10/3/2021 - Forgiveness Pt. 2

 I don't think the introspect of forgiveness is something that will ever have an end. If anything, it's become more complex the deeper I dive.

In my last post, with jumbled thoughts, I touched on the subject of irrevocable damage and how it is at our discretion to grant forgiveness in those situations or not. It makes sense if someone has inflicted damage that cannot be repaired that we can choose to withhold forgiveness. But what exactly is irrevocable damage and how can we be confident that we are defining those actions correctly? Does withholding forgiveness in those situations still latently form a grudge or subtle vengeance? More importantly, is it really at our discretion?

With the damage that cannot be repaired, can we really move on without ill feelings toward that person without forgiving them? In many cases, I assume the offended must begin involuntarily changing aspects of their lives to recover from the damage, to which resentment is bound to grow. But sometimes, forgiveness feels impossible, so what do we do?

When one lights a candle, the wax begins to melt and it eventually evaporates; there's no way to fix it or bring back the structure of the candle. The only option is to buy a new one. So, we can blame the flame for altering the elements of the candle to a point where it cannot be brought back. The flame can apologize and bring you warmth or heat a meal, but it took something from us that can only be replaced but not brought back. So, when we light a fire to bring warmth or heat a meal, are we going to resent the flame for what it did to the candle?

Let's consider this fictitious situation as irrevocable damage that we simply cannot forgive. By withholding forgiveness when one seeks an apology is still bound to, "---have a detrimental effect on the injured party." (Jewish Literacy, pg. 609) But granting an obligatory, insincere apology should be considered as offensive as the action inflicted upon one.

Maybe this concept of withholding forgiveness in irrevocable situations is a bit too linear and can instead be seen from a different perspective. We cannot grant someone something that we do not have, but we can offer them something else in return. Maybe instead of withholding forgiveness, we can replace forgiveness with mercy. With irrevocable damage, I don't think it's up to us to forgive that person's actions anymore because they showed a side of themselves that is capable of destruction and took it upon themselves to inflict damage. But we can show mercy, and perhaps compassion because that person will need to seek forgiveness from God instead of us. They can still say they are sorry to us but perhaps their actions are something that needs to be evaluated and refined between themselves and God. For their actions are beyond our judgement and can only be reconciled with God.

Maybe showing mercy is the equivalent of waving a white flag. Neither side wins, but both voluntarily make the decision to end the quarrel and move on. One side is fighting for something they want and the other side is not giving them what they want. While a truce is not always the satisfying ending we seek, we are able to move on from an unwinnable fight, for one side did not possess with the other side wanted. The seeking side must look elsewhere. 

So perhaps withholding forgiveness in these situations can be rephrased as redirecting the person to who they should be asking instead. Redirecting them gives the offender hope that they can earn forgiveness from God and it allows us to release potential resentment, vengeance, and grudges knowing forgiveness was not ours to give in the first place. 

Apologies come in many forms and do not have to strictly be, "I'm sorry." There are many ways to phrase it and many ways to show it. The same of forgiveness. To show mercy and inform someone of where to seek forgiveness is forgiveness in its own way.

To withhold that redirection is to hold on to those resentments, vengeance, and grudges. 

'"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth lest the Lord see it, and it displease Him, and He turn away His wrath from him."

'The meaning is that the man who declines to forgive, preserves the enmity and is glad when misfortune befalls the other person, becomes thereby the guilty party and God's anger is turned away from the other and directed towards himself."' (Everyman's Talmud, pg. 230)

Who are we to damn someone? 

---

Jewish Literacy mentions that forgiveness on behalf of another is forbidden because forgiveness can only be granted by the victim. The example they used was murder because the deceased is unable to forgive. A person can forgive the murderer for the suffering they caused, but cannot forgive the murder itself because it is not their forgiveness to give.

But what of ambiguous murder/death? Like, actions so severe that it causes a person to no longer be themselves; the murder of the person they were. In cases like that where the victim is completely changed and no longer resembles who they were, can they be considered ambiguously deceased? If so, can they truly grant forgiveness since they are no longer who they were due to the actions of another? 

It can be considered irrevocable damage, but perhaps in severe situations, it can be also be considered an ambiguous death. For example, perhaps a parent neglecting a child in their formative years or someone being subject to extreme emotional abuse. Bringing back the person they were is near impossible, so how does the "murderer" seek forgiveness from a person that no longer exists? They would essentially be asking a stranger for forgiveness on behalf of another.

As Jewish Literacy described, a parent cannot forgive the murder of their child because only the deceased child can grant forgiveness. In ambiguous murder situations, would the victim become the parent who can only forgive the suffering inflicted by the murderer but cannot forgive the "murder" because that person is deceased?

Perhaps I am blending the lines and death should only be considered a physical thing. Any irrevocable actions cause one to adjust their life to move on from the damage, but what of the irrevocable damage that erases who someone was without a physical death?