Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.—Jesus crucified in St. Luke 23:34.
And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.—St. Stephen, Protomartyr in Acts 7:60.
On Dr. Taylor Marshall’s show, he and I discussed Narcissism in 2023. On that episode, we discussed the importance of saying “I’m sorry” and “I forgive you.” After that show, I heard an excellent talk by an exorcist where he explained that small offenses should be forgiven without formal reconciliation. For medium offenses, the victim should still forgive the offender rather quickly, but an apology might be in order. However, for large offenses, while forgiveness should be forthcoming within the heart of the victim (with or without an apology from the offender) reconciliation between the two parties (or “resumption of common life” as the exorcist called it) normally cannot take place until there is both an apology and satisfaction for the offense. We will see later what St. Thomas Aquinas and another author mean by “satisfaction.”
I often say: “Forgiveness is a one-way street, but reconciliation is a two-way street.” What I mean by that is that you should forgive from the heart small offenses and medium offenses and large offenses. In regards to reconciliation for small offenses (perhaps a snotty look from one spouse to another) a good Catholic will not only forgive quickly, but even presume reconciliation without need for a formal apology. For medium offenses (perhaps a spouse speaking an ill word to a spouse) the offended party should quickly forgive the offender. But a short apology might be in order for reconciliation between the two spouses to take place. “I forgive you” should be the rapid but heart-felt response.
As far as major offenses between two parties, we may have to weigh the gravity of an offense before approaching an apology or restitution. In the second objection to question two, in Sentences IV D15 Q1 A5 Q2.2, St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “Furthermore, losses inflicted on one’s person are the greatest. But this kind of loss cannot be restored, like the loss of virginity, or cutting off one’s limbs. Therefore, not everything taken away can be restored.” St. Thomas is here writing about how to restore very large things that one took from another in very serious sins. (This follows the section on satisfaction to God. Although satisfaction to God is more important than restitution to humans, today we are only dealing with the latter in light of the topic of today’s article, Forgiveness vs. Reconciliation.)
St. Thomas’ response to Question 2 is as follows: “To the second question, it should be said that for satisfaction a man must be reconciled to his neighbor, just as to God. Now reconciliation is nothing other than the repairing of friendship. But while the cause of friendship’s dissolution remains, friendship cannot be repaired; which cause indeed was the inequality caused by an unjust taking or keeping. And so the person who does not restore what was wrongly taken or kept cannot make satisfaction, nor be reconciled to God. But it should be known that, as the Philosopher says in the Ethics, ‘friendship does not always require the equal, but what is possible.’ And so if anything has been taken that cannot possibly be restored, the will of restoring it with as much restitution as is possible suffices according to the condition of both to the judgment of good men.”—St. Thomas Aquinas, Sentences IV D15 Q1 A5 Q2.2.
Notice that at the beginning of this article, St. Thomas Aquinas quoted Aristotle above in saying: “Friendship does not always require the equal, but what is possible.” What that means is that in order to restore a broken friendship, you may not be able to fix it 100%. But you should aim to get it to at least 90%. For example, if you speak a lie about one friend to other friends, you need to do your best to take those lies back among your friends (unless bringing it up again would harm your friend’s reputation even more among them.) Still, even if you get to 90% of his reputation being fixed after doing your best, don’t be surprised if he bails on your friendship. Why? Because some things (even in Christian friendships) can never be repaired. A good rule of thumb is: “Never say anything about a friend that you would not say if that friend were with you at that very same time.”
How about marriages? On the big side of things, for example adultery, a couple will usually need both apologies and marriage-counseling to reconcile the couple. (Keep in mind that adultery is certainly not grounds for a divorce or even an annulment.) This is why if your marriage suffered adultery, it is extremely important you go to Catholic clergy or counselors who do not push annulments. Keep in mind you said at the altar, “Until death do us part,” and that is the only thing that can end a valid marriage—death.
On the smaller side of offenses in marriage, if, for example, your husband looks at you crosseyed, it’s probably a joke. If it’s not a joke, you don’t need for him to apologize to be “reconciled” to you. Why? Because it’s not a major wound. Life has to go on without constant apologies to match your overly-sensitive egos. I tend to think that a healthy marriage requires about one apology a week.
