LÓPEZ MARTÍNEZ, J.

Forgiveness and mercy:

a psychological approach
Dehoniana 2015, 67-70

Per la citazione: DEH2015-07-EN

Forgiveness and Mercy

A psychological approach
Fr. Javier Lopez, scj
1 Conflict within relationships in the religious communities is inevitable.
At one time or another, religious members of a community might
inadvertently make a hurtful comment, forget to pick up the journals (or
something else), leave the gas tank empty or whatever. Most religious resolve
such conflicts on an ongoing basis, leaving little emotional residue to
negatively impact their lives. However, examples of more devastating
relational conflicts include mutual disqualifications, mistrust, major lies,
drastic unilateral decisions, seek revenge, withdraw and other similar
humiliations and betrayals. These conflicts frequently leave lasting emotional
scars on community functioning, particularly in regards to psychological
closeness, if religious are unable to have mercy and forgive each other and
effectively resolve their conflicts.
2 Psychology has put no attention on mercy, nevertheless, the
psychological literature recently has reflected a growing interest among
clinicians in using forgiveness as an intervention to help groups and
individuals seek new beginnings in previously damaged relationships,
resolve long-standing relational problems, and let go of anger and bitterness.
Forgiveness can be considered a specialized form of “Mercy,” which is a
more general concept reflecting kindness, compassion, or leniency toward a
transgressor.
3 From a psychological perspective some authors posit that the concept of
forgiveness has been used since antiquity in the religious community as a
vital factor in healing and restoring relationships between people. According
to Peterson and Seligman “Forgiveness” represents a suite of prosocial
changes that occur within an individual who has been offended or damaged

© Copyright riservato Centro Studi Dehoniani Roma – Sacerdoti Sacro Cuore di Gesù.
Consentita la riproduzione integrale in fotocopia e libera circolazione senza fine di lucro.
È vietato il plagio e la copiatura integrale o parziale di testi e disegni a firma degli autori – a qualunque fine – senza citare la fonte
(Repubblica italiana, legge 18/08/2000 nº 248).
 Dehoniana

by a relationship partner1. When people forgive, their basic motivations or

action tendencies regarding the transgressor become more positive (e.g.,
benevolent, kind, generous) and less negative (e.g., vengeful, avoidant).
4 Because attempts to forgive may not always be born out of purely
altruistic concerns, and definitions of forgiveness vary, it is important to
present our view of forgiveness and to distinguish it from what it is not. It is
important a view of forgiveness that distinguishes it from pseudoforgiveness.
For example, it is important not to confuse granting forgiveness with
forbearing, denying, ignoring, minimizing, tolerating, condoning, excusing,
forgetting the offense, or suppressing one’s emotions about it2.
5 Modern scholars and scientists affirm that the concept of forgiveness is
distinct from reconciliation. Forgiveness is understood as an unconditional
response to another’s injustice and is seen as an inner change that does not
require the forgiver to go back to the potentially harmful relationship with
the offender3. Forgiveness entails two words (“for” and “giveness” in
English, “per” and “don” in Spanish, “per” and “dono” in Italian, etc.); so
anytime some religious says I forgive you, what really happens is that the
person gives someone for the sake of giving. Forgiveness implies give a gift.
6 Religious with a strong disposition to forgive would endorse statements
such as the following: “When someone hurts my feelings, I manage to get
over it fairly quickly”; “I don’t hold a grudge for very long”; “When
community members make me angry, I am usually able to get over my bad
feelings toward them”; “Seeking revenge doesn’t help people to solve their
problems”; “I think it is important to do what I can to mend my relationships
with community members who have hurt or betrayed me in the past”; “I am
not the type of person to harm someone simply because he or she harmed
me”; “I am not the type of person who spends hours thinking of how to get
even with community members who have done bad things to me”, etc.
7 Nevertheless, forgiveness requires successfully implementing complex,
intrapersonal processes, several of which seem to be influenced by
developmental factors. This process is not automatic and often does not occur
in a linear or timely fashion. If people have had many years of relational hurt,

1 Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and

classification. NY: American Psychological Association & Oxford University Press.

2 McCullough, M., Pargament, K., & Thoresen, C. (Eds.). (2000). Forgiveness: Theory,

research, and practice. New York: Guilford Press.

