Alternative dispute resolution : are apology and forgiveness simply two sides of the one coin?

Alternative dispute resolution (a.d.r.) processes are entrenched in western style legal systems. Forms of dispute resolution are utilised within schools and health systems; built in to commercial contracts; found in workplaces, clubs and organisations; and accepted in general day-to-day community disputes. The a.d.r. literature includes references to ‘apology’, but is largely silent on ‘forgiveness’. Where an apology is offered as part of a dispute resolution process, practice suggests that formalised ‘forgiveness’ rarely follows. Mediators may agree there is a meaningful place for apology in dispute resolution processes, but are most unlikely to support a view that forgiveness, as a conscious act, has an equivalent place. Yet, if forgiveness is not limited to the ‘pardoning of an offence’, but includes a ‘giving up of resentment’, or the relinquishing of a grudge, then forgiveness may play an underestimated role in dispute management. In the context of some day-to-day dispute management practice, this paper questions whether forgiveness should follow an apology; and concludes that meaningful resolutions can be reached without any formal element of ‘forgiveness’ or absolution. However, dispute management practitioners need to be aware of the latent role other aspects of forgiveness may play for the disputing parties.

Lessons on sin and forgiveness : a crisis in the Roman Catholic Church

One of the greatest challenges facing the Roman Catholic Church (the Church) across the world continues to be found in addressing complaints of child sexual abuse (csa) by clergy. The list of Catholic clergy in Australia who have been criminally processed for sexual offences against children is disturbingly long. As disturbing as this list is, more disturbing are the accounts of clergy who have not been criminally prosecuted, but protected within the cloister of the Church. It is increasingly recognised that the significant difficulty with child sexual abuse in Catholic Churches, in particular, has not been the presence of perpetrators but the response of Church leadership to allegations of csa by clergy. Those who have faced criminal charges have often done so due to the resilience of victim/survivors and not because of the support of Church structures or culture. The Church has been slow to come to terms with the realities of the perpetration of csa by its clergy and even slower to recognise the need to prioritise victims in any effective, just response. The church has been slowest of all recognising that there are significant cultural and discursive challenges to confront in addressing the management of csa by clergy. There is, however, progressive recognition of the role that discursive constructs of forgiveness have played in perpetuating the crises and ultimately in perpetuating abuse. The institutional praxis of forgiveness can be demonstrated not only in the Church, but in lessons learned from use of forgiveness as an institutional response to mass violations of human rights. This paper explores the juncture between criminality, church culture and forgiveness in responding to csa by clergy.

Identity, forgiveness and power in the management of child sexual abuse by personnel in Christian Institutions

The ongoing crises of child sexual abuse by Christian institutions leaders across the Anglophone world continue to attract public attention and public inquiries. The pervasiveness of this issue lends credence to the argument that the prevailing ethos functioning within some Christian Institutions is one which exercises influence to repeatedly mismanage allegations of child sexual abuse by Church leaders. This work draws on semistructured interviews conducted with 15 Personnel in Christian Institutions (PICIs) in Australia who were identified as being pro-active in their approach to addressing child sexual abuse by PICIs. From these data, themes of power and forgiveness are explored through a Foucaultian conceptualising of pastoral power and ‘truth’ construction. Forgiveness is viewed as a discourse which can have the power effect of either silencing or empowering victim/survivors. The study concludes that individual PICIs’ understandings of the role ofpower in their praxis influences outcomes from the deployment of forgiveness.

Intergroup contact, forgiveness, and experience of The Troubles in Northern Ireland

Two studies used random sample surveys to test the contact hypothesis on intergroup attitudes of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. In Study 1, archival data from two different surveys in 1989 (N= 310 Catholics, 422 Protestants) and 1991 (N= 319 Catholics, 478 Protestants) showed that contact was positively related to attitudes towards denominational mixing. Study 2 (N= 391 Catholics, 647 Protestants) explored predictors of intergroup forgiveness, and also showed that intergroup contact was positively related to out-group attitudes, perspective taking and trust (even among those who had worse experience of sectarian conflict). These studies indicate that research in peace psychology can provide a deeper understanding of the conflict in Northern Ireland and, in due course, contribute to its resolution.

Unilateral Forgiveness and the Task of Reconciliation

Although forgiveness is often taken to bear a close connection to the value
of reconciliation, there is a good deal of scepticism about its role in situations where there is no consensus on the moral complexion of the past and no admission of guilt on the part of the perpetrator. This scepticism is typically rooted in the claims that forgiveness without perpetrator acknowledgement (1) aggravates the risk of recidivism; (2) yields a substandard and morally compromised form of political accommodation; and (3) comes across as patronizing and offensive to the recipient, thereby causing further alienation. In this article, my aim is to show, firstly, that none of these arguments is decisive and, secondly, that forgiveness is a suitable object of political concern in the
absence of cross-community consensus on the rights and wrongs of a conflict. In this way, I aim to demonstrate that forgiveness deserves to be taken seriously as a means to civic reconciliation in a broader range of situations than many have allowed.