forgive because our Lord warns us sternly that if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven our offenses (Matthew 6:14).  Forgiveness is a necessity, not an option, if we are going to be drawn into God’s orbit.  As St. John said, he who hates his brother “is a murderer” (1 John 3:15), and it is quite literally impossible for willful hate to exist in a heart that claims to love God.

When we speak of forgiveness between God and Man, the formula in some respects is quite simple: we sin and transgress against God’s infinite holiness, and merit punishment in God’s infinite justice.  Yet God, who is love, desires to reintegrate humanity into participation in his own divine life, and so pardons and restores the repentant.  So in a sense, repentance on our part and by God’s grace automatically brings about reconciliation between us, because there is nothing on God’s end that would impede such a restoration.  All problems between the relationship of God and humanity come from humanity.

The Problem

With human relationships, the issue of forgiveness, as with most things, is far more complicated.  Christ commanded us to love and forgive even our enemies.  That is beyond dispute.  What is more difficult to understand for many good people is that Christ does not demand that we reconcile.  These two terms are not interchangeable.  To forgive is to pardon an offense, and to refuse to do anything evil in retaliation.  To reconcile means to declare a relationship healed and restored, or to resume a relationship that was broken off for some reason.

The reason this becomes a problem is where people, trying to follow Christ’s commandment to love and forgive, also believe that that means on some level that they must admit an offender into their confidence, company, or friendship.  As St. Paul says, “Seek peace with all men, if it is possible on your part” (Romans 12:18), which implies there are going to be relationships we have, and people we meet, with whom we cannot keep fellowship or preserve the peace, no matter how hard we try.

There are many types of relationships where these principles can be applied.  Let’s say we are hurt by a friend, coworker, parent, family member, etc.  No matter how bad the offense is, or how hurt we are, we are commanded to forgive (this is not easy, I understand!).  We do this to draw down heavenly grace upon ourselves and upon the situation, because Christ has promised to bestow mercy where mercy is shown.  Yet at the same time, it is up to our judgment whether the person who has hurt us has become a relationship which is too dangerous, painful or imprudent to continue.  After all, even though Christ told us to turn the other cheek, we must interpret the hyperbole of that commandment (along with other portions of the Sermon of the Mount) in accordance with the other Scriptures, which warn us against weakness in the face of evil people, as well as association with the “works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11).

When may it be prudent NOT to reconcile?

Ideally, forgiveness between people would always result in reconciliation, because in many cases the offense is accounted for and then two people come to an understanding.  However, there are times when this is difficult and impossible, and I would like to suggest a few criteria by which we may judge whether reconciliation is a good idea:

1. Does the person in question lead me into sin?  Do I find myself routinely doing evil with, or on account of, this person?
2. Does a relationship with this person constitute a grave threat to my physical, mental, or spiritual health?
3. Do I have dependents or relations to whom I am responsible?  Would reincorporating a certain person into my life create a serious danger for them?
4. Has the person who has hurt me expressed any sort of remorse or responsibility for their behavior?
5. Is the person open to suggestions for improvement or change of life, or are they obstinate in their habits?

The fact is that every relationship requires two people.  The word “relationship” etymologically comes from the Latin verb referre, which means to “bring back”.  That is to say, our “relations” are those persons, places and things to which we return, and which we bring back to us in close association.  However, because people are usually acting as free agents, they can refuse to be “brought back”.  No amount of forgiveness on our part can restore a relationship where the other party is unwilling or unable to change.  In that case, we have a choice to make: whether such a person should be cut out entirely, or contact be reduced, or some other action necessary to mitigate any harm.

To what extent someone ought to be open to even the possibility of reconciliation, however remote, is a very difficult one.  Certainly closer relationships (parents, children, spouses) are the hardest cases.  Certain types of abuse or danger may mean that the victim on a subjective level cannot subject themselves to a relationship with that person, even if that person makes assurances that they can change, or have changed.  Although children, parents and spouses especially have certain moral obligations by nature, misbehavior may make the active discharge of these obligations essentially impossible, because of the tremendous harm which would be done to the individual by reentering into a relationship with them.

I would say the Fourth Commandment may be interpreted much like the Fifth, “Thou shalt not kill”.  The common judgment of moralists, for instance, is that the Fifth Commandment does not apply when we are talking about killing in Self-Defense, because the goal of such killing is not to take a life (that of the aggressor) but to preserve life (your own).

I believe a child, spouse or parent can interpret the Fourth Commandment and analogous moral demands in a similar way, whether having a relationship with them constitutes a serious danger to their physical, mental or spiritual welfare.  We may not do evil that good may come of it, but we can certainly avoid a foreseen evil so that good may come of it.

I do not claim that this reflection is exhaustive in any way, and there are many cases which I know which are very difficult for families and individuals.  In such cases, be sure to use your rightly formed conscience, and consult with learned and reflective authorities.