3 Enright, R. & Coyle, C. (1998). Researching the process model of forgiveness within

psychological interventions. In E.L. Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness:

Psychological research and theological perspectives (pp. 139- 161). Philadelphia: Templeton
Foundation Press. Kim, J. J., & Enright, R. D. (2014). Differing views on forgiveness within
Christianity: Do graduate-level theology students perceive divine and human forgiveness
differently? Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 1, 191-202.

2
 Dehoniana

it is plausible to consider that one expression of “I forgive you” or “I’m sorry”

would not repair the hurt. Unlike the other communicative acts of love and
gratitude, which are recognized as acts or expressions, the concept of
forgiveness not only involves the sense of need for resolution and the
formulation of resolution strategies, but also requires the injured party to
view the offender’s behavior in context. Nevertheless, at the end of the
forgiveness process, when people are most forgiving, the injured religious
are able to move away from blaming their partners, feel more at peace with
their understanding of the betrayal, and are able to move beyond the betrayal.
Forgiveness of transgressions can restore intimacy after a transgression has
damaged emotional ties.
8 The need to forgive also encompasses a discovery process. Forgiveness
also appears to be a complex and critical intrapersonal and interpersonal
process in the healing of mind, body, and spirit. Like any process there are a
variety of stages that must be worked through for healing and wholeness to
be accomplished. For persons who have become estranged, forgiveness is
one of the most critical processes for facilitating restored relational and
emotional well being. However, as suggested, forgiveness is not a simple
issue of ‘will power’ or merely ‘letting go’ but rather a complex process that
when fully experienced can usher in a deep healing process within and among
persons. Human frailty and imperfection are unavoidable. Human beings
make mistakes. The truly important issue is not whether errors will be made,
but how communities cope with them when they occur. The issue of
emotional intelligence and the ability to bring an empathic understanding are
critical4.
9 As a result, several theoretical forgiveness models have been developed
to promote forgiveness. Research groups headed by Enright and Worthington
have led the way in investigating the efficacy of these interventions. Enright’s
treatment model contains 20 steps, which are summarized in four phases:
Uncovering (negative feelings about the offense), Decision (to pursue
forgiveness for a specific instance), Work (toward understanding the
offending person), and Discovery (of unanticipated positive outcomes and
empathy for the offending person)5.
10 The other primary research group has conducted research organized
around Worthington’s REACH Forgiveness model. Each letter in the
acronym REACH represents a major component in the forgiveness process.
In the first step of this model, people recall (R) the hurt they experienced and
4 McCullough, M., Pargament, K., & Thoresen, C. (Eds.). (2000). Forgiveness: Theory,

research, and practice. New York: Guilford Press.

5 Enright, R. D. & Fitzgibbons, R. P. (2000). Helping clients forgive: an empirical guide

for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, D.C: American Psychological
Association.

3
 Dehoniana

the emotions associated with it. Next, people work to empathize (E) with their
offender, take another’s perspective, and consider factors that may have
contributed to their offender’s actions. This is done without condoning the
other’s actions or invalidating the often-strong feelings the offended person
has as a response. Third, people explore the idea that forgiveness can be seen
as an altruistic (A) gift to the offender. People learn that forgiveness can be
freely given or legitimately withheld and recall times when others forgave
them. Fourth, people make a commitment (C) to forgive. This includes
committing to the forgiveness that one has already achieved as well as
committing to work toward more forgiveness, knowing that it is a process
that often takes time to fully mature. Last, people seek to hold (H) onto or
maintain their forgiveness through times of uncertainty or a return of anger
and bitterness (e.g., if they get hurt again in a similar way)6.
11 Much of the theological work focuses on prescriptive issues such as the
moral appropriateness of forgiveness, whereas psychological research is
descriptive in its focus. Many of the forgiveness studies and articles to date
have emphasized potential benefits of forgiving. For example, a number of
studies emphasize potential benefits of forgiveness for mental health and
physical health7.

6 Worthington, E. L. (2001). Five steps to forgiveness: The art and science of forgiving.

New York, NY: Crown.

7 Witvliet, C.V.O., & McCullough, M. E. (2007). Forgiveness and health: A review and

theoretical exploration of emotion pathways. En S. G. Post (Ed), Altruism and health:

Perspectives from empirical research, (pp. 259-276). New York: Oxford University Press.