But today’s article is not really about marriage situations surrounding forgiveness. As we will see, the basics of this article is that there are certain people in your past you need to totally forgive, but keep at an arm’s length for the rest of your life. We are going to investigate forgiveness and reconciliation in regards to other major betrayals. Although a non-Catholic, Dr. Dan Allender wrote an excellent book called The Wounded Heart: Hope for Adult Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse. In it, he outlines what the abuser must do to begin reconciliation with the victim, even if the victim has already forgiven the abuser:
1. When the victim reviews the details of the abuse, the perpetrator must agree that the abuse occurred.
2. The abuser must accept complete responsibility for the abuse—without excuse or blame-shifting.
3. When the victim describes the past and current damage from the abuse, the perpetrator must evidence some grief and acknowledgment of harm.
4. When the victim exposes the abuser’s current relational failures that inhibit the potential of reconciliation, he must be open to consider the data and deal with the barriers.
5. When the victim describes the process for moving into a new kind of relationship, the abuser must express a willingness to pursue the path and seek additional help (through church discipline, counseling, seminars, or reading).—The Wounded Heart, p. 227.
The above is specifically about an adult survivor of child sexual-abuse countering her adult abuser later in life. But notice Dr. Allender does not assert that every abuse victim has to be reconciled with an abuser. I agree with him. Also, his above five steps are the minimum criteria for even considering if an abuser should be engaged again. Often, it is safer to refrain from reconciling with someone who remains a danger to your family. St. Thomas and Allender can also be applied to situations where the forgiving party has to decide if the forgiven-person should return to one’s life. I believe it is not immoral to avoid someone who has betrayed you or abused you, although you should still forgive that person and pray for him. St. Vincent De Paul said “Forgiving another removes the poison in your heart.”
Here is how I pray to make sure I have forgiven people who have done me great harm in the past, but whom I do not want back into my life for reasons of physical or psychological safety: “Blessed Trinity, I forgive this person for actions p, q and r. Lord Jesus, I ask you to cover us both with your Most Precious Blood. I entrust him/her to your Sacred Heart.” I may even ask the Precious Blood to sever and break any unhealthy relationship with that person an until he or she is ready to truly take responsibility for actions p, q and r against me.
But again, these are only for life-changing offenses, not mistakes that happen in the daily-grind of life with our loved ones. To demand constant apologies for someone stepping on your toes would be a form of insecure narcissism. The best thing is to consecrate everyone (friend and enemy) to the Sacred Heart through Mary’s Immaculate Heart. You can do this frequently.
In abuse or even a major betrayal between friends, while the victim should forgive the offender rather quickly (even if the offender decides not to apologize) the requirements for reconciliation are higher: Not only is an apology required to resume the same friendship as before, but even satisfaction (attempts at fixing or restoring) the grave offense must be made. This is true, even if something like stolen-virginity can never be fully restored.
Again we must note: Even in a life-changing insult against one’s body or reputation, the victim may never want resumption of common life due to the necessity of solid boundaries with those who have changed one’s life for the worse. There would be nothing unchristian about a decision to avoid an abuser or betrayer, especially if he doesn’t apologize. I think Dr. Allender would agree that one can forgive an abuser from one’s heart while simultaneously making the decision to avoid the person for the rest of one’s life. Also, there’s nothing unchristian about restraining orders or protective orders if someone is harassing you.
But if an offender truly apologizes and makes satisfaction to the best of his or her ability for harms executed, and if the victim truly forgives and discovers that geographical proximity is not a danger to his or her physical life or psychological life, then a relationship can cautiously be rebuilt. This rebuilding of a relationship is known in some communities simply as “building trust.” However, building trust after life-changing betrayals can take many years. Perhaps I will write another article on this, but it’s a complex topic.
Finally, on today’s topic of forgiveness and reconciliation, we will close with this: One can forgive a grave offender while still resolving to avoid that dangerous person the rest of one’s life. But this should usually be done only following a major betrayal or abuse. Normally this should not happen against a member of one’s immediate family, although there are rare exceptions to this, too. All in all, a true Catholic must forgive everyone, but not be reconciled to everyone. That is, it is not immoral to avoid reconciliation with someone who has never said “I’m sorry” nor to avoid reconciliation with someone who continues to threaten one’s reputation or physical safety. Forgiveness is a one-way street, but reconciliation is a two-way street: If a major offender chooses never to return to you with an appropriate apology or commensurate restitution, then let him go, but pray for him the rest of your life.