During the past few months, the question of forgiveness has repeatedly come to mind. I think this is somewhat both a haunting and daunting topic that usually arises at some stage of everyone’s healing process.
In the context of DID, the question is why should anyone even consider forgiving the person who abused them? It is not sufficient to do so just because one is told to believe that it is the right thing to do. Even if one is told to forgive as a matter of religious doctrine, one still needs to understand the connection between the doctrine and the forgiving of such a crime.
It is often instructive to understand the origin of a word that is used so often and that can be so loaded. In the context of Christianity, the Greek word translated as “forgiveness” in the King James Bible literally means “to let go,” as when a person foregoes demanding payment of a debt. In his parable of the unmerciful slave, Jesus equated forgiveness with canceling a debt. [Matthew 18:23-35.]
The word translated as forgiveness is used to convey the state of mind we have when we let go of resentment, for when we give up any claim to be compensated for the hurt or loss we have suffered. But forgiveness of debt doesn’t mean the debt never existed. It doesn’t mean you have to loan more money to the debtor.
We must be honest with ourselves and with others: There is a big difference in letting go of a debt of few dollars as compared to letting go of the pain and anger connected with the abusive perpetrator of our early childhood trauma. If we lose some money because someone has failed to repay us, or someone has dealt with us in not such a good way, we can usually figure out how to proceed the next day or the rest of life because our core being has not been ruptured and split apart. An abuser has adversely affecting one’s entire adult life, and we cannot simply go about our business. There is no way to give a clean slate back to the child who has been psychologically pulled apart by trauma. There is no do-over.
To put it in another way, if one’s whole life is ruined because of an early abusive relationship with the perpetrator, it is a different story than simply forgiving a debt of money or a minor inconvenience that one has the capacity to simply “let go.”
Forgiveness also means pardon. Is it possible to pardon a perpetrator if the perpetrator does not even own up to the damage he has caused? Does forgiveness means somewhat condoning the evil act and/or allowing it to continue, possibly hurting future victims? What are the options for forgiveness?
First, one must be honest. Letting go does not mean denying the damage that has been done. Letting go does not mean nothing ever happened. Letting go does not mean condoning the evil act.
Second, one must protect oneself. Most early childhood abuse is based on the most fundamental betrayals imaginable. Letting go does not mean allowing a perpetrator to ever get close enough to harm you again.
Third is perhaps the most difficult. If you let go of the pain and anger, you might be able to understand that most people who abuse others were themselves abused. This does not in any way shape or form undermine the critically important second point about protecting yourself. It simply means that you can understand the abuser was or is in pain, is confused, and is likely driven by their own trauma.
Again, that does not mean you let them anywhere near you ever. It does not mean you let your child or other children anywhere near them. Instead, it means that you can let go enough to wish that they are able to process their own pain and trauma. Letting go in that way is forgiveness enough so long as you remember that it is not your obligation to help them process anything. It is their obligation, and it is theirs alone.
In this way, you can be very clear why you might forgive them, while at the same time remaining absolutely firm that your letting go does not permit them to come anywhere near you, ever. If they wish to make amends, they can turn themselves in and confess to the authorities. If they wish to do something beneficial in penance for their evil deeds, they can anonymously donate all of their money to a charity devoted solely to protecting children from abuse. Why anonymously? Because that prevents them from ever being seen as an angelic benefactor for abused children. Whatever they may choose to do, or not to do, is their choice, their problem, their concern.
The original meaning of forgiveness requires nothing from you other than letting go of what you hold onto.
It is a dangerously false assertion, religious or otherwise, to presume that forgiveness means giving someone a clean slate, to presume that it demands you ever share space with an abuser. You have nothing to prove to anyone about your forgiveness. Please be extremely clear and firm about that. Forgiveness is solely about your letting go, not what happens to or with anyone else.
In short, forgiveness does not mean forgetting what has happened and pretending that from now on, one can have a “real” relationship with the perpetrator, as if nothing pathologically evil had ever happened. It does not mean that with forgiveness, one can “be friends” with the perpetrator. It does not mean, in the case of incest, that one can have a normal father-daughter or sibling relationship with the abuser. Such things are not possible. To hold them out as a goal to strive for will prevent healing rather than foster it.
