Skip to main content
Log in

The capacity to forgive: An object relations perspective

  • Published:
Journal of Religion and Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Forgiveness is commended by Christianity, as well as other religious traditions, as one of the most central of virtues, so central that the New Testament links man's very salvation to his ability to forgive. However, mental health professionals have correctly pointed out that the mandate to forgive is often used by religious patients in the service of defenses such as reaction formation, undoing, and denial. The forgiveness ideal is often misunderstood as a command not to experience aggressive feelings.

It is the thesis of this paper that the capacity for genuine forgiveness is central not only to spiritual development but to psychological development as well. It is suggested that Kernberg's object relations theory provides the best model for understanding the nature and importance of forgiveness. Mature forgiveness does not involve the elimination of negative feelings toward others (or oneself) but the integration of negative and positive self-object representations and their connected affect. Anger at the offending persons must then be tempered by appreciation for their concomitant good qualities and motivations or, at the very least, empathy for the flaws which prompted them to behave destructively. The result is a more realistic and balanced view of others (and oneself), a more genuine relationship to the full range of one's own inner experience, and a greater ability to respond constructively to frustrating persons and situations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hunter, R., “Forgiveness, Retaliation and Paranoid Reactions,”J. Canadian Psychiatric Association, 1978,23, 167–173; Kaufman, M., “The Courage to Forgive,”Israel J. Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 1984,21, 177–187; Pattison, E.M., “On the Failure to Forgive or Be Forgiven,”American J. Psychotherapy, 1965,19, 106–115.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ashbrook, J., “Paul Tillich Converses with Psychotherapists,”J. Religion and Health, 1972,11, 1, 40–72; Brandsma, J., “Forgiveness: A Dynamic Theological and Therapeutic Analysis,”Pastoral Psychology, 1982,31, 40–50; Brink, T., “The Role of Religion in Later Life: A Case of Consolation and Forgiveness,”J. Psychology and Christianity, 1985,4, 22–25; Close, H., “Forgiveness and Responsibility: A Case Study”,Pastoral Psychology, 1970,21, 19–25; Donnelly, D., “Forgiveness and Recidivism,”Pastoral Psychology, 1984,33, 15–24; Sexton, R., and Maddock, R., “The Adam and Eve Syndrome,”J. Religion and Health, 1978,17, 3, 163–168; Spidell, S., and Liberman, D., “Moral Development and the Forgiveness of Sin,”J. Psychology and Theology, 1981,9, 159–163; Todd, E., “The Value of Confession and Forgiveness According to Jung,”J. Religion and Health, 1985,24, 1, 39–48; Walters, O., “Psychodynamics in Tillich's Theology,”J. Religion and Health, 1973,12, 4, 342–353; Wapnich, K., “Forgiveness: A Spiritual Psychotherapy,”Psychotherapy and the Religiously Committed Patient, Special Issue ofPsychotherapy Patient, 1985,1, 47–53; Wilson, W., “The Utilization of Christian Beliefs in Therapy,”J. Psychology and Theology, 1974,2, 125–131.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Augsburger, D.,The Freedom of Forgiveness. Chicago, Moody Press, 1973;Caring Enough to Forgive, Caring Enough Not to Forgive, Pelham, N.Y., Herald Books, 1981; Donnelly, D.,Learning to Forgive. Nashville, Tenn., Abingdon, 1982;Putting Forgiveness Into Practice. Allen, Texas, Argus, 1982; Smedes, L.,Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don't Deserve. New York, Harper & Row, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hunter, R.,op. cit., 168.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Klein, M., “Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms,”International J. Psychoanalysis, 1946,27, 99–110; “On Identification.” InNew Directions in Psychoanalysis, London, Hogarth, 1955.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kernberg, O.,Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. New York, Aronson, 1975;Object Relations Theory and Clinical Psychoanalysis. New York, Aronson, 1976;Internal World and External Reality. New York, Aronson, 1980;Severe Personality Disorders. New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  7. —,Internal World and External Reality, op. cit..

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hunter, R.,op. cit.“, 167.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ibid., 168.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ashbrook, J.,op. cit.“, 54–67.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Todd, E.,op. cit.“, 44.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ibid., 44.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gartner, J. The capacity to forgive: An object relations perspective. J Relig Health 27, 313–320 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01533199

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01533199

Keywords

Navigation