What does it mean to forgive?
Every time I pray the Lord’s Prayer, one line strikes me: “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sinned against us.” How about those offended by these action, how do they forgive? Is it a condition that is asked for all of us? Do we really forgive someone who does not ask for it? Do we – the one who forgives – have to take the initiative, or the person on the other side? Do we have to forgive, whatever the cost? According to some, we are not obliged to do anything. But can one really forgive? I don't know. Who will tell a father of a lady that was raped and killed; and that he must forgive the man who murdered his daughter?
With this, the notion of forgiveness becomes more and more alive and difficult for me, not only the word (what does it really mean, forgiveness?), but especially the deed (how do you do that, forgive someone?). It opened up so many questions inside my head: is forgiveness the same as being able to understand what someone did (wrong)? Is forgiveness excusing someone? Is forgiveness not taking things too seriously? Is forgiveness continuing as if nothing happened? Is forgiveness giving someone a chance to go on living in spite of what happened?
Paul Ricoeur in “History, Memory and Forgetting”, talks about the phenomenology of fallible and culpable human person that ends with the phenomenology of capable human being. Paul Ricoeur disputes that pardon may release a historical past into a different and more independent future. For true forgiveness does not come from blind forgetfulness or amnesia, but from a remembering that is ready to forgive the past by setting it free from deterministic throttlehold of violent obsession and retribution True forgiveness, as Ricoeur noticed, involves not forgetting of the events themselves but a different way of portentous a debt to the self that paralyzes memory, and by implication of our memory, our capacity to make a better tomorrow. The proper task of forgiveness is not to eradicate the memory of the mistakes or sin. It is rather to remember them, so as to dissolve the mistake or sin that they have accumulated. Forgiveness is some sort of healing of memory, the conclusion of this mourning period. Delivered from the weight of mistake or sin, memory is freed for great things. Forgiveness gives memory a future, this Ricoeur claims accordingly that it is not a contradiction to say that forgiveness is the strict consequence of forgiving memory even as it is the strict contrary repetition of memory.
Our own experience of human fault, some people make these faults as measure of one’s individuality. Most of the people remember those faults and brand you with it. They will only see the blunders that you have done, the mistakes that you have made, and sometimes they will look at you with regards to those mistakes you have done. For some who have done great and good deeds for all their lives, but a mistake/fault will erase every good deed that you have done. They will look up to you and judge you for that one mistake. These faults are wounds of our inner being, conflicts, sufferings, without any imaginable alleviation and these evil are beyond description misfortune for those who suffer from them. This is the axis of “vertical disparity” with fault and forgiveness. Fault are always imputed to someone, the radical nature of experience of fault requires us to imprison ourselves within the limits of the self-attribution of fault, to sketch out this level the conditions for a common recognition of a fundamental guilt. This feeling of guilt has something to do with remembering, inasmuch remembering a power of connection capable of engendering history is confirmed
For some, our fault determines their being in this world and it is this perspective that created the mess that all humankind are in, also it has destroyed so much of ourselves and our world. This fault sometimes traps the human person, stereotyped and boxed that he can no longer do anything good. And to make matters worse, some persons will give in to despair that “I am no good.” This view paralyzes the human person and traps him inside the box that he himself built upon. We gave life to the spirit of negativity, pessimism and divisiveness in our country and succeeded in convincing ourselves that we are hopeless. And this does not restore human dignity, it destroys friendship, it poisons the spirit, and it kills hope. This is the idea of irremediable fall, a radical powerlessness over fault and guilt. It ruptures human bond and become malevolence of the guilty person. His actions become irreparable and unpardonable on the side of moral judgment present themselves. From this, we may ask the question: can forgiveness be possible? However, why would someone turn us down, especially if he or she saw that we were sincere in our remorse? Perhaps because when we have been sinned against, through a cruel or thoughtless action or verbal attack — we feel the pain too deeply to let it go. It seems too easy, and at the same time incredibly difficult and simply say, “I forgive you” and let the matter be over.
At this descent into the depths of human frailty we are trapped with the word “unforgivable” and with its immensity of misfortune that crushes its victims. However, there is victory over evil on moral plane, but without abolishing fault. It is like understanding the offender but cannot pardon him, in this case the fault is seen in its essence as unforgivable in contrast with the right. Then, there is forgiveness. It is announcing forgiveness in a silent voice but not in a mute one. Silent because there is no clamor of rage; not mute because it is not deprived of speech. Simply a proclamation of there is, like the voice from above. Like the “est gibt” (it is given/ a gift) a gift freely given by itself and in itself. To decide to accept the gift, this means to carry the gift’s weight: to reorganize one’s self so as, to balance the weight of the gift with the overjoyed but weightless ego. To gaze at its spectacle even if it may be too much for one’s eyes to behold; and to finally take it as one’s own – to take it to our own hearts knowing fully well that it was always underserved, that it is but need not be. In other words, to accept the gift is perhaps to accept the humility that gratitude brings. There is forgiveness as there is joy, as there is wisdom, extravagance, love. Love precisely. Forgiveness belongs to the same family. Forgiveness is like a gift, granted by someone Supreme, by God. In St. Paul’s description of love in first letter to the Corinthians , speaks about the higher gifts, the gifts of the Holy Spirit which we should aim at. The words of St. Paul begins with the “I may…” and following this litany of “if I have no love…” articulates the theme of disparaging a imperfection, a need , at the connecting point of having and being, expresses in negative terms the path of importance – the path of that which goes beyond other spiritual gifts. Then he continued a demonstrative discourse about love and what it does, as it says, “love does not keep record of wrong doings, it does not rejoice in evil but rejoices in truth. Love believes in all things, endures all things, hope in all things. Love never fails.” This is to show the gift of forgiveness is the same as the gift of love. If love keeps no record of wrong doings, accusations, imputability, forgiveness is possible. Because love endures than that the other gifts “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” And this is what we call the height of forgiveness. Ricoeur was right when he quoted Derrida:
Forgiveness is directed to the unforgivable or it does not exist. It is unconditional; it is without exception and without restriction. It does not presuppose a request for forgiveness: “one cannot or should not forgive; there is no forgiveness, if there is any, except where there is the unforgivabable.
With these words, Ricoeur shows amidst this wounded and broken world, forgiveness is still possible.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home